Few Harvard alums have achieved fame--or perhaps notoreity--as quickly as Katie A. Roiphe '90. Soon after Roiphe's graduation from Harvard, her book, The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus, generated controvery and heated discussion about sexual politics in contemporary America.

Recently, Roiphe visited Harvard and shared her ideas about date rape, feminism and other issues with an audience of about 500 at the Kennedy School's ARCO Forum.

Some of Roiphe's arguments are interesting; some are even compelling. But some of her arguments fail to adequately address the key issues involved in the current discussion of date rape.

In evaluating Roiphe's thought, it's important to keep in mind certain disclaimers which Roiphe made in both her book and her speech. The Morning After is not a detailed, systematic study of date rape and feminism, but rather, a personal narrative that draws heavily on anecdotes.

Her research was limited in scope and non-scientific in nature. The slim volume is highly subjective; and any conclusions it makes must be understood within the book's context.

Roiphe's main thesis is that many contemporary feminists actually undermine their own cause of women's liberation with alarmist proclamations of a "date rape crisis." Their exaggeration of the incidence of date rape reinforces old stereotypes of women as victims, powerless before male aggression. These are the same stereotypes which feminists of the past, including Roiphe's own mother, struggled to eliminate.

In support of her argument, Roiphe recalls posters that claim one of four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. She asks how she could go through college without noticing a crisis of such proportions.

Feminists have responded to Roiphe's argument in several ways, and many of their responses make sense. They have argued that one of the problems of date rape is that it's underreported as a crime, and that several factors--including lingering disapproval of sexual activity among unmarried women--conspire to keep it as such.

In addition, it may be that Roiphe is setting up a "straw (wo)man." If date rape is a real problem, the actual rate of incidence may be viewed as unimportant. If women are being victimized, whether it's 25 or 13 or eight percent of the group may be irrelevant.

Still, Roiphe's argument makes certain important points. Her warning against constantly portraying women as victims makes sense; if feminism focuses too much of its energy on issues such as date rape, it risks undermining healthy images of strong women in control of their own fates. Roiphe's argument that feminism should adopt a less accusatory stance towards men is advice that feminism would do well to heed.

Roiphe's take on feminism and date rape has its dangers, however. It's very easy to mistake Roiphe's attempt to distinguish date rape from "bad sexual experiences" as a refusal to show compassion for victimized women. Also, the line between bad experiences and date rape may not be as clear as Roiphe would like to believe. Roiphe herself never sets forth the criteria for distinguishing between the two.

Some of Roiphe's other points are not backed up by fact or cogent analysis. Her assertion of feminism's lack of alternative viewpoints on date rape was refuted well by Professor Barbara Johnson in her rebuttal of Roiphe.

As Johnson observed, feminism is a diverse movement with many dissenting voices. One such dissenter, acknowledged even by Roiphe, is the controversial Camille Paglia. The argument over the date rape crisis was taking place within feminism well before the advent of Roiphe's book.

All in all, Roiphe's thought is a valuable contribution to the debate over date rape and feminism. Certainly her arguments have problems, and even dangers. Her analysis of date rape is circumscribed by her limited research. But her strong dissenting voice raises important points which deserve consideration; that feminism is continuing to debate these arguments signifies that it remains a dynamic and influential movement.