Rape On College Campuses In The Film, The Hunting Ground

Directed by Kirby Dick and produced by Amy Ziering, The Hunting Ground is a documentary that was released in 2015. This documentary seeks to shed light on the considerable problem that is rape on college campuses. The documentary follows two University of North Carolina students, Andrea Pino and Annie Clark, as they tell their experiences after being sexually assaulted and their attempts to bring awareness to the problem as well as provide support for other victims. The Hunting Ground has generated a lot of controversy regarding the subject. The film relentlessly attacks university administration for being passive in the fight against rape. However, through the use of personal narratives and many examples the documentary makes a good claim

that Rape is a serious crime on college campuses.
The first premise is that Colleges are unwilling to get involved in instances of sexual assault because they have an interest in maintaining good reputations. College and universities want to present a good image to future students and their parents in hopes of obtaining more students. If the school is known as a place of sexual violence their enrolment rates will potentially drop because students will not want to attend a school where they feel unsafe. To maintain a good reputation Colleges will often downplay the significance of the crime. When one female attempted to report the crime to an administrator her rape was compared to a football game. One student presented a written admission of guilt form her assailant, but was told that it only proved that the man loved her. Colleges will often try to keep the reports as low as possible. Many girls recounted that they were told by administration not to go to the police.
The second premise is that victims are afraid to come forward about their experiences. It was stated in the documentary that 88 percent of women assaulted on campus do not report, and men are even less likely to report. They often feel alone and diminished because of their assaults. Victims fear the judgment of others. They are ashamed of themselves It is also very difficult for victims to come forward when they are ultimately the ones blamed. After reporting the crime victims recalled being asked questions like “what were you wearing?’ “Were you drinking?” “did you maybe send the wrong impression?” There is no support system for the survivors the feel isolated and confused. In the documentary girl talked about how good it feel to have someone who would just listen to them and understood what they were going through. As a result of sexual assault many students experience depression. The documentary mentions at least to instances in which students committed suicide after suffering from an assault.
The third premise is that there is no punishment for the assailant.

Colleges fail to enforce any consequences. Offenders get away with their crimes. The documentary gave a statistic that of the assaults reported to majority of offenders are repeat offenders. Colleges are reluctant to remove offenders from school. One reason being that offenders are more likely to sue than the victims. Several schools were examined in the film and it showed that the number of suspensions and expulsions was drastically less than the number of assaults reported. More is done to punish academic violations, that for those that physically harm other students.

The fourth premise is that college campuses are simply ideal hunting grounds for sexual predators. A lot of alcohol consumption is introduced on and around college campuses. It is very easy to become intoxicated to the point were one can not defend themselves or fall victim due to date rape drugs. Another problem is that the aggressors are usually friend or acquaintances of the victims. They are people victims know and trust so their guard is lowered. College is full of meeting new people and trying new experiences in sometime unfamiliar settings, thus making it a potentially dangerous

place.
The fifth premise is that a wedge is driven between the campus community and the victims. Victims feel betrayed and failed be their universities and colleges when little action is taken against their assailants. Victims are outcast by their peers and the members of the community. They seen as whistle blowers and troublemakers for the school. They are also seen as attention seekers or petty girls with grudges. Many girls featured in the documentary. received threats for attempting to speak out about the occurrence of rape. Community members and students do not want the reputation of the school to be damaged either.
The sixth premise is that a lead instigator of rape are the fraternity houses. I film does a good job of not making a hasty generalization by specifying that not all fraternities nor are all their members responsible. It is a select few that have a reputation of being dangerous for women. The Fraternity SAE is known as Sexual Assault Expected. Fraternity’s host parties with alcohol were women can easily be victimized. Fraternity brothers sometimes reward each other for being sexually active, perpetuating this aggressive atmosphere toward women.
The final main premise, of many mentioned in the film, is that universities and colleges have a vested interest in protecting athletes and fraternity members from the accusation of rape.

These specific types of men on campus are given special treatment because of the revenue they generate for the school. Good Athletes get the school noticed and bring in fans. The documentary used Florida football star, Jamaus Winston, as an example. He was accused of rape by a women featured in the film, however was never question or fully investigated. It was believed that he was responsible for several rapes. He still was allowed to play football and later received a national award as an outstanding player. Fraternity members often become alumni that make generous contributions to the school. In order for the school to continue making money they have to protect these men even if they could be offenders of a sexual

assault.
After this movie was released many colleges and universities were outraged. Before it was set to show on CNN universities argued that it was an inaccurate portrayal of university conduct. One of the greatest counterarguments to The Hunting Ground is that false claims can be reported permanently damaging the reputation of the accused and the college. In some cases, it can be difficult to determine the facts of the case. Its one often one person’s word against another’s. The colleges will have to make a decision based upon little evidence. However, the movie presents a good refutation to this argument. They state that in a study done only 2-8 percent of reported rapes are false. I personally fact checked this and found that it can form a reliable source. Also not one of the claims in the movie has been proven untrue.
Another counter argument can be made that this is a one sided argument. It only addressed the victims’ experiences, therefore, creating an extremely bias argument. They did not talk to the accused offenders. It lacked a multiple points of view. The film can refute this argument be calling it a red herring. The most is meant as a voice for the victims and to call attention to their stories. Hearing from the accused offenders would negate the purpose of the film.
The film also made a hasty generalization be implying that all colleges and universities have a serious problem of sexual assault. It also fails to address what good things are being done to prevent rape. I know as a student at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE), I was required to complete an online training in sexual assault prevention. I researched other schools and found that many have their own office of sexual assault prevention and response. The film could argue that because of the large number of cases in which victims received no help and the likelihood that rape has occurred on nearly ever college campus they were justified in making the claim.
The film can easily be accused of committing the fallacy of appeal to emotion. By talking to victims directly they made the film very emotional. At times, while watching the film, I had to fight back tears, and others I was outraged. People could say they should have simply stated the facts and avoided the emotional appeal that was crated by involving the survivors. There was no logical support for communing the fallacy, However, the entire purpose of the movie was to give the survivors a voice. The fallacy could have been unintentional, but when discussing a topic as intense as this, emotions are bound to get involved. So, it was one logical error that could not be avoided.
As a female student on a college campus The Hunting Ground is very relevant. I believe rape is a problem that occurs to often in our society, but it is not stressed enough. I believe this film makes a good argument that will inform and affect everyone who watches it. I fully agree with its conclusion based upon the facts they provide. However, I do believe that progress is being made and steps are being taken to fix the problem as evident of my own personal experiences here at SIUE.