I want to preface this piece with an extension of sympathy and sorrow to the family of Alexander Rogers, whose tragic death is a story which requires serious care and which demands serious reflection.
Alexander was a 20-year old student at the University of Oxford who took his own life in January after he was accused of making a young woman “uncomfortable”. The pair had engaged in sexual activity after going to the pub and returning to the young woman’s room (in Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas Graham’s report of the events, she is referred to as “B”). Following the encounter, B expressed discomfort about the encounter to several male friends, but did not intend to formally report the incident. What followed was Alexander’s rapid ostracism by his social circle. A former romantic partner of B’s is alleged to have physically fought with Alexander, while two of his friends personally informed him that they would be effectively withdrawing their friendship. With no formal complaint lodged, and the judgement of his peers damning him from all sides, Alexander was distraught. A few days later he wrote in a note to those he left behind that he intended to take his life, and that though his actions were unintentional, he did not consider himself worthy of forgiveness. He died after entering the River Thames from a bridge only two miles away from his college site.
In Oxford, there is no campus, but a series of colleges — many of them very small and tight-knit — where students live, dine, and work together. It is part of the beauty of the University that life is so communal and intimate. When that community fails to function properly, neglecting to give fair hearings to all parties in a conflict in which there are no witnesses, that tight-knit culture can also be its downfall. When politically-motivated ostracism takes hold, a student like Alexander can easily feel that there is nowhere to turn. It is widely acknowledged that the political culture of mainstream universities is stiflingly woke, to put it plainly. As in the US, in most British universities, conservative students tend to gather in secret or attempt to fly under the radar, with some exceptions; those exceptions routinely face exclusion, ridicule, or ire from their peers. This is considered normal, even if it technically violates university codes of conduct.
Much of the media response to the story has been unfortunate. Leftist outlets have doubled down on the post-MeToo norm, widespread among university-educated youth, to alienate men as soon as they are accused of sexual misconduct. The same political side routinely neglects to investigate the root causes of the discomfort which so often leads to “grey area” accusations of misconduct. Meanwhile, in the immediate wake of the news story, several right-of-centre commentators chalked up the incident to cancel culture, implying that Rogers’ political views led to his ostracism.
A more measured reflection from The Telegraph columnist Celia Walden concludes that Alexander was bullied to death. But it is important to link this phenomenon to its cultural roots. What lies at the heart of the tragedy is a failure of friendship which ultimately derives from a culturally endemic set of beliefs. These beliefs are allowed to thrive because Oxford, like most universities, has succumbed to a rigid ideology which thwarts the communal and collegiate tradition of living together in tolerance and mutual understanding – a tradition which is perfectly compatible with rigorous debate and disagreements between peers. MeToo has become a tool deployed by the blinkered elite against the identity group which their ideology vilifies: men. It serves nobody — neither women nor men – as it insists on punishment with no interest in an impartial hearing. Its battle cry is “she must be believed” no matter what and “he must be cast out” no matter what.
MeToo has become a tool deployed by the blinkered elite against the identity group which their ideology vilifies: men.
The aforementioned coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths Report in response to the incident notes that “Students appear to employ social ostracism as a means of ‘self-policing’ their community, often in response to allegations of serious misconduct. This occurs in the absence of formal processes and without proper investigation or evidence”. This response to informal allegations — that is, allegations which did not involve authorities who could best judge what happened and ensure the safety of both parties — is now normal in the Western landscape post-MeToo. To listen to the perspective of an accused man and to worry about his wellbeing as he grapples with potential reputational destruction is regarded, in many quarters, as a betrayal of the alleged victim. This is taken as gospel even when a man is only accused of making someone uncomfortable, whether he intended to or not. The injunction to “believe all women” means you must behave as though any accusation is both true and grave without investigating it or appreciating that, in many casual, late-night, alcohol-fueled sexual encounters, there are often innocent clashes of perspective.
Sign up to the newsletter
I have written about the inevitable clash of perspectives between men and women in the context of casual sex. To repeat my point: sexually liberal norms do not always mesh well with clashing desires of the sexes. Many women deal with the emotional fallout of thorny encounters with vengeance: that is the defining feature of MeToo.
Universities are filled with young people engaging in casual sex for the first time and in uninhibited manners. While Universities like Oxford are full of administrators and deans who deal with the ever-growing tide of student welfare problems, there is rarely discussion of the risks of engaging in casual sex to begin with which go beyond the rigid and yet nebulous term “consent”. While it is undoubtedly necessary to take complaints seriously, students who are accused of harm should be cared for as well as those who make the accusations; it is the anecdotal experience of many of my own connections within universities that this is not the case in practice. “Innocent until proven guilty” is simply too important a precept to threaten. And, when gray area encounters lead to reputational destruction and ostracism with no formal complaint procedure, the University must step in as best it can. Universities are no strangers to workshops about consent and welfare; might they attempt to address the obvious culture of politically-motivated bullying and ostracism? Students are under pressure to toe the political line and avoid being seen with those who are tainted by accusations, and universities captured by late-stage feminism and woke political authoritarianism fail to talk about it.
It goes without saying that sexual assault is a serious wrongdoing that inflicts severe emotional and physical harm on its victims. However, the actions of the students involved reflect that university culture in Britain is following in the destructive footsteps of the American College campuses in the wake of MeToo. This can be very difficult to rectify; we can’t expect young people to necessarily behave rationally as they navigate interpersonal conflicts. But there is also an institutional disregard for the wellbeing of young men when their interests are perceived as being at odds with those of young women. As in America, British universities would rather do anything than dispense advice which seems “conservative”; they would rather treat young men and women asymmetrically and allow the premature and life-ruining punishment of men simply because they are men.
Activists on the Left often complain that “systemic” injustice leads to the persecution of minority groups; they include half of the population, women, as one such group. I do not wish to use this tragic story to politically grandstand. But I find it impossible not to conclude that, in the cases of accusations of wrongdoing, the direct opposite is now true: young men are at risk. About four times more prevalent among men than women, the risk of suicide in young men is higher than in any other demographic in Europe and the Americas. In spite of this, MeToo and its consequences go unchallenged by the major institutions of the West. These are the very same institutions that decry not only the widening political gap between the sexes but also the flight of men from center-left parties.
Alexander Rogers felt his actions were unforgivable despite them being unintentional. He felt that even the perception of wrongdoing was enough to indict him. These are the words of a young man whose confidence was utterly knocked, who had been told by those closest to him that he was irredeemable, and who believed it. Nobody should be made to feel that an unintentional act on their part, a mistake, a breach in communication, or a misunderstanding is a death sentence. It is imperative that institutions such as universities, where young people are particularly vulnerable to the influence of political dogma and particularly under pressure to compete with one another based on the currency of reputation, restore and preserve proper legal procedure. It is imperative, too, that interpersonal relations reflect the legal precept that the accused party is innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite. It is imperative that the culture of politically motivated bullying is corrected, and swiftly. We cannot risk more lives.
