Swarthmore Sex Scandals Reveal the Pernicious Effects of the Myth that Quaker Colleges and Schools are Egalitarian Rape-Free Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent sex scandals alleging administrative cover-ups and non-compliance with the reporting requirements of the Clery Act at Swarthmore College illustrate issues affecting a broad range of educational institutions that share a Quaker heritage --- colleges, boarding schools, and day schools founded by or affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Sexual assault and sexual abuse are criminal offences, not accidents or minor peccadillos appropriately adjudicated by college or school administrators or hearing panels. Quakers have long assumed a responsibility to protect vulnerable persons from abuse. That responsibility is an ethical and legal responsibility that must be recognized as encompassing the protection of vulnerable persons from abuse by Quakers and other persons associated with Quaker institutions. Urgent priority must be given to: 1) full implementation of effective multi-jurisdictional police screening of all persons placed in positions of authority and trust in Quaker colleges, boarding schools and day schools; and 2) the establishment of complaint mechanisms that ensure immediate and confidential access by victims to outside authorities and agencies that are fully independent of Quaker educational institutions and the net-work of interpersonal relationships that often surround and sustain these institutions and their governing boards and trustees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".