Some publications are now creating a new Christmas-related controversy — a song that has worked its way into the canon of holiday music which is being called offensive by many.
The song, as you might know, is called “Baby it’s Cold Outside.” It was originally written for the film Neptune’s Daughter, and has since been appropriated into the gallery of secular songs played at Christmas time. The controversy behind the song originates from the notion that its lyrics promote sexual coercion, since the male host in the song attempts to convince his female guest to stay with him for a romantic evening because of the inconvenience that the cold weather presents for travel.
The mention of alcohol is presented by the song’s opponents as somehow evidence of criminal intent. When I read that the lyrics supposedly indicate that the guest “may not even be old enough to legally drink (or legally give sexual consent!)”, I was horrified, because giving alcohol to a minor and statuary rape are both very real and serious offenses in the United States.
I remember seeing a performance of the song in ninth grade by some thespian schoolmates. I tried to remember precisely what the lyrics were about, because I strangely don’t remember being offended by it at the time, nor did anyone else in the auditorium. I don’t think the female character in the dramatization was supposed to be underage, and the character in the movie where the song made its debut is definitely not, so I looked it up to what all the fuss was about.
To my great relief, a simple reading of the lyrics reveals a much different story than the narrative and brouhaha coming from places like Salon and Huffington Post. As it turns out, it is the female guest who initially suggests drinking. She says, “maybe just a half a drink more” with no prior mention of drinking by her host. While he does offer to pour, it’s a stretch to claim he was trying to force her into an inebriated state. It’s also the only mention of alcohol in the entire song, with other excuses for staying — made by the guest, and not the host, by the way — including (Gasp!) a cigarette.
Meanwhile the reasons that she gives for leaving are nothing to do with any desire to get away from the man. She cites her mother’s worrying, her father’s pacing and, most notably, what “the neighbors might think.” None of that represents a crime or abuse by the host.
Make no mistake, the host is not being deceptive about his intentions, and the guest is not “getting to know him,” as Huffington Post claims. Rather, her reluctance comes from the embarrassment at what other people will say and think, not any distrust or lack of familiarity with the host.
There is no treachery or deception present in the conversation, either. The affection and flirtation suggest the two are already romantically involved. This is not a scene between two people who are just barely getting acquainted. Neither is the possibility of sexual violence ever implied. In fact, it’s the woman who brings up sex, saying not that she is uninterested, but that she is embarrassed that people might gossip about them.
Subsequently, the host convinces her to stay not using deception but with the simple reassurance that the cold weather would be understood by everyone else as the reason for them spending more time together. Frankly, I don’t think that any young couple owes their relatives or society at large an explanation for how much time they spend together, or what they do with that time.
As it turns out, there is nothing sinister about singing a flirtatious song with your boyfriend, no matter how cold it is outside.
Merry Christmas, everybody, and stay warm.
By Ben Jackson
There aren’t enough “sexual assault nurse examiners” in Las Vegas or throughout most of the country, according to Brittany Bronson in The New York Times.
Bronson points out that there’s one Vegas hospital that can process the kits, and two nurses trained in doing so — clearly insufficient for the 718 sexual assault examination performed last year. Ideally, victims shouldn’t go to the bathroom or shower or change clothes before the rape kit is taken, which is a tall order if they have to drive across a state to do so.
“It’s impossible to know how many victims may have chosen not to obtain a rape kit because of these limitations,” she writes.
When you hear about violence against women, the commonly used statistics are 1 in 2 have experienced physical violence in their lifetime while 1 in 6 have experienced rape or attempted rape, according to the Department of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For indigenous women, the numbers are even more staggering. More than 60% of American Indian and Alaska Native women have been physically assaulted and 1 in 3 have experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. Nearly all (97%) of these women have experienced at least one act of violence committed by a non-Indian, according to the DoJ’s National Institute of Justice.
Yet for decades, tribes did not have jurisdiction to punish non-Indians due to the 1978 Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe.
“You had this void where women were victims of rape and violence by non-Indian men,” said Chrissi Nimmo, assistant attorney general for the Cherokee Nation. “No one was willing or able to prosecute them, leading to very high crime rates.”
In an attempt to fight this, the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Statute was added to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) when it was renewed in 2013. The statute grants tribes jurisdiction over non-Indians in instances of domestic violence, dating violence or violations of protection orders that occur within Indian Country if the victim identifies as American Indian and the non-Indian perpetrator works, lives or has an intimate relationship on tribal lands.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees VAWA, said the tribal provisions addressed “significant legal gaps.” But it hasn’t been a silver bullet for justice.
The statute went into effect two years ago this month, yet only 13 of the 562 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. have become voluntarily compliant with its federal regulations, according to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
The slow adoption rate can be attributed in part to regulations, such as providing court appointed council to defendants who cannot afford it at the tribe’s expense, a challenge for tribes with little money. The VAWA reauthorization appropriated $5 million annually to be distributed to assist tribes from 2014 to 2018; in fiscal year 2016, $2.5 million was appropriated.
Tribes must also have juries that are selected from a “fair cross-section” of the public, meaning they cannot exclude non-Indians. While this was practiced by some tribes even prior to the VAWA reauthorization, for others it means changing tribal law. The latter is the case for Cherokee Nation, which has otherwise met the regulations.
“We still have to pass legislation to include non-Indians on our jury,” Nimmo said. “How do we, as an Indian tribe, want to open up our court system to non-Indians? It’s always been Cherokees. How do we carve out this special seating? I don’t have a timeline but to say that we are working on it.”
Many in the tribal community cite the federal government’s concern over whether non-Indians will receive a fair trial in Indian Country as a barrier to full jurisdiction, though legal professionals like Nimmo believe the statute could ease those concerns before it again comes up for reauthorization in 2018.
“If tribes can show through VAWA that they do have a fair court system and non-Indian defendants can get fair trials in tribal court, the hope is that one day tribes can prosecute any non-Indian defendant that commits any crime on Indian Country.”
Though the statute gives participating tribes more jurisdictional authority, that power remains limited in cases of sexual assault against an Indian woman by a non-Indian that occurs outside of an intimate partner relationship.
According to The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation tribal attorney Brent Leonhard, the statute also does not allow tribes to prosecute some crimes seen in conjunction with domestic violence, including when children are victimized.
“Governments have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of their citizens and residents,” Leonhard said. “Tribal nations are no different. However, a government cannot ensure public safety if it is forced to be dependent on foreign governments to prosecute crimes.”
These major crimes would be handled predominantly by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices.
“The law was tailored specifically to address issues of domestic violence involving spouses or intimate partners, giving the ability to local tribal law enforcement to address acts violence before they escalate to more serious crimes,” said DoJ spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle. “Under the Major Crimes Act and other federal statutes, rape, sexual assault, child molestation, and human trafficking involving non-Indians and Indians alike are prosecutable in federal court.”
“U.S. Attorney’s offices often work in partnership with tribal prosecutors and investigators to determine the best path for prosecuting and deterring crime on reservations,” he said.
According to a 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, tribal governments referred 2,594 sexual abuse related cases to U.S. Attorneys’ offices between 2005 and 2009. Approximately 67% were declined for prosecution. Tribes also referred 2,922 assault-related cases, in which 46% were declined for prosecution. The report states that this may be the result of “weak or insufficient admissible evidence, no federal offense evidence and witness problems.”
Some tribal members point to these numbers as evidence that greater justice is needed for American Indian victims.
“The federal government doesn’t have to take cases,” said Sharon Jones Hayden, a tribal prosecutor that has worked closely with the Tulalip Tribes, one of those that has complied with the statute’s regulations since its initial pilot testing. “It’s up to their discretion. The choice may not be between tribal court, state court or federal court. The choice may be between tribal court and no court at all.”
For Umatilla member Taryn Minthorn, it was tribal court that brought her a sense of closure.
After months of verbal abuse, things turned physical at the hands of her former boyfriend in September 2016. Minthorn said that tribal police responded and the case was referred to the federal government, which ultimately declined it.
“I felt like I was seriously let down,” Minthorn said. “I felt like he could do all the crime in the world, and it was just a slap on the hand. I just wanted to give up.”
She chose to pursue the case in tribal court.
Earlier this month, her former boyfriend pleaded guilty. His sentence includes two years of incarceration, three years of probation, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, submitting to “anger management/batterers intervention” treatment and obeying a no contact order, according to court documents.
Though Minthorn and her children, who were witnesses, still suffer from anxiety and attend counseling, they are moving on.
“To hear him saying that he was pleading to these charges, I literally felt the load come off of me, off my shoulders, off my mind, off my heart,” Minthorn said. “It’s important for future generations to know that eventually there is justice.”
Brittney Bennett , USA TODAY
How colleges muddy the waters on sexual-assault accusations
“Was I raped?” This is the question Yale sophomore Ayla Besemer spends several thousand words exploring in a recent issue of her school’s newspaper.
The story: Besemer got very drunk one night during her freshman year. She brought home a guy she knew but doesn’t remember anything that happened next. She woke up with a bruise on her thigh and a used condom on her floor. Yale requires an “affirmative consent” for sexual activity to be considered truly consensual, but Besemer acknowledges she may well have said yes. She blacked out, meaning she might still have been “fully operational — talking, laughing, drinking more and, indeed, having sex as if [she were only] minimally drunk.”
There are clearly some women out there who are deeply confused about what it means to be raped, and they are, in many cases, being misled by the adults around them.
As Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson document in their new book, “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” the Title IX coordinators, whose jobs on campus often involve digging up rape allegations or helping to gather evidence to adjudicate them, encourage young, impressionable women to call every incident of regrettable drunken sex “rape.”
But it would be wrong to suggest that these women are all just confused about sex and sexual assault. Many of them know perfectly well what they have done and are using the system to make excuses for their behavior or even to manipulate the men around them.
Take Nikki Yovino, the 18-year-old Sacred Heart University student who has been charged with falsely claiming she was sexually assaulted by two football players because she didn’t want to lose the interest of another guy. Yovino is a reminder that even in our age of gender enlightenment, women know enough about human nature to get what they want from men.
That was certainly the conclusion from the elaborate hoax perpetrated by “Jackie” at the University of Virginia a couple of years ago. She not only made up a rape allegation, she made up the assailant in order to get another guy jealous.
Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz, a k a “Mattress Girl,” accused a fellow student of rape. But the school exonerated him and Sulkowicz declined to press charges. She managed to turn herself into a celebrity and even get course credit in performance art for carrying a mattress around campus. (All while the accusations were destroying the life of the guy who claims she was attacking him after he rebuffed her professed love for him.)
In a case at Appalachian State University, a woman accused two football players of rape even though witnesses saw her inviting them into her room. At Amherst, a woman actually texted a residential adviser about her “stupid” decision to have sex with her roommate’s boyfriend before she accused him of rape. The student was expelled, but is suing Amherst for violating his rights. Last month, a judge seemed sympathetic to his claim against the school.
And then there are the times that seem a bit more clear-cut. A University of Michigan student, for example, allegedly used a rape accusation to explain certain things to her mother, who was upset after reading diary entries about her daughter’s wild life on campus.
Women actually used to employ such tactics more regularly. A pregnancy was not so easily avoided, ended or hidden. And, well, folks used to be bigger sticklers for marital fidelity. So having sex with the wrong guy meant women had some explaining to do.
But these days, the reasons for falsely claiming rape have much more to do with the campus soap opera and the sexual politics of one’s peer group than any concern that families will disown you or church communities will banish you.
And the false claims — both on campus and off — are much more prevalent than the media would have you believe. A 2012 Urban Institute report found that of 227 men convicted of rape, 15 percent of them could be eliminated by DNA evidence alone. A study of 351 cases in a Southeastern police department found that 17 percent of the allegations were fabricated and another 66 percent were uncertain.
Though we may not always treat them as such, female college students are adults. It’s true that in many cases, bureaucrats have manipulated them into believing that they were raped when by any reasonable standard, they weren’t. Besemer’s counselor and Yale’s Title IX coordinator told her that her experience could definitely be considered assault.
But we also shouldn’t discount the notion that many of these women knew exactly what they were doing. When you decide to ruin a man’s life and reputation in order to cover up your own mistakes or get what you want from others, you’re not a victim — you’re a sociopath.
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
by Cathy Young, Washington Post
Feminist male-bashing has come to sound like a cliché — a misogynist caricature. Feminism, its loudest proponents vow, is about fighting for equality. The man-hating label is either a smear or a misunderstanding.
Yet a lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behavior: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transit. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.
This gender antagonism does nothing to advance the unfinished business of equality. If anything, the fixation on men behaving badly is a distraction from more fundamental issues, such as changes in the workplace to promote work-life balance. What’s more, male-bashing not only sours many men — and quite a few women — on feminism. It often drives them into Internet subcultures where critiques of feminism mix with hostility toward women.
To some extent, the challenge to men and male power has always been inherent in feminism, from the time the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments catalogued the grievances of “woman” against “man.” However, these grievances were directed more at institutions than at individuals. In The Feminine Mystique, which sparked the great feminist revival of the 1960s, Betty Friedan saw men not as villains but as fellow victims burdened by societal pressures and by the expectations of their wives, who depended on them for both livelihood and identity.
That began to change in the 1970s with the rise of radical feminism. This movement, with its slogan, “The personal is political,” brought a wave of female anger at men’s collective and individual transgressions. Authors like Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French depicted ordinary men as patriarchy’s brutal foot soldiers.
This tendency has reached a troubling new peak, as radical feminist theories that view modern Western civilization as a patriarchy have migrated from academic and activist fringes into mainstream conversation. One reason for this trend is social media, with its instant amplification of personal narratives and its addiction to outrage. We live in a time when jerky male attempts at cyber-flirting can be collected on a blog called Straight White Boys Texting (which carries a disclaimer that prejudice against white males is not racist or sexist since it is not directed at the oppressed) and then deplored in an article titled Dear Men: This Is Why Women Have Every Right To Be Disgusted With Us.
Sitting with legs apart may be a guy thing, but there is plenty of visual documentation of women hogging extra space on public transit with purses, shopping bags and feet on seats. As for “mansplaining,” these days it seems to mean little more than a man making an argument a woman dislikes. Slate correspondent Dahlia Lithwick has admitted using the term to “dismiss anything said by men” in debates about Hillary Clinton. And the day after Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination, political analyst David Axelrod was slammed as a “mansplainer” on Twitter for his observation that it’s a measure of our country’s “great progress” that “many younger women find the nomination of a woman unremarkable.”
Men who gripe about their ex-girlfriends and advise other men to avoid relationships with women are generally relegated to the seedy underbelly of the Internet — various forums and websites in the “manosphere,” recently chronicled by Stephen Marche in the Guardian. Yet a leading voice of the new feminist generation, British writer Laurie Penny, can use her column in the New Statesman to decry ex-boyfriends who “turned mean or walked away” and to urge straight young women to stay single instead of “wasting years in succession on lacklustre, unappreciative, boring child-men.”
Feminist commentary routinely puts the nastiest possible spin on male behavior and motives. Consider the backlash against the concept of the “friend zone,” or being relegated to “friends-only” status when seeking a romantic relationship — usually, though not exclusively, in reference to men being “friend zoned” by women. Since the term has a clear negative connotation, feminist critics say it reflects the assumption that a man is owed sex as a reward for treating a woman well. Yet it’s at least as likely that, as Australian-born feminist writer Rachel Hills argued in a rare dissent in the Atlantic, the lament of the “friend zoned” is about “loneliness and romantic frustration,” not sexual entitlement.
Things have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media. Take a recent piece on Broadly, the women’s section of Vice, titled, “Men Are Creepy, New Study Confirms” — promoted with a Vice Facebook post that said: “Are you a man? You’re probably a creep.” The actual study found something very different: that both men and women overwhelmingly think someone described as “creepy” is more likely to be male. If a study had found that a negative trait was widely associated with women (or gays or Muslims), surely this would have been reported as deplorable stereotyping, not confirmation of reality.
Meanwhile, men can get raked over the (virtual) coals for voicing even the mildest unpopular opinion on something feminism-related. Just recently, YouTube film reviewer James Rolfe, who goes by “Angry Video Game Nerd,” was roundly vilified as a misogynistic “man-baby” in social media and the online press after announcing that he would not watch the female-led “Ghostbusters” remake because of what he felt was its failure to acknowledge the original franchise.
This matters, and not just because it can make men less sympathetic to the problems women face. At a time when we constantly hear that womanpower is triumphant and “the end of men” —- or at least of traditional manhood — is nigh, men face some real problems of their own. Women are now earning about 60 per cent of college degrees; male college enrolment after high school has stalled at 61 per cent since 1994, even as female from 63 per cent to 71 per cent. Predominantly male blue-collar jobs are on the decline, and the rise of single motherhood has left many men disconnected from family life. The old model of marriage and fatherhood has been declared obsolete, but new ideals remain elusive.
Perhaps mocking and berating men is not the way to show that the feminist revolution is about equality and that they have a stake in the new game. The message that feminism can help men, too — by placing equal value on their role as parents or by encouraging better mental health care and reducing male suicide — is undercut by gender warriors like Australian pundit Clementine Ford, whose “ironic misandry” often seems entirely non-ironic and who has angrily insisted that feminism stands only for women. Gibes about “male tears” — for instance, on a T-shirt sported by writer Jessica Valenti in a photo taunting her detractors — seem particularly unfortunate if feminists are serious about challenging the stereotype of the stoic, pain-suppressing male. Dismissing concerns about wrongful accusations of rape with a snarky “What about the menz” is not a great way to show that women’s liberation does not infringe on men’s civil rights. And telling men that their proper role in the movement for gender equality is to listen to women and patiently endure anti-male slams is not the best way to win support.
Valenti and others argue that man-hating cannot do any real damage because men have the power and privilege. Few would deny the historical reality of male dominance. But today, when men can lose their jobs because of sexist missteps and be expelled from college over allegations of sexual misconduct, that’s a blinkered view, particularly since the war on male sins can often target individuals’ trivial transgressions. Take the media shaming of former Harry Potter podcaster Benjamin Schoen, pilloried for some obnoxious tweets (and then an insufficiently gracious email apology) to a woman who had blocked him on Facebook after an attempt at flirting. While sexist verbal abuse toward women online is widely deplored, there is little sympathy for men who are attacked as misogynists, mocked as “man-babies” or “angry virgins,” or even smeared as sexual predators in Internet disputes.
We are headed into an election with what is likely to be a nearly unprecedented gender gap among voters. To some extent, these numbers reflect policy differences. Yet it is not too far-fetched to see the pro-Trump sentiment as fueled, at least in part, by a backlash against feminism. And while some of this backlash may be of the old-fashioned “put women in their place” variety, there is little doubt that for the younger generation, the perception of feminism as extremist and anti-male plays a role, too.
This theme emerged in Conor Friedersdorf’s recent interview in the Atlantic with a Trump supporter, a college-educated, 22-year-old resident of San Francisco who considers himself a feminist and expects his career to take a back seat to that of his higher-earning fiancee – but who also complains about being “shamed” as a white man and voices concern about false accusations of rape.
As this campaign shows, our fractured culture is badly in need of healing – from the gender wars as well as other divisions. To be a part of this healing, feminism must include men, not just as supportive allies but as partners, with an equal voice and equal humanity.
Many parents are unaware of what is really happening on college campuses in the U.S. related to their daughters safety. They are inundated with inaccurate information from news sources and talk shows.
What is really going on? This op-ed is a must read:
Harvard to Girls: Go Where The Rapes Are
by Naomi Schaefer Riley
Want to know why students supposedly experience sexual assault with “alarming frequency” at Harvard University?
A special task force set up by the school’s president to address the question blames, at least in part, its Final Clubs — the university’s nonresident version of fraternities.
There is, according to a report released last week, “a strong sense of sexual entitlement within some of the male Final Clubs, stemming in part from the members’ control of social spaces that are imbued with a certain historical tradition and that elevate members’ social status on campus.”
In other words, blame the frats.
It’s not clear how the geniuses who wrote this report can draw a direct line between historically imbued social status and incidences of rape, but this is just the university’s latest in a series of public statements that will make people wonder whether Harvard’s reputation as being a place with smart people is at all deserved.
The school has spent the better part of two years and God knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars to study the “sexual assault” problem on its campus. First it conducted a shockingly bad student survey — full of unclear and leading questions that put asking someone on a date and complimenting someone on their looks in the same category as rape.
Then its president sent a letter to the community citing the shoddy evidence, noting “the alarming frequency with which our students, especially but by no means only our undergraduates, experience incidents of sexual assault.”
And now there’s a report from the president’s task force detailing steps the college should take to address the problem.
It turns out that other than dorms, Final Clubs are the most likely place for students to experience sexual assault. Well, aside from dormitories, they’re pretty much the only private space on the campus. If you’re going to assault someone, the cafeteria is not a great idea. And the English Department offices are usually locked after hours.
Perhaps this sounds flip, but most of these assaults aren’t assaults at all. They’re unwanted sexual contact between intoxicated people, as the report demonstrates. But the idea that these all-male institutions, which exist independent of the university, get to admit women to parties based on their looks has goaded liberals for so long that they are going to use “rape culture” as an excuse to make them co-ed or shut them down altogether.
Newsflash: Even if women were in “positions of power,” drunken sexual encounters and even sexual assault would still be a problem at these clubs.
Across the country, fraternities were forced to go co-ed in the ’80s and ’90s. Administrators thought they would “introduce the civilizing force of women into fraternities,” as Caitlin Flanagan explains. Flanagan, who has written extensively on the problems caused by fraternities on campus for the Atlantic, notes that “college women are no longer a civilizing force. They drink really heavily and they love to prove that they are just as gross as the guys.”
Middlebury forced all of its fraternities to go co-ed and become “social houses.” At one, I recall, when Madonna’s “Like A Virgin” started playing at any of its parties, all the women in the room would spontaneously remove their shirts. The patriarchy didn’t make them do it.
Of course, the idea that admitting women to all-male clubs is going to solve the problem of sexual assault is absurd. As Flanagan argues, “if these outfits are actually such centers of sexual assault, why in God’s name would the university recommend that its female students join one of them? ‘Women get raped at this location. We must send more women to this location.’ What’s next? Sending women students to areas with a high murder rate?”
If these task force members really believed that women were being regularly raped at Final Clubs, the university president would be on the phone with local police. Harvard men would be escorted out in handcuffs.
But no one really thinks that. They just believe Final Clubs are the location for a lot of drunken hook-ups. And they are.
If the college wants to protect women from such encounters, the best response wouldn’t be to force more women on the boards of these institutions but to suggest a boycott instead. That’ll teach ’em.
1. Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, police departments across the United States have been training in “active shooter” response. This has been a well-established practice for use in public [K-12] schools.
However, our survey of college and university security directors and police chiefs shows that few have had this training. Two reasons were given: Administrators often do not want to pay for the training or in some cases bar campus security/police from participating in training to avoid what they perceived to be a “militaristic campus atmosphere”.
2. College administrators have no training in security or police operations and as a result micromanage security operations on their campuses. This is problematic because of the obvious delay it causes in response time. In addition, when a college or university has a police department, administrative micromanagement can violate state law regarding obstruction of justice.
3. A proper security audit is vitally important to campus security. However, our survey of security directors / police chiefs indicates that most college administrators will not allow these assessments to be done out of fear of liability exposure and the chance the audit would require changes in management systems.
4. Threat assessment as a science has existed in the United States since the early 1940s. Predication and prevention of violence is a critical aspect of campus security and one that, in SERAPH’s experience, seriously is lacking on higher-education campuses. All Resident Assistants, security / police and department administrators should be trained to identify violent behavior in students, staff and visitors.
A lack of systematic monitoring of people on campus contributes to crime.
5. An emergency plan is only as good as the data in it and the ability of key personnel to use it effectively.
Training is important for the effective management of an emergency by key personnel. You cannot ask untrained people to do what trained people do.