By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, faced scrutiny over a college newspaper column published during his tenure as publisher of *The Princeton Tory*. The column, authored by another student, John Andrews, argued that unconsciousness, without duress, did not constitute rape. While Hegseth did not write the article, his role as publisher implies responsibility for the magazine’s content. The incident resurfaced amidst other past controversies, including allegations of sexual assault and his outspoken conservative views expressed in the magazine. The current publisher of *The Princeton Tory* stated that the responsibilities of the publisher role varied over time.
Read the original article here
Pete Hegseth’s association with a college newspaper column that argued sex with an unconscious woman wasn’t rape has sparked significant controversy. The column, published during Hegseth’s tenure as publisher of *The Princeton Tory*, presented a deeply problematic perspective on sexual assault. The article’s author, John Andrews, argued that because the woman in the scenario had voluntarily intoxicated herself, the lack of consent was not sufficient to constitute rape, suggesting that the act only becomes rape in cases of duress. This interpretation fundamentally misrepresents the legal definition of rape, which centers on the absence of consent, regardless of the circumstances leading to the lack of consent.
This interpretation is deeply troubling because it minimizes the seriousness of sexual assault and potentially enables the normalization of such actions. The fact that the lack of consent is not in itself sufficient to constitute rape, according to the article, is directly at odds with legal definitions and widely accepted understandings of consent and sexual assault. The column essentially advocates for a standard that effectively eliminates consequences for perpetrators of sexual assault against those who are incapacitated.
Hegseth, as the publisher, bore the responsibility of reviewing and approving the content before publication. The fact that this article made it into print underscores the gravity of the situation. The decision to publish the piece, regardless of who authored it, demonstrates a severe lack of judgment and a concerning disregard for the importance of protecting victims of sexual assault.
Many commentators have highlighted the potential connection between the column’s content and allegations of sexual assault leveled against Hegseth himself. These allegations, though denied by Hegseth, include accusations of sexual assault and instances where he allegedly paid a woman to avoid a lawsuit, all of which intensify the scrutiny he faces. The column’s contents, when considered alongside these allegations, paint a troubling picture of Hegseth’s views on consent and sexual assault.
The article’s argument that only duress constitutes rape directly contradicts the legal understanding of the crime, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the logic presented. The legal definition of rape does not require duress; it is the absence of consent that defines the act. The fact that a woman may have contributed to her own intoxication does not erase the lack of consent or excuse the violation of her bodily autonomy. The idea presented in this column creates an incredibly dangerous precedent and minimizes the severity of sexual assault.
Furthermore, the article also touches upon other socially controversial topics, demonstrating a pattern of promoting viewpoints at odds with mainstream societal understanding. The article appears to connect homosexual marriage to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality, reinforcing already existing negative sentiments surrounding LGBTQ+ rights. This adds another layer of concern to the situation and reveals a possible pattern of disregard for respectful and inclusive public discourse.
The controversy surrounding this column extends beyond its initial publication. The renewed attention to the article’s content and Hegseth’s role in its publication has reignited conversations about consent, sexual assault, and the responsibility of public figures to uphold ethical standards. The fact that such an article was published, let alone endorsed (through the inaction of Hegseth), continues to invite criticism and raises broader questions about the societal implications.
Ultimately, this incident serves as a reminder of the importance of critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and the need for accountability from public figures. The article’s content, Hegseth’s role in its publication, and the allegations against him all contribute to a complex situation that warrants serious consideration and ongoing dialogue. The incident raises questions about the lack of ethical standards that permitted such an article to be published and the standards that should be applied when considering public figures for positions of power. The controversy surrounding Pete Hegseth and this article serves as a stark example of the consequences of neglecting these critical aspects.