Rape as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is “the crime of forcing a woman to engage in sexual intercourse,” while legally and psychologically rape is viewed as the use of force or a threat of force, as well as something being seized or taken away. Rarely is rape actually about enjoying sex, which is one of many arguments made in the court case Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. And State University. This case began with a young woman raped by two college football players during her freshman year at Virginia Tech. in 1994. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay One night a woman named Christy Brzonkala and a boy her age were hanging out with two people Brzonkala really knew only as college football players. Brzonkala claimed that the two men raped her multiple times that night. When Brzonkala reported her rape to her school two months after the incident, the school did not report the rape to the police, nor did they encourage Brzonkala to report the crime further (Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic 1997). Virginia Tech ended up holding a hearing in which one of Brzonkala's rapists openly admitted to having forced sexual intercourse even though Brzonkala said "no" twice. The other rapist formally denied everything but confirmed that his friend had forced Brzonkala to have sexual intercourse. This student was dismissed with no further action. The student who admitted engaging in forced sex would be suspended for a year, which he later appealed. After appealing this Virginia Tech-approved decision and threatening to sue the university twice, he ultimately won and was able to return to Virginia Tech the following fall of 1995, and would arrive on a full scholarship ( Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic 1997) Brzonkala later began to believe and claim that the head football coach at the time coordinated part of the second hearing due to the rapist's status. This is what gave the rapist the chance to play football the following fall. After stating this, Brzonkala decided not to return to Virginia Tech and to also take legal action against the University. Brzonkala argued that she was treated unfairly during many parts of the trial, citing that she was informed that she could not testify in the second hearing of the first and that she would have to submit an appeal form if she wanted to. Because she was not given sufficient time to file these appeals, she was very unprepared for the hearing, while her alleged rapist was given a generous amount of time to prepare for his second hearing. Brzonkala also said she was informed of every action taken during all disciplinary hearings, but when it came to her rapist's return to school, she was given no warning; she had to learn on her own by reading a newspaper. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In December 1995, Brzonkala formally filed a lawsuit against the two original rapists and Virginia Tech. Brzonkala claimed that Virginia Tech violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, because of the way they handled his rape reports and their failure to punish rapists reasonably (Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic..