This is not a defense of Donald Trump. This is not a post to suggest that Donald made a great acceptance speech last night or a poor one. I am not interested in that here.
This is about the double-standard of the people who dominate the public discourse about politics.
After Trump's speech, news outlet after news outlet ripped Trump's speech as "dark" and criticized his vision of America as "fearful."
The people bemoaning Trump's speech include the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on sexual assault. Take Salon, for instance. It has a headline that reads as follows: "Trump’s terrifying speech: Fear and xenophobia become the GOP’s official platform. The dark, fearful vision laid out by the Republican presidential nominee represents a nadir for our politics."
The irony is that Salon is perhaps the greatest purveyor of rape hysteria in America. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just a few I grabbed in a few seconds--we could fill this blog with dark Salon pieces on rape that vilify men, especially college men.
These people own "dark." They invented it. And the "dark" they peddle is a confection of lies and even bigger lies. Donald Trump is a combination of Pollyanna and Mother Teresa compared to these banshees.
The people wringing their hands because Donald Trump is too "dark" unflinchingly demonize college men and reduce them to vile caricature, insist that college campuses are rape pits, claim with a straight face that women don't lie about rape, and preach that due process for men accused of rape on campus is a luxury college women can't afford. They buy into an untruth that even RAINN, the preeminent anti-rape organization in America, denounced: the "rape culture" meme.
They happily fear-monger and spread hysteria for no reason other than to elevate one gender and to diminish another.
They bought into the Duke lacrosse false rape case, Rolling Stone's imaginary gang rape, Mattress Girl's dubious rape, the Hofstra false rape case, and too many others to chronicle. Spend a few months reading through the back stories of this blog and you'll see.
Yet, these same people would have you believe that Donald Trump's vision is "dark."
Why? Because Trump isn't preaching the right kind of "dark." He doesn't blame white college men for all of America's problems.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
GOP platform: College rape claims need to be "prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge"
Sometimes, we need to take sides. Sometimes the choices are easy--the GOP has written a platform that ought to be applauded by people concerned about the rights of the presumptively innocent.
For more than five years, the current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process when it comes to college students (almost always males) accused of sexual assault. This blog has published literally hundreds of posts on this hostility, and there is no need to summarize it for our readers. People who suggest that the previous administration was "just as bad" are simply wrong, and that position is part of the problem.
The presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, has signaled that she will take this hostility to another level. She believes that the sex act is presumptively rape whenever an accusation is made and that it is up to the accused to prove it wasn't. See here. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the gravity of Mrs. Clinton's positions is unschooled on the issues--she is espousing a position long-advocated by radical feminist extremists.
Too many of the once-heroic champions of due process in the Democratic Party have lately opted to worship at the altar of group identity politics instead, and they happily support the erosion of due process when it comes to one gender, and one crime.
When was the last time a liberal openly cheered rolling back due process protections? They do it now all the time when it comes to college men and sex accusations. The principal exceptions seem to be law professors who appreciate that due process is the greatest bulwark against tyranny and injustice ever devised by man. In the political realm, the protectors of due process are now the libertarians and Constitutional conservatives with libertarian leanings like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Sen. Rubio expressly supported ending the the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s "assault against due process rights" when it comes to college men accused of sexual assault.
Now the GOP platform has addressed the issue, and its words are unmistakable. Rape is a crime, and it needs to be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, not by misapplying the Title IX preponderance of the evidence standard (and, yes, they misapply the standard--see here).
The 2016 GOP platform, page 35:
For more than five years, the current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process when it comes to college students (almost always males) accused of sexual assault. This blog has published literally hundreds of posts on this hostility, and there is no need to summarize it for our readers. People who suggest that the previous administration was "just as bad" are simply wrong, and that position is part of the problem.
The presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, has signaled that she will take this hostility to another level. She believes that the sex act is presumptively rape whenever an accusation is made and that it is up to the accused to prove it wasn't. See here. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the gravity of Mrs. Clinton's positions is unschooled on the issues--she is espousing a position long-advocated by radical feminist extremists.
Too many of the once-heroic champions of due process in the Democratic Party have lately opted to worship at the altar of group identity politics instead, and they happily support the erosion of due process when it comes to one gender, and one crime.
When was the last time a liberal openly cheered rolling back due process protections? They do it now all the time when it comes to college men and sex accusations. The principal exceptions seem to be law professors who appreciate that due process is the greatest bulwark against tyranny and injustice ever devised by man. In the political realm, the protectors of due process are now the libertarians and Constitutional conservatives with libertarian leanings like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Sen. Rubio expressly supported ending the the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s "assault against due process rights" when it comes to college men accused of sexual assault.
Now the GOP platform has addressed the issue, and its words are unmistakable. Rape is a crime, and it needs to be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, not by misapplying the Title IX preponderance of the evidence standard (and, yes, they misapply the standard--see here).
The 2016 GOP platform, page 35:
Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration’s distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.Like it or not, it is the GOP, not the Democratic Party, that seeks to protect our sons from the politically correct witch hunt against them on our college campuses. This is not a position that the law and order GOP of Bob Dole and others of his ilk would have taken 20 years ago--we ought to applaud the GOP for coming to this position. But for many of us who have spent decades of our lives as Democrats, it is a bitter pill to swallow--this is not the party of John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. This is something qualitatively different, and it is out to punish an entire gender by making it far too easy to punish the presumptively innocent for offenses they didn't commit. They have lost me, folks.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Friday, July 15, 2016
The sexual grievance industry's defense of the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is laughable
The sexual grievance industry--and if you want to see who is part of it, see this letter--constantly defends the illegal mandate of the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights that colleges and universities use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard (but only for sex charges). This standard means that a school must find guilt if the evidence is even 50.001% tilted in favor of the accuser's story.
The goal is very simple: they want to make it easier to expel and suspend more young men for sexual assault because they believe that there is a college rape epidemic even though the belief is ludicrous.
Their principal defense of this standard is that "[t]his standard is used in cases alleging discrimination under other civil rights laws . . . ."
This argument is laughable to anyone who practices civil law, and it is astounding to me that news outlets parrot their argument as if it has legitimacy.
In civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses. If the Dept. of Education would mandate that colleges adopt the evidentiary protections mandated for defendants in civil trials, I'd be fine with it. But the procedures utilized in college kangaroo sex tribunals cannot be compared to the procedures used civil courts where, generally, only money damages are sought and the preponderance of the evidence standard is employed.
In civil cases, defendants are allowed to be fully represented by counsel at every stage of the proceeding. Their counsel are permitted to make arguments for them and to vigorously depose prior to trial, and to vigorously cross-examine during trial, the accuser and any other pertinent witnesses. In college sex tribunals, counsel for the accused can rarely do more than sit there, if that.
Aside from depositions, defendants in civil litigation are also permitted to engage in all manner of discovery, including proffering requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. And if the plaintiff fails to respond to proper discovery requests, she is sanctioned by the court, up to and including dismissal of her case and requiring her to pay the other side's attorney's fees.Nothing remotely similar is allowed in most college sex proceedings .
Hearsay evidence generally is excluded, as is evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect to a party. In college sex proceedings, the adjudicators do not have a clue what constitutes hearsay, much less how to assess whether evidence is too prejudicial to consider.
Trial and appellate judges are lawyers bound by centuries of common law precedent. In college sex proceedings, there are no constraints in the decision-making.
The college kangaroo sex proceeding has no relation to the orderly administration of justice in civil court--none.
The goal is very simple: they want to make it easier to expel and suspend more young men for sexual assault because they believe that there is a college rape epidemic even though the belief is ludicrous.
Their principal defense of this standard is that "[t]his standard is used in cases alleging discrimination under other civil rights laws . . . ."
This argument is laughable to anyone who practices civil law, and it is astounding to me that news outlets parrot their argument as if it has legitimacy.
In civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses. If the Dept. of Education would mandate that colleges adopt the evidentiary protections mandated for defendants in civil trials, I'd be fine with it. But the procedures utilized in college kangaroo sex tribunals cannot be compared to the procedures used civil courts where, generally, only money damages are sought and the preponderance of the evidence standard is employed.
In civil cases, defendants are allowed to be fully represented by counsel at every stage of the proceeding. Their counsel are permitted to make arguments for them and to vigorously depose prior to trial, and to vigorously cross-examine during trial, the accuser and any other pertinent witnesses. In college sex tribunals, counsel for the accused can rarely do more than sit there, if that.
Aside from depositions, defendants in civil litigation are also permitted to engage in all manner of discovery, including proffering requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. And if the plaintiff fails to respond to proper discovery requests, she is sanctioned by the court, up to and including dismissal of her case and requiring her to pay the other side's attorney's fees.Nothing remotely similar is allowed in most college sex proceedings .
Hearsay evidence generally is excluded, as is evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect to a party. In college sex proceedings, the adjudicators do not have a clue what constitutes hearsay, much less how to assess whether evidence is too prejudicial to consider.
Trial and appellate judges are lawyers bound by centuries of common law precedent. In college sex proceedings, there are no constraints in the decision-making.
The college kangaroo sex proceeding has no relation to the orderly administration of justice in civil court--none.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Student sues Cornell for suspending him without a hearing
I have come to the conclusion that colleges--both the people who run them and work there, and the people who pay to attend them--don't know, and don't care, what due process is. At least when it comes to sexual assault claims lodged against male students. For those who care, here's the essence of it:
Where are the protests, men?
Although due process tolerates variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of the case," it is nonetheless possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, "[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.A student has sued Cornell claiming "the university 'presupposed his guilt' by conducting the investigation without a hearing, and claiming that investigators spoke to him 'in an accusatory and intimidating manner.'"
Where are the protests, men?
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Washington Post: Men lie on surveys, women don't
Danielle Paquette of the Washington Post tries to defend the gender "wage gap" by suggesting that we shouldn't believe the statistics that show men work more hours than women. Why? Because those stats are compiled by self-reporting, and men exaggerate.
This is the same Danielle Paquette who accepts, without challenge, the debunked statistic that one-in-five college women are raped--even though every single survey that repeats this lie is based on self-reporting. (And, even though every one of those surveys was designed by people with a financial interest in the college rape "epidemic" and the questions are weighted to "prove" the existence of such an epidemic.) In one article Danielle Paquette wrote: "Nearly one in five women in the United States have been sexually assaulted . . . ." In another, she wrote: "One in five college women will be sexually assaulted before graduation."
Here's the dirty little secret Danielle Paquette never mentions: every time--every single time--sexual assault claims are actually tested by examining the evidence (in other words, every time we bother to hear what the accused has to say), the majority of such claims can't be said to be sexual assault. That's a fact.
As for the allegation that men lie, well, here's another scientific survey: it's WOMEN who lie on sex surveys to make themselves look more virtuous than they really are.
Put aside the lying, a significant percentage of college women--approaching half--admit they confuse consensual acts with rape. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent.
And here's the really bad part: the sexual grievance industry has used the lies in sexual assault surveys to take away the due process rights of college men. That, of course, is totally lost on Danielle Paquette.
Haven't we all had enough of the Danielle Paquettes of the world?
This is the same Danielle Paquette who accepts, without challenge, the debunked statistic that one-in-five college women are raped--even though every single survey that repeats this lie is based on self-reporting. (And, even though every one of those surveys was designed by people with a financial interest in the college rape "epidemic" and the questions are weighted to "prove" the existence of such an epidemic.) In one article Danielle Paquette wrote: "Nearly one in five women in the United States have been sexually assaulted . . . ." In another, she wrote: "One in five college women will be sexually assaulted before graduation."
Here's the dirty little secret Danielle Paquette never mentions: every time--every single time--sexual assault claims are actually tested by examining the evidence (in other words, every time we bother to hear what the accused has to say), the majority of such claims can't be said to be sexual assault. That's a fact.
As for the allegation that men lie, well, here's another scientific survey: it's WOMEN who lie on sex surveys to make themselves look more virtuous than they really are.
Put aside the lying, a significant percentage of college women--approaching half--admit they confuse consensual acts with rape. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent.
And here's the really bad part: the sexual grievance industry has used the lies in sexual assault surveys to take away the due process rights of college men. That, of course, is totally lost on Danielle Paquette.
Haven't we all had enough of the Danielle Paquettes of the world?
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
'Officials: Man Decapitated Acquaintance He Suspected of Rape'
In the story posted below, a young man was decapitated because a woman accused him of rape. This didn't happen in a backward, third world country, it happened in Minnesota. I am sickened by it, but I am not surprised.
When presumably enlightened pundits, academics, and politicians continually preach that women who cry rape must always be believed and that when it comes to young men accused of rape, due process is not just unnecessary but a hindrance to justice, we are shocked when an unhinged or impaired person acts on it? Seriously? Ours is a culture that wages war on an imaginary epidemic with the memes of the hangman--all in the interest of gender get-evenism. A dangerous segment of our society hears that hatred and responds to it, and somehow we're surprised?
Add this to the list of similar atrocities (a few recent cases are collected here). Here is the story as reported by ABC:
When presumably enlightened pundits, academics, and politicians continually preach that women who cry rape must always be believed and that when it comes to young men accused of rape, due process is not just unnecessary but a hindrance to justice, we are shocked when an unhinged or impaired person acts on it? Seriously? Ours is a culture that wages war on an imaginary epidemic with the memes of the hangman--all in the interest of gender get-evenism. A dangerous segment of our society hears that hatred and responds to it, and somehow we're surprised?
Add this to the list of similar atrocities (a few recent cases are collected here). Here is the story as reported by ABC:
A northern Minnesota man is accused of decapitating another man after his girlfriend told him that the man had sexually assaulted her.http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-man-decapitated-acquaintance-suspected-rape-40224745
Thirty-five-year-old Joseph Thoresen is charged with murder. According to charges in Itasca County, Thoresen ambushed 20-year-old David Haiman of Hibbing along a road near Ball Club.
The complaint says Thoresen hit Haiman with a baseball bat and stabbed him in the back and abdomen before decapitating him with a machete and throwing his head into the woods.
Authorities found Haiman's torso and head on Sunday.
The complaint says Thoresen's girlfriend told authorities he was upset when she told him Haiman had sexually assaulted her.
Court records don't list an attorney for Thoresen. Bail was set at $2 million without conditions during his first court appearance Wednesday.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
"Privileged white men" stage a backlash against their decline: how extremists reduce the one group they hate to vile caricature
Don't read it on an empty stomach: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/06/21/trump-white-male-anxiety-millennials/
The silliness is almost too much to bear.
But this article is a microcosm of a culture war that has been raging for some time: "enlightened" extremists and their media and academic enablers assume that middle America, ruled by dreaded white males, hates and outright oppresses people who aren't like them in order to maintain their privilege.
The silliness is almost too much to bear.
But this article is a microcosm of a culture war that has been raging for some time: "enlightened" extremists and their media and academic enablers assume that middle America, ruled by dreaded white males, hates and outright oppresses people who aren't like them in order to maintain their privilege.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Ash Carter Justifies Strategy of Holding Servicemembers Accountable for Sexual Assault through Collateral Misconduct Convictions
SecDef Ash Carter recently put into writing a very true and troubling aspect of Military Justice in an attempt to justify how much more awesome military prosecutors are than civilian prosecutors:
"Additionally, in both
civilian and military judicial systems, defendants are often tried for "collateral
misconduct” charges, such as lying to an investigator, in addition to an
underlying crime.
In both the military and civilian systems, it is sometimes difficult to obtain
a conviction for
sexual assault. It
is a common practice for prosecutors to attempt to obtain convictions
for collateral charges as well, which provide additional methods of holding an
individual responsible for his or her acts in the event of an acquittal for
the charge of sexual assault.
The military justice system has additional collateral misconduct charges that would not be available in a civilian criminal justice setting, such as conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery, and orders violations. The military also has a range of disciplinary and other tools available that have no civilian counterpart, such as non-judicial punishment and administrative discharges. Accordingly, in sexual assault cases, it is common that charges other than, or in addition to, a charge specifically for sexual assault may be pursued as a means of increasing the likelihood that the accused is ultimately held accountable."
Essentially, what Secretary Carter is saying is that the military is unique because Servicemembers can be tried for many crimes that civilians cannot be tried, for example adultery or 'conduct unbecoming an Officer.' So, when a Commander has that really weak sexual assault case that civilian prosecutors would not touch with a ten foot pole because it never should see the inside of a courtroom, military prosecutors can still hold an individual responsible for sexual assault with an adultery conviction, even if he is acquitted for sexual assault.
But, sometimes in the military, a sexual assault charge is actually the collateral misconduct for weak non-sexual assault charges to effectuate the Commander's intent to get the Accused kicked out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. In other words, when a military prosecutor has a weak case for non-sexual misconduct that does not warrant a court-martial, sometimes they will search for a sexual assault "victim" to justify a case going to Court-martial.
A perfect example of this premise being true to life is the recent case of Major Kit Martin at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. MAJ Martin thought that he was married to a woman named Joan Harmon. It turns out that MAJ Martin was not technically married to her because unbeknownst to him on the date of his marriage to her, she had not divorced her husband. MAJ Martin later found out Joan was a bigamist when he filed for divorce due to her adultery, notwithstanding her threats to ruin his career if he divorced her. She ultimately was charged with bigamy and pleaded guilty with a deferred conviction in Kentucky.
The first volley Mrs. Harmon fired to make good on her threat was to falsely accuse MAJ Martin of espionage. She and her alleged lover, Calvin Phillip, presented a laptop with classified information on it to the FBI and alleged that MAJ Martin was a spy. MAJ Martin passed a polygraph regarding this issue by Army Counterintelligence, but his Commander MG Mark Stammer attempted to impose nonjudicial punishment against MAJ Martin. When MAJ Martin demanded trial by court-martial because he did not trust MG Stammer a.k.a. "The Hammer" to be unbiased, that is when Army prosecutors started looking for collateral misconduct.
So, it has been reported that the Army approached Ms. Harmon who was locked and loaded for her second volley and asked her if MAJ Martin ever sexually assaulted her or her kids. Mind you, neither this woman nor her children had ever reported any kind of abuse whatsoever. Yet, MAJ Martin was charged with sexual assault against his wife, sexual assault against her children who he had supported as his own, even though they were not his, and physical abuse. A witness testified that she heard the military prosecutors at a preliminary hearing state that Ms. Harmon was not credible, but they could use the charges as leverage and could dismiss them before the trial once it got referred to a Court-martial. In other words, it appears based on the witness's testimony that the prosecutors knew that her allegations that she was sexual assaulted by MAJ Martin were bogus, but they were going to use the bogus charges to shore up a weak espionage case, for which Harmon was also connected. And, true to their word, those prosecutors dismissed the sexual assault charges involving Joan Harmon on the first day of the court-martial.
Ultimately, MAJ Martin was acquitted of sexual assault against the kids, but he was convicted of simple battery and mishandling classified information and was sentenced to 90 days of confinement and a dismissal. I guess this is to what Secretary Carter refers when he says that through charging collateral misconduct in the military, Servicemembers can still be held accountable for collateral misconduct in the event they are acquitted of sexual assault.
So, at least the Secretary of Defense admits that military prosecutors take no issue at finding collateral alleged misconduct to shore up a weak sexual assault case. But, I wonder if Secretary Carter understands that military prosecutors are shoring up weak non-sexual assault cases with bogus sexual assault charges. Because the strategy is becoming just as common in the military to falsely accuse heroes like MAJ Martin of rape to get them out of the military, as the strategy of the medical profession in the 1600's when they falsely accused midwives of being witches to get them out of the baby birthing business.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
The destruction of due process of law in sexual-assault cases 'is exactly what the banshees of political correctness want'
Chris Powell, the editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Connecticut, explained the campus witch rape witch hunt as well as any explanation we've seen:
[The] destruction of due process of law in sexual-assault cases and the ruin of people who are merely accused is exactly what the banshees of political correctness want, since due process hampers getting convictions in such cases -- as if due process doesn't hamper getting convictions in all cases and as if due process, from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the Sixth Amendment in 1791 to Connecticut's 1818 and 1965 constitutions, has not for centuries been regarded as the essential mechanism for increasing the likelihood that justice will be done and be seen to have been done.Read the full piece here.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Sexual grievance cartel: The Brock Turner aberration exemplifies "white male privilege"
The sociopath aberration that is Brock Turner--the teenager who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman when he was a Stanford student athlete--is now the poster boy for the sexual grievance cartel.
The poor, hapless cartel has had to resign itself in recent years to taking untold tax and tuition dollars while touting made-up sexual assaults to "prove" a rape culture that doesn't really exist. We've chronicled numerous such efforts on this site. Now, finally, they have a young man that fits the preferred narrative (a white athlete from a prestigious school)--and he's actually guilty--so they're making the most of it.
They are using this case to, once again, put masculinity itself on trial and to reduce young men as a class to vile caricature. They are saying that Mr. Turmer "exemplifies every aspect of white male privilege in America." See here.
In fact, everything about the Brock Turner rape is an aberration--except for the rescue of the victim. The four young men who played roles in rescuing Brock Turner's rape victim are typical of young men living in America in 2016, Brock Turner is not.
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of college rape hysteria?
Mr. Turner got a sentence that seemed far too lenient, and a lot of gender extremists are calling for the judge (who happens to be a well-respected jurist) to be recalled.
Funny, I don't recall ever hearing any of those same angry protesters complain about the undeniable sentencing disparity between male and female perpetrators of sexual assault. When women sexually assault boys, they often get the same sort of slap on the wrist Brock Turner got here. Yet those stories never draw protests or recall petitions, and they don't stay on the front page of Google news for days and days as the Turner case has.
The shrillest voices protesting Brock Turner's sentence are the same ones who continually insist that it's perfectly appropriate for college women to choose not to go to the police when they are raped, but instead report to their schools. We have this anomaly: if Brock Turner's victim had decided to simply report her rape to the college and not the police, and if Mr. Turner had been merely expelled and not incarcerated--thus allowing him to rape more women off-campus--the shrill voices complaining about the sentence would be perfectly happy. Go figure.
The sexual grievance cartel has its poster boy, and it's my guess we're going to be hearing nothing except "Brock Turner" from now on.
The poor, hapless cartel has had to resign itself in recent years to taking untold tax and tuition dollars while touting made-up sexual assaults to "prove" a rape culture that doesn't really exist. We've chronicled numerous such efforts on this site. Now, finally, they have a young man that fits the preferred narrative (a white athlete from a prestigious school)--and he's actually guilty--so they're making the most of it.
They are using this case to, once again, put masculinity itself on trial and to reduce young men as a class to vile caricature. They are saying that Mr. Turmer "exemplifies every aspect of white male privilege in America." See here.
In fact, everything about the Brock Turner rape is an aberration--except for the rescue of the victim. The four young men who played roles in rescuing Brock Turner's rape victim are typical of young men living in America in 2016, Brock Turner is not.
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of college rape hysteria?
Mr. Turner got a sentence that seemed far too lenient, and a lot of gender extremists are calling for the judge (who happens to be a well-respected jurist) to be recalled.
Funny, I don't recall ever hearing any of those same angry protesters complain about the undeniable sentencing disparity between male and female perpetrators of sexual assault. When women sexually assault boys, they often get the same sort of slap on the wrist Brock Turner got here. Yet those stories never draw protests or recall petitions, and they don't stay on the front page of Google news for days and days as the Turner case has.
The shrillest voices protesting Brock Turner's sentence are the same ones who continually insist that it's perfectly appropriate for college women to choose not to go to the police when they are raped, but instead report to their schools. We have this anomaly: if Brock Turner's victim had decided to simply report her rape to the college and not the police, and if Mr. Turner had been merely expelled and not incarcerated--thus allowing him to rape more women off-campus--the shrill voices complaining about the sentence would be perfectly happy. Go figure.
The sexual grievance cartel has its poster boy, and it's my guess we're going to be hearing nothing except "Brock Turner" from now on.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Hillary Clinton smiles and laughs when she announces men accused of rape should be deemed guilty until proven innocent
In the YouTube clip below, Hillary Clinton clearly, plainly, unambiguously said that in a case of alleged rape, the default position should be to believe one side (who happens to be the accuser) "until they are disbelieved based on evidence." The competing "evidence" will almost always need to be proffered by the accused, or by someone supporting the accused's position. And she didn't say just any evidence will do--the evidence has to be sufficient so that we actually disbelieve her story. Hillary Clinton buys into the notion that a man accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. That represents a monumental sea change in the way we think about criminal offenses. As you watch the clip below, you need to understand why it is so awful.
Shifting the burden of proving consent in rape cases is an idea long pushed by extremist victims' advocates. We've been warning about it at COTWA for years. Colleges have started mandating it on their own in the past couple of years, and some states are now legally requiring colleges to shift the burden of proof. It is an articulation of the worst kind of radical feminist thought. We think it will be ruled unconstitutional when it is finally challenged.
Linda Brookover Bourque's "Defining Rape" said in 1989 that the ultimate objective of rape reform--the ultimate objective--is shifting the burden of proof from "the victim" to "the offender."
Mainstream feminist extremist Jessica Valenti advocates that America look to Swedish law as its legislative model for rape, and "activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it."
Serious feminist scholars have written extensively on the subject in an effort to change the law. Criminal law professor and feminist Michele Alexandre would make the sex act a presumed crime whenever a woman cries rape. See M. Alexandre, "‘Girls Gone Wild’ and Rape Law: Revising the Contractual Concept of Consent & Ensuring an Unbiased Application of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ When the Victim is Non-Traditional," 17 American Univ. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 1, 41, 55-56 (2009). In "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice" (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department, not only refused to pay lip service to insuring that the innocent aren't punished with the guilty, she goes so far as to declare that men accused of rape are "overprotect[ed]." She writes: "It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied." Prof. Caringella advocates a shift in the burden of proof by enacting affirmative consent laws. Two years ago, the Washington Supreme Court reversed some very bad law that put the burden of proving consent in rape cases on the accused.
Hillary Clinton has tapped into an idea espoused by radical feminists, and it is a very dangerous thing. The Obama administration has manifested blatant hostility to the due process rights of men accused of rape--a hostility that goes far beyond what any previous administration has manifested (if you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the issue since April 2011 when the "Dear Colleague" letter was promulgated)--and Clinton's attitude clearly suggests the hostility and the witch hunts will continue. At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right . . . to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be . . . believed, and supported.”
Every woman who claims she was raped has the right to be treated with respect and to be taken seriously. She should not be disbelieved, but it needs to be her burden (or the state's or the school's) to prove that the man she accused is guilty.
Shifting the burden of proving consent in rape cases is an idea long pushed by extremist victims' advocates. We've been warning about it at COTWA for years. Colleges have started mandating it on their own in the past couple of years, and some states are now legally requiring colleges to shift the burden of proof. It is an articulation of the worst kind of radical feminist thought. We think it will be ruled unconstitutional when it is finally challenged.
Linda Brookover Bourque's "Defining Rape" said in 1989 that the ultimate objective of rape reform--the ultimate objective--is shifting the burden of proof from "the victim" to "the offender."
Mainstream feminist extremist Jessica Valenti advocates that America look to Swedish law as its legislative model for rape, and "activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it."
Serious feminist scholars have written extensively on the subject in an effort to change the law. Criminal law professor and feminist Michele Alexandre would make the sex act a presumed crime whenever a woman cries rape. See M. Alexandre, "‘Girls Gone Wild’ and Rape Law: Revising the Contractual Concept of Consent & Ensuring an Unbiased Application of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ When the Victim is Non-Traditional," 17 American Univ. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 1, 41, 55-56 (2009). In "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice" (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department, not only refused to pay lip service to insuring that the innocent aren't punished with the guilty, she goes so far as to declare that men accused of rape are "overprotect[ed]." She writes: "It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied." Prof. Caringella advocates a shift in the burden of proof by enacting affirmative consent laws. Two years ago, the Washington Supreme Court reversed some very bad law that put the burden of proving consent in rape cases on the accused.
Hillary Clinton has tapped into an idea espoused by radical feminists, and it is a very dangerous thing. The Obama administration has manifested blatant hostility to the due process rights of men accused of rape--a hostility that goes far beyond what any previous administration has manifested (if you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the issue since April 2011 when the "Dear Colleague" letter was promulgated)--and Clinton's attitude clearly suggests the hostility and the witch hunts will continue. At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right . . . to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be . . . believed, and supported.”
Every woman who claims she was raped has the right to be treated with respect and to be taken seriously. She should not be disbelieved, but it needs to be her burden (or the state's or the school's) to prove that the man she accused is guilty.
Another 'study' supposedly proves most male college athletes are rapists
It is tiresome beyond measure.
The extremists in the sexual grievance cartel are intent on painting young men as monsters and insisting that an entire gender needs reprogramming. They've been doing this for years. I've been refuting it for years, and I've had enough of them.
One of their latest "studies" supposedly proves that more than half of male college athletes are rapists . . . because they nag for sex. Yes, that's right--these young men "insist" their partners have sex but don't force them to do so. That's "rape," don't you know.
Ashe Schow has written about it here--it's called "sexual coercion," and we've written about it extensively here--read this and you'll understand the issue. I challenge one of the "researchers" behind this cockamamie study to address what I wrote here. Seriously. I wrote that article linked years ago and no one has ever challenged the arguments.
I could repeat all the reasons why "sexual coercion" is not rape--but I've come to conclusion that the "all men are rapist" arguments aren't worthy of serious refutation.
The purveyors of the college rape epidemic are sick, and they are nuts. They should not be welcomed in polite society. We must keep our sons away from them. It's time for all people of goodwill to insist they be fired from their cushy university jobs and that they have no voice in the public square on this or any other issue.
The extremists in the sexual grievance cartel are intent on painting young men as monsters and insisting that an entire gender needs reprogramming. They've been doing this for years. I've been refuting it for years, and I've had enough of them.
One of their latest "studies" supposedly proves that more than half of male college athletes are rapists . . . because they nag for sex. Yes, that's right--these young men "insist" their partners have sex but don't force them to do so. That's "rape," don't you know.
Ashe Schow has written about it here--it's called "sexual coercion," and we've written about it extensively here--read this and you'll understand the issue. I challenge one of the "researchers" behind this cockamamie study to address what I wrote here. Seriously. I wrote that article linked years ago and no one has ever challenged the arguments.
I could repeat all the reasons why "sexual coercion" is not rape--but I've come to conclusion that the "all men are rapist" arguments aren't worthy of serious refutation.
The purveyors of the college rape epidemic are sick, and they are nuts. They should not be welcomed in polite society. We must keep our sons away from them. It's time for all people of goodwill to insist they be fired from their cushy university jobs and that they have no voice in the public square on this or any other issue.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
If Trump's comments were bigoted, this feminist law prof's comment were worse
Donald Trump has been widely condemned across the political spectrum for calling on a judge of Mexican heritage to recuse himself in a case involving Trump. A lot of people are outraged that Trump seems to assume that a judge isn't being fair to Trump because of the judge's race.
So why is there no criticism of a feminist law professor for saying something even more outrageous, even more offensive?
Because the feminist professor's comment was directed at men, and the mainstream media thinks that sort of outrage is justified.
Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber is upset over what she perceives to be the light sentence imposed on a former Stanford athlete convicted of sexual assault. Dauber made the following comment: "We need judges who understand violence against women. Judge Persky does not. He should be replaced. Hopefully a qualified woman will replace him."
While Donald Trump suggested that a judge isn't being fair because of his race, Professor Dauber suggested not only that a judge isn't being fair because of his gender, but that a male judge is incapable of being fair in sexual assault cases because of his gender.
Dauber has out-trumped Trump for bigotry, stupidity, and nastiness. Her comment is related by NPR as if there was nothing wrong with it. When gender progressives say nasty things about men, they are never challenged by outlets like NPR.
The suggestion that men, as a class, can't fairly adjudicate sexual assault cases against women is outrageous, of course. It's also emblematic of a sort of stereotypical "man-hating" that has given feminists a black eye among wide swaths of the American populace. My guess is that Dauber's idiotic comment plays well in the radical feminist echo chamber--sadly, that includes NPR and like-minded progressive media outlets. Here in the real world, it's offensive.
Dauber is also on record warning about young men who seek legal redress for false rape claims against them. You see, there are "victims" and there are "victims." A man victimized by a false rape claim needs to work harder than other victims to prove he deserves redress for the wrong done to him. Nice, Michele.
Dauber also has opposed the rights of persons accused of sexual assault to cross-examine their accusers. Here is a quote attributed to her: "Having the 18-year-old rape victim be cross-examined by the guy who raped her? That's just wrong, wrong, wrong."
That comment, of course, assumes that a man accused of rape is a rapist. There is a word for that sort of thinking: prejudice. This sums up the sexual grievance cartel's cardinal belief.
It's time for all persons of goodwill to condemn these sorts of inane and hateful comments. Michele Dauber's extremist views are not to be taken seriously.
So why is there no criticism of a feminist law professor for saying something even more outrageous, even more offensive?
Because the feminist professor's comment was directed at men, and the mainstream media thinks that sort of outrage is justified.
Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber is upset over what she perceives to be the light sentence imposed on a former Stanford athlete convicted of sexual assault. Dauber made the following comment: "We need judges who understand violence against women. Judge Persky does not. He should be replaced. Hopefully a qualified woman will replace him."
While Donald Trump suggested that a judge isn't being fair because of his race, Professor Dauber suggested not only that a judge isn't being fair because of his gender, but that a male judge is incapable of being fair in sexual assault cases because of his gender.
Dauber has out-trumped Trump for bigotry, stupidity, and nastiness. Her comment is related by NPR as if there was nothing wrong with it. When gender progressives say nasty things about men, they are never challenged by outlets like NPR.
The suggestion that men, as a class, can't fairly adjudicate sexual assault cases against women is outrageous, of course. It's also emblematic of a sort of stereotypical "man-hating" that has given feminists a black eye among wide swaths of the American populace. My guess is that Dauber's idiotic comment plays well in the radical feminist echo chamber--sadly, that includes NPR and like-minded progressive media outlets. Here in the real world, it's offensive.
Dauber is also on record warning about young men who seek legal redress for false rape claims against them. You see, there are "victims" and there are "victims." A man victimized by a false rape claim needs to work harder than other victims to prove he deserves redress for the wrong done to him. Nice, Michele.
Dauber also has opposed the rights of persons accused of sexual assault to cross-examine their accusers. Here is a quote attributed to her: "Having the 18-year-old rape victim be cross-examined by the guy who raped her? That's just wrong, wrong, wrong."
That comment, of course, assumes that a man accused of rape is a rapist. There is a word for that sort of thinking: prejudice. This sums up the sexual grievance cartel's cardinal belief.
It's time for all persons of goodwill to condemn these sorts of inane and hateful comments. Michele Dauber's extremist views are not to be taken seriously.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
'It is important to not have debates' about whether there is a college rape epidemic
At UC Santa Barbara, Young Americans for Liberty recently sponsored a talk titled, "Is there a Rape Epidemic?: Rape Hysteria, Due Process, and Free Speech." The sponsors of the event took issue with the college rape epidemic meme, and that one-in-five college women are raped.
On the Facebook event listing for this event, the sponsors explained: "This event was intended to be a panel discussion, with propositions from both sides of the argument. Yet, we have found it incredibly difficult to find anyone who is willing to present the affirmative position — that there is indeed a rape epidemic on college campuses, and that the measures taken by the universities to combat these problems are therefore fair / justified."
The Facebook listing goes on to state the following: "We have contacted every single feminist studies professor at UCSB… but none are willing to present the affirmative position." It then quotes a professor from the school's Feminist Studies Department who purportedly said, “It is important to not have debates.”
Read it again: "It is important to not have debates." That's a line ripped right from the sexual grievance cartel's playbook.
Remember when Sen. Claire McCaskill was asked about the one-in-five stat in light of the DOJ study that shows that the real number isn't 1 in 5, it's 1-in-52 (which means it isn't 20 percent of all college women, it's 1.9 percent)? McCaskill said it was "irritating that anybody would be distracted" by that statistic.
"Irritating."
Aside from all the usual problems with college rape studies that skew the results, by far the biggest is this: the one-in-five statistic assumes that every claim of sexual assault in a college sexual assault survey was an actual sexual assault. That's just silly. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. A bare majority of college women (just 51%) think that it is. So when a college women tells a survey questioner she had sex without her consent, we're supposed to automatically assume she was sexually assaulted without knowing the circumstances? That's laughable, of course.
The fact is, any time sexual assault claims are subjected to scrutiny and competing evidence of innocence (that is, any time claims are objectively investigated), the majority can't be said to be either assaults or non-assaults. While there are relatively few claims that are conclusively false, there are also relatively few claims that are conclusively sexual assault.
The sexual grievance cartel is correct--there should not be any debate about whether there is a college rape epidemic: there isn't. It's irritating when they say there is.
On the Facebook event listing for this event, the sponsors explained: "This event was intended to be a panel discussion, with propositions from both sides of the argument. Yet, we have found it incredibly difficult to find anyone who is willing to present the affirmative position — that there is indeed a rape epidemic on college campuses, and that the measures taken by the universities to combat these problems are therefore fair / justified."
The Facebook listing goes on to state the following: "We have contacted every single feminist studies professor at UCSB… but none are willing to present the affirmative position." It then quotes a professor from the school's Feminist Studies Department who purportedly said, “It is important to not have debates.”
Read it again: "It is important to not have debates." That's a line ripped right from the sexual grievance cartel's playbook.
Remember when Sen. Claire McCaskill was asked about the one-in-five stat in light of the DOJ study that shows that the real number isn't 1 in 5, it's 1-in-52 (which means it isn't 20 percent of all college women, it's 1.9 percent)? McCaskill said it was "irritating that anybody would be distracted" by that statistic.
"Irritating."
Aside from all the usual problems with college rape studies that skew the results, by far the biggest is this: the one-in-five statistic assumes that every claim of sexual assault in a college sexual assault survey was an actual sexual assault. That's just silly. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. A bare majority of college women (just 51%) think that it is. So when a college women tells a survey questioner she had sex without her consent, we're supposed to automatically assume she was sexually assaulted without knowing the circumstances? That's laughable, of course.
The fact is, any time sexual assault claims are subjected to scrutiny and competing evidence of innocence (that is, any time claims are objectively investigated), the majority can't be said to be either assaults or non-assaults. While there are relatively few claims that are conclusively false, there are also relatively few claims that are conclusively sexual assault.
The sexual grievance cartel is correct--there should not be any debate about whether there is a college rape epidemic: there isn't. It's irritating when they say there is.
Friday, May 20, 2016
“Pro-Due Process ≠ Pro-Rape.”
"Sexual Assault Rally Prompts Counter-Protest: Organizers Demand Stricter Policies, Opponents Say Not School’s Place"
SOURCE: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2016/05/sexual-assault-rally-prompts-counter-protest
SOURCE: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2016/05/sexual-assault-rally-prompts-counter-protest
About a dozen University of California, Santa Barbara students gathered on the lawn between the Arbor and library on Monday to call for hastened fulfillment of all 13 demands issued to the university administration last year after a 13-hour sit-in in Chancellor Henry Yang’s office. The peaceful demonstration also drew a few counter-protesters with objections to the university’s jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in the first place.
Off-Campus Sen. Alejandra Melgoza and UCSB alumna Lexi Weyrick organized the protest to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the sit-in and remind administrators of their commitment to reforming university policies on sexual assault. A written update by Now UC SB — the movement initiated by Melgoza, Weyrick and alumna Melissa Vasquez prior to the sit-in last year — alleges that administrators have so far “completely ignored” demands calling for immediate suspension of students found responsible for assault by the university court, as well as their immediate removal from housing.
In an interview with The Bottom Line, Melgoza pointed to a persistent lack of resources and diversity within the UCSB Campus Advocacy, Resources and Education (CARE) office and broader administration — another shortcoming the Now UC SB demands sought to address. “I think every single administrator that I’ve met regarding sexual assault has been white,” she said.
The Now UC SB update is an annotated version of a document issued May 11 by the group of administrators tasked with handling the demands. Though the task force has so far held eight public meetings, Melgoza and Weyrick argue that poor advertising has resulted in “limited student involvement and input” on policy adjustments and hiring decisions made over the past year.
The original task force update reports three new hires in the Office of Judicial Affairs and CARE, along with an unspecified number of new female appointments within the UC Police Department. New faculty and staff training programs are highlighted, as well as student resources like a survivor fund and a feedback program for complainants and respondents who undergo judicial proceedings.
One of the most substantive strides for the movement could be a decision from further overhead, though Melgoza and Weyrick are skeptical of the specifics. In January, UC President Janet Napolitano implemented a system-wide policy with a two-year minimum suspension for students found responsible for violating sexual assault policy — “in most cases.” Inquiries by the activists into UCSB’s evidentiary criteria for those cases have reportedly gone unanswered by the administration.
Yang passed through the Arbor about an hour into Monday’s demonstration — which lasted from just after 10 a.m. until around 2 p.m. — and was stopped by Melgoza and Weyrick to hear their complaints. The chancellor “acknowledged that he has not fulfilled the promises of the demands yet,” according to Weyrick, and proceeded to warn the Division of Student Affairs of potential counter-protests in the interest of maintaining civility.
Shortly after Yang’s appearance, three members of UCSB’s Young Americans for Liberty crossed the walkway from where they’d been sitting near the Arbor store to occupy an adjacent portion of the library lawn. Fifth-year history major Andrew Cavarno and fourth-year political science major Jason Garshfield held printed signs disputing the right of universities to adjudicate sexual assault cases, Garshfield’s reading: “Pro-Due Process ≠ Pro-Rape.”
YAL President Dominick DiCesare, a second-year computer science major, told The Bottom Line that the group takes issue with the preponderance of evidence standard used in university courts to determine academic sanctions. The standard requires that 51 percent of the evidence presented to a judicial body favor a complainant’s claim before a ruling is made against the respondent, according to the Legal Information Institute.
DiCesare argued that UCSB’s judicial process undermines the due process owed a defendant in criminal court, where guilt must be proven without a reasonable doubt before conviction.
“Essentially, when we say preponderance of evidence is enough, we’re equivalating rape cases with a common civil case,” DiCesare said. “If anything, we’re diminishing the level of that crime by saying that we don’t require the same amount of evidence.”
DiCesare and Cavarno also disputed the commonly cited statistic that one in five women are sexually assaulted during their college years. The figure dates back to a widely-discussed 2007 study by the National Institute of Justice that has held up in more recent surveys by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation, as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
But Cavarno pointed out that within the same 1,000-student sample polled by the Post and Kaiser, only 38 percent of subjects believed the one-in-five statistic to be true. He and DiCesare emphasized that the disparities in these numbers and lack of consensus among researchers should warrant discussion of both sides.
“All of us agree that rape is an extremely prevalent issue, but it is not by any means an epidemic,” DiCesare said.
Efforts by Melgoza, Vasquez and Weyrick recently won the support of California State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who wrote in a letter to Yang that she hopes to collaborate “to ensure that UCSB is as responsive as possible to the unique needs of students” and believes “their experiences should reflect our action and progress.”
Around noon, the Now UC SB supporters formed a line facing the Arbor walkway, displaying handwritten signs with messages including “We Support Survivors” and — among the more specific — “Since demands have not been met, we will not be silent yet.” Generally vocal in her activism, Melgoza chose to keep things on the quieter side due to the change in campus climate she said she’s seen over the past year as a senator.
“Last year it was easier, I think, to speak out,” she said. “And now with a lot of the hostility, the harassment, the stalking, the online attacks, I feel that it is a lot harder for students to speak out on what their true beliefs are — which is a very interesting paradox, just because a lot of students are encouraging free speech.”
Neither group of demonstrators ventured to interact with the other, though several administrators gathered on the sidelines to ensure things remained civil. Among them was Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Margaret Klawunn, who arrived early in the afternoon to ensure that the groups maintained a respectful distance from each other.
“I want to make sure that everybody has a chance to have their demonstration without infringing on anybody else’s right,” Klawunn told The Bottom Line.
Monday, May 16, 2016
I am having some problems with the way the Grant Neal college rape case is being reported
Colorado State University-Pueblo expelled a male student athlete named Grant Neal for an alleged rape, and there is a lot of outrage about the case on the part of people concerned about the academy's hostility to the due process rights of men accused of sexual assault. The problems with the university's handling of the case have been discussed by other writers, see, e.g., here, and I won't repeat them.
The principal outrage is over the fact that the alleged victim declared the accused did not commit rape, yet a friend of the alleged victim "noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. When she learned the woman had sex with a prominent football player, she surmised her friend had been raped and reported that to university authorities." See here.
The case is being talked about as an absurd example of a university bent on expelling a male student even when the "victim" says she wasn't raped. Megyn Kelly of Fox News reportedly said this: "Tonight, we have the story of two college students who had consensual sex, a third student who decided it was really a case of rape and a campus system of so-called justice that kicked the young man out of school despite the fact that there is no evidence of any crime." One writer asked, "What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?"
I am having some difficulty with this case, and I invite anyone with information about it to write to me to explain what I'm missing: cotwa@rocketmail.com. I have no doubt that there were serious due process infirmities in the way the case was prosecuted, but the blanket assumption that this was consensual sex seems unwarranted.
The woman's conclusory characterization that she wasn't raped should not necessarily be the end of the case. Nor does it means, as Megyn Kelly of Fox News apparently said, there was no evidence of rape. What the pundits seem to gloss over is the following:
Someone can say he did not enter into a contract, but if the facts show the legal elements of a contract were present, there was a contract.
Please understand, I am not suggesting that the woman's account of the alleged incident should be believed (nor am I suggesting she should be disbelieved). This appears to be a classic "he said, she said" case because the accused's account shows the sex was consensual. Add to that the woman's adamant (albeit conclusory) denial that he did anything wrong and the fact that immediately after the "rape," she consented to have sex with her "rapist," and we must wonder, yet again, how the scales tipped in favor of guilt.
But all that goes to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence (there's a big difference in criminal law). Any suggestion that there was no evidence to find this student guilty of rape seems to be incorrect, if the news story quoted above is correct. Again, I invite anyone who knows better to write to me.
The academy's hostility to due process is blatant, chronic, and unjust. The Department of Education is fomenting witch hunts against young men on campus, and its motivating impulse is misandry. Few have written about it more than this blog. But all that should not give us license to ignore evidence in a given case. We ill-serve the community of the wrongly accused when we lose our objectivity.
The principal outrage is over the fact that the alleged victim declared the accused did not commit rape, yet a friend of the alleged victim "noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. When she learned the woman had sex with a prominent football player, she surmised her friend had been raped and reported that to university authorities." See here.
The case is being talked about as an absurd example of a university bent on expelling a male student even when the "victim" says she wasn't raped. Megyn Kelly of Fox News reportedly said this: "Tonight, we have the story of two college students who had consensual sex, a third student who decided it was really a case of rape and a campus system of so-called justice that kicked the young man out of school despite the fact that there is no evidence of any crime." One writer asked, "What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?"
I am having some difficulty with this case, and I invite anyone with information about it to write to me to explain what I'm missing: cotwa@rocketmail.com. I have no doubt that there were serious due process infirmities in the way the case was prosecuted, but the blanket assumption that this was consensual sex seems unwarranted.
The woman's conclusory characterization that she wasn't raped should not necessarily be the end of the case. Nor does it means, as Megyn Kelly of Fox News apparently said, there was no evidence of rape. What the pundits seem to gloss over is the following:
According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”See here. She claims she outright told him "no," but he penetrated anyway. That doesn't sound like an accident or a young couple exploring boundaries. If a woman says she doesn't want to have sex but the man proceeds to penetrate her--if that is what really happened--it is rape. A woman's conclusory characterization that no rape occurred should not override her specific account of the facts of the alleged incident.
. . . .
. . . CSU-Pueblo’s Title IX investigation found the preponderance of evidence substantiated a finding of sexual misconduct on the part of Grant Neal for participating in non-consensual sexual intercourse on Oct. 25 for the moment when he didn’t have a condom on during that sexual encounter. The university suspended Neal from campus, ruling he could not return until the woman graduates.
Someone can say he did not enter into a contract, but if the facts show the legal elements of a contract were present, there was a contract.
Please understand, I am not suggesting that the woman's account of the alleged incident should be believed (nor am I suggesting she should be disbelieved). This appears to be a classic "he said, she said" case because the accused's account shows the sex was consensual. Add to that the woman's adamant (albeit conclusory) denial that he did anything wrong and the fact that immediately after the "rape," she consented to have sex with her "rapist," and we must wonder, yet again, how the scales tipped in favor of guilt.
But all that goes to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence (there's a big difference in criminal law). Any suggestion that there was no evidence to find this student guilty of rape seems to be incorrect, if the news story quoted above is correct. Again, I invite anyone who knows better to write to me.
The academy's hostility to due process is blatant, chronic, and unjust. The Department of Education is fomenting witch hunts against young men on campus, and its motivating impulse is misandry. Few have written about it more than this blog. But all that should not give us license to ignore evidence in a given case. We ill-serve the community of the wrongly accused when we lose our objectivity.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
'Men accused of sex crimes striking back at colleges'
From the Associated Press
After years of complaints that they weren’t taking sexual assault reports seriously, colleges are finally doing so, and finding themselves slammed with lawsuits from men who say they were unfairly suspended or otherwise punished.
The schools are feeling caught in the middle.
“We’re trying to walk the razor’s edge between being more attentive to the issue but still being fair to all our students,” said Dana Scaduto, general counsel at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, who has testified before Congress on the issue.
At least 75 men have sued their schools since 2013, complaining largely of reverse discrimination and unfair disciplinary proceedings. Most were never charged with a crime because the accuser didn’t go to police, or authorities decided there wasn’t enough evidence.
In March, former Yale University basketball player Jack Montague said he planned to sue after he was expelled over a sexual assault allegation, and two University of Oregon basketball players suspended over 2014 rape accusations sued for $10 million each after prosecutors declined to bring charges.
A federal judge in Rhode Island allowed a case to move forward by a Brown University student suspended for 2½ years over a sexual assault accusation.
Two former University of Findlay athletes who were expelled in 2014 are suing the university in U.S. District Court, Toledo, for allegedly conducting a “sham investigation.”
Alphonso Baity, who was a junior basketball guard, and Justin Browning, who was a sophomore football defensive back, were dismissed from the university after they were accused of sexually assaulting a freshman student in a university-owned house on campus in September 2014.
Baity and Browning each said they had consensual sex with the female student. No criminal charges were filed. Each former athlete is apparently seeking more than $75,000 in damages.
The get-tough approach by colleges is attributed largely to a 2011 letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The letter told schools they must promptly investigate allegations of sexual assault and harassment, even if the accuser does not make a complaint to the institution.
It instructed schools to rely on the preponderance-of-evidence standard used in civil cases, instead of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard employed in criminal trials. That means a student can be disciplined if the college finds it more likely than not that an assault occurred.
Schools that do not comply can face an investigation and a cutoff of federal money. As of mid-March, the Office for Civil Rights was conducting 219 such investigations at 173 schools.
Known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” it has been hailed by advocates who say many schools are now moving in the right direction to address campus sexual assaults.
“For a very long time, there was no due process for victims. Victims were told to withdraw from school. Victims were told to take the semester off,” said Colby Bruno of the nonprofit Victim Rights Law Center.
Now, Bruno said, “yes, there are more decisions against perpetrators. Yes, perpetrators are being held accountable. And that is going to bother people.”
Advocates for the accused say that school disciplinary panels are unequipped to handle such serious allegations and that colleges have gone so far to accommodate alleged victims that they are trampling on the rights of the accused.
Under the federal guidance, when a school learns of allegations of sexual assault or harassment, it must take immediate steps to ensure the victim’s learning environment is free of hostility.
The accused can be removed from a class, dorm or campus even before a disciplinary hearing is held so that the accuser does not have to cross paths with her alleged attacker. Disciplinary proceedings can take months, meaning the accused can miss a year of school before the case is decided.
Advocates for both accusers and the accused say college disciplinary processes are often vague and applied inconsistently. Some schools have a single investigator. Others have a panel with faculty members. Some include students. Some allow lawyers, others don’t.
Some critics have said that universities should not be handling such cases at all and that sex crimes should instead be reported to police.
But victims’ advocates and many schools oppose that, saying it would discourage women from coming forward. Also, police investigations can take months, and prosecutions longer, meaning some cases might not be resolved before graduation.
Andrew Miltenberg, who represents the Brown student and close to 100 other male students accused of campus sexual assaults, said schools have become “hyper-aggressive” since the Dear Colleague Letter.
A common thread in his cases, Miltenberg said, is that they had some element of a consensual encounter, in which the two were dating or knew each other. Alcohol is often involved, sometimes a year or more has elapsed, and there are rarely witnesses.
“Part of the problem is they’re redefining what consent means,” he said.
“Now all of that adds up to more cases, more allegations and more hearings, and this is where the schools are in a tough spot and can and should be doing better.”
Such accusations can brand a student for life or put his education on hold for years, Miltenberg said.
“I even have Ivy League students who’ve been suspended who can’t get into a local community college during their suspension,” he said.
Miltenberg represents Paul Nungesser, who sued Columbia University, saying it violated his rights when it allowed fellow student Emma Sulkowicz to obtain class credit for her “Mattress Project,” in which she carried around the mattress on which she said he raped her. Nungesser denied the accusation and was found not responsible by the school disciplinary process.
Nungesser said in his lawsuit that he was branded a “serial rapist” and forced to return to his native Germany because he couldn’t get a job in the United States. A judge this month dismissed the lawsuit but said Nungesser may refile some claims.
Sulkowicz went to police with her allegation against Nungesser, but they did not bring charges. She has said the campus disciplinary process was badly mishandled.
In a 2014 essay in Time magazine titled “My Rapist Is Still on Campus,” she wrote of crying and hyperventilating when she learned he had asked permission to work in the darkroom during a photography class she was taking.
“As long as he’s on campus with me, he can continue to harass me,” she wrote.
Scaduto, of Dickinson College, questioned whether colleges are equipped to handle such matters.
“I don’t want to step away from the issues,” she said, “but I don’t know that we have the training, the skill, the resources to do it in-house anymore.”
In addition to the Dear Colleague Letter, federal legislation tells colleges to take action in response to a report of sexual assault on campus.
At the time the two University of Findlay athletes were expelled, the university said it was following the federal Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which requires allegations involving sexual crimes or domestic violence to be investigated by a panel of four university officials.
These investigators interview witnesses during a hearing and gather evidence. School officials must conduct their review as soon as possible, regardless of any police action, the University of Findlay said. They cannot determine whether police will bring criminal charges.
http://thecourier.com/local-news/2016/05/07/men-accused-of-sex-crimes-striking-back-at-colleges/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)