December 30, 2016

"I served for 8 years on a university sexual misconduct board and at the end of that distressing tour of duty concluded the following..."

"(1) the combination of alcohol abuse by both parties (which is the case in the vast majority of charges), absence of witnesses, and absence of any forensic investigation in the student led process makes the charges almost impossible to prove by any standard of evidence; (2) a very small number of sexual predators can create a lot of misery on a campus (3) peer pressure and buddy systems by both male and female students are probably the best form of prevention; and (4) cases of sexual assault should go straight to the police and courts. Universities aren't equipped to handle these cases and need to stop trying to serve as a parallel justice system. This is not a place for amateur hour."

That's the second-highest-ranked comment on the NYT article: "A Majority Agreed She Was Raped by a Stanford Football Player. That Wasn’t Enough."

"A Majority Agreed" means that 3 members of a panel of 5 found that the male student committed a sexual assault. It "Wasn't Enough" because Stanford required at least 4 out of 5 on the panel to find a preponderance of the evidence against the accused. Preponderance is the lowest standard of evidence, and the panel can include students (as well as faculty and administrators), but the NYT still called this "an uncommonly high bar."

Stanford has changed the procedure to a panel of 3, and now the panel must be unanimous:
“In deciding we wanted well-trained, long-term panelists, it made sense to go to a three-person panel,” said Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford Law professor who is now chairwoman of a sexual assault advisory committee, “and having three people decide something by a preponderance of the evidence seemed to us the appropriate way of deciding whether a life-altering sanction should be imposed on somebody for his or her behavior.”...

Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor... said she doubted that the university’s proceedings complied with Title IX.... “You have to look at the process holistically, and when you see a series of hurdles and roadblocks, this becomes a very unfriendly place, if not one of the most unfriendly in the nation,” said Ms. Dauber, one of five Stanford professors (including Mr. Palumbo-Liu) who wrote an open letter in December 2015 to the provost complaining about the new policy. “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality.”
Those last 2 sentences of Dauber's are — as her use the word "garner" suggests — disingenuous. The accused and the accuser are not in the same position, and the panel isn't voting to pick one of 2 individuals who are vying for the same thing. It's not a question of equality. It's a question fairness — giving enough process to the one who faces a very serious deprivation. 

ADDED: I don't like Dauber's reference to the "victim" and the "respondent." The absence of parallelism shows the strain. Before the outcome is determined, it is emotive and biased to call one person the "victim." Dauber is decorous enough to avoid saying the word that goes with "victim":  "perpetrator." She says "respondent." The word that goes with "respondent" is "complainant."

181 comments:

traditionalguy said...

OMG. The reality is breaking out all around us. The Age Of Trump is causing a Renaissance of reality thinking and expression.

tcrosse said...

John Nance Garner is not available for comment.

Sydney said...

I read somewhere that millennials use pornography at a higher rate than any other generation. Can't remember where I read it, so can't vouch for the accuracy of the claim, but if true, I wonder how much the current climate of fear on campuses has contributed to that trend. Safer to have a relationship only with oneself than to trust another person.

William said...

"You have to look at the process holistically." That's the kind of phrase that lets you know a a whole dump truck of horseshit is about to be dumped on your front lawn.

Ann Althouse said...

"The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality.”

The use of the word "victim" is also a tell. It takes sides.

Note the lack of parallelism in "victim... respondent." I changed the words to "accuser" and "accused." It's interesting that Dauber, while portraying the proceeding as a contest between equally situated persons, avoids using terminology that puts them on sides that correspond to each other.

If she did go with my terminology, however, it would highlight the need to be fair to the person facing a deprivation.

MayBee said...

I hope this terrifies Jo Piazza on behalf of her son.

Ann Althouse said...

The Stanford policy refers to the 2 individuals as the "Complainant" and the "Responding Party."

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapter-1/subchapter-7/policy-1-7-3

Hunter said...

Surprising in hindsight that she used the word "respondent" instead of the word "offender."

bagoh20 said...

It has been a hard road - incredibly hard - but I think I'm losing my attraction to young women. The new batch appears simultaneously both prudish and casual about sex to the point where it seems in my imagination (where they have lived exclusively for decades) that sex would be both unrewarding and dangerous, and not in the old-fashioned good way. Like petting a hungry yet disinterested bear. You wish they had more passion, but not in the way they are likely to express it.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's some helpful material from the Stanford policy:

1. Some simple steps to becoming an Active Bystander:

Notice the situation: Be aware of your surroundings.
Interpret it as a problem: Do I recognize that someone needs help?
Feel responsible to act: See yourself as being part of the solution to help.
Know what to do: Educate yourself on what to do.
Intervene safely: Take action but be sure to keep yourself safe (see next step).

2. How to Intervene Safely:

Tell another person. Being with others is a good idea when a situation looks dangerous.
Ask person(s) you are worried about if they are okay. Provide options and a listening ear.
Distract or redirect individuals in unsafe situations.
Ask the person(s) if they want to leave. Make sure that they get home safely.
Call the police (911) or someone else in authority or yell for help.

3. What can my friends and I do to be safe?

Take care of each other. Remember these tips when you are out.
Have a plan.
Talk with your friends about your plans BEFORE you go out. Do you feel like drinking? Are you interested in hooking up? Where do you want to go? Having a clear plan ahead of time helps friends look after one another.
Go out together.
Go out as a group and come home as a group; never separate and never leave your friend(s) behind.
Watch out for others.
If you are walking at night with friends and notice a student walking alone in the same direction, ask the person to join you so no one is alone.
Diffuse situations.
If you see a friend coming on too strong to someone who may be too drunk to make a consensual decision, interrupt, distract, or redirect the situation. If you are too embarrassed or shy to speak out, get someone else to step in.
Trust your instincts.
If a situation or person doesn’t seem “right” to you, trust your gut and remove yourself, if possible, from the situation.

rehajm said...

Witch burning did not have an uncommonly high bar.

Ann Althouse said...

I found that section of the policy by searching the page for the word "drinking."

mockturtle said...

“You have to look at the process holistically, and when you see a series of hurdles and roadblocks, this becomes a very unfriendly place, if not one of the most unfriendly in the nation,”

Can anyone imagine a man making such a fatuous statement? She dishonors her sex.

Sally327 said...

The accuser, according to the article, decided to use the university's system "to avoid the trauma of a police investigation." I'm surprised that the University doesn't require a parallel filing with official law enforcement. And I wonder what sort of "trauma" she thought she would experience with the cops that she wouldn't face by complaining only to the university about the alleged rape.

Ken B said...

There's more here that's disingenuous. They talk about the seriousness of a life altering action as a preamble to saying a *low* standard of proof is appropriate.

Birkel said...

The people who represent the institutions that employ them, seemingly, do not care about the institutions they are destroying from the inside.

The call is coming from inside the house.

Humperdink said...

"...while the respondent needs to garner only one (to win)".

The electoral college rears it's ugly head again.

Quayle said...

Except in cases in which the accused comes from a family with a lot of money, the school's resources to investigate and analyze dwarf the student's resources. This disparity between school and student may even approach the imbalance between the state and the average accused citizen in criminal cases, But to the extent it doesn't, that fact further hurts the student because it likely represents and is comprised of the school's lack of resources to fully find and amass all the evidence. That, plus, as I have read, the procedural rules also often tie the hands of the accused by denying full access to potential evidence. So you get this double whammy effect against the accused, of less evidence gathering by the school and less ability for the accused to leverage by discovery on the schools resources and the evidence that was gathered.

It is a tough argument to make that in this imbalance, the just standard of proof should be lower than unanimous and reasonable doubt. No doubt one argument is that the outcome of a school's process is not loss of liberty so the standard needn't be similar to that used in a criminal case. But the effects of being thrown out of school are not trivial in our modern age, and depending on whether other schools will or won't admit the student, they could create a kind of financial bondage which is actually quite severe in effect.

Hunter said...

The word "victim" conveys that we know a crime occurred, but not who did it.

But in these cases, the identity of the man isn't in dispute, by the man or anyone else; the events are in dispute.

So take the certainty of who committed the crime, if one occurred -- plus the certainty that a crime did occur, because we "believe her."

This is enough evidence for 3/5 college administrators to declare someone a rapist.

Fernandinande said...

They went back to her room where, she said, he raped her. He said they had consensual sex.

Hell hath no fury...

EDH said...

"I served for 8 years on a university sexual misconduct board and at the end of that distressing tour of duty..."

Sounds like it could be the introduction to a Johnny Cash song.

Hunter said...

Humperdink said...
"...while the respondent needs to garner only one (to win)".

The electoral college rears it's ugly head again.


What have we come to as a nation when one rapist's vote is worth the same as three rape victims'?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Someone should be teaching these guys that sending flowers the next day is a worthwhile investment.

Martha said...

Maybe young women should acknowledge that sexual intercourse has the potential to affect them in ways they might not anticipate and act accordingly. Inviting a football player you just met into your bedroom after a night of drinking is setting up a situation the young lady may come to regret. The football player will have no such second thoughts—apparently at Stanford even if he is later charged with rape.

Tank said...

William said...

"You have to look at the process holistically." That's the kind of phrase that lets you know a a whole dump truck of horseshit is about to be dumped on your front lawn.


LOL, so true.

Humperdink said...

Humperdink said...
"...while the respondent needs to garner only one (to win)".

The electoral college rears it's ugly head again.

Hunter responded: "What have we come to as a nation when one rapist's vote is worth the same as three rape victims'?"

In PA criminal court, one out of twelve will do it.

Michael K said...

"I wonder what sort of "trauma" she thought she would experience with the cops that she wouldn't face by complaining only to the university about the alleged rape. "

Rape kit, Questions. No bullshit.

mockturtle said...

Martha, that is what I've been saying for years. Many of us while at university have indulged in indiscretions while over-imbibing. Some of us were woman enough to take responsibility.

Amadeus 48 said...

Dauber is trying to focus on the "equality" foundations of Title IX, which were intended to provide equal opportunities for all sexes. That she is trying to push some fuzzy concept of "equality" into the process for determining outcomes shows a certain tunnel-like focus on getting a conviction when there is a complaint. What does she think about criminal juries? The Supreme Court? Dancing with the Stars? If you are going for equality, why not flip a coin to decide the outcome? That'll give you equality.

Dauber is of course the leading advocate for unseating Judge Persky, who sentenced the Stanford swimmer to six months in jail and a life-time as a sex offender, in line with the recommendation of the sentencing report.

If I had Dauber as my law professor, I'd want my money back. Advocacy is cheap. Thoughtful questioning, as Socrates showed, is dear.

The Drill SGT said...

Mike K

exactly

MayBee said...

I'm beginning to hate the word "holistic"

sojerofgod said...

No, No, No, and furthermore, NO! A university has no business adjudicating claims of sexual assault among students. Full Stop. All of these kangaroo courts should be abolished, and if a student is assaulted by another, they should go to the police. I don't care if the vote has to be unanimous. This is not a beauty contest. Fair left the building from the moment the school decided it would set up a quasi legal system to punish disfavored classes of students.
At the very most, the school should have the authority to discipline the student AFTER they are convicted of a crime in the courts of law.
The rest of this is pure BS.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"“The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality."

Geez Lousie! These are our intellectuals, people, the ones who are supposed to think for a living.
Might there be any reason for such an inequality, ma'am? Might the presumption of innocence itself be a form of inequality--one that I'd hope we all agree is GOOD? Might the structural difference in the process itself along with the differing agencies embodied and expressed by the different parties necessitate unequal treatment? That is, the accuser makes the choice to bring the accusation and has the ability, under the system, to do so. The person accused has no choice in that matter--they can only defend themselves from the accusation. That's an inequality, especially when the nature of these cases is such that I'd bet most of the "evidence" available is simply the statements of the different parties.

But no, this deep thinker looks at the facts and says "one party needs 3, one party needs 1, 3 is more than one, so that's a basic inequality (and inequality is a bad thing)." The unstated argument, of course, is that the accuser is assumed to be a woman (and the accused assumed to be a man) so this particular basic inequality is against women...and of course that's unacceptable. Yeah, Dauber's an Ivy League law professor, so you are supposed to listen to her well-reasoned arguments on these topics.

Mike Sylwester said...

Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor... said ... “You have to look at the process holistically, and when you see a series of hurdles and roadblocks, this becomes a very unfriendly place, if not one of the most unfriendly in the nation,”

This is what happens when a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a Stanford law professor.

traditionalguy said...

A man that " garners them by the pussy" should be at least facing a misdemeanor. That conduct could lead to love and marriage. Then what will the Lesbians-in-Charge do after the prettiest women are taken by dumb men.

MayBee said...

"Tell another person. Being with others is a good idea when a situation looks dangerous."

*dangerous* is a pretty tough threshold.

Ken B said...

A simple solution is to make single party (even undisclosed) recordings legal in all circumstances. Anyone on campus should record any sex, or indeed any time alone, with another student.

MayBee said...

Also, doesn't it seem like people who espouse opinions like Michele Dauber's often secretly like rough sex?

Is anyone watching The Affair this season?

Skipper said...

How did colleges become autonomous city-states with its own law enforcement and judicial systems, such as they are? Here I thought they were businesses selling educational classes, not semi-sovereign jurisdictions selling 4 year spa/resort experiences.

MayBee said...

A simple solution is to make single party (even undisclosed) recordings legal in all circumstances

Oh, but when some Minnesota football players did this, many commenters here found that repulsive. Even though it got them off rape charges.

Lucien said...

If the rules allow the accused's name to become public,but not the accuser's, then why quibble over terms like "victim" vs. "respondent"? The system is unfair from the start.

Does Stanford allow for an outcome where each party can successfully accuse the other of sexual assault? Would that provide a "rape shield" for the identities of the two accusers -- or allow disclosure of the names of both accused parties?

CWJ said...

"You have to look at the process holistically."

That, along with nuance. Things are never as they appear. They either have to be put into a context so vast that they are lost, or deconstructed to the point that they are no longer recognizable. One is then free to insert whatever it is they wanted to claim in the first place.

bagoh20 said...

If I went to college, which I would not in today's climate (bad use of capital), I would tell everyone that I was born without a penis, and travel to a distant city for my romantic adventures.

When I was in college in the 70's we would hitch hike to distant campuses for fun and debauchery, both men and women would do this with little reservation. Nobody ever had a bad experience with rides, but we met the strangest people. I think our buddy system of 3-person teams was the secret. The people who would pick up 3 hippies along the road were the most eccentric possible, and always provided great entertainment.

Sex, both on campus and off, was easy, friendly, and never involved accusations. It was understood by all parties that if you got too buzzed, you would probably do things you normally wouldn't, including sleep with people you normally would not - sometimes to the great satisfaction of the one punching above their level (both men and women). Nobody felt compelled to blame anyone. If you regretted it, it was considered just another mistake with blame applied with humor to both sexes equally. This may have been the true golden age and pinnacle of equality of the sexes, at least sexually. The pendulum has now swung past center to again being oppressive and one-sided. I'm still friends with many of those women after all these years, with the casual sex - often only happening once - being a memory we cherish as the fun and adventurism of being young in an exceptionally free time. I even absorbed some science and philosophy during the slower periods.

tcrosse said...

I'm beginning to hate the word "holistic"

It's the short form of assholistic

The Drill SGT said...

Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor... said she doubted that the university’s proceedings complied with Title IX...

I'm very disappointed that Althouse seems to have given some professional courtesy to what I consider to be an outrageous statement by someone who knows better.

1. Title IX doesn't say anything about sexual assault or proceedings, or whatever. Congress said:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The entire focus is on the School not discriminating...IN SPORTS.

2. There is almost nothing in the history of the implementing regulations that can be construed to apply to anything beyond sports or financial aid, from the mid 70's on.

3. it isn't till 2011 that ED's OCR issued the "Dear Colleague letter, which has no legal basis as an implementing regulation, but demands compliance none the less:

"The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime

Any "proceedings" can't possibly comply with Title IX, because nothing in Title IX or the implementing regulations talks about proceedings or crimes or sexual assault. The whole edifice of these Star Chamber proceedings is build on shifting sands.

EDH said...

"You have to look at the process holistically."

The word "holistically," especially in this context, objectifies women or is unfair to the male perspective -- or both.

Why isn't the word spelled "wholistically" anyway?

Mike Sylwester said...

Title IX coordinators enhance their careers by producing large numbers of cases and convictions.

And they hinder their careers by producing small numbers.

sojerofgod said...

I only skimmed over that list of suggestions posted from the 'Drinking' page, but it was obvious that is was just a recap of what momma used to tell her teenage girls before they went out and was just "common sense"
It is sad that this wasn't taught to them by their parents.
Their no good, worthless, self absorbed, pop-culture infected parents.

Biff said...

"peer pressure and buddy systems by both male and female students are probably the best form of prevention"

It's almost as if there were some tiny, tiny amount of merit to those old, oppressive, fuddy-duddy approaches to dating that were common before the "don't you judge me!" era.

Laslo Spatula said...

It's never too late to say "No" in the morning.

Retroactive "No"s should be just as good as timely ones.

Plus, the Retroactive No can come after the person is sobered up.

I am Laslo.

Mark said...

“and having . . . people decide something by a preponderance of the evidence seemed to us the appropriate way of deciding whether a life-altering sanction should be imposed on somebody for his or her behavior."

That in itself should be grounds for disbarment, but it is not as bad as the other who complains of basic due process as being "a series of hurdles and roadblocks."

Either way, neither should be allowed anywhere near a law school - unless perhaps it is a "law" school in North Korea or communist China or the Soviet Union.

Darrell said...

The panel should be required to wear special hats or something to make this whole process seem more legitimate.

Mark said...

There should be also a complete purge of our universities of all the radical, anti-reason, anti-intellectual progressives who invest the school administrations and faculties.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Scary.

Quayle said...

Perhaps there is another way.

I would note that Brigham Young University has ridden the sexual revolution and this consequential blow-back mess and new necessary restraints, with the same simple related policies:

1. Don't drink
2. Don't have sex unless you are married.

Burden to the students? Perhaps.

Burden shared equal by both sexes? Hard to argue not.

Safe space for women? Safest, I think we'd find.

Burden shared among all, with lowering of probability that certain individual lives are destroyed (be they accuser or accused) for the "benefits" enjoyed by others? Certainly.


But this is for many a rethink of religion and religion motivated behavior.
Maybe what have been called "commandments" are simply concise forms of efficient problem-avoiding policy with the most equity and equitable burden and benefit sharing of all other alternatives.

For example:
As a Mormon do I personally think that drinking alcohol is imbibing in the "daemon liquor" and that a beer is evil? No. Moderation in all things. The Mormon proscription is given in consideration of the evil that exists or will exist in the hearts of men in these last days, making it apparently a temporal proscription to our times.

Do I think that in our modern time an absolute vow of avoidance represents a root cause solution to tons of problems by which one could be plagued? I do.

Is the lack of benefit worth the problems avoided? Each will have to decide themselves, but to me, I always feel good that the recovered or recovering alcoholic at a party isn't the only one not drinking, and I take a lot of joy in being able to stand in solidarity with them as not being the only one not drinking.

Again, burden shared, maybe.

Mike Sylwester said...

it isn't till 2011 that ED's OCR issued the "Dear Colleague letter, which has no legal basis as an implementing regulation

The Obama Administration used the "Dear Colleague" letter to communicate a threat to cut off federal funding. By this method, the Obama Administration commandeered all universities to establish kangaroo-court proceedings whenever coeds complained of sexual assaults.

Mark said...

This is yet another example of an increasing list of reasons why people voted for Donald Trump -- or more specifically, voted to throw out and keep away from government the radical progressives who have implemented decrees mandating that such twisted travesties of justice take place.

Bob said...

“The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality.”

It is terrifying that someone who thinks this is teaching law anywhere in the English-speaking world.

bagoh20 said...

Women are the arbiters of what constitutes "sexual misconduct", and men have been trying to get equality on the subject forever. Occasionally we get a momentary taste of the power when a woman gets a reputation for being bad at it, but that is extremely rare, becuase men have very low, but reasonable, standards. Women, by their very nature, have unreasonable standards, which they often ignore and them blame men for the infraction. We usually don't see what we did wrong before, during, or after, but women are more than happy to tell us how we failed to meet their standards which were poorly published or entirely invisible at the time. Now some are codifying them for all, with an extreme prudishness in the sober, boring, and lifeless mood they inhabit at times far removed from the fun and passion that makes for a truly lived and memorable life.

bagoh20 said...

Moderation and self-control are sorely missing in the regulating and criminalizing of our lives.

Bob Boyd said...

I forget which one of the Saints said, "God save me from ever being at the mercy of someone with both a big head and a big butt."

bagoh20 said...

I love Fridays! I hope that doesn't offend anyone. I had a boss once who strongly objected when his employees would say things like "Thank God it's Friday." At my company we celebrate it with vigor. Yea, Friday! Wooohoooooo!

Mark said...

I forget which one of the Saints said, "God save me from ever being at the mercy of someone with both a big head and a big butt."

Archie Manning?

tcrosse said...

I forget which one of the Saints said, "God save me from ever being at the mercy of someone with both a big head and a big butt."
Thomas Aquinas.

JAORE said...

"... fair to the person facing a deprivation."

At least you recognize there is a deprivation. I have been horrified at comments (elsewhere) that, in effect, said no harm, no foul about the effects on the male.

I wonder if males began taking complaints to the Title IX center if this would play out as well. Say a woman who has said, "Yes" in the past, now says, "No", could the man suddenly realize he was abused/assaulted?

Assuming a statistically large enough number of such cases I suspect the Title IX process would be shown to be far from equal in outcome. I also suspect the process would be changed quickly.

FullMoon said...

Any women convicted and expelled under this system?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The college administrators of the 1950s handled this sort of thing by expelling one or both parties. Consent? No defense. Drunk hookup? Even worse. No college today is going to prohibit all consensual sex or even drunk hookups. It wouldn't look good in the brochure. And isn't that really the problem? The new puritanical impulse is running up against an idea of college life that in a short time has become very deeply seated.

One can imagine more honest policies that punish for misconduct that doesn't rise to the level of a crime. Now, the drunk hookup turned bad has to fit the definition of rape or the college administrators aren't going to do anything. And the dishonest response seems to be, let's shoehorn more into those definitions.

David said...

Wow. You have this right.

Those last 2 sentences of Dauber's are — as her use the word "garner" suggests — disingenuous. The accused and the accuser are not in the same position, and the panel isn't voting to pick one of 2 individuals who are vying for the same thing. It's not a question of equality. It's a question fairness — giving enough process to the one who faces a very serious deprivation.

And just who are going to choose (or be) the "long term, well trained" panelists? The Daubers of the world are going to have a big hand in it. Those panelists will have immense power. It is very likely some or all will be chosen from an already indoctrinated group who have difficulty maintaining or even trying to maintain, objectivity. Even if they are not intrinsically biased, the panelists will likely have other duties, and therefore other personal interests, at the university. Therefore they will have to weigh, and try to ignore, the impact their decisions has on their careers and social status. Unless they are superhuman, they will have trouble setting aside these personal pressures.

This is why our judicial system does not operate with juries of "experts." A jury of one's peers acts as a check on the "experts." But this check disappears if the jury pool is intellectually contaminated or subject to "mob" pressure. (Think juries in race related crimes in the segregated pre civil rights south.) Sadly there are strong indications that aspects of 1930's Mississippi operate in academia today (strongly encouraged by an agency of the federal government.) Due process is seen as an impediment to the desired result. And without the due process in jury selection we see in courts (if judges are diligent and accused are decently represented) juries can easily carry the bias.

All of this (and more) leads me to the reluctant conclusion that the broader (may I say more "diverse?") judicial system of the local government will bring more fairness and better results. In cases where serious (and what is serious?) physical violation is alleged, have the judicial system be the mechanism. Universities can continue to process thought crimes and harassment cases by their internal procedures. They don't handle these very well either, it seems. They will probably tire of mishandling them and being punished in the marketplace (and sometimes the courts) for doing so.

This is not a perfect solution. The schools would not allow an indicted murderer to remain active on staff or as a student. It would suspend them. They need the same discretion for rapists, which opens up the whole process again. A huge tangle of issues, all fact, degree of harm and fairness related. But given their poor track record and the intrinsic institutional limitations, universities need to step back from being the prime adjudicator in matters of serious crime.








David said...

I agree with Left Bank. Culture run amok, in conflict with itself.

Bonkti said...

While the NYT headline reads "A Majority Agreed She Was Raped...", the reality is that a majority thought it was more likely--however slightly-- than not.

The victim/complainant distinction is a crucial first step toward fairness. If the preponderance of evidence standard is enough to define a binary of guilty/innocent, does it not also define one of rightly accused/wrongly accused?

Add equal punishments independent of outcome and then we might have a more genuine equality. But I suspect Professor Dauber might be inclined to pursue protections for the complainant.

buwaya said...

Witch burning had an uncommonly high bar with the Spanish Inquisition, as it was fun by professionals and had very strict standards of process and proof, as well as internal checks and audits. The general opinion of the Inquisition, and of the Catholic Church as a whole, was that accusations of witchcraft were almost always due to popular hysteria.
It was the duty of the Inquisitors to keep a cool head, and to help others cool off through meticulous application of the legal process.
And even upon conviction nearly all witches (and heretics) were let off after confession and repentance.
It was almost always local secular courts and rulers that went mad for witch burning, and for that matter most other sorts of popular madness, such as anti-Semitic pogroms. The Inquisition sentenced to death several orders of magnitude fewer victims than the Protestant polities. It seems that the 16th-17th century witch madness was just one symptom of the disappearance of cultural discipline, of disorder after the Catholic church was overthrown.
For American universities, I suggest that if the sensible idea of dropping in loco parentis is too much, they should deputies these matters to religious authorities, such as Catholics and Muslims. I think the Muslims would do a tremendous job on this question actually.

Bob Boyd said...

Honest question for the lawyers here:

Would being a Women's Studies professor disqualify one from sitting on a jury in a sexual assault or rape trial?

How about a Law professor?

buwaya said...

Witch burning had an uncommonly high bar with the Spanish Inquisition, as it was fun by professionals and had very strict standards of process and proof, as well as internal checks and audits. The general opinion of the Inquisition, and of the Catholic Church as a whole, was that accusations of witchcraft were almost always due to popular hysteria.
It was the duty of the Inquisitors to keep a cool head, and to help others cool off through meticulous application of the legal process.
And even upon conviction nearly all witches (and heretics) were let off after confession and repentance.
It was almost always local secular courts and rulers that went mad for witch burning, and for that matter most other sorts of popular madness, such as anti-Semitic pogroms. The Inquisition sentenced to death several orders of magnitude fewer victims than the Protestant polities. It seems that the 16th-17th century witch madness was just one symptom of the disappearance of cultural discipline, of disorder after the Catholic church was overthrown.
For American universities, I suggest that if the sensible idea of dropping in loco parentis is too much, they should deputies these matters to religious authorities, such as Catholics and Muslims. I think the Muslims would do a tremendous job on this question actually.

Sebastian said...

"It's not a question of equality. It's a question fairness — giving enough process to the one who faces a very serious deprivation." You are so nice sometimes. But no: after half a century of "feminism," equality trumps fairness, since fairness obviously is just a cover for white male privilege.

Bruce Hayden said...

Would being a Women's Studies professor disqualify one from sitting on a jury in a sexual assault or rape trial?

How about a Law professor?


I think that if I were the attorney representing the defendant, I would try to bounce both, first for cause, and then with a peremptory challenge. But lawyers are routinely bounced from criminal juries anyway, and law professors are, or typically have been, attorneys. I know that you don't want me on most any criminal jury, esp. since I am typically a lot more suspicious about police lying on the stand than most. Plus, of course, the jury nullification thing.

The Drill SGT said...

buwaya said...
I suggest that if the sensible idea of dropping in loco parentis is too much, they should deputies these matters to religious authorities, such as Catholics and Muslims. I think the Muslims would do a tremendous job on this question actually.


Well the part about no rape conviction unless there are 4 male witnesses will please a lot of football teams...

maybe there is a middle ground, like letting ah, the Police handle it...

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

I wonder if these accused could sue under the Sixth Amendment, demanding a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury.

Bruce Hayden said...

I was bothered by the fact that the NYT so credulously accepted the side of the feminists here, as well as the testimony of the "victim". If the guy had actually raped her, then the police would be the ones to investigate. But, instead, knowing that they couldn't get a criminal conviction, they settled for a kangaroo court, which, unfortunately for her, didn't do its perceived duty of penalizing the guy for doing what most guys would have expected to have done, having gone back to her room with her, after both getting drunk.

As David (I think) pointed out, most of those who get themselves trained enough to be expert enough in this area to sit on the school's newly formed panels are likely suspect from the start, which is why unanimity is important. The types of people interested (outside the administrators, whose jobs depend on this sort of witch hunts) in going through the training are also very typically, I think, the same people most likely to vote "guilty". Feminists, Gender Studies majors (and profs), etc.

And, why should the standard be so low? Most often, it seems, the woman voluntarily put herself in a vulnerable position (e.g. getting drunk and taking the guy back to her room), and, yet, the downside is almost entirely on him. He is the one who is going to get expelled if found responsible. She just has to deal with what women, who have made stupid decisions, have had to, over history, Imagine being expelled from Stanford in one's senior year, over a single night of drunken sex that the woman later regretted. 3+ years of school down the drain, hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, and unlikely to be admitted to a school of anything close to the same caliber. Maybe junior college, but likely no major state or prestigious private school. The risks are not equal here, nowhere close, which is why the schools need to make it at least a little hard to expel guys who were doing what comes naturally.

Earnest Prole said...

Concern about the danger of false allegations appears in the first human laws, the Ten Commandments. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and jury unanimity were, until recently, considered essential standards of humane justice. To Kill a Mockingbird taught generations that accusations of sexual assault must be approached with the greatest care. Now this accumulated cultural wisdom has been swept aside by higher-education bureaucrats.

rcocean said...

This problem arises because people want two things:

1) They don't like that 'consent' gets a little fuzzy when you have young men and women engaging in drunken sex.

2) But they don't want to rule out drinking or pre-martial sex because that would mean they're against "fun" - or are "prudes."

So, they come up with these "star chambers" which are supposed to square the circle and if a few "innocent" men get their lives ruined, that's OK.

campy said...

Would being a Women's Studies professor disqualify one from sitting on a jury in a sexual assault or rape trial?

Since women's studies is by definition a response to pervasive societal sexism, I'd say all jurors should have degrees or at least majors in the discipline.

rcocean said...

Lets assume a hypothetical. A co-ed has a few drinks, then meets a boy and goes to his room. No witnesses. They have sex. Next day, or a week later, the girl lodges a complaint. She says she was raped. Evidence? None, except her word. Boy says consent. Girl says she initially agreed, then changed her mind.

What's the verdict under Stanford system?

mockturtle said...

Buwaya possibly mistyped: Witch burning had an uncommonly high bar with the Spanish Inquisition, as it was fun by professionals and had very strict standards of process and proof, as well as internal checks and audits. [my italics]

OTOH, there may have been some fun derived from torturing and burning.

Mark said...

If a student actually rapes another student, then he should be put in prison, not simply expelled from school and thereby free to go and prey on other women.

The university kangaroo court system is, really, a cover-up of criminality. It ultimately protects the rapist from the full consequences of the evil he committed.

Mark said...

Let's assume another hypothetical:

A Muslim woman lodges a complaint. She says she was walking down the sidewalk when a couple of Trump supporters approached her and demanded that she remove her burka or else they would set it on fire. A boy fitting the description she gave is picked up by the police and he says he's never seen the woman in his life. Evidence? None, except her word.

What's the verdict under the university system?

buwaya said...

The other problem with these systems is that the judges, having professional careers outside the business of judging, are even more vulnerable to career threats as a result of the hysteria over any given case. An unpopular decision can be very risky.

n.n said...

Baby trials.

buwaya said...

Re fun - yes #$%&$% autocorrect which I still have to figure out how to fix on this new device. No, I don't think it was much fun really, as it consisted mainly of masses of paperwork. The torturing and burning was, besides that, carried out by the secular authorities, not the inquisitors.

Mark said...

Let's assume still another hypothetical:

A student at a religiously-run school lodges a complaint that a minister on campus raped her. No witnesses. The school administration does not report the accusation to police but decides to investigate and adjudicate the matter in-house. The school determines the charge is well-founded and removes the minister from his job and the school.

What's the verdict in the progressive universe?

Mark said...

The [religious] school administration does not report the accusation to police but decides to investigate and adjudicate the matter in-house. . . .
What's the verdict?


I'll answer my own question. You all know what the verdict is.

The verdict is to investigate the school and to drag administrators before the grand jury and to charge them all with a cover-up and obstruction of justice and after-the-fact complicity in sexual abuse because they did not report the matter to the police the moment they first learned of the charges.

Amanda said...

I don't the intention was ever to replace the courts. Lots and lots of raped victims don't end up at the emergency room overnight because a factor of reasons.

Ideally a complaint should be brought to the police but not every everyone is feeling safe enough or strong enough or has enough evidence of whatever reason to do that. But a formal police investigate should not be the litmus test and worse of all, currently, the majority of police investigations are not resulting in explosions because they haven't been formally charged, what excuse is next, they haven't been convicted?

If a college student goes to whatever necessary office and says they've been attacked on campus by another student, they should need a minimum of advice to have that student expelled for the safety of other students.


Nothing unfair or witch hunty about that. This is the way codes of conduct should work.

Martha said...

Problem is that what happened in that Stanford dorm room was not rape-rape. The football player was doing what any red blooded heterosexual male would do under the circumstances. I am so old that I remember my mother and and my all female college warning me not to put myself in situations that made me to vulnerable to unwanted sex. Today young women are told their sexual needs and desires are the same as men's. Simply not true.

Bruce Hayden is right:
The risks are not equal here, nowhere close, which is why the schools need to make it at least a little hard to expel guys who were doing what comes naturally.

PB said...

It's pure insanity to use legal standards of guilt for a proceeding that makes a mockery of jurisprudence.

If you can't face/question your accuser, face/question witnesses, have a right to counsel and have that counsel lead your defense, introduce evidence and introduce witnesses for the defense, then to call it anything but a kangeroo court is beyond irresponsible. Furthermore, to have a panel of people who are untrained but constricted by an ideological movement is an insult.

walter said...

"Universities aren't equipped to handle these cases and need to stop trying to serve as a parallel justice system."
Parallel? If these aren't going "straight to the police", it's extra-judicial.

Mark said...

The football player was doing what any red blooded heterosexual male would do under the circumstances. I am so old that I remember my mother and and my all female college warning me . . .

Is that when you developed such a low-regard, contemptuous opinion of men?

Dr Weevil said...

MayBee (9:10): "I'm beginning to hate the word 'holistic'"

tcrosse (9:21): "It's the short form of 'assholistic'"

You're not the first one to think along those lines. Here's a bit of something I blogged 14.5 years ago about something I saw 22 years before that:

"The announcement a few months ago of Berkeley's new 'holistic' admissions policy (meaning disguised racial quotas) reminded me of something I saw on a streetcorner in San Francisco around 1980. Someone had posted a flyer advertising some kind of 'holistic' health-related program. Someone else had come along with a pen, and wherever the flyer said 'holistic', 'holist', or 'holism' (about 20 different places), had very neatly inserted '(ass)' before the word. Ever since then I've been unable to take 'holistic' and its cognates seriously. They are not etymologically related to 'hole', but very often look as if they ought to be, never more so than when used to describe Berkeley's post-colorblind admissions."

Universities and (ass)holism - two flavors that go great together.

mockturtle said...

Mark suggests: The university kangaroo court system is, really, a cover-up of criminality. It ultimately protects the rapist from the full consequences of the evil he committed.

Much like the Catholic Church.

Mark said...

You know mockturtle, I used to admire and agree with much of what you said.

I didn't know that you were really a POS bigot.

Martha said...

Mark commented I think in res-ones to me: Is that when you developed such a low-regard, contemptuous opinion of men?

Wow. Where to begin. I definitely do not have a low-regard or a contemptuaous opinion of men.
Nor have I ever been "raped". And I have three wonderful accomplished and intelligent adult sons have never raped anyone or come close to raping anyone. I think men are absolutely wonderful and essential.

Mike Sylwester said...

Amanda at 11:58 AM

I don't the intention was ever to replace the courts. Lots and lots of raped victims don't end up at the emergency room overnight because a factor of reasons. ... not every everyone is feeling safe enough or strong enough or has enough evidence of whatever reason ... currently, the majority of police investigations are not resulting in explosions because they haven't been formally charged, what excuse is next, they haven't been convicted? ... If a college student goes to whatever necessary office and says they've been attacked on campus by another student, they should need a minimum of advice to have that student expelled for the safety of other students. Nothing unfair or witch hunty about that. This is the way codes of conduct should work.

Amanda demonstrates the potential to become a Stanford University law professor.

Mark said...

I definitely do not have a low-regard or a contemptuaous opinion of men

And yet you say the "football player was doing what any red blooded heterosexual male would do under the circumstances."

No. He was not doing what "any red blooded heterosexual male" would do.

walter said...

Moving forward, Emma Sulkowicz Doesn't Want to Be "Mattress Girl" Anymore

"these days she's exercising that ability to change—even if success is mixed. I.D., her first big performance since Self-Portrait,was held over three nights in late October at Jack, a Brooklyn performance space. The piece started out as a party and Sulkowicz made a point to interact with everyone there. At a specific moment, she says, "the lights came on and the music was still playing, and I assigned certain people to arrange all the chairs in the room as if it were a lecture, and then I gave a lecture while everyone was kind of like, tipsy," a fact Sulkowicz seems to relish. She gave a speech on feminism, referencing Lacan's "mirror stage" (basically, how babies learn about "I" by looking in a mirror) and the novelist Justin Torres's work on gay nightclubs, but she deliberately avoided using the word "feminism" until the last two sentences. "Sorry, it's kind of hard to explain if you weren't there," she concludes. "The vibe felt strange," Artnet's Sarah Cascone reported. "One attendee described it as equal parts awkward middle school party, artistic dick-measuring contest, and general curiosity."

(find the "garner")

JAORE said...

"If a college student goes to whatever necessary office and says they've been attacked on campus by another student, they should need a minimum of advice to have that student expelled for the safety of other students."

I'll assume the word "advice" should have been evidence.

I live in a neighborhood with an HOA. Can we require people to move from our neighborhood on he-said/she-said levels of evidence? After all it is for safety. Can we include claims of theft? How about other "crimes" If so, I may re-join the board. Hilarity is sure to follow.

Kirk Parker said...

MayBee,

"I'm beginning to hate the word "holistic""

Beginning??? My, you are very late to the party.



EDH,

"Why isn't the word spelled "wholistically" anyway?"

Greek.

Mike Sylwester said...

I live in a neighborhood with an HOA.

What's an HOA?

Kirk Parker said...

Buwaya @ 10:42am,

Yes indeed, the popular notion of The Inquisition is as fraudulent as is the popular opinion of Galileo.


Amanda needs to be expelled from Althouse. Because of how she mistreated me. QED.

Jupiter said...

Why is it always those football players?

Amanda said...


@Martha

Awww, look, the poor puppy's sick.

@PB

Except it's not a court, they don't have the power to send somebody to jail,
it is about university policy and right now the policy favors the accused.
One can go get admitted to another university. We need better standards.
The only reason to be afraid of that is sexism.

@Mockturtle

We shouldn't have campus court systems, universities should adopt a code of conduct policy and stick to it. WTF are we doing holding up soiled condoms in faux university kangaroo courts when we should just be expelling people (with the exception of evidence clearing them of innocence) YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND A SCHOOL. Hardly amounts to a wrongful conviction when most of these assholes will never see the inside of a courtroom, never mind a penitentiary.

@Kirk Parker

I'm glad you think our anger over rape is akin to over sensitivity, we should suck it up, it's what red blooded american males do, according to our friend dear old Martha.

Kirk Parker said...

"What's an HOA?"

That most un-American of institutions, the Home Owners Association.

Kirk Parker said...

Amanda dear,

I was definitely Rape. Because I Said So.


You lose.

Rick said...

Any standard makes the process "unfriendly" and a probable violation of Title IX? Radical activists posing as law professors seize their opportunity to contribute to the agenda.

Remember the process includes a ludicrously biased investigation process where exculpatory evidence is routinely barred and leads are only followed up on when they support the accuser. Even with this absurdly biased process the object to having to convince three people guilt is 50.01% likely.

We've let crazy into the building. Like black mold you might as well burn down the building and start over again because you'll never get it out.

walter said...

"WTF are we doing holding up soiled condoms in faux university kangaroo courts when we should just be expelling people (with the exception of evidence clearing them of innocence)"

Guilty until proven innocent.

Mike Sylwester said...

Amanda at 1:03 PM

Except it's not a court ... right now the policy favors the accused. One can go get admitted to another university. ... The only reason to be afraid of that is sexism. ... WTF are we doing holding up soiled condoms in faux university kangaroo courts when we should just be expelling people (with the exception of evidence clearing them of innocence) YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND A SCHOOL.

Amanda demonstrates the potential to become a Stanford University law school dean !!

Jupiter said...

Mark said...

"No. He was not doing what "any red blooded heterosexual male" would do."

On the evidence, a woman invited him into her bedroom, and he had sex with her. That sounds like what an awful lot of heterosexual males of college age would do and in fact have done, and neither our society at large nor Stanford University seems to have any problem with it. What are you trying to suggest? Are you advocating a return to the days when men and women did not have sex?

Rick said...

Stanford was empowered to handle the case internally by Title IX, a federal law dating to 1972 mandating equal access to higher education regardless of gender, and the United States Education Department’s interpretation of that law as requiring universities to carry out investigations of alleged sex crimes on campus.

This is absolutely false but note how it's presented as an unequivocal fact.

walter said...

My above comment based on Amanda meaning guilt when she wrote innocence. Otherwise her statements make zero sense.

johns said...

I went to a very strict college in the late 60s and was expelled for excessive drinking. I had already been accepted to transfer to another college. But the other male who was expelled had not not previously applied for a transfer, yet he was able to go to another school that was academically better than the one we were thrown out of.
Neither of us had any consequences resulting from the expulsion. I am wondering what is different today, if anything. While I am completely agree that the Title IX abuse is an outrage, does anyone know if expelled students have trouble transferring to other schools? Their records show expulsion for sexual assault?

mockturtle said...

While it is true that a 'gentleman' would not take advantage of a female in a vulnerable [inebriated] state, most college-aged males are no more gentlemen than college-aged females are 'ladies'.

mockturtle said...

Mark complained: You know mockturtle, I used to admire and agree with much of what you said.

I didn't know that you were really a POS bigot.


Do you deny that the RCC covered up sex crimes against children?

Bruce Hayden said...

Is that when you developed such a low-regard, contemptuous opinion of men?

For, me, I think that it was in high school. When I discovered that guys would do most anything to get laid at that point in their lives. I lived in a fraternity, and while I might trust my fraternity brothers in business, there are some I wouldn't have trusted within ten feet of a sister, if I had had one. That is just the way guys are at that age - as someone pointed out: "one giant hormone".

The Drill SGT said...

Guilty until proven innocent.

Amanda (aka, the Queen of Hearts): "Sentence First, before Verdict"



walter said...

" Their records show expulsion for sexual assault? "
Ya think? It would be very strange if they didn't.
And if they didn't specify, the worst would be assumed anyway.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am wondering what is different today, if anything. While I am completely agree that the Title IX abuse is an outrage, does anyone know if expelled students have trouble transferring to other schools? Their records show expulsion for sexual assault?

There have been publicized instances where the guys couldn't get into colleges nearly as good as the one that they were expelled from. Apparently, sometimes their transcripts show the reason for being expelled, and sometimes not, but their transcripts inevitably show their expulsion. And, if their transcripts don't show the reason, I think that most schools would want to know the reason before admitting them as a transfer student. It was probably either for cheating or having drunken sex, and they would want to know which, and are likely to admit neither. Plus, imagine the liability that a college could incur if they admitted a "convicted" sexual molester, and that guy went on to molest co-eds at their new school. Many/most competitive colleges and universities are just not going to take the chance, esp if they are, like Stanford, private institutions (some sovereign immunity for some state schools).

Amanda said...

@Johns

Exactly.

@Rick

We do not need elaborate trial and jury on campus in order to get someone expelled in the first place. I want to know exactly how many women have to say they were raped or assaulted before a male classmate will face a single consequence.

Jupiter said...

"It's not a question of equality. It's a question fairness — giving enough process to the one who faces a very serious deprivation."

Actually, Althouse, it is a question of policy. There are questions which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by inquiry. The law, quite sensibly, makes assumptions about those issues. It is assumed, for example, that a man does not want to have his iPhone grabbed by a passerby. If the grabber claims the man told him to take it, he may be telling the truth, but a court is unlikely to believe him without evidence.

It may well be that this imposes an unfair burden on some individuals, but that cannot be helped. The remedy, to the extent that there is one, is for prudent individuals to be aware of how a court is likely to view their actions. In the case in question, the woman (girl, really) took a man (boy, really) into her bedroom, and they had sex. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a court is going to assume that sex was consensual, because experience teaches that girls seldom take boys into their bedrooms to discuss recipes. If she had recipes in mind, she could have discussed them in the kitchen.

I am surprised that I have to explain this to a law professor. The law is a powerful tool, but a severely limited one. One may try to minimize the impact of those limitations. One reason the universities should butt out is that the police have investigative powers which can, in some cases, overcome some of those limitations. But the reality is that the law is a bad thing that we use to deal with bad situations. The best laws are those which tend to make people stay out of those situations. "Throw 'em both off the cliff! Next?"

walter said...

"am wondering what is different today,"

"Rape Culture" and widening definitions of "rape"...and potential liability as Bruce mentions.

" I want to know exactly how many women have to say they were raped or assaulted before a male classmate will face a single consequence."

Right. How many?

Amanda said...

@Bruce Hayden,So what if in some cases someone will not get into the college of their choice because they were expelled for sexual misconduct, it's called consequences and it's not a crying shame a man should have to face any. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Transcripts would not I think show case of expulsion but insofar that they do or should I think violating misconduct policy would suffice.


Yes, just imagine if sexual predators faced some push back along the way and couldn't end up in the highest echelons of business and society and eventually the oval office, just imagine that nightmare scenario.

Rick said...

While I am completely agree that the Title IX abuse is an outrage, does anyone know if expelled students have trouble transferring to other schools? Their records show expulsion for sexual assault?

Activists are trying to make it a law. I wonder why they bother. Why not just issue another letter saying Title IX already requires it? Do it quick - before Trump is inaugurated.

http://motto.time.com/4596813/sexual-assault-transcripts-bill/

Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California and advocate for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, introduced the Safe Transfer Act into the U.S. House of Representatives this week. It would require schools to indicate any punishment given for sexual assault to remain on a student’s transcript for five years after graduation. Schools would also be required to notify graduate schools applied to by a student found responsible of sexual assault about the record. Additionally, if a student who was under investigation by the school for sexual assault transferred institutions, the investigation would still be indicated on his or her transcript for one year.

walter said...

",So what if in some cases someone will not get into the college of their choice because they were expelled for sexual misconduct, it's called consequences and it's not a crying shame a man should have to face any"

It is if they are not guilty...which matters not to you.

buwaya puti said...

In most countries universities don't care what goes on among and between students, and most do not themselves manage dormitories. Students have the privilege of attending classes and being able to take examinations and present papers, and the university grants them diplomas.
The rest is frippery which does no one any good.

Amanda said...

@Jupiter, I agree with you. I didn't think you were going to end up a rape apologist but I agree with what you wrote. That is why it is ridiculous sexist nonsense that everybody wants to act like all rape accusations are unfair, that is not the same thing as trial, jury, execution. We have court systems in this country. But, but, trial by popular opinion! or whatever other nonsense. Yes, God forbid any man should face any consequence at all in regards to being accused of raping a women. Tell it to Woody Allen how one accusation is all it takes to ruin your career forever, PUHlease.


It may well be that this imposes an unfair burden on some individuals, but that cannot be helped. Exactly, Ding, Ding.

I Callahan said...

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND A SCHOOL.

Amanda, you are not entitled to alter my life without actual evidence that I did something wrong. And one woman's word is not enough.

I Callahan said...

Do you deny that the RCC covered up sex crimes against children?

I'm denying it. It was people in control of the RCC that covered up sex crimes against children. Not the church itself. And those people are no longer in control.

walter said...

" We have court systems in this country. But, but, trial by popular opinion! or whatever other nonsense."

Yeah..nonsense. Does it occur to you that your sexism has gotten the best of you?

Rick said...

Amanda said...
I want to know exactly how many women have to say they were raped or assaulted before a male classmate will face a single consequence.


Literally zero:

Reason Magazine

Colorado State University-Pueblo suspended a male athlete for years after he was found responsible for sexually assaulting a female trainer. But the trainer never accused him of wrongdoing, and said repeatedly that their relationship was consensual. She even stated, unambiguously, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped."

mockturtle said...

Amanda mused: Yes, just imagine if sexual predators faced some push back along the way and couldn't end up in the highest echelons of business and society and eventually the oval office, just imagine that nightmare scenario.

Yes, if Bill Clinton's wife had divorced him, for example, long before he got to the oval office we might all have been spared that sordid interlude.

I Callahan said...

That is why it is ridiculous sexist nonsense that everybody wants to act like all rape accusations are unfair, that is not the same thing as trial, jury, execution. We have court systems in this country. But, but, trial by popular opinion! or whatever other nonsense. That is why it is ridiculous sexist nonsense that everybody wants to act like all rape accusations are unfair, that is not the same thing as trial, jury, execution. We have court systems in this country. But, but, trial by popular opinion! or whatever other nonsense. Yes, God forbid any man should face any consequence at all in regards to being accused of raping a women.

Dear Lord, do you even think about what you type?

"Yes, God forbid any man should face any consequence at all in regards to being accused of raping a women."

He should face consequeneces if he's BEING ACCUSED of raping a woman? What if he didn't do it? What if he's thrown out of college, it shows up on his transcript, even though he DIDN'T RAPE HER?

I remember when liberals used to say it's better for 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man to go to prison. In the case above, you're ruining a man's life because you think it's POSSIBLE that he did something.

Christ, I can't believe people are so dense.

walter said...

"I'm fine and I wasn't raped."
Clearly a victim in denial.

Amanda said...

If a man gets accused of raping a women, molesting a child, his good reputation SHOULD be in despite. That is different then doing wrongfully convicted, cleared of a offense, or harassed, targeted and prosecuted after the fact of a court finding you not guilty. Totally different things but rape apologists think it unseemly to face any negative consequence. More then being afraid of the lack of due process they worry about any individual women being valued and held in higher regard then any single man's. It's misogyny at its core.

By the way, what do you mean those people are no longer in control at Rome? they got promotions, they've been moved around and hushed up. Business as usual.

@mockturle

I agree.

MayBee said...

It may well be that this imposes an unfair burden on some individuals, but that cannot be helped.

Ok, let's transfer the woman out for her own safety.

Or maybe transfer out any woman who doesn't garner enough votes when she alleges rape.


YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND A SCHOOL
What do you think of affirmative action?

walter said...

You just got done shooting down the court system. By the way, there is a difference between rumors hampering someone's reputation and an institutional response.

walter said...

"More then being afraid of the lack of due process they worry about any individual women being valued and held in higher regard then any single man's. It's misogyny at its core.More then being afraid of the lack of due process they worry about any individual women being valued and held in higher regard then any single man's. It's misogyny at its core"

Complete inversion there. You want a woman's accusation to be automatically believed.

Steven said...

Another note. “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality.” can only violate Title IX if you assume that the accusers will be women and the respondents men. If men and women are equally likely to accuse and have to respond, then an inequality between accuser and respondent can't violate Title IX, because there's no asymmetry between the sexes resulting.

But if it is true that women are more likely to choose to use the system than men, then that itself is arguably a violation of Title IX. After all, we required shuttering of men's sports programs until numbers of athletes involved were proportional to the student sex ratio, despite defenses claiming that more men wanted to participate in sports than women did. So unless and until the tribunal program has equal numbers of males and females filing accusations despite differential numbers wishing to file accusations, the tribunal program is violating Title IX.

I Callahan said...

If a man gets accused of raping a women, molesting a child, his good reputation SHOULD be in despite.

Wrong. Not until it's PROVEN, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man is actually guilty of the accusation. Not for one second before then.

That is different then doing wrongfully convicted, cleared of a offense, or harassed, targeted and prosecuted after the fact of a court finding you not guilty.

Yes, it's different, because the two concepts aren't even related. In fact, the situation you describe is the OPPOSITE of that - the man is wrongfully convicted and NOT cleared of an offense, and WILL be targeted and prosecuted after the fact.

Totally different things but rape apologists think it unseemly to face any negative consequence.

First, no one is apologizing for rape. So either take it back, or admit you're a dishonest hack. That aside, it IS unseemly to be punished for something based on minimal, or no evidence, based on one person's word. It should never be a part of any free country's system in any way. Only third world dictatorships and communist countries do stuff like that.

More then being afraid of the lack of due process they worry about any individual women being valued and held in higher regard then any single man's. It's misogyny at its core.

No, it's not misogyny in any way. Your way is misandry. A young man is guilty from the word go, unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the woman is lying, and even then you may get a 50% chance at redemption.

By the way, what do you mean those people are no longer in control at Rome? they got promotions, they've been moved around and hushed up. Business as usual.

So in addition to the claptrap you've been spouting above, you're also an expert at what goes on in the Roman Catholic church? I'd love to see the evidence. Oh wait - you don't need no stinking evidence. You KNOW it to be true. Hey, at least your consistent.

Women like you should never be anywhere near the levers of power.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Amanda - but we aren't talking rape here, but almost inevitably a drunken hookup that the woman regrets the next day. What you seem intent on doing is quasi-criminalizing regretted drunken hookups by co-eds. Turns out that college campuses are some of the safest places from actual rape in the country for college aged young adults, according to FBI statistics. Despite the protestations here of the claimant, the reason that she didn't go to the police is that they wouldn't have done anything, knowing that it was a he-says/she-says situation, and his story is probably the more credible, since she voluntarily went to the room with him. The adults on a jury would figure that, absent indicia of violence, she was a voluntary participant. Which, as I said, is why they go through the school instead.

Rick said...

...rape apologists think it unseemly to face any negative consequence. More then being afraid of the lack of due process they worry about any individual women being valued and held in higher regard then any single man's. It's misogyny at its core.

Note the impact of sustained immersion in propaganda. People who want actual investigations to separate actual rape from false allegations are labelled "rape apologists" as if commission of the offense is irrelevant. Crazy talk.

Amanda said...

@Maybee, Affirmative action is not something a applicant can applies for. It is institutional policy to strive for equality after centuries of discrimination. Somebody who benefited from affirmative action is not exempt from conduct of behavior nor automatically entitled to attend a certain school they want too.

@Walter, no I never said that. There is a difference between believed and valued. Between attacked in retaliation and respected.

@Steven, Care to explain how gender disparity of the accused violates title IX.

walter said...

"There is a difference between believed and valued."
So long as there are "consequences"...including expulsion.
Got it.
Oy...

buwaya puti said...

Title IX, on the face of it, if interpreted as broadly as it has been recently, could easily be applied in any number of disparate impact cases. For instance in admissions perhaps, where there most certainly is disparate impact.
Consider the sex ratios everywhere. Consider all the near-100pct female college majors and professional schools.

Steven said...

@Amanda

Apparently you're not familiar with the historical application of Title IX?

It is established precedent from the Clinton Administration that, if one sex is more likely to take advantage of an opportunity to participate in a program than the other, the program itself is prima facie in violation of Title IX, unless it limits participation in the program to the level of the less-interested sex. Further, there's nothing in Title IX that specifically mentions sports; it applies to all programs. Therefore, using nothing but established precedent, by default (a university can appeal for an intensive review by the DoE), the number of charges women should be allowed to file under the campus tribunal program should be limited, proportionate to their percentage of the student body, to the same number as men do, proportionate to their percentage of the student body.

buwaya puti said...

Also, consider the typical case - drunk girl and drunk boy enter one of their rooms; one later complains, almost always the girl. That there is disparate impact. Why shouldn't the rate of complaints be 50:50? Who raped who? Who took advantage of who? Both were presumably drunk and incapacitated to a degree, the boy perhaps also, and more so, by sex hormones impairing his judgement.
That this (complaints being entertained by the admin) is not happening at an equal rate seems in itself to be suspicious, discriminatory, and a violation of title IX.
There is no reasonable way out of this maze of mirrors. The best thing is just to avoid the whole mess and take universities out of their students private lives.

MayBee said...

Amanda- I know what Affirmative Action is. I'm just wondering what the argument for it can possibly be if it doesn't matter what school you go to and you aren't entitled to attend a school.

I mean, especially if the only reason to keep a student out is because they make students feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Seems like a good reason to keep out someone who may be accused of having been in a gang or might seem scary to women.

Amanda said...

@ I Callahan

Really, we shouldn't believe mulitple women who say they were raped by the same man?
we should disregard and not believe any child that says they were molested? not for one second?

One can understand for themselves by the way Callahan is so disgustingly setting up the argument to justify "No man should face a iota of consequence until proven guilty in a court of law and not a mintue before" and not even then is the unspoken insinutation.

Believing women and children is "prosecution" now.

Nobody is going to jail by adopting a safer campus policy. No one is entitled to the institution of their choice when they break their rules.

@Bruce Hayden

No, we are talking about rape here. There is a reason pro choices mention rape and incest and it is not to queer the debate by bringing up the most extreme example. Incestous rape happens, it happens a lot. Rape statistics are not low. The same way those "innocent first" people are seemingly acting like their aren't men out there, a lot of them in fact, who prey on drunk women, not merely get drunk together but prey on them, drug their drinks, follow them home,
walk into a room and rape a unconcious women.

I am not criminalizing drunken hook ups, explosion from your school for bad behaviour, like I don't know, somebody accusing you of raping her, etc is not a crime.

Knowing that the police won't be able to do anything about the alleged rape is even more of a reason why explosions should happen, to keep the campus safe for the women who go there.

And they are right to do so.

@Rick

I don't disagree with you, I am saying the exact opposite. Schools should not be involved in criminal investigations, it is absurd and above their pay grade and a mockery of justice we hate women this much. They should be able to present a reasonable doubt or be expelled.

@Buwaya puti

More women possess a college degree, they also make less money on that degree. You suggesting a qouta is illberal sexism.

@Steven

Except filing assault complaints can not really be considered "taking advantage" that is why that body exists. It's like pointing to abused women shelters and saying see woman have all the advantages. Maybe because the majority of the economically impoverished and physically abused by their partners are women? that is about gender inequality. The inability of men, transgendered or not, to use a womens restroom is not gender discrimination

@MayBee

The argument is that centuries of discrimination have shut African Americans out , that's why historically black universities exist. It does mean black or brown people checkmark affirmative action on their application and then are accepted into a particular school. They still go through the rigor, it's not qouta on who can be admitted either way. Which is why it was right that Abigail Fisher lost and it would be the same if she were black.

No MayBee, not feel unsafe, be unsafe. This is not some crazy thing we made up, men rape, most rapists are men, we have a right to be safe.

MayBee said...

No MayBee, not feel unsafe, be unsafe. This is not some crazy thing we made up, men rape, most rapists are men, we have a right to be safe.

But your standard for removal from the school is only upon someone being accused. That is *feel* unsafe.
Men rape. Black inner city men join gangs. We have a right to be safe.

Amanda said...

@MayBee

What exactly is the problem with that?

I think you have it in your sexist imagination that rape allegations will run foul every time somebody doesn't like somebody else. This is false. I'd bet my left kidney complaints would not increase exponentially.

MayBee said...

What is the problem with what, Amanda? Keeping black inner city youth out of college because they make people feel unsafe? Do you have a problem with that?

Jupiter said...

Amanda said...
"@Jupiter, I agree with you. I didn't think you were going to end up a rape apologist..."

Yes, that outcome would have surprised me, too.

MayBee said...

Amanda- do you like my idea of expelling the women who can't garner the votes from the rape committee?
One of them has to go, because obviously other students aren't safe on campus if there is a false accuser running around.

Amanda said...

@Maybee

That is a false equivalence because I never said keep all men out. There is only one accuser and one alleged perpetrator. The one bringing forward the allegation should not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, this isn't a trial at court, they should only need to prove they knew the accuse and they accuse knew them this stops somebody from being accused by somebody they have never meant. As far as character assassinations and revenge plots and all this crazy stuff you guys have floating around in your heads causing havoc, I contend it doesn't need to known the nature of the complaint accept to the alleged perpetrator and don't think it would be very likely or have justified relevance to show up on a school transcript

MayBee said...

That is a false equivalence because I never said keep all men out.

No of course not.
Just the scary ones.
Just the ones at least one woman is frightened of.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Amanda said...We shouldn't have campus court systems, universities should adopt a code of conduct policy and stick to it. WTF are we doing holding up soiled condoms in faux university kangaroo courts when we should just be expelling people (with the exception of evidence clearing them of innocence) YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND A SCHOOL. Hardly amounts to a wrongful conviction when most of these assholes will never see the inside of a courtroom, never mind a penitentiary.

Ah yes, the presumption of guilt, there it is. Just for men accused of sexual misconduct, though, right? "Those assholes" have it coming; they're basically asking to be presumed guilty and expelled--they're asking for it.

mockturtle said...

Maybe coed education was a mistake.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Amanda said...The one bringing forward the allegation should not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, this isn't a trial at court, they should only need to prove they knew the accuse and they accuse knew them this stops somebody from being accused by somebody they have never meant.

Holy cow, that's close to "beyond parody" territory right there! That's your evidentiary standard?

"I can prove we knew each other, and I'm accusing the other person of something"
BOOM, expelled!

That's so insanely silly I'm worried this is some sort of performance art, Amanda.
But you support it, right, that crazy idea seems self-evidently just to you, because...oh! Right, because it's about safety.
Won't somebody please think of the children!?
Except, not children--college students. Well, female students, anyway.

buwaya puti said...

There is no reasonable or logical way out of this. Best is just to treat all involved as adults. The university should butt out, as in Europe.

campy said...

Holy cow, that's close to "beyond parody" territory right there! That's your evidentiary standard?

No parody, just 21st century feminism. Pure, bigoted, "womyn never lie about rape" feminism.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Cool.

Maybe we can change the rules of evidence on college campus murder cases, too.

You know. Because young adults are young and might not have learned appropriate behavior when it comes to sparing innocent lives.

We have to introduce them to these adult behaviors gradually, and college is the right place for a trial run at these things.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What bullshit. Rape as an institutional disciplinary infraction cheapens the concept of rape as a crime. What these Amandas are pushing for is a standard of collectively putting an entire gender on notice that "making someone uncomfortable" requires a punishment they should face for the rare rapist here or there who is going uncaught and causing disproportionate crime or for coeds just feeling uncomfortable about there being men on campus and the potential for sexual activity or even innuendo to occur that may feel uncomfortable to them. Being made to feel uncomfortable does not mean that you were criminalized, setting up kangaroo courts to dole out reputational harms for lawfully unactionable events does cheapen the very legitimate concept of rape as a serious, violative crime, and that is that. This is simply a bunch of amateurs seeking to replace adult standards of justice with teen gossip/innuendo Heather "justice." What a fucking farce. They might as well penalize male students on the basis of how poorly they conform to the "looks and feel" of Harry Styles or other One Direction members. This "you made me uncomfortable I will now pretend to criminalize you" bullshit needs to end yesterday. It almost makes me happy Trump won. Finally colleges are pushing a successful backlash against oppressive campus speech codes, perhaps against more PC generally to follow. And hopefully these sexual discomfort kangaroo courts will be next. Shit. You might as well bring a guy up for a hearing if you suffer from vaginismus or if you were diagnosed with a UTI afterward. Motherfucker is this some stupid shit and wow does it make women look like fools and our collegiate system look completely incompetent to the task of educating adults to think and work as independent adults.

walter said...

R&B..in case you missed this regarding the Alec Cook case:

One student named Grace penned “An Open Letter to Alec R. Cook,” in support of the woman and condemning his “alpha male” behavior. The blog post was shared by NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin and state Rep. Melissa Sargent.

“When I saw your mug shot, my roommate and I recognized you immediately,” Grace wrote. “We remembered you from a birthday party for one [of] our good friends. We remembered how your size and booming voice allowed you to command so much space. I didn’t know then that these attributes were just weapons in your arsenal.”

The writer claimed to be “quietly afraid” of Cook at the party.

“We never spoke or interacted, but seeing you walk back and forth, exerting your alpha male presence and mass from room to room made me stand a little closer to my boyfriend, willing you to go away,” Grace said in the post.

“The saying ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’ doesn’t apply here because, Alec, you are a wolf- plain and simple,” she added. “I knew it then and I sure as hell know it now.”

Michael K said...

I contend it doesn't need to known the nature of the complaint accept to the alleged perpetrator and don't think it would be very likely or have justified relevance to show up on a school transcript

This is why I think my grandson should not go to college after high school. The military is still not as crazy as Amanda and her feminist Nazis. He should do that first. Then he can deal with what the feminists have created. They will destroy colleges and then, when we start over, it will be safe for him to go.

CJ said...

"Any women convicted and expelled under this system?"

Not at Stanford, but it actually happened once at Washington State.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/now-a-woman-has-been-expelled-for-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-a-man/article/2592619

CJ said...

"Any women convicted and expelled under this system?"

Not at Stanford, but it actually happened once at Washington State.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/now-a-woman-has-been-expelled-for-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-a-man/article/2592619

walter said...

From article:

And Rose is a reminder that being accused and expelled is not a mere roadblock for students. While Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and others try to make it seem like getting expelled is both a serious punishment for a serious offense yet not so serious that it's life disrupting, like jail, the truth is that students like Rose face many problems after expulsion for something like sexual misconduct.

Rose applied to the University of Idaho after she was expelled, but was denied because she was a deemed "a risk" due to her expulsion.

Scott said...

“The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality.”

Let me fix that for her.

The Prosecution should not need to gather twelve jurors to convict while the Defendant needs to gather only one. That is basic inequality.

Bruce Hayden said...

No, we are talking about rape here. There is a reason pro choices mention rape and incest and it is not to queer the debate by bringing up the most extreme example. Incestous rape happens, it happens a lot. Rape statistics are not low. The same way those "innocent first" people are seemingly acting like their aren't men out there, a lot of them in fact, who prey on drunk women, not merely get drunk together but prey on them, drug their drinks, follow them home, walk into a room and rape a unconcious women.

That isn't what most of the hearings are about, or at least the ones that make the news. At least on-campus, strange guys sneaking into women's dorm rooms is pretty obvious to the other people living nearby. Instead, what almost all of the controversial instances we hear about involve are essentially drunken hookups. The women willingly leave with the guys, and the guys aren't sneaking into their rooms. This is the thing that the "Sober Sisters" program I talk about below has the biggest problem with - women who want to leave the party with guys they just met, after drinking too much.

I am not criminalizing drunken hook ups, explosion from your school for bad behaviour, like I don't know, somebody accusing you of raping her, etc is not a crime.

That is exactly what you are doing, and trying to do so with a much lower standard, almost non-existent on many campuses, standard and level of proof. We see no discovery, no attorneys, no ability to confront witnesses, etc., and, you are complaining that the requirement that all the panel has to agree for a conviction (at a preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond a reasonable doubt level) is too high.

No one really cares about prosecutions for rape-rape, or, really, throwing actual sexual predators off campus. But, pretty much every case we see in the news involves those drunken hookups that you claim are not the issue.

Knowing that the police won't be able to do anything about the alleged rape is even more of a reason why explosions should happen, to keep the campus safe for the women who go there.

It is very easy for college women to be safe on campus - don't drink, or, if they do, do so moderately. 1 or 2 drinks max, not 8 or 10. Don't get drunk and go back to guys' rooms. Buddy system works pretty well. Sororities have "Sober Sisters" programs where every third or fourth girl has to stay sober and protect her drunk sisters. The duty rotates, of course. Works pretty well.

The reality, as I noted above, is that for actual rape-rape, college campuses are fairly safe. Statistically, much safer than what is faced by women of the same age who don't go to college, and really are followed back to their apartments by sexual predators. (Undrunk) college men tend to be fairly protective of their female colleagues. We had an on-call escort service back when I was in a fraternity in the early 1970s, mostly from the soldiers at the local Army base, and I know young men who recently graduated who were doing the same thing, 40 years later. And, did it quite routinely. If anything, it is even more common.

Bruce Hayden said...

One of the things that is worrisome about this bogus "campus rape" scare is how badly it prepares young women for the real world. On most campuses, there really aren't that many sexual predators, simply because the males are, if anything, often less experienced, than the females are sexually. And, they tend to be pretty protective. They are also, most often, tight knit communities. Guys sneaking into strange women's dorm rooms just isn't that common, because the neighbors look out for them.

And, then, they graduate, having had four years of relative safety from the cost of getting too drunk to make rational decisions about guys. In the real world, they are likely, when drunk, to encounter a lot of older guys who really are experienced, who know what to say, and how to act, to cut a (typically drunk) woman out of the crowd and take her home for sex. Which is one big reason that women tend to go out in pairs or larger groups, since single women in bars usually means to a lot of the guys that they are looking for a hookup. My partner can tell you horror story after horror story about her partners of the night getting drunk and dumping her, and all the antics of the guys trying to do the same for her. And, yes, women also have to worry about being followed home from bars, or, even from work or the store. All things that are not really that critical when in college.

My worry is that a lot of college educated women get a false sense of security because of the relative safety of college campuses, as compared to the real world, and that they are, therefore, ill prepared to deal with the latter when they graduate, at least in terms of male sexual predators. Hang around bars enough, and you will easily get adept at recognizing them. There are a lot of them out there. And, a lot of them are pretty skilled.

Micha Elyi said...

Amanda has convinced me that cockteasing should be a felony sex crime.

Micha Elyi said...

Amanda: "most rapists are men"

This is only because (1) the definition of "rape!" is sexist by definition, penetration not engulfment, and (2) because of sexism, harmful behaviors of females aren't even considered to be crimes.

If it weren't for their double standards, feminists would have no standards at all.

Kirk Parker said...

Amanda,

In a just world, you'd be the victim of some unfounded charges that got believed and acted upon Just Because. The whole reason Due Process exists is because of people like you, and it would be beautiful karma for you to experience its absence.

Amanda said...

@Bryan Hayden

I don't even know where to start. I am not lowering the standard, I want to change policies, I want to higher the standard. We don't need college aged "investigators" and "attorneys" that's exactly what I'm talking about. I agree rape, assault etc is a matter for the police.

Suddenly of course, only when it comes to raping women is some idiot (like camille paglia) maintaining that college campuses are "the wilderness" where we can't expect any standard of behavior because that would not be how "the real world is" hmm, no kidding. I don't need you to tell me how the real world treats victims and deals with sex crimes.

Any techniques a individual can use to stay safer is good, responsible drinking is good and binge culture is bad. Having a drink or being drunk does not make legalize rape. Bringing up sober women who are raped in their apartments by complete strangers, are those the only ones we are allowed have sympathy for? Going to be kind of difficult since most women are raped by somebody they know, somebody they trust, somebody they would invite up into their dorm or house or car or who they live with. A long cloaked stranger hoping out of the shadows is not the vast majority of crimes. This is acquiescing to rape culture. There is no category of women for whom it is ok to rape alright Hayden, not even naked and laying in a gutter.

I have no problem with mace or buddy systems, I do have a problem with saying some women deserve to be raped. "You should have been more responsible" is not something we say to people who have their cars stolen, it's a crime. Are we valuing women less then cars? using the treat of rape as a system of controlling womens? you shouldn't have been drinking is just a stones throw away from "You shouldn't have been out late." etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

I don't think it's conscious but misogyny warps thinking.



People look out for each other more thanks to feminism, because we changed the conversation and understanding of sexual assault, no one is asking for it or deserves or has to shut up about it. There will be less and less of that if we acquiesce to sexist reasoning about sex crimes.

The problem today because we still live in a sexist society is that males may be willing to face a attacker in board day light but less likely too stand up to their friends and friends of friends because sexist bro culture. The binge drinking culture on campus is horrible, worrying, disgusting and dangerous. Isn't that a novel idea Hayden? worrying about what the men are drinking??


"a lot of them are pretty skilled"

You ever wondered how those men got so skilled at manipulating drunk women Hayden? because nobody ever told them in college that fucking a unconscious women was rape.

@Kirk Parker

That was cute, made me smile that you think women don't know the absence of justice.




Kirk Parker said...

Amanda,

What are you talking about? I certainly wasn't talking about justice... And I can think of any number of things to call your solipsism, but "cute" certainly isn't among them.

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.