May 3, 2015

Emily Bazelon is critical of Jon Krakauer's book about campus rape.

A review in the NYT of "Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town":
The university had used the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” (or more likely than not) to find Johnson culpable, but the standard for a criminal conviction is higher — beyond a reasonable doubt.... Krakauer presents [the acquittal] not as a reflection of the differing evidentiary standard, and a jury’s best effort to resolve a difficult and confusing set of facts, but as a bitter failure of the adversarial process....

[I]t’s not clear that he spoke to any prosecutors or police officers in Missoula, or to university officials... [T]he book feels one-sided. It also lacks texture.... Krakauer doesn’t take us inside the student culture at the university or the community of Missoula. He lets his contempt for certain city officials show, but they’re neither memorable villains nor three-dimensional characters afforded the opportunity to explain themselves. And strikingly, the women who should be at the book’s emotional center don’t really come to life either... [H]e... reduc[s] them... to victimhood...

More generally, Krakauer doesn’t fully grapple with the complexities of campus sexual assault. He notes the heavy drinking that leads up to some of his book’s most wrenching episodes without exploring the role alcohol plays in making perpetrators dangerous or victims vulnerable... Instead of delving deeply into questions of fairness as universities try to fulfill a recent government mandate to conduct their own investigations and hearings — apart from the police and the courts — Krakauer settles for bromides....

108 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

More generally, Krakauer doesn’t fully grapple with the complexities of campus sexual assault.

This whole concept that campus sexial assaults and the politics around them is unique and is terminally flawed.

1. If both alleged attacker and alleged victim are students we can treat it one way,

2. but if the attacker is a townie we can't

3. If the victim is a townie we can't

4. If both are townies we don't want to either.

That's dumb...

One set of Justice for all. In the criminal courts.

campy said...

3. If the victim is a townie we can't

Not true, colleges could quite easily invite rape complaints from townie girls. It's already been done in fiction (on the TV drama Switched At Birth) and will spread to real life soon if it hasn't already.

Owen said...

The Fed govt's abrogation of due process for students --through unaccountable "guidance" imposed on schools which fear loss of Federal funding-- is a time bomb. It is already blowing up one campus after another and costing endless money for new compliance bureaucracy. The lawsuits for false accusation, defamation and gender-based discrimination are beginning to stack up. The terrible publicity likewise is building.

If somebody wanted to destroy American higher education, this would be a genius way to do it.

Ann Althouse said...

@Drill Sgt

You don't think a university can have rules of conduct and sanctions for violation that apply to its students?

You think that because some behavior is also a crime that it can't be governed by the institution's rules of conduct?

I don't see how you can answer yes to that.

Let's say a student punches a teacher in the face. Obviously, the school can take action and expel the student. It doesn't have to stand back and do nothing just because punching somebody in the face is a crime.

Consider disorderly conduct or petty theft or vandalism.

Sexual assault is like that too.

The Drill SGT said...

Ann Althouse said...
@Drill Sgt

You don't think a university can have rules of conduct and sanctions for violation that apply to its students?


1. Colleges have less actual rapes than the towns. Why are we worried about an epidemic on campus again?

2. any adjudication system must be balanced. If a man and a women get drunk and have sex, "equal protection" ought to make them both victims, both attackers or at least the possibility that the women is the attacker. The codes and the entire quasi-legal and support system only anticipate women being the victims.

3. As I understand it, most college codes adjudicate alcohol use as mitigating responsibility for the female and enhancing responsibility for the male.

4. the college system simply works like this. They attempt to prevent any use of evidence or questioning by the accused in order to boil the proceedings down to "he said, she said" and in the case of "he said, she said", he is always guilty.

so NO. I don't think a college can have a system like that and call it "a code of conduct"

Bob R said...

Althouse - Those comparisons are terrible. You are comparing misdemeanors to a felony. Should the university adjudicate assault with a deadly weapon? Grand theft auto? No. But the feds want/force us to adjudicate rape.

David Hampton said...

I agree with Drill SGT; That is based on the lack of objectivity we expect from Universities acting on politically correct bias against white males in particular and people of color generally. Factor in alumnae donors putting pressure on outcomes or in defense of their child it is easy to lose objectivity of the actual crime. Further, when police question victim and perp the stories can change dramatically rendering a conflict with poorly written laws. Forcible rape between sober participants is one thing. Forcible rape between aggressive males and drunk/comatose victims has the unfortunate consequence of questioning why the victim placed her/himself in that situation. The victim's reputation is damaged and the perpetrator claims mutual consent. Let the police handle it.

Ann Althouse said...

"so NO. I don't think a college can have a system like that and call it "a code of conduct""

You didn't answer the question I asked, so I presume you had to say "yes" to that.

I agree with you that the code of conduct and the enforcement mechanisms need to be fair and applied without sex discrimination and that there is a larger, overlapping problem of students drinking too much and combining drinking with bad sex.

But let's keep the issues straight. Don't gloss over issue one. Don't use as a premise of your argument that if something is a crime it cannot be part of a code of conduct enforced internally. You're not willing to stand on that ground, and I don't think you can. Don't try to hide the ball. Just concede the point you must concede and then make the good arguments.

SJ said...

@Althouse,

I agree with @BobR. The examples are poorly-chosen, and Universities tend not to have rules related to Felonies.

However, you are correct: Universities can have rules about situations involving sexual activity and consent.

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. When I was a grad student, one of the undergrads I interacted with in class was accused of being the driver in a fatal hit-and-run case.

Definitely a felony crime; the University had no rules in place for the student. The local Police investigated, and somehow he didn't go to trial until the semester was over.

2. Long before I got to grad school, I was deciding between undergrad schools. One of which was a private, Christian college that had strong rules of social interaction.

Single-sex dorm buildings, limited visiting hours, student-code-of-conduct which prohibited sexual interaction between unmarried people, Resident-Assistants who enforced open-door rules when visitors were present, etc.

If a public University wants to reduce undesirable sexual interactions between students, they are perfectly free to create similar rules. (Probably without the religious components...)

After all, Universities have other rules for student life.

And these methods would reduce the on-campus incidence of unclear-sexual-interactions, or charges of sexual assault between students.

If rape is so bad, we can reduce it by reducing most forms of sexual intercourse between students.

rhhardin said...

Rape shouldn't be a separate crime. Just lump it under assault and battery.

The word confuses women.

Then the crime situation might be clearer.

Bob Boyd said...

"Sexual assault is like that too."

What would happen in a case where a prof said he was punched and the accused student said it never happened? Would the University try to determine guilt or innocence?
Would the student be expelled or would the University wait until the student was convicted or acquitted in criminal court of assault?

virgil xenophon said...

SJ is right. During my antediluvian college days (62-66) LSU had only single sex dorms with NO room visitation rights. (Lobby only in girls dorm only.) ABSOLUTELY NO women allowed in men's dorms. And the men's and women's dorms were located at opposite ends of the campus...hence ZERO campus rapes. "Problem" solved..

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse - Those comparisons are terrible. You are comparing misdemeanors to a felony. Should the university adjudicate assault with a deadly weapon? Grand theft auto? No. But the feds want/force us to adjudicate rape."

You are mistaking a code of conduct for students with the criminal code. The same behavior that is a crime is also a rules infraction that can get you expelled and that should get you expelled. The university doesn't have to stand back and wait for the criminal process if there is a misbehaving student that needs to be expelled. Your idea that WORSE misbehavior should shackle the university is ridiculous. The university needs behavior rules and sanctions within the institution.

Shouting Thomas said...

Our fathers and grandfathers were quite right when they told us that women would bitch about anything and everything.

The Bishop of Butt Fucking is the proof. 45 years of sitting on her lazy ass bitching. Spoiled beyond redemption and that is still not enough to stop the bitching.

In addition to just being plain evil, the Bishop predictably endorses the Nazi campaign on campus against young men. Their sin is that they want to fuck a vagina instead of a butthole. This the Bishop of Butt Fucking cannot tolerate.

Our fathers were also correct in believing that women should not occupy the position held by the Bishop of Butt Fucking.

The Bishop of Butt Fucking is a waste of a law degree.

The Drill SGT said...

You don't think a university can have rules of conduct and sanctions for violation that apply to its students?

You think that because some behavior is also a crime that it can't be governed by the institution's rules of conduct?

I don't see how you can answer yes to that.

Sexual assault is like that too.


Of course schools can have codes of conduct, but they can't apply different standards to students based on race creed or gender and most codes of conduct certainly do. Case in point, sexual assault. case in point, freedom of speech for pro-life groups, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali

And No, Sexual assault isn't like that. It's a political crime on campus. unlike petty theft.

Shouting Thomas said...

Perhaps you could fill us in, Bishop, on the commandments of your Theology of Butt Fucking.

PB said...

Ann,

So we're doing the students a favor by not referring criminal behavior to the police but setting up a separate adjudication process?

What happens if the teacher claims a student punched them in the face, but it didn't happen? Is the student to be railroaded out the door on the unsubstantiated claim of the teacher? I guess you could claim that teachers don't lie about student physical battery, but what if one or two teachers take advantage of that surety and lie about students, perhaps against students of a different political party?

The Fed govt requires the adjudication process be implemented AND they require one or more Title IX Investigators be hired. These investigators are the sole persons allowed to introduce "evidence" in the process. I suppose you could trust in the federal government to create a process that results in the hiring of sainted, perfect people who get to the truth, but the history is of hiring folks with an agenda or those that bow to the agenda.

Ann Althouse said...

"Rape shouldn't be a separate crime. Just lump it under assault and battery."

Study the history of the Model Penal Code.

Ann Althouse said...

"What happens if the teacher claims a student punched them in the face, but it didn't happen? Is the student to be railroaded out the door on the unsubstantiated claim of the teacher?"

There needs to be an appropriate procedure. What do you think it should be? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a right to counsel?

I agree that the the process we're seeing in these sexual assault cases isn't good enough.

I'm trying to focus people on the real issue, which is the requirement of due process. To say it shouldn't be a kangaroo court is not to say what it should be.

Mingus Jerry said...

How about...

Universities have Codes of Conduct that include sanctions for crimes, but those crimes must adjudicated in a court of law not by the unversity. The Code of Conduct can allow for temporary restrictions until such case is terminated in Court (by conviction, acquittal, dismissal)

Heck, you don't even need the temporary restrictions if the local prosecutor requests the judge to issue special conditions of bond.

You can still have universities adjudicated cheating or dorm violations, but crimes (felony or misd) go to court and punishment awaits that decision with temporary restrictions until then.

Shouting Thomas said...

Who would have imagined decades ago that allowing cunts like the Bishop into positions of authority would lead to man hating dykes and fag hags controlling our universities and punishing young men for wanting to fuck a pussy?

Remember when you thought feminism had something to do with equality and justice?

Ann Althouse said...

What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?

Students don't seem to want to give up their heavy drinking and their casual sex...

Rick67 said...

And a couple weeks ago NPR was giving Krakauer major face time. Now in NPR's semi-defense, their reports on campus sexual assault seem to give at least some lip service to concern for due process and the rights of the accused. But still.

Phil 3:14 said...

Professor,
Its time to say goodbye to ST.

Just noise, vulgar noise.

Shouting Thomas said...

The end result of caving into cunts like the Bishop, of course, is to render the university economically useless.

My Jewish go-getter male friends who established and built a great law practice in NYC eventually sold out their firm to a huge firm, and then the women walked in...

Start an HR department and a babysitting service. Establish quotas. Bitch about everything.

And now... their great law firm is just a shithole for rotten dykes and fag hags to suck dry as a milch-cow.

Shouting Thomas said...

I spent my life fighting the quota system, and I won.

My strategy was to leave my start-up clients as soon as cunts like the Bishop appeared on the scene.

I beat you, Bishop. You are the enemy. You are the oppressor.

rhhardin said...

which is the requirement of due process.

When everything is a crime, rape-wise, there's no due process.

Colleges tend to have broader definitions, a she-said standard.

The she-said in turn comes from women's studies.

If you just make it assault and battery, women's studies drops out.

Sebastian said...

"Consider disorderly conduct or petty theft or vandalism.

Sexual assault is like that too."

It is and it isn't.

Yes, a university can have internal student conduct rules.

No, "sexual assault" is not "like that"--it is a politicized "crime," targeted by the feds, singled out for special opprobrium, applied unevenly to male perps, embedded in "training" for the whole university community (you've done yours haven't you? just like you trained to recognize petty theft, right?), a felony handled procedurally as a misdemeanor but with potentially devastating consequences beyond internal sanctions.

Owen said...

@PB: exactly so. The government is always and everywhere a self-licking ice cream cone, and its Title IX regime is no exception and is in fact an exacerbated form of the problem because it is outsourcing the enforcement to the schools. It is they who bear the costs and suffer the backlash --and the moral confusion. It is one thing to adjudicate a claim of plagiarism with local rules and local investigators and tribunals. (In fact, for honor code violations the schools probably have as much expertise and experience as anyone). It is quite another to conduct what purports to be a quasi-criminal investigation and trial of serious felonies using amateur players and rigged rules. Anyone who reads the sexual assault policies at the schools will be struck by their lack of due process. Institutional learning, wealth and prestige are no safeguard: look at Harvard, Columbia, Dartmouth. Title IX requires this and guarantees the disaster we are witnessing.

Read "Minding The Campus" blog or Instapundit for more details.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm off to Mass, Bishop.

The man hating dykes and fag hags will be assaulting the Church soon.

We never should have let them out of the nunneries.

I'll fight you there, too. You'll be surprised. I'm one hell of a tough enemy.

We know now what you and your Theology of Butt Fucking are all about. The element of surprise is gone. We know what you are.

Sebastian said...

"What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?

Students don't seem to want to give up their heavy drinking and their casual sex…"

What are you saying, that colleges should just stand by and watch enrollments drop and their business model collapse?

Surely, a little alcohol and the occasional sexual assault are a small price to pay for the greater educational good.

Sam L. said...

It was written by a MAN(!!!!!!11!!), so naturally she cannot accept it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Men... a little advice...

The Bishop of Butt Fucking wins by diverting you into these pettifogging arguments. That's her favorite tactic.

Go back to the wisdom of your fathers and grandfathers. They were right about women. Feminism was a ruse to defeat you and to force you to embrace butt fucking.

The Bishop is a master of distraction tactics. Ignore those tactics and see what she is really doing.

Gahrie said...


Don't use as a premise of your argument that if something is a crime it cannot be part of a code of conduct enforced internally

The arguement is not that it cannot, but that it should not.

Shouting Thomas said...

"Be Not Afraid!" Pope John Paul II.

I'll be playing that at Mass this morning.

Gahrie said...

What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?

How could you possibly enforce it?

What about privacy rights?

Douglas said...

Ann,
There are two sets of issues involved. One is the substantive law. Many colleges have surreptitiously, without much public debate, redifined sexual assault for purposes of campus codes of conduct to be something very different from sexual assault under the criminal law. It's not illegal to have sex with an intoxicated woman, but that constitutes sexual assault on many campuses, at least if the woman decides to file a complaint. The campus codes seem to be evolving towards a Neo-Victorian standard of "Men must not take advantage of women to gain sexual favors." Then, when the student is expelled for "sexual assault," his life is ruined even though he didn't commit any kind of sexual crime. If colleges were to relabel their code of conduct as "Code of Gentlemanly Conduct" and were to adjudicate whether male students engaged in "Ungentlemanly Behavior," there would be less concern about the unfairness of the process.

The second set of issues are the procedural ones, and I refer to the letter from the 28 HLS professors.

David said...

Due Process is a Code of Conduct. As is Equal Protection. The Rape Police are not so interested in these codes.

Ken B said...

Althouse is sounding pretty fascist here, being willing to label people with serious charges on low standards of proof. So let's imagine a few cases.

A student acuses AA of touching him or her sexually.

AA accuses a student of stealing a book from her office. Orvice-veras.



NotquiteunBuckley said...

"More generally, Krakauer doesn’t fully grapple with the complexities of campus sexual assault."

It's impossible to do this, hence this is her standard for men.

Let's start the fully grappling by asking Just How Wrong Was Blake To Proclaim “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.*”

The point, for the dull and dense, is there is no such thing as fully grappling with the complexities of American college campus affiliated sexual assault.

It would be like some idiot claiming he knows what the laws are in whatever state/county/local jurisdiction they live in. We are all mostly ignorant of most things, some are slightly less ignorant than others. Recognizing human influences on the different process' we are examining is a necessary start of the discussion. This means change which combined with time is a large segment of my definition of infinite.

*William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Big Mike said...

Bazelon's review is more balanced than I expected based on her past writings.

I foolishly bought Krakauer's earlier book Where Men Win Glory (about the death of Pat Tillman) and found it chock full of made-up statistics (for instance the real rate of "friendly fire" casualties less a tenth of what he reported). Moreover if there are two or three or more possible interpretations of an order, the one he finds most likely to be right is the one which placed the US Army and its leadership in the worst light. It's not as though the event wasn't bad enough on the face of it -- hero is killed by his own comrades and the chain of command tries to hush it up -- but it has to be embellished to incorporate Bush derangement as well.

So I'm not going to buy this book, or even read it for free at the library. But I will say that if the facts in the Jordon Johnson case were as Bazelon presented then I'd have voted for acquittal too. The young lady could have called for help from a male roommate and didn't? They sat on her bed and she allowed him to remove her top without protest? The night before the episode she told the quarterback that she "totally would do him"? Wherever the line for "reasonable doubt is," the young woman went way past it.

Mike Sylwester said...

These are not really university codes of conduct.

Rather, they are federal regulations that universities are required to enforce.

buwaya puti said...

OK, reality check.
Just how much fire is there behind this smoke ?
Kids all went through the UC system schools (which one would think would have a fair distribution of all this), and not a hint of mistreatment, in any direction, boys to girls, girls to boys, or the administration vs anyone, and the last word I had was as of last year.
Maybe mine were better behaved all around than the typical Joe and Jane, but in some cases I wouldn't bet on it.
So what gives ?
A much, much worse scandal, IMHO, is the decline in academic standards everywhere but STEM.

Trashhauler said...

Shouting Thomas, you are having some sort of major malfunction. I suggest you back away from the keyboard for a bit.

Owen said...

@Douglas: very well put. Regarding your first issue (substantive behavior covered by campus policy) I would add, based on the new definitions of "sexual assault" and "sexual misconduct" (and "affirmative consent") that are found in the campus codes, there is no safe harbor except absolute no-touching and even no-speaking. Because the victim controls what is actionable. If s/he feels unsafe, disrespected, harassed; if s/he believes a word or gesture was sexually charged; then so it is. With such a threshold for accusation, the system is quite unstable unless strong due process protections are available to weed out the BS complaints. But (your second issue) no such protections exist.

Thus, a system in runaway failure mode.

Bruce Hayden said...

I guess I should have gotten a bit more into the Missoula story, spending half the year a couple hours away from there. And, some of it looks a little bad...

The game is given away with this: “Because the legal system stacks the deck more heavily against sexual-assault victims than victims of other crimes, it’s easier to keep the whole truth from coming out,” The problem is not that the deck is stacked against sexual assault victims, but rather, on campus, they are almost invariably, not really sexual assault victims. They intentionally placed themselves in ambiguous or sexually vulnerable situations, and got what most women, not in college, would tell them was the result of that.

Time after time, we are finding that the victims are really the guys, and not the gals. Recently, Mattress Girl's victim has file suit against Columbia because they allowed her to violate confidentiality, and to pursue her college approved project of carrying the mattress until he was expelled. And, he has released a number of her emails and text messages, making it fairly clear that she was desperate to have sex with him, was the one pushing for anal sex, etc. She was in love with him, and he not with her. Her older sisters (at least figuratively) should have told her that fucking a guy isn't the best way to get him in a long term relationship, while not doing so often is.

The problem, from the feminists and SJW point of view, with our current system, is that it gets bogged down in facts, and quite often, the facts are against the complaining woman. She knows that she was wronged, and that is all that is supposed to be important. Never mind that she wanted to have sex with him, because she wanted to get into a relationship with him, or got so blotto drunk that she went home with the first guy who asked. The important thing is that she regrets what she did, and wants the guy to suffer. And, according to the SJWs, lesbian feminists, Title IX officers, etc., that is all that should matter.

Trashhauler said...

"What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?"

To which Professor Althouse replied:

"Students don't seem to want to give up their heavy drinking and their casual sex..."

This is a non-response. Students desire to do these things should not prevent universities from pursuing their responsibilities.

Bruce Hayden said...

Shouting Thomas does have a point though, and that a surprising amount of the pressure behind this push for disciplining males without due process, or even much real process at all, is apparently coming from some pretty ugly (from a male point of view) male hating lesbian feminists. Probably little surprise that many of them end up in gender studies, and from there end up as Title IX officers (or gender studies profs), since where else can they use those degrees? The pictures that go with the women are often not very flattering (except maybe if you, too, are a dyke). The question is asked, whether they are male hating lesbians because they couldn't get dates with men, or are so ugly from a male point of view because they are male hating lesbians.

Jason said...

Let's say a student punches a teacher in the face.

If its the "Million Mogadishus" guy count me in.

Ann Althouse said...

"There are two sets of issues involved. One is the substantive law. Many colleges have surreptitiously, without much public debate, redifined sexual assault for purposes of campus codes of conduct to be something very different from sexual assault under the criminal law. It's not illegal to have sex with an intoxicated woman, but that constitutes sexual assault on many campuses, at least if the woman decides to file a complaint. The campus codes seem to be evolving towards a Neo-Victorian standard of "Men must not take advantage of women to gain sexual favors." Then, when the student is expelled for "sexual assault," his life is ruined even though he didn't commit any kind of sexual crime. If colleges were to relabel their code of conduct as "Code of Gentlemanly Conduct" and were to adjudicate whether male students engaged in "Ungentlemanly Behavior," there would be less concern about the unfairness of the process."

Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral.

If you can do that, then you do have in fact a second issue. I don't think you can.

Bruce Hayden said...

There are two sets of issues involved. One is the substantive law. Many colleges have surreptitiously, without much public debate, redifined sexual assault for purposes of campus codes of conduct to be something very different from sexual assault under the criminal law.

This was intentional - to garner social disapproval for what is, essentially, often little different from normal male/female interaction at the hypersexualized ages of normal college students. It most often isn't sexual assault, because there is typically no overt lack of assent, and rarely is there any actual violence. The girl got drunk and slept with the guy, or had slept with him before, and went to bed with him partially clothed, etc. It isn't a crime, and most often wouldn't even be actionable beyond a preponderance of the evidence, if full rights to discovery, attorney, confrontation, etc. were allowed. Just boy meets girl, boy has sex with girl, and girl wants the boy to suffer as much as she did, when she realized her mistake.

Big Mike said...

Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral.

Please point out to me a sexual assault case where the behavior of the female was punished at all.

chickelit said...

To play devil's advocate for a moment (regarding ST):

(1) Emma Sulkowicz did specifically request anal sex.

(2) I've neither seen nor read a scathing review of Sulkowicz' conduct nor that of Columbia University's supporting role and encouragement from the those still crying rape.

(3) Even those who don't have the guts to speak out against Sulkowitz seemed sympathetic to her because she was a performance artist.

These are mitigating factors and festering sores.

Ann Althouse said...

"This is a non-response. Students desire to do these things should not prevent universities from pursuing their responsibilities."

It wasn't intended as a response to my question. It was intended as something to consider as you try to answer the question. My own opinion is that a rule like that should be considered, but it has some problems, such as deterring a real victim from reporting (where she/he'd be confessing to a rules violation herself/himself).

Ann Althouse said...

Generally, my opinion is that there is way too much bad sex going around these days and too many people are unhappy and that you shouldn't need to get drunk to have sex. I'm concerned that people are deluded into thinking having more sex is a good thing and rather than think deeply about whether that's true, they get drunk so they can do it.

I haven't tested that theory empirically.

chickelit said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Shouting Thomas does have a point though, and that a surprising amount of the pressure behind this push for disciplining males without due process, or even much real process at all, is apparently coming from some pretty ugly (from a male point of view) male hating lesbian feminists

Did you see the video linked at Legal Insurrection? The one about "Fuck Masculinity. Fight Straightness" link

More unsurprising bigotry at an Ivy League school!

Jason said...

I'm concerned that people are deluded into thinking having more sex is a good thing and rather than think deeply about whether that's true, they get drunk so they can do it.

I haven't tested that theory empirically.


I'll keep you posted on my results.

Douglas said...

"Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral." Please point me to the voting laws that required literacy tests that were not on their face race neutral. The fact that the codes on their face appear to be gender neutral is hardly the end of the inquiry. The fact is that these codes are only applied to men who have sex with intoxicated women. It would be far more honest, and cause a lot less grief and aggravation, to have a "Code of Gentlemanly Conduct" barring college men from taking advantage of college women, even if that caused some grief among feminists who might object to an official recognition of the need to protect the weaker sex from the predations of men.

chickelit said...

Where o where are thou, Lazlo?
You usually salubricate these discussions.

jr565 said...

Sebastian wrote:
"What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?

But only for men, right? Since that seems to be the default position for women. They can get drunk, and its the mans responsibility to not take advantage of her .
Also, as Gahrie says, how do you enforce it?

Gahrie said...

Generally, my opinion is that there is way too much bad sex going around these days and too many people are unhappy

That is exactly what your parents thought about your generation in 1968.

David said...

"Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral."

They are not that stupid. It's the enforcement, not the definition.

The Drill SGT said...

Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral.

I point you to the White House and along with Title IX, the gold standard which drives DOJ and D Ed implementation of the campus witch hunt. The "Violence Against Women Act"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsheet.pdf

Under the leadership of then-Senator Joe Biden, Congress recognized the severity of violence
against women and our need for a national strategy with the enactment of the Violence
Against Women Act in 1994. This landmark federal legislation’s comprehensive approach to
violence against women combined tough new provisions to hold offenders accountable with
programs to provide services for the victims of such violence.


Notice the word "Women" in the law? that's not gender neutral. Neutral would be:

"The Domestic Violence Act"

It still would be biased in implementation, but it would have the appearance you desire...


Michael K said...

" the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral."

I skimmed this thread as it seems to be an Althouse monologue but this is unusually ridiculous.

Everybody knows what is going on, except perhaps the male students who are the target of angry left wing feminism.

They are learning but the behavior changes seem to be delayed until they are not marrying women.

Texas Annie said...

I am in agreement with several posters here that ST has gone around the bend and is not contributing to the discussion.

I was taken aback at the very beginning when Laslo showed up, but he has grown on me and now I absolutely adore his reverence, his innuendo, and his smartass attitude.

ShoutingThomas has just become plain old mean as hell. It's worthless commentary even when he does have a point.

Your mileage may vary.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Bishop of Butt Fucking has become a cartoon character from the Bible.

Lot's wife, looking back mournfully on the remains of the burning city... and the end of the reign of Butt Fucking.

I am amazed at the profound and disastrous evil that the Bishop has embraced. This started with denying the moral of the AIDS epidemic, which for obvious reasons she will not touch. The tens of millions dead as a result of her religion are the evidence. Her pettifogging is designed to forced you to look away.

Next up, men... compulsory butt fucking for boys as proof of their "tolerance."

I suggest you recognize the Bishop as the evil, demented enemy she is. Regain the wisdom of your fathers and grandfathers. Cease regarding this women as anything save the monster she has become.

Your fathers and grandfathers were quite right about what motivates women like the Bishop of Butt Fucking. Open your eyes.

The Bishop of Butt Fucking is an out in the open Nazi. Sieg Heil!

Shouting Thomas said...

The anger and alarm you are experience as I pull away the flimsy covering of what the Bishop of Butt Fucking actually is doing is to be expected.

I'm not here to appear reasonable or to apologize for the language I must use. This is about Butt Fucking. It is about a nascent Nazi movement the Bishop has embraced.

I am here simply to light a fire in your brain. You will start by being pissed off at me. I don't care.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, men...

How much longer will you tolerate cunts like the Bishop torturing, hectoring, humiliating and destroying your sons and grandsons because they want to fuck a pussy instead of a butthole?

She does give your sons and grandsons a choice...

Become a fag.

Get clear about what this bitch is doing. Don't be deceived.

chickelit said...

@TexasAnnie: Mileage does indeed vary.

Recall that Althouse accused the young man in the Columbia case of playing the "bullied card," which is a favorite tactic of those trying to emasculate men: link

Now, that may have been before all the facts were known. But another fact is was there a subsequent re-annalysis of the situation afterwards? Any recognition of the culpability of young woman or the University?

These facts matter too.

Texas Annie said...

Agreed Chick.

DougWeber said...

I believe the first step in discussing the proper concept of due process for offenses against codes of conduct is to determine the context in which these codes exists. I see three cases:

1. Public Universities. That is schools that are a direct arm of the government and receive much funding from direct appropriations.
2. Private Universities and Colleges. This is schools that have their own charters and structures just like private businesses.
3. Private Universities and Colleges that receive significant funds from the government usually in the form of student loan support and research grants.

For 1, I believe, and the professor can correct me, the courts have ruled that due process in must be described and followed. This arises from their public nature. While some leeway is allowed to the school, the courts usually seem to want to look at the processes and judge their propriety.

For 2, modulo the statutes that restrict employers, the courts keep out of the management of the school. It can establish its own rules and enforce them as it sees fit. In the 60's Wheaton College in Illinois had a code of conduct that disallowed dancing and card playing. Many private schools still had mandatory chapels.

3 this the tricky one and I think the context in which we are having trouble. The start of the current kerfuffle comes from the federal government directing private institutions that they had to establish codes of conduct and rules or possibly lose their federal funding. For most private colleges and certainly all universities this lose would destroy them.

So the question to discuss is what is due process in the context of case 3. Does the coercive nature of the governments action require the government level scrutiny of due process be applied to the rules created or are the rules still private or is there some intermediate level?

My sense is that people feel that because the government is forcing these changes, there needs to be some accountability to due process required. On legal level, I would guess the issue is undecided.

Owen said...

@chickelit: "...any reanalysis [of the Mattress Girl fiasco]?" I have not seen anything from Sulkowicz, Columbia or the others who have made life hell for Nungesser, except defensive noises. Now that he is suing, that's probably all we'll ever hear. It's a shame, because if anything offers a "teachable moment," it is this case. A thorough and scholarly assessment would be very helpful. But just as the common law works heuristically and by accretion, we will get less crazy and stupid. People are taking notes. They will adjust their behavior. Men (it will be mostly men, I think) will grow much more wary and litigious. Campus romance may be largely sterilized, or else conducted with precautionary documentation. I expect there will be efforts to choke the campus disciplinary process with preemptive accusations and even spoofs. That is what happens with badly designed systems. They break in expensive ways and their authors become the object of mockery.

campy said...

" I expect there will be efforts to choke the campus disciplinary process with preemptive accusations and even spoofs."

I Doubt it. Any men who dare to try this will be treated as harshly as the "rapists."

PB said...

It seems that in some cases (Columbia mattress woman) rape is only recognized in retrospect. It doesn't matter if any of several instances are viewed as consensual at the time. If the man breaks off the relationship with the woman, she will feel betrayed and thus conclude all the previous instances constituted rape.

Birkel said...

Every man should report every women as a rapist after he has sex with her, so long as he has the requisite number of beers. Flood the system with complaints. Force the college's to throw their hands up and make the explicit declaration that Professor Althouse requires: women cannot be rapists in he said/she said situations.

Make those bastards declare their fascism openly. This is about power. Make no mistake. It is the exercise of raw power over men by almost exclusively female administrators.

Owen said...

@PB: "...recognized in retrospect." Quite so. Years after the fact --when evidence has long since vanished and witnesses are impossible to find or interview-- it will be soon enough to "recover the memory of the trauma" and serve up an accusation. The concept of a statute of limitation is an old sexist mode of thinking and should be challenged where possible.

The whole business is straight out of Faulkner: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even the past."

From Inwood said...

Coming late to this discussion, but, with all due respect, Prof A seems like a student on day one in law school here.

Her questions are OK for that class in Criminal Law or Con Law, but it would be nice if she would not blow off the serious, sensible objections of Bruce & Douglas & The Drill SGT to "tribunals" which to be nothing more than something from Alice & the Queen of Hearts.

campy said...

"Flood the system with complaints. Force the college's to throw their hands up and make the explicit declaration that Professor Althouse requires: women cannot be rapists in he said/she said situations."

Or more likely: the college holds a few hearings and finds the charges not credible. Then they immediately charge the men with abuse of process, harassment, bullying and a host of other offenses.

After a few gadflies are expelled, the frivolous charges are no longer an issue.

AReasonableMan said...

Interesting discussion. My two cents, alcohol is largely the problem here. A bunch of high achieving nerds who can't figure out how to get laid without also getting drunk. Not surprisingly, things don't always go well.

buwaya puti said...

I doubt there is even as much drunkenness as implied.
Much less "rape" by any definition.
Or college prosections for rape, even under current rules.
It seems that everyone is giving a few lurid cases much more significance than they should.

Shouting Thomas said...

The first step, men, isn't procedural or legal... it's reclaiming the language of your fathers and grandfathers and speaking that language bluntly.

Althouse is a fag hag. She's made a religion out of butt fucking. Her allies in the university are man hating dykes who should be in the nunnery.

Stop getting in a battle of pettifoggery with her. That's precisely what she wants.

The enemy isn't far off. It's right here in the Church of the Bishop of Butt Fucking.

Commandment #1 of the Theology of Butt Fucking:

Butt Fucking Shall Absolve Thee of the Original Sin of the Patriarchy.


This is why we are required to regard her son as a saint and kiss his ass. The Original Sin of the Patriarchy is penetration of the vagina.

This is what made the Bishop a fag hag. Butt fuckers are purified of Original Sin in the great Theology of Butt Fucking.

The Drill SGT said...

AReasonableMan said...
Interesting discussion. My two cents, alcohol is largely the problem here. A bunch of high achieving nerds who can't figure out how to get laid without also getting drunk. Not surprisingly, things don't always go well.


According to the new standards, any use of alcohol legally works against the male (only).
- Man has a drink, his culpability increases
- woman has a drink, even if the man wasn't present when she did, his culpability increases and her's decreases

buster said...

Although said:

"Please point me to the university code that defines behavior in terms that are not gender neutral."

It doesn't matter that behavior is defined in gender neutral terms if the rules are systematically applied in a non-gender-neutral way. You might just as well say that blacks had nothing to complain about in the Jim Crow,era criminal justice system because criminal behavior was defined in racially neutral terms.

Shouting Thomas said...

In favor of the Bishop, I will say this before I go off to rehearsal:

Never underestimate her IQ and her love of (and infinite skill in) playing office politics. She's always playing a chess game with several moves in mind.

Could be she's fed up with the Nazis in her institution, but that she doesn't want to be the one to take the hit for calling them out.

Could be she's deliberately created a space for some fool to sound the alarm. I'm a good person for the job, since I'm retired, financially secure and I can no longer be blacklisted. And I never gave a shit about office politics.

Darleen said...

Then there are the females who claim to say "yes" when they really mean "no" because they have been "raped by rape culture"

http://cmcforum.com/opinion/04302015-why-yes-can-mean-no

rcocean said...

The reason Krauhaer's book is so bad is he can't tell the difference between "sexual assault" and "Rape". Nor could he tell the difference between felony rape per Criminal law and "sexual assault" as defined by a University.

He's done a couple good books on the outdoors, but I'm not buying anymore of them. I'm tired of giving $$$ to SJW's.

Bruce Hayden said...

http://cmcforum.com/opinion/04302015-why-yes-can-mean-no

I really did enjoy that - Yes meaning No. As a guy, you can't win for losing. The girl said "yes", but some how, the guy is supposed to know that she really meant "no".

Bruce Hayden said...

Generally, my opinion is that there is way too much bad sex going around these days and too many people are unhappy and that you shouldn't need to get drunk to have sex. I'm concerned that people are deluded into thinking having more sex is a good thing and rather than think deeply about whether that's true, they get drunk so they can do it.

I think that is definitely part of the problem. But, there is also the problem that we (Ann's and my generation) taught young women that with modern birth control, etc., that young women can enjoy sex like men do. But, women are not men with vaginas instead of penises. For the most part, sex, and esp. initial sex, means more to them than it does men. Often a lot more. Emotionally, young women want to be selective with whom they have sex, and, indeed, to be selective overall, when it comes to sex. But, our current culture, and esp. that of our college campuses, is stuck on the idea that boys and girls just want to get laid, and that if boys can do it (a lot of one night stands),then the girls want that to, and with modern birth control, etc. can have it. And, try to. No wonder they get drunk first.

Another part is that there is no longer an assumed "no". The young women are assumed to want it, unless they emphatically say "no". Very different from my era, and, again, partially a result of the sexual liberation that Ann and her sisters brought these young coeds. And, that means that the young women are expected to have sex before commitment, which is the opposite of what we had at that age.

One of the big problems of the idea that women should want sex before commitment is that it has changed the odds of which guys are getting laid. Fewer guys are getting a lot more sex. Which they can do, since they need not make a commitment to the young women they are having sex with. I was struck with the U-MT quarterback. An apparent beta female appears to have essentially asked out one of the top alpha males on campus, and then cried "rape" when she got no emotional commitment from him. Of course he thought that she intended to have sex with him. Why wouldn't he, since he could be out having sex with some other admirer that evening if she didn't want to put out? And, she should be expected to know that, and, thus, that her watching that movie with him was seen by him (and most other alpha males) as an implied promise of sex.

Chef Mojo said...

I remember back in the day when Howard Stern's schtick was kinda, well, shocking. Now it's predictable and boring. Kinda like ST is predictable and boring.

Lift the veil, blah, blah, blah. Butt fucking, blah, blah, blah. Heap big Catholic goes to MASS!!!!11!!!1eleventy!!. How exceptional!

ST thumps his chest, fist firmly grasping a rickety KoC sword, and proclaims what a horrific enemy he is to those who would stand before him in his Apocalyptic war against...

Butt Fucking.

Really?

ST obviously needs a new, less boring, schtick.

Bruce Hayden said...

Continuing with my previous point - I talked to a recently graduated co-ed about the alleged sexual assault epidemic on campus. She immediately jumped to several of her sorority sisters giving up their virginity to guys who didn't appreciate their sacrifice. My thoughts then (that I didn't share with her for obvious reasons) is that all these young women were clueless about sex, males, and the combination thereof. To the girls, it was a big sacrifice. To the guys, it was another notch in their belts, maybe a double notch, if they knew that the gals were giving up their virginity. Why is it the guys' fault that the young women put a bigger store on their sexual treasures than the young men did? These young women don't seem to understand mathematics - they all can't marry the alpha (or high beta) males that they are sleeping with, because there are a lot more of them, than the top ranked guys.

That said, the smart girls can survive college with their hearts intact. This young women started dating a football player their senior year. Neither had dated much prior to that, because they were working too hard at their academics. They are still together a couple of years later.

Bruce Hayden said...

Butt Fucking.

That was a big part of the story with mattress girl. She had apparently alleged that she might have been willing to do her victim vaginally, it was the fact that the sex was anally that caused her to cry "rape". But, then, her victim released a lot of text messages, etc. where she appeared to be the one pushing for it.

Which got me thinking about the Kobe Bryant case in Eagle/Vail. I actually had to be in the Eagle county court house during that trial, and remember vividly what a zoo it was getting through security (I had to show that I was attorney of record for a pending case to get through security). In any case, a woman went up to his room, presumably for sex. He pulled down her pants, bent her over, and did her from the rear. The question was whether she consented to that, and the jury essentially said that they couldn't say that she hadn't. As someone pointed out at the time, why would an NBA star expose himself to the chance of paternity through vaginal intercourse? Of course he did her in a way that minimized that.

Some women want anal intercourse (I think that it was Wonkette who really got into it for awhile). But, I suspect that it is more often than not a power thing, with everyone knowing that most women don't want sex that way, but the ones who are willing are doing so in order to snag the guys. And, that is, I think, probably what was going on with mattress girl. She seemed to want the guy badly. Really badly, and was willing to do what it took. Except that didn't get him. She just comes across as really, really, needy.

Saint Croix said...

I was wondering who the damn Bishop was. Althouse is the Bishop? But who is the Queen? Who is the King? Or are we not playing chess at all? Who is the Pope?

I'm not sure I understand obsessing over a Bishop. That's like focusing all your ire on a mid-level bureaucrat. Aim higher, Shouting Thomas. Let's figure out who the Queen and/or Pope is. Or the King, if you want to win the damn thing.

chickelit said...

Althouse is the Bishop? But who is the Queen? Who is the King?

Hillary is the Queen and Obama is the King?

chickelit said...

Meade would be a knight (errant :)
I don't know about the others. I don't play chess. I prefer cards.

The Drill SGT said...













Ann Althouse said...
What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?


In the Army, one of the leadership rules we learn is;

Never give an order you know won't be obeyed, because it dilutes your authority and encourages disrespect.

punishing students for mixing sex and alcohol would be pointless in the extreme and encourage political punishments of selected parties.










Saint Croix said...

What would you think of just making a rule against combining drinking with sexual activity?

Fucking While Intoxicated.

What this would mean is that a lot of cases that are being called "rape" would disappear, since the person making the claim would open themselves up to a FWI charge. And if you were mad enough, you would do it anyway. And so the man gets a FWI charge, and you get a FWI charge, too.

Never give an order you know won't be obeyed,

Some people will obey it. They will stay sober when they have sex. Which is better sex, anyway. Lesson for children!

Other people will violate it. But the thing is, you're violating with a partner. Do you trust your partner? Will she rat you out? What happens when she sobers up?

It will cause men and women to work on their trust issues, and their alcohol consumption. And if you want to have the fun of illegal bad boy bad girl drunk fucking, you can do that too. But you know that you are both responsible for the bad behavior, so you stop with the feminist horseshit.

Althouse, your FWI idea is both a trigger warning and a microaggression. I like it!

Saint Croix said...

You could also give an exemption to married people. FWI away, you married dogs!

buwaya puti said...

My rule would be no sex or drinking on campus.
Sex on campus = everyone expelled.
Alcohol on campus = ditto
Off campus we don't care. Take it outside and deal with the police like adults.
Also segregated dorms (if owned by the college). No men or women past the door.
Why don't people like simple rules ?

Unknown said...

Also simple: for the woman, nothing. Too bad sugar tits, better luck next time, stick to iced tea. If you're serious, call 911.

Under this regime, would women not be strongly incented to behave ladylike/sensibly?

RecChief said...

and well she should be.

Fen said...

punishing students for mixing sex and alcohol would be pointless in the extreme and encourage political punishments of selected parties.

Not only that, but it ignores basic human nature.

Two coeds decide to have sex but not drink? Okay, that can work.

Two coeds decide to drink but not have sex? Are you kidding? By the 4th beer they'll be stripping their clothes off.

Peter said...

"You don't think a university can have rules of conduct and sanctions for violation that apply to its students?"

I can see where a university would have rules of conduct that apply to academic work, and to behavior when on campus. But why would a university try to control off-campus behavior?

Would you also support employers who attempt to limit employees' speech or other behaviors when they're not at work, even when not doing anything connected with work and clearly not representing the employer in any way?

Peter said...

"Probably little surprise that many of them end up in gender studies, and from there end up as Title IX officers (or gender studies profs)

Title IX officers are the American version of zampolits (aka political officers).

American companies copied many Japanese manufacturing methods when it became clear they were superior to ours. But why would the USA want to copy some of the nastiest parts of Soviet political control methods?

At least we don't have zeks. Yet.

Rick said...

I find Bazelon's effort concurrently encouraging and sad. It's great that some on the left are finally staking out a moderate liberal position and pushing back against the radicals. But in 6 months there have been only three such efforts: this, a long criticism by Emily Yoffe, and some initial questioning of the Rolling Stone reporting (all three Slate contributors). This is far too few given the outrageous events, and meanwhile the radicals are increasing their extremism.

It seems those who do support more reasonable positions are choosing to downplay the issue, which suggests they are reluctant to become the public face of a reasonable position. But in any reasonable circumstance this would be a career enhancer which should encourage people to make this fight more public rather than less.

This divergence suggests their position is damaging within the left, which means there isn't nearly as much support for the moderate positions as their should be.

Kirk Parker said...

Drill Sgt @ 5/3/15, 6:06pm:

You are exactly right! Unfortunately, our government and universities are just the folks to do this.

Smilin' Jack said...

Don't use as a premise of your argument that if something is a crime it cannot be part of a code of conduct enforced internally

I don't see why universities need "codes of conduct" that cover behavior already covered by the criminal law. In fact, I think most law enforcement agencies strongly disapprove of civilians meddling in their investigations.

Kathryn O'Hehir said...

i have been following the "career" of Krakauer since 2009 when researching a biography of a Sherpa and found the brouhaha over his errors regarding Anatoli Boukereev, who sfter 20 years and the recent film "Everest" put his heroic, rather than damning role JK portrayed him as. there are few writers who have so many books, pocked with errors, misinformation and downright fiction, yey he sees fit to criticize others works. he spent several million, including buying a controlling interest in By-Liner ($750,000 48 hours before 60 Minutes piece) and there is reason to believe the cash strapped Lee Publishing, who produces the Missoulian may well have also accepted "honey money" for favorable coverage. let's use some common sense here. a man who destroyed a charity thst served thousands of the poorest girls on earth, wakes up one morning a feminist and sexual assault advocate? i don't think so. whst makes a lot more sense is he needed a viable reason to remain in Montana while he hammered away at the CAI to boot Greg Mortenson off the board, via board chair Steve Barnett, a Bullock appointee. he succeeded in thst GM was forced to resign in Jan. The Supreme Court asked some significant questions, particularly "what compelling reason did Krakauer have for the documents that over-ride protected privacy law when he,as a single litigant, wanted it for commercial use? she also added that advocacy groups usually join in such cases and were glaringly absent from his. he could care less about sexual assault, but his vendetta against Mortenson knows no bounds. here is a link to an article I wrote question jis own, in all likelihood illegal document collection for this and other books:
https://medium.com/@kateohehir/krakauer-on-very-thin-ice-in-missoula-case-b8deb7df23ad, I always use my real name, but akrakauervsends his avatarvtrolls out in droves as this very long string is a perfect example of.

Kathryn O'Hehir said...

https://medium.com/@kateohehir/krakauer-on-very-thin-ice-in-missoula-case-b8deb7df23ad