Can schools provide due process for defendants and adequate justice for victims, or do these cases belong in the courts? A formal debate, sponsored by Intelligence Squared, will be held in New York City, September 16th.
Ohio University student Rachel Baker plans to retweet the names of the presumptively innocent accused of sexual harassment
…all of the noble intentions in the world can’t whitewash her appalling hostility to the rights of the presumptively innocent. This effort needs to be condemned by all persons of goodwill.
We Exposed the Shaky Foundation of the Campus Serial Rapist Theory. You Won’t Believe What Happened Next (Deafening Silence)
I can’t deny a creeping suspicion that many in the Lisak camp now realize the serial predatory theory of campus violence is highly flawed, but don’t want to criticize it, because doing so would give ammunition to opponents of the draconian anti-rape policies championed by the federal government.
reason.com By Robby Soave
I’m struck with the use of language in a April 2015 article in the University of Puget Sound newspaper “Trails”:
I kept thinking it was my fault, it was my fault. I should’ve said no, like what was I doing? But I started to realize I did tell him no. I just didn’t use the word no. I didn’t say anything. Because he never asked, he demanded. You can’t say no in a position like that; you just can’t. No doesn’t exist in that moment. You can think it in your head, scream it in your head but the words will never come out. In that moment, you have no power to say no. He has all of the power.
The double-speak is incomprehensible: “I did tell him no. I just didn’t use the word no.”
“Because he never asked, he demanded.” Compare these statements to the cultural norm that male confidence is attractive. I believe it will be quite a mental shift for women to find men sexy who are not confident in the bedroom or classroom.
Personally, I don’t know what happened that night at University of Puget Sound, and I have no knowledge except for this article from the student newspaper. But if these are the arguments used to convict “him”, how could he have known that she wasn’t participating? Her argument isn’t that she was unmoving or non-participatory, her argument is that she said “no” in her mind.
How could he have known that?
In this brilliant piece in the September 2015 issue of the Atlantic: The Coddling of the American Mind, it states:
Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong.
This hits the nail on the head. In case after case of sexual misconduct accusations, the accuser has confused objective reality with internal emotional reality. It happened in John Doe vs. Occidental, Doe Vs. Regents of UC San Diego, and in practically every other case that has become public. A girl feels that something was wrong, especially after the fact. But all her sexual actions on the night in question may have been either participatory or at best ambivalent. The male student didn’t know each and every thought that was in her head, and she didn’t communicate every single thought. Her emotional reality, even though it conflicts with rational reality, becomes the basis for branding him a rapist.
And with all these gray area cases (now being referenced by the terrible thought-control term of ‘gray rape’), the male is condemned, for life, with no possibility of appeal, no parole and no possibility of redemption. And too often, no hope. Too often we are hearing a similar story: she says,
“…I did tell him no.
I just didn’t use the word no.”
If anyone needs the qualification of being a “self-identified” survivor, it’s Sulkowicz. After her alleged rape, Sulkowicz sent fawning emails to her alleged rapist, begging to get together again. Two days after the incident, Sulkowicz texted him: “Also I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr.” A week later she suggested that they hang out together: “I want to see yoyououoyou.” Two months later, she texted: “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!”..It took Sulkowicz six months to decide that she had been raped. Columbia was indubitably right not to find her sexual partner guilty, but it lost the public-relations battle anyway over its alleged mistreatment of rape “survivors.”
commentarymagazine.com By Heather MacDonald
“Is this OK? What would you like me to do to you? Do you want to have sex?”…“As things escalate, is he supposed to ask before each of the 20, 30, 40 steps?” John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University, told Inside Higher Ed last year. “Nobody talks like that, not even lawyers.”
Bottom line: Due process isn’t just good for the falsely accused, it’s effective at ensuring the truly guilty receive just punishment.
www.washingtonexaminer.com By Ashe Schow
…a person’s feelings dictate whether someone else is a sexual offender — not intent, not proof.. Normal human interaction is now harassment if the “receiver” doesn’t like you enough.
www.washingtonexaminer.com By Ashe Schow
Brandeis University president writes an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”…In California…a list of offensive statements… “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
www.theatlantic.com By Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt
…in recent cases, while failing to persuade a court of gender bias, have succeeded on claims of breach of contract, negligence, or by demonstrating that the school acted arbitrarily and capriciously in administering its policies.
www.bostonlawyerblog.com By Naomi Shatz