Friday, September 23, 2016

Man banished from college due to woman's claim of incapacitated sex--even though the school said there was no evidence of incapacity

A male student at the University of Michigan was accused of sexual assault by a female student who claimed that when they had sex, she was too intoxicated to consent.

A university investigator interviewed 23 witnesses and concluded that "there is no evidence of the complainant's outward signs of incapacitation that the respondent would have observed prior to initiating the sexual activity."

End of case--based on that finding of fact, there is no evidence to find the male student responsible for sexual assault. She reasonably appeared to him to have capacity, so her claim must be rejected. The accused cannot be expected to read his sex partner's inner thoughts--if she agrees to have sex and her outward manifestations reasonably suggest she has capacity, he's not guilty of sexual assault. Period.

The woman appealed. And somehow, the administrative appeal board overturned the investigator's findings and found the man had violated the sexual conduct code. In late June, he signed a resolution agreement agreeing to leave U-M.

He's changed his mind, and he's suing now. So is she. He's alleging that his due process rights have been violated. The same old-same old.

This case is not difficult. It doesn't present unique issues, nor does it raise matters worthy of any debate whatsoever. What the University of Michigan did here was grossly unjust to the male student, and its unconscionable decision appears to have been motivated by the accused's gender. All persons of goodwill should outraged--and alumni at U-M ought to demand justice for the young man.

End of story.

Colleges are nuthouses

More evidence: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439999/vanderbilt-share-and-ask-pronouns-when-making-introductions-even-familiar-colleagues

Thursday, September 22, 2016

We are not allowed to offer support for our friends who've been accused of sexual assault

When it comes to sexual assault accusations, our moral superiors in the sexual grievance cartel tell us we must assume guilt based on an accusation, but that it is okay to automatically take the side of an accuser, even if we know absolutely nothing about the case or the parties involved.

We are not allowed to automatically support people accused of sexual assault, even if we know them and can vouch for their characters. Here's an example of the latter: http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/09/21/baylor-qb-seth-russell-clarifies-previous-comments-regarding-ex-teammate-awaiting-trial 

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Feminists want to get rid of statutes of limitations for rape

Gloria Allred supports the sexual grievance industry's efforts to end the statute of limitations in California for rape. Her rationale underscores the injustice in this effort. Allred writes:
Those who represent defendants often oppose eliminating the statutes of limitations. The theory goes that the fairness of a trial is compromised by the passage of time, so prosecutors shouldn’t sit on evidence of a crime and wait to charge a person once memories have faded, documents have been thrown out and alibis get hard to prove. This is why other criminal charges — with rare exception — have time limits, they argue, and rape and sexual assault should not be treated differently.

Rape and sexual assault are different, however. Other crimes are much more likely to be reported quickly, but we know that victims of sexual violence often take years to come forward because they may feel ashamed, mistakenly blame themselves for what happened or fear they will not be believed. Police and prosecutors aren’t holding onto evidence; they haven’t been informed that there was a crime.

For constitutional reasons, the Justice for Victims Act would not be retroactive; it can’t re-open the door to criminal courts that statutes of limitations already have slammed shut. But it will help victims of rape and sexual assault in the future.

If Gov. Brown signs this bill into law, statutes of limitations no longer will be a sexual predator’s best friend and a victim’s worst enemy.
Statutes of limitations aren't designed to protect the guilty--though sometimes they do--they are designed to protect the innocent, the wrongly accused. Allred doesn't even bother to say how the wrongly accused should be protected against old claims they can't possibly defend against. By refusing to acknowledge that the wrongly accused are deserving of any such protections whatsoever, Allred underscores the injustice of the position she advocates.

If someone is accused today of committing rape 20, 30, or 40 years ago, there is no realistic way he will be able to defend against it. I can think of few things more frightening. It is almost certain he will not be able to establish an alibi. All witnesses, all documents showing, for example, he was somewhere else when the alleged crime occurred, will have been lost to the mists of time.

None of that is a concern to Allred or her ilk. All that matters is that it will be easier for women to get convictions many years after the rape.

“The statute of limitations is there for a reason,” said Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy “When a case is prosecuted literally decades after the event, it becomes much more ... difficult to prove that you are wrongfully accused." See here.

The longer an accuser waits to bring a charge from the date it allegedly occurred, the more difficult it is to fairly defend against it. The horror stories of the repressed memories witch hunts are examples of what can occur. In rape cases, there is a national trend to lengthen or eliminate statutes of limitations entirely. This is a concern to the criminal defense bar, the ACLU, and many others. We write about it from time to time -- see e.g.: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/12/assholez-who-despise-falsely-accused.html;  http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/07/alarming-trend-states-extend-statutes.html; http://www.cotwa.info/2011/12/feminist-legal-scholar-explains-need.html.

It is painful to see that so many in the progressive camp have become so terribly hostile to due process and basic notions of fairness. They've hitched their wagons to group identity politics and don't think that defendants accused of crimes involving a penis are entitled to any protections. I can't think of any other issue where self-professing liberals are happy to see due process rolled back for a particular group. For what other crime have liberals applauded eliminating statutes of limitations? A friend of mine recently said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Thank goodness for the ACLU and the defense bar, but the rest of the party seems to have forgotten how they once revered fundamental notions of justice.

Geraldo Rivera says sexual assault and harassment accusers deserve the 'presumption of credibility'

Geraldo Rivera--best known for a disastrous publicity stunt that involved opening gangster Al Capone's vault that was supposed to contain untold riches but that only contained a few empty bottles--has declared he was wrong for supporting ex-Fox News head Roger Ailes, recently accused of sexual harassment by ex-Fox News female personalities.

Rivera now says: "Like victims of sexual assault, those alleging harassment deserve the presumption of credibility.”

Rivera is suggesting that men accused of sexual assault or harassment and who deny the allegations lodged against them should be presumed to have lied.  After all, both parties can't have the presumption of credibility, can they?

The idiocy speaks for itself.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

'Do we really think our universities are full of sexual attackers?'

Great article--original found here: http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sibley-do-we-really-think-our-universities-are-full-of-sexual-attackers
Students attending Carleton University this fall, women and men, will likely find themselves subject to propaganda aimed at convincing them the campus is rife with sexual predators.

Over the last few months a cadre of academics, outreach workers, student and union association members, and sexual assault survivors has been insisting that the university administration admit the campus is pervaded by a “rape culture.” They want that label included in policies the university is preparing as it tries to conform to the Ontario Liberal government’s diktats on sexual violence.

The province requires that, by the end of the year, Ontario universities and colleges establish policies to comply with Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Workplace Harassment Action Plan. The intent, supposedly, is to end sexual violence and harassment in educational institutions.

The concept, which has it roots in 1970s feminist ideology, was deployed by the government in a report on sexual violence entitled “It’s Never OK” that called for an end to “rape culture on campuses.” Rape culture was defined as one in which “dominant ideas, social practices, media images and societal institutions implicitly or explicitly condone sexual assault by normalizing or trivializing male sexual violence and by blaming survivors for their own abuse.”

Nobody can deny the widespread sexual exploitation of women in our society. Think of all the magazine ads, Internet sites and TV shows that display women as objects for male pleasure. Nor is there a lack of examples where the justice system has failed women by effectively tolerating or excusing male sexual violence.


But is it reasonable – and responsible – to claim the “culture” at Carleton University is dominated by ideas, practices, imagery and institutional arrangements that condone sexual assault, trivialize sexual violence or blame the victim?

I have no special purchase on how women on campus perceive their circumstances. Some may well feel themselves under constant threat. But individual feelings, or even individual experience, don’t necessarily reflect collective reality.

Carleton’s safety department received 58 sexual assault reports in the nine years between 2007 and 2015. With three exceptions, they all fit the Criminal Code definition of level one sexual assaults; that is, assaults where the “sexual integrity” of the victim is violated whether through bodily contact or unwanted words or gestures of a sexual nature.

There were only two reports – one in 2010 and one in 2012 – of level two sexual assaults, in which the threat of bodily harm was involved.

The single reported level three sexual assault – aggravated sexual assault – involved a 23-year-old woman who suffered a broken jaw and a dislocated shoulder when she was beaten unconscious and raped in a science lab in 2007.

Of course, many sexual assaults go unreported – as many as two-thirds, by some estimates. In 2015, there were nine “reported” sexual assaults. But if all the unreported incidents had also been counted, that means there may have been as many as 27 sexual assaults on a campus with 30,000 students, more than half of whom are women.

Obviously, even a single sexual assault is one too many. Nor can there be any excuse – alcohol, drugs, cultural attitudes, misinterpreted signals – for sexual violence. But in light of the numbers, reported and estimated, it is an exercise in ideological extremism to suggest Carleton University condones rape culture, tacitly or otherwise.

Nevertheless, the ideologues denounce administrators for being in denial about the “problem with campus rape,” as one pundit recently put it. The charge is intellectually fraudulent and tantamount to moral blackmail. If the administration denies the “rape culture” label, it will be accused of putting the university’s reputation ahead of student safety. If it includes the label in its sexual violence policy, well, what parent would send a child to a school that effectively admits students aren’t safe?

The “rape culture” canard insults not only every man – students, teachers and staff – with its implicit message that they are to be regarded as potential sexual predators, but also every woman who has a father, husband, brother or son on campus.

Robert Sibley, a veteran Ottawa journalist, holds a PhD in political science from Carleton University, where he occasionally lectures on political philosophy.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Film director acquitted of rape buys into "rape culture"

Film director Nate Parker, who is black, was a 19-year-old wrestler at Penn State in August 1999 he was accused of raping a white woman. Parker admitted to having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. The accuser was inebriated prior to the the alleged assault but a witness said she was coherent. The accuser tried to tried to trap Mr. Parker into confessing that he raped an unconscious woman in a recorded telephone confession (Mr. Parker didn't know it was being recorded). Here's what Mr. Parker said: “You were all for it, you know what I mean,” he said. “It’d, it’d be different if you were just laying there, but you weren’t. You were active, you know what I mean?” And: ". . . if . . . you’re giving me the vibe that you’re cool with it… I’m going to assume you’re fine. You know? I’m going to assume that nothing’s wrong. And that’s what I did.” After the accusation, Mr. Parker said a detective working on the case threatened him, “You wrestlers for the past 10 years have raped and battered this whole town. I’m going to get you.” Prosecutors brought charges.

In an October 2001 trial. Mr. Parker was acquitted on all charges by a jury in central Pennsylvania that was all white one except for one black juror.

Now that Mr. Parker is a prominent film director, he's found himself in the cross hairs of the sexual grievance cartel. Because he was accused of rape, they think it's a foregone conclusion that he's a rapist, acquittal be damned.

Cathy Young, for one, has stood up for Parker and decried the PC lynch mob that makes him a scapegoat.

So how does Parker himself react? Does he talk about the fact that it's unjust to assume guilt based on an accusation? Does he talk about the necessity for judging every case on its own facts? Does he talk about the critical importance of due process?

He does not. He reacts by admitting his male "privilege" and the destructive effect" that "male culture" has on our culture. He wants to "grow" from the rape criticisms being lodged against him. His interview is replete with the extremist language of "rape culture," which is both ironic and troubling because "rape culture" is the very attitude that says it's not just acceptable but, indeed, proper to assume he's a rapist based on the accusation made against him. "Rape culture" promotes the belief that to concede even the possibility that there might be another side to a "he said-she said" rape claim is misogyny and rape apology.

It doesn't matter to Mr. Parker that RAINN, itself, thinks "rape culture" is an unjust concept. "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime," according to RAINN. The "unfortunate" tendency to blame "rape culture" for sexual assault, RAINN wrote, "has led to an inclination to focus on . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape."

Nate Parker has decided that he'd rather keep his PC credentials intact than speak out against the injustice of rushing to judgment and assuming guilt in rape cases, and that means kowtowing to the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on all things related to sexual assault.

Because Nate Parker was a black man who was accused by a white woman, his attitude is particularly repulsive.

Nate Parker might have been wrongly accused, but he is no friend to the wrongly accused.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

A U.S. Senator thinks it's your son's responsibility to keep his daughters from being raped

And, no, the headline of this post is not an exaggeration. "U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., told a group of students, faculty and staff at the University of Pittsburgh today that male college students have an obligation to stop sexual assaults by others before they happen."

Excuse me? You mean innocent male students, who would never dream of sexually assaulting a woman, somehow have a duty to stop sexual assault because . . . they happen to be male?

But wait until you read his rationale. “'Let’s be honest, a lot of guys know when something might happen, that they have an awareness that someone in their group is predisposed to do something,' Sen. Casey told the audience of about 60. 'You need to be a man. You need to examine your conscience and ask yourself what your obligation is...what you can do to prevent this from happening.'"

Yes, let’s be honest, Senator. You're full of shit.

The premise is ludicrous. If it is true that "a lot of guys know when something might happen," the same is true for "a lot of women."

How is it that when it comes to sexual assault, college men suddenly become The Amazing Kreskin--able to read the minds of predators, but college women--so capable is every other sphere of their existence--are completely clueless and thoroughly helpless?

The reason Casey puts the onus on innocent young men is because it is verboten to ask innocent young women to take any precautions to safeguard their own well-beings when it comes to sexual assault--it is verboten to suggest that they should alter their behavior even a whit to avoid being raped. They can drink to unconsciousness in the bedrooms of men they don't know, even if this increases the statistical likelihood that they will be raped, because to counsel that they exercise even a modicum of common sense is "victim blaming."

Since we can't tell innocent young women to "be careful" without being accused of being "rape apologists," we must put the onus to keep women safe on innocent young men--who have far less ability to prevent young women from being raped than the young women who might be raped.

Get it? Neither do I.

Let's get it straight. We empower our college-aged daughters by insisting they are powerless. We make women "strong" by telling them they are Disney damsels who deserve to rescued by campus Prince Charmings who must "man up" to protect Senator Casey's daughters.

Down, down, down the rabbit hole we tumble.

Sen. Casey called sexual assault a “betrayal that plays out not solely because of the perpetrator because the rest of us don’t do something about it.”

But Senator, by "the rest of us," who do you mean, specifically? If innocent people have a responsibility to prevent rape, does that include even the potential victims?

Of course it does, but he'll never say it, folks. It would be the end of his political career.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Is America ready for a woman president? Apparently not.

I have been "ready" for a female president for as long as I can recall, but obviously the feminists aren't.

Gloria Steinem and Katie Couric dismissed the criticisms of Hillary Clinton as amounting to men being threatened by a powerful woman. You know, the usual. See here. Then Steinem pooh-poohed the Clinton email scandal (even though Clinton's previously hidden emails reveal that donors to the Clinton Foundation bought government access through their donations). Not surprisingly, Couric doesn't bother to challenge Steinem's assertions.

The comments come amidst a campaign where the male Republican nominee has been bombarded by unprecedented media hostility, not all of it self-inflicted.

Yet, any criticism of Mrs. Clinton is dismissed as sexism. Which means America isn't ready for a female president.

We can't be electing a president who is immune from criticism solely because of her genitalia. Legitimate criticism is legitimate criticism, not sexism, even though it's directed at a woman. A ten year old child knows that, but the people who dominate the political public discourse struggle with it.

Earlier in this campaign, Gloria Steinem said that young women were abandoning Hillary in favor of Bernie Sanders because--wait for it--young women want to follow the boys, and the boys were for Bernie. (I mean, with misogynists like that, who needs misogynists?)

We've previously shown that it's wholly unacceptable to talk about female candidates in gender terms but that female candidates do it all the time when it comes to their male opponents. The double-standard ought to be unacceptable, but of course it isn't.

When Senator Bernie Sanders called Hillary Clinton “unqualified” a few months ago, we were told he was speaking in "hidden codes" and launching a "gendered attack" on her by using a word that is a "subtle, pernicious form[ ] of sexism." It not only was unfair to Clinton's "impeccable resume," it served to do nothing less than "suppress women's political ambition." Women politicians, you see, are "more qualified" than male candidates based on their terms of political service, yet they face a constant struggle to prove their qualifications to others and themselves.

The charge is utter nonsense, of course. Numerous male Republican candidates have been attacked in this election cycle as unqualified and that's among the lesser charges. A lot of the attacks on male candidates have had gender undertones, but no one bothers to point that out. One (Ben Carson) was compared to a child molester--I don't see that happening to a female candidate; another (former Governor Jeb Bush) was continually branded as "low energy"; another (Marco Rubio) was ridiculed for sweating during a debate. One (Trump) was called a "draft dodger" for obtaining student deferrals during the Vietnam War. Is Hillary Clinton criticized for legally avoiding military service?

And while we're on the subject of her qualifications, is Clinton "qualified" to be president? Put aside the whole email scandal, the Benghazi lie, and the other-worldly fabrication about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, Clinton's "qualifications" for being president are based on the fact that she was married to a once-popular president, then served an undistinguished stint in the Senate, and then was arguably a failure as Secretary of State (can you say "Russian reset"? "Arab Spring"?). One of her most fervent supporters, Sen. Diane Feinstein, couldn't name a signature accomplishment of Clinton's while she was in the U.S. Senate. The State Department's own spokeswoman couldn't name one tangible achievement of Clinton's as Secretary of State. Clinton herself had difficulty mounting a coherent response to a question about her accomplishments.

Yet if we bring that up, we're misogynists.

Which means we aren't ready for a female president unless we stop heeding the gender zealots.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Trump accused of being sexist for telling a woman to 'be quiet'--and a rumination on why Trump is the GOP nominee

Donald Trump told a female reporter who interrupted him more than once to "be quiet," so he's sexist.

When Trump called out ABC News reporter Tom Llamas and told him "you're a sleaze" at a press conference two months ago, was there a gender component to that?

Of course not. And there's no gender component to telling a woman who interrupts him to "be quiet." Give us a break.

I can promise you one thing: if the sexism angle of this story gets played up, Trump will publicly take on the people crying "sexism" in a very direct, in-your-face, way. He routinely fights back when he is challenged on things like this.

For a long time, I had tried to figure out the reason Donald Trump's popularity, and I think that's it--he's a billionaire street fighter. He's also ridiculous, exasperating, and very entertaining. But he won't allow the progressive news media to bully him. A typical example of that can be seen here,

When the name "Donald Trump" comes up in the conversation, a lot of people feel obliged to display some measure of visceral disgust--they roll their eyes and utter a disparaging remark or two. Young people actually believe what they're expressing, though they are almost universally ill-informed about the facts. Older people may or may not believe it, but they know they can't be a member of "the club" if they fail to react in this manner--they're afraid of what people might think of them if they fail to show disgust for Donald Trump. Sophisticated people don't support Trump, do they?

I find Donald Trump utterly fascinating--his speech patterns, his over-the-top confidence. Unlike a lot of people who have very strong, negative opinions about Trump, I don't get my information from the mainstream news media. I actually watch what he says. Very carefully. We are witnessing something so different, it is historic, and it will be talked about forever.

What's most fascinating about Trump is that virtually every one of his rallies are Nixon's so-called "last press conference" -- except much more in-your-face and much funnier. And therein lies the reason I think a lot of people supported Trump--the GOP nominee is traditionally attacked by the mainstream media. He is put on the defensive, painted as standing in the way of "progress," and hurting the downtrodden. The GOP nominee traditionally has been feckless at fighting back. Think Joe Biden smirking at Paul Ryan throughout the 2012 VP debate. Mr. Ryan was too well-mannered, perhaps too callow, to call him on it. Think Obama rolling his eyes at gentleman Mitt Romney, and CNN's Candy Crowley taking Obama's side on a fact issue during a debate. Does anyone seriously think Trump would lay down for that sort of thing? Think about snarky Lloyd Bentsen telling hapless Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle was humiliated. On and on it goes--not since Reagan in 1980 has a GOP candidate scored a knockout in a Presidential debate. (The exception: Romney bested Obama in the first debate in 2012, only to roll over and "play it safe" after that--Trump doesn't know how to "play it safe.")

Trump's supporters feel they have a candidate who will not be bullied, and they are right. Now, that says nothing about substance. Personally, I have serious misgivings about a lot of what Trump stands for, and a lot of people are legitimately concerned about him (e.g., The National Review devoted an entire issue to stopping him)--but not for the reasons most of the eye-rollers are. Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, yet he doesn't espouse conservative principles. He is not concerned about reducing the size or influence of the Federal government. Due process isn't on his radar. His stance on the issue that is by far the most important to him--trade--is arguably closer to Bernie Sanders' position than that of conservatives and if taken to its logical, Bernie-extreme, could lead to '70s-era inflation (President Obama has warned about that).

If you are a conservative, you are stuck voting for Trump because he has told us who he will appoint to the Supreme Court, and they are conservative jurists: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/ That's not a promise Trump is likely to go back on, at least in his first term. For that same reason, regardless of what you think about Hillary Clinton, if you are not a conservative, you will vote for her.

Friday, July 22, 2016

The people who invented rape hysteria accuse Donald Trump of having a dark, fearful vision

This is not a defense of Donald Trump. This is not a post to suggest that Donald made a great acceptance speech last night or a poor one. I am not interested in that here.

This is about the double-standard of the people who dominate the public discourse about politics.

After Trump's speech, news outlet after news outlet ripped Trump's speech as "dark" and criticized his vision of America as "fearful."

The people bemoaning Trump's speech include the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on sexual assault. Take Salon, for instance. It has a headline that reads as follows: "Trump’s terrifying speech: Fear and xenophobia become the GOP’s official platform. The dark, fearful vision laid out by the Republican presidential nominee represents a nadir for our politics."

The irony is that Salon is perhaps the greatest purveyor of rape hysteria in America. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just a few I grabbed in a few seconds--we could fill this blog with dark Salon pieces on rape that vilify men, especially college men.

These people  own "dark." They invented it. And the "dark" they peddle is a confection of lies and even bigger lies. Donald Trump is a combination of Pollyanna and Mother Teresa compared to these banshees.

The people wringing their hands because Donald Trump is too "dark" unflinchingly demonize college men and reduce them to vile caricature, insist that college campuses are rape pits, claim with a straight face that women don't lie about rape, and preach that due process for men accused of rape on campus is a luxury college women can't afford. They buy into an untruth that even RAINN, the preeminent anti-rape organization in America, denounced: the "rape culture" meme.

They happily fear-monger and spread hysteria for no reason other than to elevate one gender and to diminish another.

They bought into the Duke lacrosse false rape case, Rolling Stone's imaginary gang rape, Mattress Girl's dubious rape, the Hofstra false rape case, and too many others to chronicle. Spend a few months reading through the back stories of this blog and you'll see.

Yet, these same people would have you believe that Donald Trump's vision is "dark."

Why? Because Trump isn't preaching the right kind of "dark."  He doesn't blame white college men for all of America's problems.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

GOP platform: College rape claims need to be "prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge"

Sometimes, we need to take sides. Sometimes the choices are easy--the GOP has written a platform that ought to be applauded by people concerned about the rights of the presumptively innocent.

For more than five years, the current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process when it comes to college students (almost always males) accused of sexual assault. This blog has published literally hundreds of posts on this hostility, and there is no need to summarize it for our readers. People who suggest that the previous administration was "just as bad" are simply wrong, and that position is part of the problem.

The presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, has signaled that she will take this hostility to another level. She believes that the sex act is presumptively rape whenever an accusation is made and that it is up to the accused to prove it wasn't. See here. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the gravity of Mrs. Clinton's positions is unschooled on the issues--she is espousing a position long-advocated by radical feminist extremists.

Too many of the once-heroic champions of due process in the Democratic Party have lately opted to worship at the altar of group identity politics instead, and they happily support the erosion of due process when it comes to one gender, and one crime.

When was the last time a liberal openly cheered rolling back due process protections? They do it now all the time when it comes to college men and sex accusations. The principal exceptions seem to be law professors who appreciate that due process is the greatest bulwark against tyranny and injustice ever devised by man. In the political realm, the protectors of due process are now the libertarians and Constitutional conservatives with libertarian leanings like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Sen. Rubio expressly supported ending the the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s "assault against due process rights" when it comes to college men accused of sexual assault.

Now the GOP platform has addressed the issue, and its words are unmistakable. Rape is a crime, and it needs to be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, not by misapplying the Title IX preponderance of the evidence standard (and, yes, they misapply the standard--see here).

The 2016 GOP platform, page 35:
Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration’s distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.
Like it or not, it is the GOP, not the Democratic Party, that seeks to protect our sons from the politically correct witch hunt against them on our college campuses. This is not a position that the law and order GOP of Bob Dole and others of his ilk would have taken 20 years ago--we ought to applaud the GOP for coming to this position. But for many of us who have spent decades of our lives as Democrats, it is a bitter pill to swallow--this is not the party of John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. This is something qualitatively different, and it is out to punish an entire gender by making it far too easy to punish the presumptively innocent for offenses they didn't commit. They have lost me, folks.

Friday, July 15, 2016

The sexual grievance industry's defense of the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is laughable

The sexual grievance industry--and if you want to see who is part of it, see this letter--constantly defends the illegal mandate of the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights that colleges and universities use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard (but only for sex charges). This standard means that a school must find guilt if the evidence is even 50.001% tilted in favor of the accuser's story.

The goal is very simple: they want to make it easier to expel and suspend more young men for sexual assault because they believe that there is a college rape epidemic even though the belief is ludicrous.

Their principal defense of this standard is that "[t]his standard is used in cases alleging discrimination under other civil rights laws . . . ."

This argument is laughable to anyone who practices civil law, and it is astounding to me that news outlets parrot their argument as if it has legitimacy.

In civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses. If the Dept. of Education would mandate that colleges adopt the evidentiary protections mandated for defendants in civil trials, I'd be fine with it. But the procedures utilized in college kangaroo sex tribunals cannot be compared to the procedures used civil courts where, generally, only money damages are sought and the preponderance of the evidence standard is employed.

In civil cases, defendants are allowed to be fully represented by counsel at every stage of the proceeding. Their counsel are permitted to make arguments for them and to vigorously depose prior to trial, and to vigorously cross-examine during trial, the accuser and any other pertinent witnesses. In college sex tribunals, counsel for the accused can rarely do more than sit there, if that.

Aside from depositions, defendants in civil litigation are also permitted to engage in all manner of discovery, including proffering requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. And if the plaintiff fails to respond to proper discovery requests, she is sanctioned by the court, up to and including dismissal of her case and requiring her to pay the other side's attorney's fees.Nothing remotely similar is allowed in most college sex proceedings .

Hearsay evidence generally is excluded, as is evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect to a party. In college sex proceedings, the adjudicators do not have a clue what constitutes hearsay, much less how to assess whether evidence is too prejudicial to consider.

Trial and appellate judges are lawyers bound by centuries of common law precedent. In college sex proceedings, there are no constraints in the decision-making.

The college kangaroo sex proceeding has no relation to the orderly administration of justice in civil court--none.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Student sues Cornell for suspending him without a hearing

I have come to the conclusion that colleges--both the people who run them and work there, and the people who pay to attend them--don't know, and don't care, what due process is. At least when it comes to sexual assault claims lodged against male students. For those who care, here's the essence of it:
Although due process tolerates variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of the case," it is nonetheless possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, "[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.
A student has sued Cornell claiming "the university 'presupposed his guilt' by conducting the investigation without a hearing, and claiming that investigators spoke to him 'in an accusatory and intimidating manner.'"

Where are the protests, men?