Thursday, June 30, 2016

Washington Post: Men lie on surveys, women don't

Danielle Paquette of the Washington Post tries to defend the gender "wage gap" by suggesting that we shouldn't believe the statistics that show men work more hours than women. Why? Because those stats are compiled by self-reporting, and men exaggerate.

This is the same Danielle Paquette who accepts, without challenge, the debunked statistic that one-in-five college women are raped--even though every single survey that repeats this lie is based on self-reporting. (And, even though every one of those surveys was designed by people with a financial interest in the college rape "epidemic" and the questions are weighted to "prove" the existence of such an epidemic.) In one article Danielle Paquette wrote: "Nearly one in five women in the United States have been sexually assaulted . . . ." In another, she wrote: "One in five college women will be sexually assaulted before graduation."

Here's the dirty little secret Danielle Paquette never mentions: every time--every single time--sexual assault claims are actually tested by examining the evidence (in other words, every time we bother to hear what the accused has to say), the majority of such claims can't be said to be sexual assault.  That's a fact.

As for the allegation that men lie, well, here's another scientific survey: it's WOMEN who lie on sex surveys to make themselves look more virtuous than they really are.

Put aside the lying, a significant percentage of college women--approaching half--admit they confuse consensual acts with rape. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent.

And here's the really bad part: the sexual grievance industry has used the lies in sexual assault surveys to take away the due process rights of college men. That, of course, is totally lost on Danielle Paquette.

Haven't we all had enough of the Danielle Paquettes of the world?

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

'Officials: Man Decapitated Acquaintance He Suspected of Rape'

In the story posted below, a young man was decapitated because a woman accused him of rape. This didn't happen in a backward, third world country, it happened in Minnesota. I am sickened by it, but I am not surprised.

When presumably enlightened pundits, academics, and politicians continually preach that women who cry rape must always be believed and that when it comes to young men accused of rape, due process is not just unnecessary but a hindrance to justice, we are shocked when an unhinged or impaired person acts on it? Seriously? Ours is a culture that wages war on an imaginary epidemic with the memes of the hangman--all in the interest of gender get-evenism. A dangerous segment of our society hears that hatred and responds to it, and somehow we're surprised?

Add this to the list of similar atrocities (a few recent cases are collected here).  Here is the story as reported by ABC:

A northern Minnesota man is accused of decapitating another man after his girlfriend told him that the man had sexually assaulted her.

Thirty-five-year-old Joseph Thoresen is charged with murder. According to charges in Itasca County, Thoresen ambushed 20-year-old David Haiman of Hibbing along a road near Ball Club.

The complaint says Thoresen hit Haiman with a baseball bat and stabbed him in the back and abdomen before decapitating him with a machete and throwing his head into the woods.

Authorities found Haiman's torso and head on Sunday.

The complaint says Thoresen's girlfriend told authorities he was upset when she told him Haiman had sexually assaulted her.

Court records don't list an attorney for Thoresen. Bail was set at $2 million without conditions during his first court appearance Wednesday.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-man-decapitated-acquaintance-suspected-rape-40224745

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"Privileged white men" stage a backlash against their decline: how extremists reduce the one group they hate to vile caricature

Don't read it on an empty stomach: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/06/21/trump-white-male-anxiety-millennials/

The silliness is almost too much to bear.

But this article is a microcosm of a culture war that has been raging for some time: "enlightened" extremists and their media and academic enablers assume that middle America, ruled by dreaded white males, hates and outright oppresses people who aren't like them in order to maintain their privilege.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Ash Carter Justifies Strategy of Holding Servicemembers Accountable for Sexual Assault through Collateral Misconduct Convictions

 
SecDef Ash Carter recently put into writing a very true and troubling aspect of Military Justice in an attempt to justify how much more awesome military prosecutors are than civilian prosecutors: 

"Additionally, in both civilian and military judicial systems, defendants are often tried for "collateral misconduct” charges, such as lying to an investigator, in addition to an underlying crime. In both the military and civilian systems, it is sometimes difficult to obtain a conviction for sexual assault. It is a common practice for prosecutors to attempt to obtain convictions for collateral charges as well, which provide additional methods of holding an individual responsible for his or her acts in the event of an acquittal for the charge of sexual assault.

The military justice system has additional collateral misconduct charges that would not be available in a civilian criminal justice setting, such as conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery, and orders violations. The military also has a range of disciplinary and other tools available that have no civilian counterpart, such as non-judicial punishment and administrative discharges. Accordingly, in sexual assault cases, it is common that charges other than, or in addition to, a charge specifically for sexual assault may be pursued as a means of increasing the likelihood that the accused is ultimately held accountable."

Essentially, what Secretary Carter is saying is that the military is unique because Servicemembers can be tried for many crimes that civilians cannot be tried, for example adultery or 'conduct unbecoming an Officer.'  So, when a Commander has that really weak sexual assault case that civilian prosecutors would not touch with a ten foot pole because it never should see the inside of a courtroom,  military prosecutors can still hold an individual responsible for sexual assault with an adultery conviction, even if he is acquitted for sexual assault.

But, sometimes in the military, a sexual assault charge is actually the collateral misconduct for weak non-sexual assault charges to effectuate the Commander's intent to get the Accused kicked out of the military with a dishonorable discharge.  In other words, when a military prosecutor has a weak case for non-sexual misconduct that does not warrant a court-martial, sometimes they will search for a sexual assault "victim" to justify a case going to Court-martial.

A perfect example of this premise being true to life is the recent case of Major Kit Martin at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky.  MAJ Martin thought that he was married to a woman named Joan Harmon.  It turns out that MAJ Martin was not technically married to her because unbeknownst to him on the date of his marriage to her, she had not divorced her husband.  MAJ Martin later found out Joan was a bigamist when he filed for divorce due to her adultery, notwithstanding her threats to ruin his career if he divorced her.  She ultimately was charged with bigamy and pleaded guilty with a deferred conviction in Kentucky.

The first volley Mrs. Harmon fired to make good on her threat was to falsely accuse MAJ Martin of espionage.  She and her alleged lover, Calvin Phillip, presented a laptop with classified information on it to the FBI and alleged that MAJ Martin was a spy.  MAJ Martin passed a polygraph regarding this issue by Army Counterintelligence, but his Commander MG Mark Stammer attempted to impose nonjudicial punishment against MAJ Martin.  When MAJ Martin demanded trial by court-martial because he did not trust MG Stammer a.k.a. "The Hammer" to be unbiased, that is when Army prosecutors started looking for collateral misconduct.

So, it has been reported that the Army approached Ms. Harmon who was locked and loaded for her second volley and asked her if MAJ Martin ever sexually assaulted her or her kids.  Mind you, neither this woman nor her children had ever reported any kind of abuse whatsoever.  Yet, MAJ Martin was charged with sexual assault against his wife, sexual assault against her children who he had supported as his own, even though they were not his, and physical abuse.  A witness testified that she heard the military prosecutors at a preliminary hearing state that Ms. Harmon was not credible, but they could use the charges as leverage and could dismiss them before the trial once it got referred to a Court-martial.  In other words, it appears based on the witness's testimony that the prosecutors knew that her allegations that she was sexual assaulted by MAJ Martin were bogus, but they were going to use the bogus charges to shore up a weak espionage case, for which Harmon was also connected.  And, true to their word, those prosecutors dismissed the sexual assault charges involving Joan Harmon on the first day of the court-martial.

Ultimately, MAJ Martin was acquitted of sexual assault against the kids, but he was convicted of simple battery and mishandling classified information and was sentenced to 90 days of confinement and a dismissal.  I guess this is to what Secretary Carter refers when he says that through charging collateral misconduct in the military, Servicemembers can still be held accountable for collateral misconduct in the event they are acquitted of sexual assault.

So, at least the Secretary of Defense admits that military prosecutors take no issue at finding collateral alleged misconduct to shore up a weak sexual assault case.  But, I wonder if Secretary Carter understands that military prosecutors are shoring up weak non-sexual assault cases with bogus sexual assault charges.  Because the strategy is becoming just as common in the military to falsely accuse heroes like MAJ Martin of rape to get them out of the military, as the strategy of the medical profession in the 1600's when they falsely accused midwives of being witches to get them out of the baby birthing business.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

The destruction of due process of law in sexual-assault cases 'is exactly what the banshees of political correctness want'

Chris Powell, the editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Connecticut, explained the campus witch rape witch hunt as well as any explanation we've seen:
[The] destruction of due process of law in sexual-assault cases and the ruin of people who are merely accused is exactly what the banshees of political correctness want, since due process hampers getting convictions in such cases -- as if due process doesn't hamper getting convictions in all cases and as if due process, from the Magna Carta in 1215 to the Sixth Amendment in 1791 to Connecticut's 1818 and 1965 constitutions, has not for centuries been regarded as the essential mechanism for increasing the likelihood that justice will be done and be seen to have been done.
Read the full piece here.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Sexual grievance cartel: The Brock Turner aberration exemplifies "white male privilege"

The sociopath aberration that is Brock Turner--the teenager who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman when he was a Stanford student athlete--is now the poster boy for the sexual grievance cartel.

The poor, hapless cartel has had to resign itself in recent years to taking untold tax and tuition dollars while touting made-up sexual assaults to "prove" a rape culture that doesn't really exist. We've chronicled numerous such efforts on this site. Now, finally, they have a young man that fits the preferred narrative (a white athlete from a prestigious school)--and he's actually guilty--so they're making the most of it.

They are using this case to, once again, put masculinity itself on trial and to reduce young men as a class to vile caricature. They are saying that Mr. Turmer "exemplifies every aspect of white male privilege in America." See here.

In fact, everything about the Brock Turner rape is an aberration--except for the rescue of the victim. The four young men who played roles in rescuing Brock Turner's rape victim are typical of young men living in America in 2016, Brock Turner is not.

But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of college rape hysteria?

Mr. Turner got a sentence that seemed far too lenient, and a lot of gender extremists are calling for the judge (who happens to be a well-respected jurist) to be recalled.

Funny, I don't recall ever hearing any of those same angry protesters complain about the undeniable sentencing disparity between male and female perpetrators of sexual assault. When women sexually assault boys, they often get the same sort of slap on the wrist Brock Turner got here. Yet those stories never draw protests or recall petitions, and they don't stay on the front page of Google news for days and days as the Turner case has.

The shrillest voices protesting Brock Turner's sentence are the same ones who continually insist that it's perfectly appropriate for college women to choose not to go to the police when they are raped, but instead report to their schools. We have this anomaly: if Brock Turner's victim had decided to simply report her rape to the college and not the police, and if Mr. Turner had been merely expelled and not incarcerated--thus allowing him to rape more women off-campus--the shrill voices complaining about the sentence would be perfectly happy. Go figure.

The sexual grievance cartel has its poster boy, and it's my guess we're going to be hearing nothing except "Brock Turner" from now on.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Hillary Clinton smiles and laughs when she announces men accused of rape should be deemed guilty until proven innocent

In the YouTube clip below, Hillary Clinton clearly, plainly, unambiguously said that in a case of alleged rape, the default position should be to believe one side (who happens to be the accuser) "until they are disbelieved based on evidence." The competing "evidence" will almost always need to be proffered by the accused, or by someone supporting the accused's position. And she didn't say just any evidence will do--the evidence has to be sufficient so that we actually disbelieve her story. Hillary Clinton buys into the notion that a man accused is guilty until he proves his innocence. That represents a monumental sea change in the way we think about criminal offenses. As you watch the clip below, you need to understand why it is so awful.

Shifting the burden of proving consent in rape cases is an idea long pushed by extremist victims' advocates. We've been warning about it at COTWA for years. Colleges have started mandating it on their own in the past couple of years, and some states are now legally requiring colleges to shift the burden of proof. It is an articulation of the worst kind of radical feminist thought. We think it will be ruled unconstitutional when it is finally challenged.

Linda Brookover Bourque's "Defining Rape" said in 1989 that the ultimate objective of rape reform--the ultimate objective--is shifting the burden of proof from "the victim" to "the offender."

Mainstream feminist extremist Jessica Valenti advocates that America look to Swedish law as its legislative model for rape, and "activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it."

Serious feminist scholars have written extensively on the subject in an effort to change the law. Criminal law professor and feminist Michele Alexandre would make the sex act a presumed crime whenever a woman cries rape. See M. Alexandre, "‘Girls Gone Wild’ and Rape Law: Revising the Contractual Concept of Consent & Ensuring an Unbiased Application of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ When the Victim is Non-Traditional," 17 American Univ. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 1, 41, 55-56 (2009). In "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice" (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department, not only refused to pay lip service to insuring that the innocent aren't punished with the guilty, she goes so far as to declare that men accused of rape are "overprotect[ed]." She writes: "It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied." Prof. Caringella advocates a shift in the burden of proof by enacting affirmative consent laws. Two years ago, the Washington Supreme Court reversed some very bad law that put the burden of proving consent in rape cases on the accused.

Hillary Clinton has tapped into an idea espoused by radical feminists, and it is a very dangerous thing. The Obama administration has manifested blatant hostility to the due process rights of men accused of rape--a hostility that goes far beyond what any previous administration has manifested (if you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention to the issue since April 2011 when the "Dear Colleague" letter was promulgated)--and Clinton's attitude clearly suggests the hostility and the witch hunts will continue. At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right . . . to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be . . . believed, and supported.”

Every woman who claims she was raped has the right to be treated with respect and to be taken seriously. She should not be disbelieved, but it needs to be her burden (or the state's or the school's) to prove that the man she accused is guilty.

Another 'study' supposedly proves most male college athletes are rapists

It is tiresome beyond measure.

The extremists in the sexual grievance cartel are intent on painting young men as monsters and insisting that an entire gender needs reprogramming. They've been doing this for years. I've been refuting it for years, and I've had enough of them.

One of their latest "studies" supposedly proves that more than half of male college athletes are rapists . . . because they nag for sex. Yes, that's right--these young men "insist" their partners have sex but don't force them to do so. That's "rape," don't you know.

Ashe Schow has written about it here--it's called "sexual coercion," and we've written about it extensively here--read this and you'll understand the issue. I challenge one of the "researchers" behind this cockamamie study to address what I wrote here. Seriously. I wrote that article linked years ago and no one has ever challenged the arguments.

I could repeat all the reasons why "sexual coercion" is not rape--but I've come to conclusion that the "all men are rapist" arguments aren't worthy of serious refutation.

The purveyors of the college rape epidemic are sick, and they are nuts. They should not be welcomed in polite society. We must keep our sons away from them. It's time for all people of goodwill to insist they be fired from their cushy university jobs and that they have no voice in the public square on this or any other issue.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

If Trump's comments were bigoted, this feminist law prof's comment were worse

Donald Trump has been widely condemned across the political spectrum for calling on a judge of Mexican heritage to recuse himself in a case involving Trump. A lot of people are outraged that Trump seems to assume that a judge isn't being fair to Trump because of the judge's race.

So why is there no criticism of a feminist law professor for saying something even more outrageous, even more offensive?

Because the feminist professor's comment was directed at men, and the mainstream media thinks that sort of outrage is justified.

Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber is upset over what she perceives to be the light sentence imposed on a former Stanford athlete convicted of sexual assault. Dauber made the following comment: "We need judges who understand violence against women. Judge Persky does not. He should be replaced. Hopefully a qualified woman will replace him."

While Donald Trump suggested that a judge isn't being fair because of his race, Professor Dauber suggested not only that a judge isn't being fair because of his gender, but that a male judge is incapable of being fair in sexual assault cases because of his gender.

Dauber has out-trumped Trump for bigotry, stupidity, and nastiness. Her comment is related by NPR as if there was nothing wrong with it. When gender progressives say nasty things about men, they are never challenged by outlets like NPR.

The suggestion that men, as a class, can't fairly adjudicate sexual assault cases against women is outrageous, of course. It's also emblematic of a sort of stereotypical "man-hating" that has given feminists a black eye among wide swaths of the American populace. My guess is that Dauber's idiotic comment plays well in the radical feminist echo chamber--sadly, that includes NPR and like-minded progressive media outlets. Here in the real world, it's offensive.

Dauber is also on record warning about young men who seek legal redress for false rape claims against them. You see, there are "victims" and there are "victims." A man victimized by a false rape claim needs to work harder than other victims to prove he deserves redress for the wrong done to him. Nice, Michele.

Dauber also has opposed the rights of persons accused of sexual assault to cross-examine their accusers. Here is a quote attributed to her: "Having the 18-year-old rape victim be cross-examined by the guy who raped her? That's just wrong, wrong, wrong."

That comment, of course, assumes that a man accused of rape is a rapist. There is a word for that sort of thinking: prejudice. This sums up the sexual grievance cartel's cardinal belief.

It's time for all persons of goodwill to condemn these sorts of inane and hateful comments. Michele Dauber's extremist views are not to be taken seriously.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Flashback--November 1969: If the genders were reversed on the "naked" question, would the advice be the same?


'It is important to not have debates' about whether there is a college rape epidemic

At UC Santa Barbara, Young Americans for Liberty recently sponsored a talk titled, "Is there a Rape Epidemic?: Rape Hysteria, Due Process, and Free Speech." The sponsors of the event took issue with the college rape epidemic meme, and that one-in-five college women are raped.

On the Facebook event listing for this event, the sponsors explained: "This event was intended to be a panel discussion, with propositions from both sides of the argument. Yet, we have found it incredibly difficult to find anyone who is willing to present the affirmative position — that there is indeed a rape epidemic on college campuses, and that the measures taken by the universities to combat these problems are therefore fair / justified."

The Facebook listing goes on to state the following: "We have contacted every single feminist studies professor at UCSB… but none are willing to present the affirmative position." It then quotes a professor from the school's Feminist Studies Department who purportedly said, “It is important to not have debates.”

Read it again: "It is important to not have debates." That's a line ripped right from the sexual grievance cartel's playbook.

Remember when Sen. Claire McCaskill was asked about the one-in-five stat in light of the DOJ study that shows that the real number isn't 1 in 5, it's 1-in-52 (which means it isn't 20 percent of all college women, it's 1.9 percent)? McCaskill said it was "irritating that anybody would be distracted" by that statistic.

"Irritating."

Aside from all the usual problems with college rape studies that skew the results, by far the biggest is this: the one-in-five statistic assumes that every claim of sexual assault in a college sexual assault survey was an actual sexual assault. That's just silly. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey  shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. A bare majority of college women (just 51%) think that it is. So when a college women tells a survey questioner she had sex without her consent, we're supposed to automatically assume she was sexually assaulted without knowing the circumstances? That's laughable, of course.

The fact is, any time sexual assault claims are subjected to scrutiny and competing evidence of innocence (that is, any time claims are objectively investigated), the majority can't be said to be either assaults or non-assaults. While there are relatively few claims that are conclusively false, there are also relatively few claims that are conclusively sexual assault.

The sexual grievance cartel is correct--there should not be any debate about whether there is a college rape epidemic: there isn't. It's irritating when they say there is.

Friday, May 20, 2016

“Pro-Due Process ≠ Pro-Rape.”

"Sexual Assault Rally Prompts Counter-Protest: Organizers Demand Stricter Policies, Opponents Say Not School’s Place"

SOURCE: https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2016/05/sexual-assault-rally-prompts-counter-protest

About a dozen University of California, Santa Barbara students gathered on the lawn between the Arbor and library on Monday to call for hastened fulfillment of all 13 demands issued to the university administration last year after a 13-hour sit-in in Chancellor Henry Yang’s office. The peaceful demonstration also drew a few counter-protesters with objections to the university’s jurisdiction over sexual assault cases in the first place.

Off-Campus Sen. Alejandra Melgoza and UCSB alumna Lexi Weyrick organized the protest to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the sit-in and remind administrators of their commitment to reforming university policies on sexual assault. A written update by Now UC SB — the movement initiated by Melgoza, Weyrick and alumna Melissa Vasquez prior to the sit-in last year — alleges that administrators have so far “completely ignored” demands calling for immediate suspension of students found responsible for assault by the university court, as well as their immediate removal from housing.

In an interview with The Bottom Line, Melgoza pointed to a persistent lack of resources and diversity within the UCSB Campus Advocacy, Resources and Education (CARE) office and broader administration — another shortcoming the Now UC SB demands sought to address. “I think every single administrator that I’ve met regarding sexual assault has been white,” she said.

The Now UC SB update is an annotated version of a document issued May 11 by the group of administrators tasked with handling the demands. Though the task force has so far held eight public meetings, Melgoza and Weyrick argue that poor advertising has resulted in “limited student involvement and input” on policy adjustments and hiring decisions made over the past year.

The original task force update reports three new hires in the Office of Judicial Affairs and CARE, along with an unspecified number of new female appointments within the UC Police Department. New faculty and staff training programs are highlighted, as well as student resources like a survivor fund and a feedback program for complainants and respondents who undergo judicial proceedings.

One of the most substantive strides for the movement could be a decision from further overhead, though Melgoza and Weyrick are skeptical of the specifics. In January, UC President Janet Napolitano implemented a system-wide policy with a two-year minimum suspension for students found responsible for violating sexual assault policy — “in most cases.” Inquiries by the activists into UCSB’s evidentiary criteria for those cases have reportedly gone unanswered by the administration.

Yang passed through the Arbor about an hour into Monday’s demonstration — which lasted from just after 10 a.m. until around 2 p.m. — and was stopped by Melgoza and Weyrick to hear their complaints. The chancellor “acknowledged that he has not fulfilled the promises of the demands yet,” according to Weyrick, and proceeded to warn the Division of Student Affairs of potential counter-protests in the interest of maintaining civility.

Shortly after Yang’s appearance, three members of UCSB’s Young Americans for Liberty crossed the walkway from where they’d been sitting near the Arbor store to occupy an adjacent portion of the library lawn. Fifth-year history major Andrew Cavarno and fourth-year political science major Jason Garshfield held printed signs disputing the right of universities to adjudicate sexual assault cases, Garshfield’s reading: “Pro-Due Process ≠ Pro-Rape.”

YAL President Dominick DiCesare, a second-year computer science major, told The Bottom Line that the group takes issue with the preponderance of evidence standard used in university courts to determine academic sanctions. The standard requires that 51 percent of the evidence presented to a judicial body favor a complainant’s claim before a ruling is made against the respondent, according to the Legal Information Institute.

DiCesare argued that UCSB’s judicial process undermines the due process owed a defendant in criminal court, where guilt must be proven without a reasonable doubt before conviction.

“Essentially, when we say preponderance of evidence is enough, we’re equivalating rape cases with a common civil case,” DiCesare said. “If anything, we’re diminishing the level of that crime by saying that we don’t require the same amount of evidence.”

DiCesare and Cavarno also disputed the commonly cited statistic that one in five women are sexually assaulted during their college years. The figure dates back to a widely-discussed 2007 study by the National Institute of Justice that has held up in more recent surveys by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation, as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

But Cavarno pointed out that within the same 1,000-student sample polled by the Post and Kaiser, only 38 percent of subjects believed the one-in-five statistic to be true. He and DiCesare emphasized that the disparities in these numbers and lack of consensus among researchers should warrant discussion of both sides.

“All of us agree that rape is an extremely prevalent issue, but it is not by any means an epidemic,” DiCesare said.

Efforts by Melgoza, Vasquez and Weyrick recently won the support of California State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who wrote in a letter to Yang that she hopes to collaborate “to ensure that UCSB is as responsive as possible to the unique needs of students” and believes “their experiences should reflect our action and progress.”

Around noon, the Now UC SB supporters formed a line facing the Arbor walkway, displaying handwritten signs with messages including “We Support Survivors” and — among the more specific — “Since demands have not been met, we will not be silent yet.” Generally vocal in her activism, Melgoza chose to keep things on the quieter side due to the change in campus climate she said she’s seen over the past year as a senator.

“Last year it was easier, I think, to speak out,” she said. “And now with a lot of the hostility, the harassment, the stalking, the online attacks, I feel that it is a lot harder for students to speak out on what their true beliefs are — which is a very interesting paradox, just because a lot of students are encouraging free speech.”

Neither group of demonstrators ventured to interact with the other, though several administrators gathered on the sidelines to ensure things remained civil. Among them was Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Margaret Klawunn, who arrived early in the afternoon to ensure that the groups maintained a respectful distance from each other.

“I want to make sure that everybody has a chance to have their demonstration without infringing on anybody else’s right,” Klawunn told The Bottom Line.

Monday, May 16, 2016

I am having some problems with the way the Grant Neal college rape case is being reported

Colorado State University-Pueblo expelled a male student athlete named Grant Neal for an alleged rape, and there is a lot of outrage about the case on the part of people concerned about the academy's hostility to the due process rights of men accused of sexual assault. The problems with the university's handling of the case have been discussed by other writers, see, e.g., here, and I won't repeat them.

The principal outrage is over the fact that the alleged victim declared the accused did not commit rape, yet a friend of the alleged victim "noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. When she learned the woman had sex with a prominent football player, she surmised her friend had been raped and reported that to university authorities." See here.

The case is being talked about as an absurd example of a university bent on expelling a male student even when the "victim" says she wasn't raped. Megyn Kelly of Fox News reportedly said this: "Tonight, we have the story of two college students who had consensual sex, a third student who decided it was really a case of rape and a campus system of so-called justice that kicked the young man out of school despite the fact that there is no evidence of any crime." One writer asked, "What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?"

I am having some difficulty with this case, and I invite anyone with information about it to write to me to explain what I'm missing: cotwa@rocketmail.com. I have no doubt that there were serious due process infirmities in the way the case was prosecuted, but the blanket assumption that this was consensual sex seems unwarranted.

The woman's conclusory characterization that she wasn't raped should not necessarily be the end of the case. Nor does it means, as Megyn Kelly of Fox News apparently said, there was no evidence of rape. What the pundits seem to gloss over is the following:
According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”
. . . .
. . . CSU-Pueblo’s Title IX investigation found the preponderance of evidence substantiated a finding of sexual misconduct on the part of Grant Neal for participating in non-consensual sexual intercourse on Oct. 25 for the moment when he didn’t have a condom on during that sexual encounter. The university suspended Neal from campus, ruling he could not return until the woman graduates.
See here. She claims she outright told him "no," but he penetrated anyway. That doesn't sound like an accident or a young couple exploring boundaries. If a woman says she doesn't want to have sex but the man proceeds to penetrate her--if that is what really happened--it is rape. A woman's conclusory characterization that no rape occurred should not override her specific account of the facts of the alleged incident.

Someone can say he did not enter into a contract, but if the facts show the legal elements of a contract were present, there was a contract.

Please understand, I am not suggesting that the woman's account of the alleged incident should be believed (nor am I suggesting she should be disbelieved). This appears to be a classic "he said, she said" case because the accused's account shows the sex was consensual. Add to that the woman's adamant (albeit conclusory) denial that he did anything wrong and the fact that immediately after the "rape," she consented to have sex with her "rapist," and we must wonder, yet again, how the scales tipped in favor of guilt.

But all that goes to the weight, not the sufficiency, of the evidence (there's a big difference in criminal law). Any suggestion that there was no evidence to find this student guilty of rape seems to be incorrect, if the news story quoted above is correct. Again, I invite anyone who knows better to write to me.

The academy's hostility to due process is blatant, chronic, and unjust. The Department of Education is fomenting witch hunts against young men on campus, and its motivating impulse is misandry. Few have written about it more than this blog. But all that should not give us license to ignore evidence in a given case. We ill-serve the community of the wrongly accused when we lose our objectivity.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

'Men accused of sex crimes striking back at colleges'

From the Associated Press
After years of complaints that they weren’t taking sexual assault reports seriously, colleges are finally doing so, and finding themselves slammed with lawsuits from men who say they were unfairly suspended or otherwise punished.

The schools are feeling caught in the middle.

“We’re trying to walk the razor’s edge between being more attentive to the issue but still being fair to all our students,” said Dana Scaduto, general counsel at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, who has testified before Congress on the issue.

At least 75 men have sued their schools since 2013, complaining largely of reverse discrimination and unfair disciplinary proceedings. Most were never charged with a crime because the accuser didn’t go to police, or authorities decided there wasn’t enough evidence.

In March, former Yale University basketball player Jack Montague said he planned to sue after he was expelled over a sexual assault allegation, and two University of Oregon basketball players suspended over 2014 rape accusations sued for $10 million each after prosecutors declined to bring charges.

A federal judge in Rhode Island allowed a case to move forward by a Brown University student suspended for 2½ years over a sexual assault accusation.

Two former University of Findlay athletes who were expelled in 2014 are suing the university in U.S. District Court, Toledo, for allegedly conducting a “sham investigation.”

Alphonso Baity, who was a junior basketball guard, and Justin Browning, who was a sophomore football defensive back, were dismissed from the university after they were accused of sexually assaulting a freshman student in a university-owned house on campus in September 2014.

Baity and Browning each said they had consensual sex with the female student. No criminal charges were filed. Each former athlete is apparently seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

The get-tough approach by colleges is attributed largely to a 2011 letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The letter told schools they must promptly investigate allegations of sexual assault and harassment, even if the accuser does not make a complaint to the institution.

It instructed schools to rely on the preponderance-of-evidence standard used in civil cases, instead of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard employed in criminal trials. That means a student can be disciplined if the college finds it more likely than not that an assault occurred.

Schools that do not comply can face an investigation and a cutoff of federal money. As of mid-March, the Office for Civil Rights was conducting 219 such investigations at 173 schools.

Known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” it has been hailed by advocates who say many schools are now moving in the right direction to address campus sexual assaults.

“For a very long time, there was no due process for victims. Victims were told to withdraw from school. Victims were told to take the semester off,” said Colby Bruno of the nonprofit Victim Rights Law Center.

Now, Bruno said, “yes, there are more decisions against perpetrators. Yes, perpetrators are being held accountable. And that is going to bother people.”

Advocates for the accused say that school disciplinary panels are unequipped to handle such serious allegations and that colleges have gone so far to accommodate alleged victims that they are trampling on the rights of the accused.

Under the federal guidance, when a school learns of allegations of sexual assault or harassment, it must take immediate steps to ensure the victim’s learning environment is free of hostility.

The accused can be removed from a class, dorm or campus even before a disciplinary hearing is held so that the accuser does not have to cross paths with her alleged attacker. Disciplinary proceedings can take months, meaning the accused can miss a year of school before the case is decided.

Advocates for both accusers and the accused say college disciplinary processes are often vague and applied inconsistently. Some schools have a single investigator. Others have a panel with faculty members. Some include students. Some allow lawyers, others don’t.

Some critics have said that universities should not be handling such cases at all and that sex crimes should instead be reported to police.

But victims’ advocates and many schools oppose that, saying it would discourage women from coming forward. Also, police investigations can take months, and prosecutions longer, meaning some cases might not be resolved before graduation.

Andrew Miltenberg, who represents the Brown student and close to 100 other male students accused of campus sexual assaults, said schools have become “hyper-aggressive” since the Dear Colleague Letter.

A common thread in his cases, Miltenberg said, is that they had some element of a consensual encounter, in which the two were dating or knew each other. Alcohol is often involved, sometimes a year or more has elapsed, and there are rarely witnesses.

“Part of the problem is they’re redefining what consent means,” he said.

“Now all of that adds up to more cases, more allegations and more hearings, and this is where the schools are in a tough spot and can and should be doing better.”

Such accusations can brand a student for life or put his education on hold for years, Miltenberg said.

“I even have Ivy League students who’ve been suspended who can’t get into a local community college during their suspension,” he said.

Miltenberg represents Paul Nungesser, who sued Columbia University, saying it violated his rights when it allowed fellow student Emma Sulkowicz to obtain class credit for her “Mattress Project,” in which she carried around the mattress on which she said he raped her. Nungesser denied the accusation and was found not responsible by the school disciplinary process.

Nungesser said in his lawsuit that he was branded a “serial rapist” and forced to return to his native Germany because he couldn’t get a job in the United States. A judge this month dismissed the lawsuit but said Nungesser may refile some claims.

Sulkowicz went to police with her allegation against Nungesser, but they did not bring charges. She has said the campus disciplinary process was badly mishandled.

In a 2014 essay in Time magazine titled “My Rapist Is Still on Campus,” she wrote of crying and hyperventilating when she learned he had asked permission to work in the darkroom during a photography class she was taking.

“As long as he’s on campus with me, he can continue to harass me,” she wrote.

Scaduto, of Dickinson College, questioned whether colleges are equipped to handle such matters.
“I don’t want to step away from the issues,” she said, “but I don’t know that we have the training, the skill, the resources to do it in-house anymore.”

In addition to the Dear Colleague Letter, federal legislation tells colleges to take action in response to a report of sexual assault on campus.

At the time the two University of Findlay athletes were expelled, the university said it was following the federal Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which requires allegations involving sexual crimes or domestic violence to be investigated by a panel of four university officials.

These investigators interview witnesses during a hearing and gather evidence. School officials must conduct their review as soon as possible, regardless of any police action, the University of Findlay said. They cannot determine whether police will bring criminal charges.

http://thecourier.com/local-news/2016/05/07/men-accused-of-sex-crimes-striking-back-at-colleges/

Buy this book

New book that talks about our issues: Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women by Wendy McElroy.

Buy it here.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Fraternity banners raising awareness about sexual assault condemned as 'poor taste' because fraternities are rape pits

Chalk up another victory for the campus PC loons. Fraternities at Northwestern University have been attacked over banners displayed outside fraternity houses for Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

What offensive message did the depraved banners contain? The banners featured the chapter’s name along with messages such as, “XYZ supports survivors,” “XYZ stands against sexual violence” and “This is everyone’s problem.”

If you are scratching your head wondering what's wrong with that, read on.

The usual suspects from the sexual grievance cartel bellyached that the banners were in poor taste due to the pervasiveness of sexual assault in fraternities.

You read that right. Poor taste. The fraternities' reward for trying to raise awareness about sexual assault was to be condemned. The campus sexual grievance cartel used the fraternities' noble impulse as just another excuse to paint fraternities with a broad brush as rape pits.

Are we shocked? Don't forget that the campus sexual grievance cartel used Rolling Stone's imaginary rape exposé in 2014 as an occasion to call for fraternities to be banned.

So how did the fraternities respond to this outrage? Did they defend their actions and decry the condemnation of their banners as political correctness run amok?

They did not. They apologized. And they announced plans to create a four-year sexual assault education program.

I can't make this up. Don't read this on an empty stomach. The Interfraternity Council issued a statement: “We recognize now how this campaign may have been emotionally triggering for survivors, and we want to make a deep, genuine apology for anyone that may have been affected. This was not our intent, but it is our fault for not being cognizant enough and not considering how it might affect others in our community.”

If that's not bad enough, the Council plans to launch another program to teach fraternity men not to rape. IFC president Will Altabef said this: “People come in here with 18 years of being socialized to think a certain way is masculine. We’ve got four years to try and correct any wrongs that might come in and hopefully to just make a more positive community.”

It's very difficult to fight a battle when the people you're trying to speak up for go ahead and surrender. The rights of college men are under assault all across America. The current administration has manifested a blatant hostility to their due process rights, and their brothers are being wrongly expelled in droves. Yet college men, so fearful of being perceived as hating women, kowtow to the tyranny of PC group-think. They don't seem to give a damn that they are in the middle of a witch hunt and that they are the witches.

The real villains here are the usual suspects, the crusaders of the campus sexual grievance cartel. The cartel spends obscene amounts of tax and tuition dollars pumping out vapid and ineffective public service announcements "raising awareness" about sexual assault that will not stop a single sexual assault. When fraternity men follow their cue, they are attacked and forced to apologize--just because they are fraternity men.

The campus sexual grievance cartel isn't interested in promoting safe and healthy sexual relationships, they are out to punish an entire gender. If that sounds harsh, try and explain idiocy like this and a thousand other incidents any other way.

Sources:

http://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/05/02/campus/following-banner-controversy-interfraternity-council-plans-to-implement-four-year-sexual-assault-education-program/

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/fraternities-criticized-for-being-anti-sexual-assault

Thursday, May 5, 2016

What Happens When Prosecutors Get Into Bed With Crazy?

The risk that an innocent man is indicted increases exponentially.

Victim Advocates have bemoaned criminal defense attorney's ability to gather the mental health records of complaining witnesses who have accused a man of sexual assault.  They say that the release of those records are an invasion of privacy.  They say that if criminal defendants are able to access those records, then those who are in need of mental health treatment might not seek it out of fear that it will be disclosed.

However, prosecutors have no qualms about employing forensic psychologists to explain why a complaining witness might act in such a way that seems crazy, or "counterintuitive."  Dr. Veronique Valliere has been employed by the district attorneys in Pennsylvania, as well as Special Victim Prosecutors in the Army, to do just that.  Even Dr. Valliere, a prosecution witness, admitted under oath at a Court-martial resulting in a full acquittal that studies have shown that women who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorders have a higher risk of making false allegations in a child custody situation during a divorce.  (52:17)

So, when Congress passes laws that prohibit defense attorneys from accessing mental health records, then one has to ask, "Why?"  The simple answer is that prosecutors can more easily obtain convictions if defense attorneys cannot show that the complaining witness has a borderline personality disorder or mental illness.  Over the past 10 years of defending those who have been falsely accused of sexual and physical abuse crimes and following the news regarding the plight of those unfortunate men, I have noticed an absence of any legislator standing up for the rights of the falsely accused, except most recently by a Georgia Legislator.

For instance, the most famous case of a false allegation where the accused had a mental illness was the Duke Lacrosse case.  Thankfully, at least one of the accused players had a solid alibi, and none of the players' DNA matched the DNA from the accuser's rape kit, so charges were dismissed and the DA was disbarred.

Some recent cases have been reported that should make one raise an eyebrow and wonder, "Why is the prosecution pursuing this case?"  Take for instance, the case of ex-49'r Dana Stubblefield.  He was taken down and arrested in front of his children's school, which has to be the worst place to conduct a perp walk.  Two months ago, he was questioned and cooperated fully with the police, which makes his arrest at his children's school seem overly aggressive.  The DA indicated that the complaining witness was developmentally delayed, but she has been arrested and convicted for crimes in the past and has sued people, acting as her own attorney.  Stubblefield alleges that he took a polygraph test showing no deception when stating that the acts between he and the complaining witness were consensual.  Is the DA getting into bed with crazy?

Take the curious case of Major Kit Martin.  His assumed "wife" told her oldest son that his father was decapitated in a logging accident.  Turns out that the man is alive and still is in possession of his head.  She then married another man, did not obtain a divorce, then married MAJ Martin.  She pleaded guilty to felony bigamy, but entered a pretrial diversion program where the charges will be dismissed if she stays clean.  She made no allegation that she was physically or sexually abused by Martin, initially, but rather she concocted a story with her alleged lover that MAJ Martin was a spy.  When MAJ Martin was cleared by Army counterintelligence after a 3 hour polygraph, she then stated that Martin physically and sexually abused her.  When her alleged lover, her alleged lover's wife, and their neighbor were found murdered in Pembroke, Kentucky, she told the news that MAJ Martin murdered them.  Considering her criminal record and her chaotic lifestyle filled with lies that she has lived, one might wonder why the Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) at Ft. Campbell would feel that she was credible enough to have MAJ Martin charged with the most heinous crime short of murder.  Is the SVP getting into bed with crazy?

The results of these cases will be quite interesting, indeed.

Friday, April 15, 2016

On the anniversary of the sinking of Titanic, its lessons about gender still resonate

On the 104th anniversary of the sinking of Titanic, it is well to remember it for a number of reasons, not the least of which are its lessons about gender that still resonate today.

For the uninitiated, the disaster struck men much harder than women, because the men aboard Titanic were expected to sacrifice their lives for women. The startling demographics from the disaster are as follows:

114 women died, 324 women survived: 72% of the women survived.
1339 men died, 325 men survived: 19% of the men survived.

In 1912, chivalry was a powerful, overriding social influence, just as it is today. But here's the difference: in 1912, both chivalry's practitioners and beneficiaries knew and acknowledged that chivalry was an important societal force. In 2016, both chivalry's practitioners and beneficiaries know it doesn't comport with modern notions of gender relations, so they rarely acknowledge it exists. We were more honest about gender in 1912.

Here's an example of the honesty back in 1912: the giant front page headline of the April 16, 1912 Arizona Journal-Miner read as follows: “1800 ARE LOST IN OCEAN . . . Report is That Most of Saved are Women And Children Indicating Chivalry On Part of Adult Male Passengers.”

While the overwhelming consensus at the time was to salute the brave men who gave their lives, the sentiments of one group, the suffragettes, were decidedly less laudatory. The suffragettes seemed to understand that special, undeserved privilege for women did not comport with the gender equality they championed, so they simply refused to acknowledge that the treatment women received was either special or undeserved.

Some of them declared that the propagation of the human race depended on chivalry, but their reasoning had more leaks than the famous ship that sank. According to the New York Times, April 19, 1912:

“English Suffragettes of prominence, when questioned as to what they thought of the men who died on the Titanic in order that women might be saved, seem to have manifested a disposition, possibly significant, almost to resent the inquirer’s obvious belief that the display of chivalry was magnificent. While the strenuous ladies did not deny that the behaviour of the men was rather fine, they hinted that after all it only fulfilled a plain duty and therefore had not earned any particularly enthusiastic praise.

“As one of the suffragettes put the case, by natural law women and children should be saved first, the children because childhood is sacred, and the women because they are so necessary to the race that they cannot be spared. Another said: ‘It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men.”

(New York Times, April 19, 1912)

In claiming that women were spared because of their child-bearing duties, the suffragettes never bothered to explain why the many women beyond child-bearing years were also spared while their male counterparts, who were able to produce sperm throughout their lives, condemned themselves to an icy grave and the worst kind of death.

Another suffragette went so far as to suggest that men and women aboard Titanic were, in fact, treated equally, even though the men largely died and the women largely were saved. This was so because the “women, though saved through the noble sacrifice of men, were in the equally hard situation of having to see the ship go down” (New York Times, April 20, 1912) (You see, there was no qualitative difference between the sacrifice of the persons who actually gave up their lives and the persons for whom that sacrifice was made. Who would have guessed?)

In short, the suffragettes wanted their equality but weren’t prepared to give up their belief that women were entitled to special treatment, for reasons they couldn’t rationally explain.

But most everyone else understood that women were singled out for special treatment on the Titanic, and it was apparent to those who thought about it that such special treatment did not comport with gender equality. Following the disaster, Clark McAdams, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, contrasted women’s desire for the vote with what occurred on Titanic. In significant respects, the poem’s words still speak to us:

“Votes for women!”
Was the cry,
Reaching upward to the Sky.
Crashing glass
And flashing eye-
“Votes for Women!”
Was the cry.

“Boats for women!”
Was the Cry.
When the brave
Were come to die.
When the end
Was drawing nigh-
“Boats for women!”
Was the cry."

The men’s chivalry was widely acknowledged, and applauded. The views trivializing the sacrifice of the men did not play well. The headline for an April 20, 1912 New York Times story was openly disdainful of the suffragettes:

SUFFRAGETTES DENY CHIVALRY ON TITANIC
“Women first” Is the Universal Rule, says Sylvia Pankhurst, and This Is No Exception
SACRIFICE IS SCOFFED AT
Jangling Note Disgusts English Nation, Proud of the Way Men Died

Consistent with the prevailing sentiment, and fittingly enough, a 13-foot tall statue in Washington, D.C. erected in 1931 by the Women’s Titanic Memorial Association honors the brave men who gave their lives on Titanic. The inscription reads:

TO THE BRAVE MEN WHO PERISHED
IN THE WRECK OF THE TITANIC APRIL 15 1912
THEY GAVE THEIR LIVES THAT
WOMEN AND CHILDREN MIGHT BE SAVED
ERECTED BY THE WOMEN OF AMERICA

The memorial was not without its detractors. “Some feminists criticized the memorial, saying it was inappropriate to not only commemorate but perpetuate the notion of chivalry. Margaret [Molly Brown] responded that she thought it was very brave that some men had chosen to step aside and let women and children live — but the gesture should never have been required by law or custom.” (Molly Brown: Unraveling the Myth, by Kristen Iversen, Muffet Brown at 226 (1999).)

J. Bruce Ismay, chairman of the company that owned Titanic, famously survived the disaster synonymous with the name of the ship, 104 years ago today. Ismay was widely accused of cowardice because he took a seat in a lifeboat that, many believed, should have gone to a woman.

A newspaper article written shortly after the Titanic disaster talked about the “armchair hero” who would sooner sit in judgment of the men who did not lose their lives on the ill-fated ship than applaud the contributions of those who did. The article explained:

“‘Women and children first,’ is the rule of the sea. In the case of the Titanic, it was ‘Women, children, and pet dogs.’ But the armchair hero would press this rule so far as to veto the escape of any man at all. It is probable that many men died rather than face the armchair hero, who would demand explanations from them of their cowardice in daring to be alive. Perhaps this explains why some of the boats were not filled. The armchair hero is not appeased by the appalling death-roll of men. He asks for more. Surely this is sentiment gone mad, chivalry gone to seed.”

Now, more than 100 years after Titanic, in important ways, we are far less honest about gender than we were when the mighty ship sank. In 1912, society freely acknowledged the chivalry at work on Titanic. Today, we claim to embrace gender equality, yet chivaly is alive and well and manifests itself in countless ways — and we pretend it doesn’t exist. Like the elephant in the room, it leaves its imprint on virtually every institution, but it’s entirely too politically incorrect to acknowledge. It manifests itself in family law proceedings; the objectively proven gender disparities in criminal sentencing; the lopsided government funding asymmetry favoring diseases affecting women over diseases that affect men; the requirement that only males must register for selective service; the special government programs that assist girls in school but not boys even though boys need more help; and the fact that there are numerous programs that assist women breaking into the the business world while there are no programs that assist men breaking into the domestic world. And we could go on and on and on, but you already know this.

Like the suffragettes, deep down we are certain that chivalry can’t be reconciled with our enlightened notions of gender equality, so we do what the suffragettes did — we deny it exists, or we rationalize it away. In 1912, such denial was limited to one marginalized group and was disparaged by society as a whole. Today, denial of chivalry is so widespread it’s the norm.

It is no epiphany that the chivalry that manifests itself in our modern institutions is wholly inconsistent with gender equality. This isn’t something concocted by men’s rights groups; it was apparent even when Titanic sank. In the aftermath of the Titanic disaster, a smart woman writing about the astounding chivalry of the Titanic’s men also couldn’t help but notice the decline of chivalry in everyday life. She well understood that chivalry must give way if true equality is to flourish. Here’s what she wrote, less than one month after Titanic sank:

“‘Men are not what they were.’ The phrase falls from the lips of every woman. In it’s train falls the stereotyped indictment: Politeness is a forgotten art; deference to womankind is unknown. In a packed tram, the woman is allowed to stand while the man sits; in a rush for the boat, the woman is shoved aside by the more muscular man; in offices or shop, the girl worker receives no consideration from the man; and so on and so on. The grievance is lengthy . . .

“Yet it may all be true. Very likely ‘men are not what they were’ because, you see, women are not what they were, and things have to balance themselves. We decline altogether these days to have a sphere of our own; we walk triumphantly into man’s. We not only want, we insist on having, his privileges, his pleasures, his work, occasionally ousting him out of them, in any case sharing them willy nilly…

“But we must remember what Nursie taught us long years ago; you cannot have your cake and eat it, much as you wish to. And if man finds you persistently invading his domain, sharing his pursuits, working as a man, acting as a man, aping man’s free and easy arrogance, he is apt to forget, despite your apology for petticoats, that you are not a man. You want to be a free and independent comrade? Well, then, accept the penalties as well as the pleasures of comradeship.”

Link: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP19120511.2.113

Hillary Clinton's hostility to the community of the wrongly accused

The current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process for college men accused of sexual assault. We've written literally hundreds of posts about it since April 2011 when the the Department of Education issued its infamous "Dear Colleague" letter. For a long time, it was difficult to fathom that any administration could be worse on these issues, but we have every indication to believe that a Hillary Clinton administration would be worse.

Hillary Clinton has unequivocally expressed her hostility to college men accused of sexual assault: "I think that when someone makes the claim, they come forward, they should be believed . . . ."  She also said this: ". . . in our country and on every college campus . . . any woman who reports an assault should be heard and believed . . . ."  In a major address on the issue, she told survivors of sexual assault the following: "You have the right to be heard, You have the right to be believed. And we're with you as you go forward." Clinton made it clear she believes that men accused of sexual assault should be presumed guilty until they are proven innocent: ". . . everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Clinton made that statement with a huge grin on her face, and the line drew applause.

Clinton has stated that the issue of college sexual assault is "deeply important" to her. She buys into the one-in-five canard. She has called campus sexual assault an epidemic, has pledged to "build on the progress" the Obama administration has made, and has made clear she wants a national conversation about it--as if the issue has been ignored until now. She plans to take the Obama administration's work to the next level: "The Obama administration has begun to shine a spotlight. I just want to make it a very broad and bright spotlight . . . ." She wants to "end" campus rape by broadening the war on sexual assault. She proudly admits that when she says this, she is "playing the gender card"  and "that's exactly where I want to be."

Clinton recently hired Zerlina Maxwell who has written this: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” Maxwell said that false accusations "can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly."

As Secretary of State, Clinton made one of the most heinous false rape claims imaginable. In 2011, Clinton was trying to justify regime change in Libya–a goal not authorized by either the U.S. Congress or the UN. "Clinton told the press that Gaddafi was passing out Viagra to his troops so they could go out and rape dissidents en masse, and that the troops were indeed engaging in mass rapes." The problem? Amnesty International later reported "that there was absolutely no factual support for these accusations. As Amnesty International reported, 'Not only have we not met any victims, but we have not even met any persons who have met victims.'”

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton has not always exhibited fidelity to the decidedly unAmerican principles she now espouses. Much has been written about Mrs. Clinton's two-facedness on this issue--she did not automatically believe her husband’s sexual assault accusers, and, in fact, she actively worked to destroy their credibility. We won't repeat those arguments as they could fill a book.

Mrs. Clinton is, sadly, a product of the modern Democrat Party, which foments division by playing group identity politics. Last night, Mrs. Clinton made clear who her constituents are: ". . . I’m putting together a very broad-based, inclusive coalition from the South to the North, from the East to the West, with African-American, Latinos, women, union households, working people and I am very proud of the campaign we are running."

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Now available: "Convicting the Innocent: Death Row and America's Broken System of Justice"

Buy it here.

"Every day, innocent men across America are thrown into prison, betrayed by a faulty justice system, and robbed of their lives—either by decades-long sentences or the death penalty itself. Injustice tarnishes our legal process from start to finish. From the racial discrimination and violence used by backwards law enforcement officers, to a prison culture that breeds inmate conflict, there is opportunity for error at every turn.
"Award-winning journalist Stanley Cohen chronicles over one hundred of these cases, from the 1973 case of the first ever death row exoneree, David Keaton, to multiple cases as of 2015 that resulted from the corrupt practices of NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella (with nearly seventy Brooklyn cases under review for wrongful conviction). In the wake of these unjust convictions, grassroots organizations, families, and pro bono lawyers have battled this rampant wrongdoing. Cohen reveals how eyewitness error, jailhouse snitch testimony, racism, junk science, prosecutorial misconduct, and incompetent counsel have populated America’s prisons with the innocent.

"Readers embark on journeys with men who were arrested, convicted, sentenced to life in prison or death, dragged through the appeals system, and finally set free based on their actual innocence. Although these stories end with vindication, there are those that have ended with unjustified execution. Convicting the Innocent is sure to fuel controversy over a justice system that has delivered the ultimate punishment nearly one thousand times since 1976, though it cannot guarantee accurate convictions."