New Title IX guidelines a disaster for colleges

Note: This is not about the new Federal guidelines on transgender access to bathrooms. Please read the article before you comment!

A while back, the Obama administration’s Education Department informed American colleges that those persons accused of Title IX violations (e.g., sexual harassment and assault) should be judged by “preponderance of the evidence” versus the legal standard of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”.  The letter wasn’t absolutely binding, but colleges fell in line, as they feared losing federal funds. (Title IX, by the way, was the 1972 regulation—and a good one, in my view—that colleges receiving federal funds should not be allowed to discriminate in any way on the basis of gender. Among its other salubrious effects, it gave a useful shot in the arm to women’s sports.) But the government has taken it further, and in an insalubrious way.

At the time, I thought it would be a disaster, for punishing students using guidelines very different from those used in the courts is an invitation for lawsuits. I also thought that behaviors as odious as sexual harassment and assault should be adjudicated by the court system, and if a student were found guilty, he or she could then be severely punished by the college. Colleges are not equipped to properly judge such matters, and using a standard like “preponderance of the evidence” makes their judgments even wobblier. University administrators and professors aren’t trained to act as judge and jury.

I do sympathize with victims who don’t want to go to the police out of various fears (being disbelieved, treated badly, and so on), but harassment and and especially assault are very serious crimes, ones that should be dealt with by the police and the courts. When they’re not, colleges tend to drop the ball over and over again. That leaves them open to lawsuits for improper conduct, and for violating students’ civil rights. If colleges do investigate, because a student simply won’t go to the police, then I think they should use the legal standard of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” That makes the entire system equitable and eliminates at least some subjectivity from the process.

I mention this because someone sent me a Washington Post column by George Will about this issue (“Due process is still being kicked off campus“), and I had to agree with Will. (Yes, such is the fate of liberals these days—having to agree with conservatives because the Authoritarian Left is sometimes even more misguided.)  Will notes that mere accusations, even without a preponderance of evidence, is enough to trigger college action, and we know of such cases at Duke and The University of Virginia.

But the case Will mentions, which is covered by both The Denver Post and The Chronicle of Higher Educationshows what the new Title IX guidelines have produced: an accusation (by a third party), a suspension, and a lawsuit, even when there was no evidence that any violation was committed. Here are the facts from the Denver Post, beginning with a student seeing a hickey (you do know what that is, right?) on her friend’s neck. That eventually led to the suspension of the accused, Grant Neal, a student athlete at Colorado State University at Pueblo. In return, Neal has filed a lawsuit against the college (you can see all the documents here), as well as against the Department of Education, for violating his civil rights.

. . . a peer of Jane Doe’s in the Athletic Training Program reported the encounter as rape to CSU faculty after seeing a hickey on her neck, says the 90-page lawsuit filed by Denver attorney Michael Mirabella and New York City attorneys Andrew Miltenberg, Tara Davis and Jeffrey Berkowitz.

The lawsuit points out that the peer was not an eye witness to the sexual encounter and did not hear about it from either Neal or the woman.

DeLuna [Jennifer DeLuna, director for Diversity and Inclusion] notified Neal on Dec. 18 that he had been found responsible for “sexual misconduct” in violation of the university’s code of conduct.

His “unwarranted and severe” penalty was suspension for the remainder of Jane Doe’s enrollment at the college, the lawsuit says.

. . . Neal lost his football and wrestling scholarships, which damaged his future education, career, reputation and athletic prospects.

The lawsuit gives graphic details about several sexual encounters between Neal and Jane Doe. When later asked about the events, Jane Doe made it clear their relationship was consensual, the lawsuit said.

The supposed “victim” says she was not assaulted. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

“Our stories are the same, and he’s a good guy,” Jane Doe was quoted in the lawsuit as telling a university official. “He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla.”

Why, then, was he suspended, and why did he lose his scholarships? Apparently because a third-party report of a hickey constituted “preponderance of evidence”.   Reading other reports, I can’t find any further evidence beyond the friend seeing a hickey, and if the supposed victim says that no assault took place, why was the accused convicted?

This is what happens when colleges, pushed by the Obama Adminstration, internalize a standard of guilt different from that used by criminal courts. That’s a conflict guaranteed to produce lawsuits.

As I said, I think that serious criminal charges should be tried by the courts, not by ill-equipped universities. A conviction in court gives a college every right to sanction the accused as hard as they can. But if there’s no court case, then colleges must adjudicate the same way the courts do, for what reason is there to judge criminal behavior by a less rigorous standard in college than in court? Can you have one standard of civil rights on campus, and another in society?

Readers can weigh in here, and I add that I am not questioning the Title IX statute itself, which I approve of, but the new addendum about how colleges should adjudicate violations.



  1. GBJames
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink


  2. ploubere
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Agreed, it should be beyond reasonable doubt, and handled by the courts.

    I just recently finished the online training course in Title IX that my school requires. As I understand it, if I see anything that might indicate a violation, I’m obligated to report it to our Title IX office and to campus police. I’m also supposed to keep it confidential, meaning that I as faculty will have nothing to do with the investigation except as a witness. So academic staff will not be involved in judging the case, it will be done entirely by that administrative office and campus police. How well equipped they are for that task, I have no idea. I assume they have lawyers involved.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      “if I see anything that might indicate a violation,”
      What, such as people talking to each other?

      I emphasise I’m not speaking for you, ploubere, but my reaction would be to not see anything, ever.

      Our Health & Safety zealots got similarly overzealous a couple of years back. Up till then, we (project managers) were supposed to draw the contractor’s attention to minor transgressions like someone not wearing a hard hat on site. But then they changed the rules and we were supposed to officially report the ‘incident’ and the contractor’s management would be summoned to ‘discuss’ the issue blah blah blah… To which my reaction would have been “I didn’t see that, nobody saw me not seeing it, it never happened”. (I say ‘would have been’ because, of course, I would have been in violation if I had ever been seen to do that. Which I took care didn’t happen).

      My point is, the more heavy-handed and legalistic the procedures get, the more likely people are to avoid invoking them. Everyday life demands a certain amount of judgement and mandatory reporting (of anything) takes away that element of reasonableness. So only zealots will report. It’s completely counterproductive.


      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:13 am | Permalink

        Well said.

  3. Damien McLeod
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Excellent post.

  4. ladyatheist
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    If something is a right, it’s a right in every jurisdiction, and individual jurisdictions have been making up rules & laws. So I welcome a challenge at the federal level to determine if self-determination of gender is a right.

    It’s a disaster for Hillary Clinton, for sure, though. There are very very few kids (and they always worry about boys, not girls for some reason) who want to be the opposite sex so in practical terms, it’s not going to make much difference.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      p.s. whoops wrong rule. Just ignore please.

  5. Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    I just don’t understand them on this issue. I agree with them that rape is bad and needs to be stopped but then we differ so greatly. I want law enforcement to investigate and DA press charges and prosecute rapist to get them off the street. The police are trained professionals in investigative tactics. They on the other hand don’t want campus accusers (what else can you call them?) to just go though the administrative system of their school. The one where the DoE suggested strongly to schools have a single investigator who was judge and of course trained by these types on what to look for.

    Its almost as if campus power is more important then actually stopping crime.

  6. alexandra moffat
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    The Death of Common Sense*. A book published several years ago. Evidently not enough people were convinced to change things.

    * I did not/ have not read it – the title is all that is needed..

    • GBJames
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      The real problem is the dearth of common sense.

  7. Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Jon Krakuer’s latest book, Missoula is about sexual assault on college campuses. It’s a good book and a disturbing read.

    In this case (as outlined in your post), the actions of CSUP seem ludicrous, a complete absence of due process. It seems that the alleged victim’s testimony ought to rule in this case.

    Good grief, if every guy in college whose girlfriend got a hickey were expelled, you’d be slicing off a big chunk of the college population.

  8. Randy Schenck
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    I cannot understand why any school would want to take on the responsibility to investigate and adjudicate crimes such as rape and assault?
    Do any other institutions do this, such as the large insurance company or auto plant. It is really beyond understanding.

    Already we have the cost of school going into high space – where will it be after all the lawsuits?

    • Randy Schenck
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      I forgot to add one additional thing that is important. Combining the sex crimes of assault and rape in the same group as sexual harassment is a misunderstanding of what sexual harassment is. It is a far different issue than rape and sexual assault and can be handled in the workplace if done properly. The rape and sexual assault cannot.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      My understanding, based on what I have been reading, especially from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is that the Department of Education is pushing institutions to be more effective in dealing with sexual harassment/assault claims. The trouble, as I see it, is that educational institutions have historically been called upon to discipline students. It seems now, though, that the line between school discipline and criminal law is being blurred. The DoE expects schools to do something, and the apparently hapless administrators are too concerned about losing funding for violations of Title IX to push back. It seems all much of a muchness in colleges’ and universities’ being unable to identify their core mission these days. They are too busy defending themselves to defend any ideals of truth and justice.

      • Randy Schenck
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        Yes, and there must be a lawyer per square inch in Washington DC where this stuff comes from. Even Obama should see this is crazy. Unless each school is going to add a professional crime unit to handle the sexual assaults/rape that occurs on campus, they are way out of their element.

        I do not see that true sexual harassment could be much of a problem at schools. When it is, it would mostly be against teachers as they are in a position to use it against students for sexual favor. Sexual harassment usually includes leverage: such as in the workplace, a supervisor or manager uses it against lower ranking employees within the company. As was discussed in early postings here – the military has a very bad record on sexual harassment. It is out of control and will never be fixed there until they take the reporting and investigation out of the chain of command.

      • Taz
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        According to FIRE, the DoJ is using such a broad definition of harassment that if schools enforce it they’ll be violating the First Amendment:
        Dept. of Justice Letter

    • Kevin
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      I fail to understand why a university should be involved.

      Person A is a member of society. Person A was accosted. Person A should go to the police. Our society should work this out, not a university.

      • sshort
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:06 am | Permalink

        Ockham tips his hat. Probably buys you a round, as well.

    • Diane G.
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 2:49 am | Permalink

      I cannot understand why any school would want to take on the responsibility to investigate and adjudicate crimes such as rape and assault?

      A little preemptive damage control, perhaps?

  9. GM
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    It looks like you haven’t seen the “Dear colleague” letter they sent out on Friday

    Here it is:

    This is mainly about how Title IX applies to the bathroom issue, but it also contains very specific guidelines that use of the “incorrect pronouns” is to be treated as harassment and punished accordingly…

    • Filippo
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      From the letter:

      “Athletics. Title IX regulations permit a school to operate or sponsor sex-segregated athletics teams when selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or when the activity involved is a contact sport . . . 17 Title IX does not prohibit age-appropriate, tailored requirements based on sound, current, and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the students’ participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport . . . .”

      Does that mean, for example, that a transmale cannot try out for the high school football team? If so, who is the federal government to tell the transmale that he cannot do so? (Or can try out but if not selected has no recourse or appeal?)

      What if a six-foot-plus transfemale wants to try out for the girls basketball team? Seems reasonably likely that the transfemale might have a “competitive skill” advantage, eh?

      Hasn’t there been at least one “cisfemale” who has played on a high school football team? Doesn’t that give the lie to the above Fed “competitive skill/contact sport” qualifier? (Or is it that there wasn’t sufficient “cismale” competition/interest in football at this particular school, allowing the “cisfemale” to qualify on account of her “competitive skill”?)

      Beyond this, why are these strictures not applicable to private institutions – as a matter of principle? The gov’t simply has no power over private institutions beyond fed gov’t grant$? Sounds like a recipe for prompting a tsunami of public-to-private school transfers. What will gov’ts at whatever levels do then?

      • GM
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

        There was a lot of controversy some time ago when they allowed M2F persons to fight real women in the MMA.

        The result was predictable — brutal knockouts, because the M2F had undergone puberty as a male and had the bone structure and density, and a lot of the muscle mass of a man.

        Even worse, they are going to allow the same in the Olympics:

        This is complete insanity.

        • Diane G.
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 2:58 am | Permalink

          From an article titled “Five myths on being transgender:”

          5. Male-to-female transgender athletes have a competitive advantage.

          In January, the International Olympic Committee announced that trans athletes can compete as the gender they identify with, whether or not they’ve undergone gender-reassignment surgery. Columnist Janice Turner wrote sarcastically that the new policy was “great news — unless you are a woman athlete.” Trans athletes themselves have faced similar blowback. When mixed martial arts fighter Fallon Fox came out in 2013, competitors complained that she should be barred because of her “advantage.”

          These critics argue that transgender women have all the biological strengths — more muscle mass, greater lung capacity — of male athletes. But in reality, most of that dominance is pegged to hormones such as testosterone, not sex organs. Hormone therapy for trans women involves taking a testosterone-blocking drug along with an estrogen supplement. This usually leads to a decrease in muscle mass and bone density, as well as an increase in fat storage. “Together,” one trans runner and researcher wrote in The Washington Post, “these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance — all key components of athleticism.” To date, trans athletes have not won a disproportionate number of races.

          Now, this is just from a WaPo article, not a science journal. Of the author, it says: “Jack Drescher is a New York-based psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who specializes in gender identity and sexuality.”

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:32 am | Permalink

            I support transgender not suffering discrimination.
            However “most of that dominance is pegged to hormones such as testosterone, not sex organs.” is not ‘all’ that dominance.
            There are factors such as hip size and shoulder size and other sizes.
            Leverage determine force and a small difference can go a long way.
            Also, who is monitoring the hormones everyone is taking.
            Sport is rife with drug use.

            I think it is fair to ask questions about it.

            Could Caitlin Jenner have decided to compete in a women’s event one year after taking the mens decathlon. The preeminent athletic achievement.
            Would that be fair?

            • Posted May 17, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

              A physiological psychologist I took a course with at UBC make the off-the-cuff remark that his view was that sports should be divided into 3 levels of hormones. This would also allow juicers to play against each other and those who wanted to stay clean could do so without feeling they have to dope to win.

              The remark was largely in jest, but still …

              • Posted May 17, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

                (relevant hormones – testosterone and derivatives)

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

                I have thought that and heard that too.
                I sometimes listen to a sports radio network on a long drive to work. Drugs in sport is a big, ongoing issue. They always seem to be one step ahead.
                Lance Armstrong never tested positive. So yeah, a tiered competition may be a solution.

                It would be interesting to see what kind of ‘athletes’ may be produced with unfettered enhancement.

            • Diane G.
              Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

              I agree with you, Michael. For many of the male to female trans-gendered, physical differences that confer advantages are still going to exist. Pelvic geometry affecting gait, for instance, along with the more obvious height, wingspan, etc., average differences.

              This is more of a conundrum than well-meaning idealists want to believe it is, let alone those who would be happy to take advantage of any physical edge they might have from being trans.

              It’s hard to think of any completely fair way to sort this out.

              This wouldn’t be the first such conundrum in sports, of course. Think of “blade runner” Oscar Pistorius, or the long-running Casey Martin dispute over whether or not he should be allowed to use a golf cart in tournaments.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:29 pm | Permalink


              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

                There will always be problems with classifications in sports. There will always be a continuum of abilities, with those at the top able to beat anyone else. As soon as one tries to institute any sort of classes, to give ‘the rest’ a fairer chance, there will be people trying to push the boundaries. Often it’s not even clear where the line should fairly be

                And in this context gender is a ‘class’. Not a problem drawing the line there, until it gets blurred by trans-gender considerations.


  10. Posted May 16, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    When I read the title of the posting, I thought it would refer to the recent order(s) from the administration regarding transgendered students.

    While I generally come down on the side of rights for the LGBT community (almost 100% of the time), in this case, it seems much less clear cut.

    I admit I don’t know all the details; but it seems to me that to support the order(s) with no reservations or mitigations is to say, in essence, that every 14-year old girl* in middle school or high school has to share a locker room and showers with male students who claim to be females, regardless of whether they have been physically transitioned yet or not**.

    It’s not clear to me at all that this is the correct balancing of rights.

    If changing rooms were completely private, that might be a mitigation. They certainly were nothing like private when I went through school. I hated the entire experience of the locker room. (Don’t get me started on PE either.)

    (* Pick your age, doesn’t matter. These are pretty sensitive ages. I don’t think the boys would care, though I would be worried about the safety of a girl in the boys locker room. I think there are good reasons to be more concerned about the girls than the boys in this case.)

    (** I have no issue with requiring access for persons who have been physically transitioned — to me that completely removes any barrier.)

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

      The hypotheticals mentioned are pretty similar to what Ted Cruz (ugh) says on the issue in order to scare people. There has been no case that I know of where someone has claimed to be a transgendered so they can get their jollies in a locker room or rest room. The stigma attached to being transgendered is plenty prohibitive.

      • Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

        That’s not the point, actually. It doesn’t matter (to the other young girls/women) whether the guy thinks he’s a girl or not (how could they know?).

        I don’t claim to know the answer here; but an automatic: Whatever the Trans person wants is correct isn’t clear to me at all.

        Unless the point being made is that everyone else’s right to privacy doesn’t matter. That doesn’t seem clear to me.

        As noted, if private areas were provided (for whoever wanted them) that would be a significant mitigation.

    • Diane G.
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:04 am | Permalink

      Would you allow hormone treatment to qualify as physically transitioned? It’s my understanding that a significant proportion of trans people do not opt for genital-modifying surgery, as it is expensive, and a major operation entailing a certain amount of risk.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:24 am | Permalink

        “Would you allow hormone treatment to qualify as physically transitioned?”

        No, I wouldn’t, for the purpose of gender separation. I wouldn’t object if people decided to have unisex changing rooms, BUT if they’re going to have single-sex changing rooms then allowing people who are physically of the opposite sex makes a nonsense of the concept. IMO.


        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

          “I wouldn’t object if people decided to have unisex changing rooms”

          – on second thoughts I’m not sure about that. I personally wouldn’t care about sharing if nobody objected to sharing with me. On the other hand, it sometimes might** happen that one girl might end up sharing with an entire mens’ football team…

          ** and hence, sooner or later, would

      • Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:36 am | Permalink

        I would say, again: How would the others know?

        If they can’t know (for sure) then it’s the same situation.

        Again, I think this is a much more complex issue than many on the Left (among whom I count myself) will allow.

        • Diane G.
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

          I agree with you. I was just asking out of curiosity.

          OTOH, I have great sympathy for trans people. It’s not their fault that, human nature being what it is, some creeps are going to try to take advantage of sincere attempts to accommodate them (the transgendered). Separate facilities for them sounds like the only way to go, but then that reveals their identity, which many may resent. Perhaps architects can design locker rooms/rest rooms with a few “special needs” private rooms for use by trans people, the disabled, those with young children, nursing mothers, shy urinaters, the social-phobic, etc., so no one would really know why a given person was using them. (I’d like that option often, just for privacy.) Many YMCAs already have private “family” dressing rooms, for parents who are bringing an opposite sex child to the gym, e.g.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

            Yes, that occurred to me. Maybe *three* changing rooms, for men-only, women-only and ‘everybody else’ aka unisex.

            The example of different-sex children is an obvious source of awkwardness. (As I realised when I took the 7-year-old granddaughter to the beach. I sent her into the Womens to get changed but then she summoned me to help her put her dress on; fortunately there was no-one else in there.

            But she seems to have her own curious view of the proprieties – at the local swimming pool, she got out, took her togs off, and waited patiently by the side of the pool in her birthday suit for the little temporary changing hut to come free.)

            As for shy urinaters, they can usually use one of the stalls. Though I was somewhat bemused when I was using the urinal at work one day (which is nominally half-shielded by a wall from the rest of the restroom) and the janitor – a pleasant middle-aged woman – came in to check the place and replenish toilet rolls etc. We just politely ignored each other.


            • Diane G.
              Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:38 am | Permalink

              Awwww, sweet granddaughter anecdote! 🙂

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 18, 2016 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

                I was slightly concerned about the potential for some onlooker to draw the wrong conclusions and summon the feds. Fortunately no-one did.


  11. Ken Phelps
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    WTF does a hickey have to do with sexual assault?

    • gluonspring
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

      No idea. I guess maybe the person reporting it equated it with a bruise? And I guess they are of the view that there can be no consent for an injury of any kind, so… it’s assault?

      I confess to being exceedingly glad I’m a kid in college these days.

      • gluonspring
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        Glad I’m NOT a kid in college these days.

        • HaggisForBrains
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:20 am | Permalink

          Thought for a minute there that you had trans-aged.

          • Diane G.
            Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

            As soon as we can trans-youthen, sign me up!

    • Sshort
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:20 am | Permalink

      I know of a very recent case where a male high school student was leaving campus for the day and was accosted and berated by two female faculty members for “disrespecting and shaming his girlfriend” because he had a hickey on his neck. A hickey his girlfriend had bestowed on him, in a bit of youthful exuberance, the night before.

      A hickey he was more than aware of and had gone to the trouble of trying to conceal. He wore a high collar and put foundation makeup over it. Alas, at the end of the day, it was still a bit visible.

      The shame is on the teachers, not the kids. The kids just laughed it off. They were embarrased for the teachers.

      • infiiteimprobability
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:37 am | Permalink

        Why were the teachers not charged with harassment?


  12. Thanny
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Part of the problem is that there’s a persistent push to claim that rape-or-sexual-assault (they always conflate them, though they differ greatly in both nature and severity) is at epidemic proportions in college. Typical claims are 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted during their tenure. Obama has even repeated this claim, citing the deeply flawed CDC survey (modeled after the equally flawed surveys conducted since the 1980’s by Mary Koss, who consulted with the CDC).

    The actual number, according to properly conducted surveys by the Department of Justice, is about a 1 in 50 lifetime chance for any woman to be sexually assaulted or raped – a full order of magnitude off before even considering the difference in time span (college versus one’s entire life). Furthermore, women in college are less likely to be assaulted than women in the area surrounding that college.

    Beyond that, the feminists who push this agenda will not accept facts. When 90% of colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2014, that wasn’t cause for celebration – it was cause to claim that colleges were failing to report, despite being required by law to do so. It’s hardly any wonder why gross miscarriages of justice now routinely take place with college kangaroo courts trying to stave off any threat of withdrawn federal funding.

    And just to show how vulnerable surveys can be to ideological manipulation, consider the case of one (can’t recall what institution did it, but it was within the past year or so) where students were asked both whether they had been sexually assaulted and whether they reported it. The latter figure is actually known. There are strict laws about recording such reports. When you compare the number of actual reports to the number of respondents who claimed to have reported an incident, you find the latter outnumber the former by about an order of magnitude. That’s not extrapolated to the population from the sample size (which was quite large). That’s from the sample alone. So a lot of people deliberately lied on the survey, presumably to push the agenda of inflating rape hysteria. It’s rather like lying for Jesus – they’re convinced there is a huge problem, so telling a little lie to support it (and counter those oodles and oodles of people who don’t report) isn’t wrong, right?

    As for Title IX, this is not the only misapplication. It’s also harmful to college athletics in general. Because of the way the rules are being interpreted, not only must women be offered the same opportunities, they must also take them. If men want to form a sports team, but no women want to form a female counterpart, then no teams are formed. So men’s interests are being subjugated to those of women – if an insufficient number of women are interested, the interest of men is nullified.

    That’s quite long enough of a rant, I guess.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      There is a problem with women feeling unable to report sexual assault, whether some want to believe it or not. The actual number of assaults reported is a fraction of what women and girls suffer. We don’t report things less than rape in particular – we put up with it, and many of us are trained to put up with such treatment of us as women from childhood.

      It takes enormous courage to make a sexual complaint, and until recently the atmosphere has not been as conducive as you seem to think. Whatever the result, the woman is frequently judged as at least partly guilty and being a victim is often seen as a matter of shame.

      Yes there is a problem with people who lie that has muddied the waters, but to use that to deny there is a real problem is a misrepresentation at best. Whatever the crime, there have always been people who lie about whether one occurred.

      • Randy Schenck
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        One of the many reasons that rape is very hard to report is that each woman who does do the right thing and report gets dragged through the mud and treated as if it were their fault. Part of the reason for this is that most people think of it as only a sex crime and it’s about sex. Much of the time it is not. It is often about power and hate more than anything and the people who commit the crime are not really seen for these issues and it’s just a little sex.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

          Excellent point Randy. Rape is rarely about sex as you say, but about power and punishment. In stranger rapes it is a fact that the older the victim, the younger the perpetrator e.g. men in their 30s don’t rape women in their 80s – teenagers aged 14-16 do. It’s clear this isn’t about their raging hormones.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think that is true.
            Other than Susan Brownmiller’s assertion are there studies showing that.
            I have seen studies showing that sex is a bigger component.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

              When it’s about sex, it’s because the perpetrator is psychologically damaged in some way such as needing violence and the woman to be scared in order to become aroused.

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:30 am | Permalink

                Not always, IMO. Often it’s just about being totally plastered, either one or both parties. I don’t think all the slimeballs using GHB or Rohypnol are psychologically damaged or in need of violence; they just want to get laid. Sometimes it’s a matter of guys egging on other guys to do it.

                Not that all that isn’t totally fucked up (so to speak…) but I don’t think it reflects the traditional narratives about rape being about violence, not sex.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:33 am | Permalink

                Agree with Diane, there.

                Just as the Freuds had a thing about ‘everything is about sex’, the current mantra seems to have turned that on its head and assumed that ‘sex is always about power and control’. I think not so. Sometimes people (usually guys) just want to get laid.


              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

                There is that side of it too, but is getting someone so drunk or drugged that they’re not only not in a position to consent, but to even know what’s going on really normal sexual behaviour?

                If you just want to get laid, use a prostitute. (Of course, prostitution is legal in NZ. But surely a soliciting conviction is better than a rape one)

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

                There is that side of it too, but is getting someone so drunk or drugged that they’re not only not in a position to consent, but to even know what’s going on really normal sexual behaviour?

                Sadly, it seems to be a hallowed tradition in some corners of academia. This, too, is a continuum. On the one hand, you have the couple in which both parties get too blotto to be fully responsible for what that leads to (or at least claim that they were)…OTOH, you have serial date-rapists who will use whatever drink or drugs they can to succeed. There are always some women who were brought up with such strict admonishments against sex that in order to let themselves experience it they need to feel that they were coerced into it, or at least to claim so after the fact.

                In short, it’s a very complicated tapestry and one that either sex can take advantage of to their own ends, though males, having (on average) advantages in size and in some cases certain cultural conditioning and social factors that encourage brash behavior are probably more likely to be the offender when coercion is involved. I’d really dread to be an adjudicator on some of those campus cases.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

                Yeah, good points. It really is complicated, as you say, and there are certainly women as well as men who take advantage of the situation. There’s a huge group of people with adult bodies, brains that haven’t finished growing, experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives and making the most of it. I don’t envy those expected to monitor them either.

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

                There’s a huge group of people with adult bodies, brains that haven’t finished growing, experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives and making the most of it.

                Oh, yes, a very important element of the campus problems! I thank my lucky stars that I pulled my puerile stunts way before there was an internet.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 18, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

                Yeah, me too!

        • Diane G.
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:16 am | Permalink

          Even if you’re not dragged through the mud, it’s still an ordeal. You have to be interviewed about very intimate matters by complete strangers. Over and over again. You may have to get a lawyer. Read the first part of Valerie Tarico’s blogpost here about the physical exam:

          As she writes,

          Sexual assault turns the victim’s body into a crime scene and the process of evidence gathering—prodding, swabbing, and questioning—can take hours.

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

        That may be true. It is also true that men can suffer in silence.
        That doesn’t change the obvious absurdity of this case and many others.
        It doesn’t change the inherent dishonesty of the feminist misuse of dubious surveys and misrepresentation of figures, as alluded to above.
        What is more absurd this ‘rape’, for kissing a girl. (I bet a million dollars that it wouldn’t or wouldn’t happen if a male had a hickey) or the assertion that Isaac Newton, instead of writing a genius work laying the foundation for our fabulous technological world, wrote a ‘rape manual’?

        This push by feminists to always believe the victim (woman), because men are always wrong and we have a ‘rape culture’ (really?) without a care about destroying the life of innocent people, over minor and consensual issues is both absurd and extremely disturbing. Actually, non existent activity too.
        The lying is deeper more extensive and more consequential than just muddying the waters.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

          You seem to have a bit of a warped view of feminism, or perhaps you personally have had a bad experience. I’m the first to agree that there are extremists out there – there are zealots in everything. But saying that the number of rapes reported to authorities is the accurate figure is completely wrong and burying your head in the sand. For good reason, most women don’t report rape and other sexual assaults.

          This case isn’t about kissing. The couple did have sex. The problem is that it was consensual and the university is acting as it it wasn’t based on the word of a third party.

          Most feminists don’t say men are always wrong and equally decry those feminists who do dishonest things to make their point. There is no need – there is plenty of genuine data to prove that women are, in general, not treated equally to men by society.

          Most feminists are like me – we don’t want more, or special treatment, or any of the other things the men who are scared of us are saying. We just want to be treated equally.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

            My view of feminism, (I once called myself a feminist) is indeed warped. it has to be warped to comprehend its current absurdity.

            ‘Most’ feminists is not the issue. It s the vocal extremes that are the problem.

            Maybe most feminist are like you, only wanting equality but the evidence doesn’t show it.
            And, men ought to e scared of feminists if they can have such massive consequences over simple assertions.

            If I remember rightly feminists like you caused a cancer curing Nobel laureate Tim Hunt to be fired from his job and positions and cast down into the dirt. With no redress.

            For a self deprecating joke. He might be scared of feminists too.

            Or Matt Taylor, they made him cry. (Mens tears eh)

            That ‘only equality’ argument is wearing a bit thin.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

              Actually, I didn’t think Tim Hunt should be fired, though I thought his remarks ignorant and tasteless. And I felt sorry for Matt Taylor. I didn’t know anyone made him cry, and I don’t think that’s OK. And if “most” feminists are not the issue, why do you lump all of us in with the worst representatives of us? I don’t lump all men in with Donald Trump or Pat Robertson or Cardinal Dolan or Jay Z. I treat all people as individuals on their own merits. If the “only equality” argument is wearing a bit thin, perhaps you need to look at some of your own attitudes.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

                I was being generous with the most feminist thing. Most women who may call themselves feminists perhaps.
                But the vocal minority is supported by the tile feminist itself.
                So you can go back to the claim that feminism just means wanting equality when it is so much more and so wrong.

                And feminists do tend to lump all men together.
                One heading I saw after that absurd (that word again) video of the woman walking in New York, being ‘harassed’) was “men please stop harassing us”. I can condemn Republicans for Donald trump. That’s his label and organisation. Not men.
                Unlike feminism.
                My attitudes are fine.
                I believe in an evidence based reality. And appreciate nuance and humor and subtly.

                I think you were wrong about Tim Hunt. See what happened.
                What about my attitude do you think is wrong. That I don’t condemn at the drop of a hat. Or that I criticize and absurd dogma driven ideology masquerading as a champion of equality?
                When I was younger I was lucky enough to be part of a big group of friends, who gathered at the house of a special woman. A bit matriarchal. The seventies and eighties. Uni students working types. Girls, boys. We sat around talking politics ethics feminism, as it was just coming in. Us guys talked about the consciousness raising groups the women had. We tried it.
                This went on for several years. I know and have known many fine fabulous women. I know about feminism, I was one.
                Not now.
                My attitude is fine. Thanks.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

                Heather, I appreciate all the good work you do.
                I don’t want to fall into the erroneous behavior troubling the left a lot these days, of falling out with someone over a disagreement about one thing, when there is so much in common.
                I know you fight the good fight and we probably agree on nearly everything.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

                Thanks for your nice words, and I’m not taking against you personally here. I feel like we’re having a rational discussion.

                I think men sometimes just don’t realize what women put up with, as there are many things about the pressures of being a man that we don’t get.

                As a women who has had to go through walking through the streets being whistled at etc., I can tell you it really does feel like walking the gauntlet, especially when you’ve previously been a victim of assault. You don’t know which of those men are the ones who just think they’re being nice, and which are the next abuser. One 20-minute walk to and from work became regularly almost double that in order to avoid the building sites. Quite apart from anything else, I really didn’t appreciate having to get out of bed earlier.

        • Randy Schenck
          Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          It is quite disappointing to see a male focus on the occasional false report instead of concentrating on the thousands of unreported rapes and the thousands who, even after reporting, get away with it. I guess to them it is just sex and nothing else. It’s kind of pathetic really.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

            That’s a big assumption.

            Even if it is true, it is not true that it is being ignored or suppressed.

            There seems to be more than the occasional false report and the push to make reporting equal instant guilt is, of course, worrying.

            Are you pushing for a change in innocent until proven guilty?

            And, asserting that I and others who think the issue needs examining, think that rape is ‘just sex and nothing else’ And that I, we, are pathetic, is a foolish (to the least) statement. And insulting.

            I will leave you to wallow I your irrational dogma driven evidence free white knighting position.

            Unreported rape and fair treatment, for all, is important.

            But more important are fundamental rights, like equal before the law and innocent until proven guilty.

          • Michael Waterhouse
            Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

            It is more than the ‘occasional’ false report.
            Are you pushing for a change in innocent until proven guilty?

            You are saying that people who question this push to so readily condemn men, without evidence, as pathetic rape apologists, is a typical mindless dogma driven feminist reply.

            It is a bit worse actually.

            Where are all these thousand of women being raped and have the rapist getting away with it?
            Without anyone caring?

            To say that people who want to keep a standard of evidence for crime, including rape, that, regarding rape, “to them it is just sex and nothing else” is reprehensible.

            • Diane G.
              Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:55 am | Permalink

              Where are all these thousand of women being raped and have the rapist getting away with it?

              Again I suggest this post of Valerie Tarico’s:


              Many victims are being screwed again by the justice system.

              Actually I think you and Randy are both right, you’re just talking about two different sets of women–the victims of true coercion, violence, drugs, physical force, and/or threats vs. some of the very dubious claims made by some modern so-called feminists (and I do agree, they (mis-)use that term prolifically and vociferously). When you read about women who accuse men they’ve already been in a sexual relationship with, with whom they’ve voluntarily disrobed and gotten into bed with, complain that they were then forced into sex, don’t warning signs pop into your head? (“You” meaning “anyone,” not any particular poster here.) Unfortunately each sex (cis, anyway) has it’s share of sociopaths, scammers, narcissists, attention- or revenge-seekers, drama kings/queens, etc. These are the people who ruin things for the true victims, of which there are still a substantial number. They just don’t tend to write blogs about it or enjoy or exploit their victim-hood.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:45 am | Permalink

                I most heartily agree with that summary.

                Unfortunately you can find outrageous cases at both extremes of the continuum.


              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:26 am | Permalink

                Thanks for taking a balanced approach.
                If the propaganda piece “The Hunting Ground” is any indication of the veracity of these figures, then there is a problem. A propaganda problem.
                As is under discussion.
                However, on the face of it those figures warrant a closer look at what is happening.
                It does seem though as though people do care, the other part of my query, but that resources are an issue. As they are for the pursuit of all kinds of crime.

                I could point to the large number of errors being discovered by the “The innocence project” too.

                I care about real victims and I do think, as you point out, that true victims are being compromised by those types you mention.

                I will have a better look at the rape kit story to see if it really does imply that thousands of rapists are walking the country.
                Not through the lens of Julie Smolyansky though.

                As I said somewhere else I think most of us around here a mostly in agreement. We want what is good and right, in a good and right way.
                Believe a victim but be skeptical and pursue evidence. Even if it is uncomfortable. Ad stop the precious silliness.

              • Diane G.
                Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

                “If the propaganda piece “The Hunting Ground” is any indication of the veracity of these figures, then there is a problem. A propaganda problem.”

                “Not through the lens of Julie Smolyansky though.”

                What you allude to is why, at least in my first mention, I recommended reading only the first part of Valarie Tarico’s post. 😉 I have not seen The Hunting Ground, but have come across enough controversy over it that I certainly couldn’t recommend or not recommend it without knowing a lot more about it and the veracity of the stats it claims.

                I just wanted people to think about how a true victim is even further victimized by the investigation and the judicial system; most of us already know that anyway, but it helps bring home the post-rape accusation travails women face.

          • Thanny
            Posted May 18, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

            False reports are a double-digit percentage. That’s not occasional. And the number of exonerations by the Innocence Project show that false convictions aren’t especially rare, either.

            The reporting rate for sexual assault and rape is between 40% and 50%, which is on par with other crimes (other than murder, for obvious reasons).

            There is indeed a lot of rhetoric about how hard it is to report. If you’re a man raped by a woman, yes. Damn near impossible to get that taken seriously. But a woman raped by a man? I’d have problems with how that was handled 40 years ago or so, but today everyone bends over backwards to help, automatically believing the complainant, and automatically condemning the accused. Complaints about having one’s body being treated like a crime scene are emotional gibberish. The nature of the crime dictates that, not any kind of procedural policies.

            The worst part is, none of the people making such claims about how distressing it is to report a rape seem to stop and think about what effect that has on the reporting rate. If you tell women that reporting a rape is a horrible process that’s almost as bad as the rape itself, don’t you think that’s going to discourage some women from doing it?

            But as I said, the facts are that it’s not an unusually under-reported crime, and it’s not a horror show to report it, occasional anecdotes to the contrary notwithstanding.

            But some people don’t like facts that conflict with long-held ideological beliefs (that I once shared, mind you).

            • Dragon
              Posted May 18, 2016 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

              “False reports are a double-digit percentage.”

              Citation please.
              What I find is:
              2% false
              Lisak 2010: 5.9%
              FBI 1996: 8%
              But the FBI study was criticized by Bruce Gross: “Many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, “unfounded.” That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser’s statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.”

              Perhaps you mean Kelly 2005, but are using the second number. That one has 3% possible or probable false allegation and 22% recorded by police as ‘no-crime’. But doesn’t that study indicate the police incorrectly classify rapes as no-crime?

              Perhaps you are looking at one of those studies that have been rounded and legitimately criticized and debunked. If you provide a citation, we can tell which it is.

              I like facts. So please provide them. So far, you only have unsupported assertions that false rape allegations are ‘double digits’.

            • Dragon
              Posted May 20, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

              I will take two days of silence as an inability to produce a study that hasn’t been thoroughly debunked. So we should all agree the percentage of rape allegations where no rape occurred (as opposed to unable to prosecute, officer failure, etc.) to be 2-7% as the majority of valid studies conclude.
              Further those percentages are similar to other major crimes.
              There is no rampant false reporting of rape.

    • gluonspring
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

      If men want to form a sports team, but no women want to form a female counterpart, then no teams are formed.

      I know nothing about Title IX, but this does not seem right. I am aware of a great many male college football teams, for example, but I am not aware of any female college football teams.

      Or are those teams grandfathered in, so that it’s only new teams that can’t form without parity?

      • GM
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:12 am | Permalink

        That is indeed one interpretation of Title IX.

        Schools can get around it, but they have to jump through various hoops.

        In practice, many men’s teams have indeed been cut so that a school becomes Title IX compliant

  13. Heather Hastie
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    I’ve seen two interviews with the suspended young man mentioned here by Megyn Kelly, one of which included a recording of a discussion between him and the girl he was supposed to have raped. This is a horrible situation, and how it could happen is completely beyond me.

    Whatever you think of Title IX, it’s clear that this case does not meet the preponderance of evidence test. The young woman herself clearly states that the sexual encounters they had were consensual and she has no animosity towards the young man concerned.

    In their first encounter in his room she asked him to stop because she didn’t want to have sex without protection, so he stopped. They then went to her room and had protected sex. These are not the actions of a rapist/victim. She states on the tape that she had nothing to do with any of this.

    I would like the motives of the friend to be examined. I can think of many reasons why someone would do this, not all of them bad, but all indicating she needs help (or at least a personality transplant).

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

      I would like to see the competence of the administrators who didn’t stop this abomination questioned.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

        Yes! It’s hard to imagine what they were thinking, and how they justified this decision.

  14. Jeremy Tarone
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    I recently talked with two women who hold the position that when a woman regrets having had consensual sex, it is the same as if she had been raped.

    I was incredulous that a person can not differentiate between regret after having consensual sex, and being raped. I can only hope that this never catches on since I was not able to talk them out of their position, nor was anyone else.

    • GM
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:15 am | Permalink

      I hope it won’t catch on too, but this is precisely what the feminists are pushing for.

      There are still a lot more male judges and politicians than female ones, so I think they will realize the implications for themselves before they vote something of the sort into law and/or sentence people for it.

    • Dragon
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      I require a citation to any feminist who stated this. I seriously doubt you are relaying the context. I suspect you are conflating consensual sex with a situation where one or both parties are unable to consent.
      I have spoken with many feminists and am a male feminist myself. The way I have always heard it stated is:
      If a person has sex with another person who is too drunk to consent to sex, that may be rape – depending on their choice once they are sober enough to consent.
      If the person consents before getting unable to consent, that is fine. That is consent.
      If you don’t want to be a rapist, don’t have sex for the first time with someone drunk or drugged.

      • mcirvin14
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

        This essay generated a lot of conversation on just that issue a while ago.

        It explores the (contentious) concept that consent can be non-consent even if freely given. The thinking in the essay blurs the lines with a discourse on coercion. It leaves you with questions like, “in light of the coercive nature of social norms, can I be sure that I really did consent to something, or was I just subconsciously acting as I was conditioned to act and thus, not have the true ability to give my consent?”

        Dragon is probably right that the most radical interpretations of this logic are not widespread except at the fringes. However, Jeremy is also probably being genuine – while I haven’t encountered anyone taking the most radical interpretation of this view in person, I have seen it relatively extensively online in some places.

      • Jeremy Tarone
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        I never stated they were feminists.
        I know what consent is, thank you very much. I specifically made the point that consent was given, inebriation or coercion were not an issue. I understand consent can not be given when drunk. That is simple contract law, I’ve known that since I was 13. Your suggestion of my misunderstanding is simply is not true. I would suggest to you that there are more people in the world with varying opinions than just those you chat with.

        As for your suggestion that it’s fine for a person to give consent before getting inebriated, that is not necessarily true. Consent can be removed at any time by either party. Consent must not only be given before, (by word or action) it must continue to be given. By word or action. A person who is drunk can not give consent. Especially if he or she is unresponsive or totally gonzo. Just because she said OK earlier doesn’t mean later when you’ve got her good and drunk you can just toss her on the bed, strip her naked and go to it as if she’s nothing but a well lubricated sock.

        The woman’s point was women may have had previous experiences such as sexual abuse or current poverty. That abuse or poverty make them susceptible to giving consent when they really don’t want to give consent but are coerced to give consent by necessity or circumstance. According to them, she may be poor or starving and have children, she desperately needs to get a place to stay and is so absent of power that she can not give consent.

        The problem with their position is (at least) twofold, one, consent can then never be given or known to be given and two, it takes away a woman’s agency and reduces her to an infant who can’t make decisions.

        The issue of consent arose out of a discussion on pornography. Their position was (according to them) since most women in pornography (or strippers or sex workers) have had some kind of abuse, or are poor or desperate, they can not give consent to have sex (or be filmed) even if they sign contracts for legal consensual sex and video taping where it is legal.

        It was pointed out the same can be said for consensual sex between a man and woman for pleasure sex. They stated the problem holds, the woman should be able to change her mind after the fact and if they so desire, and charge the then partner with rape, including porn producers.

        • Dragon
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

          Thank you Jeremy, that explains a lot of details I had not garnered from your original brief post.

          Much as my statement about earlier consent was a little short and missing context. I meant it for the specific situation where two people in a relationship wish to go out and get reasonably drunk and then have sex. Perhaps they like that idea, though it isn’t my cup of tea.

          I do completely agree that consent can be removed at any time. Done that myself, when the wrong non-sexual thought ran through my brain. Women must have the ability to do so as well.

          I agree with your point that their specific position would make it impossible to give or know consent was given.

          I believe I have instilled those values in my daughters and son. I dare hope enough that they will call their friends on issues of consent.

      • Diane G.
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        “…I…am a male feminist myself.”

        Glad to hear it, Dragon! While I understand the backlash against how the regressive left have distorted the term, and understand why many are therefore ceding the term to them and abandoning it themselves, I am still of the school that the original concept of feminism is valid and necessary for humanity to continue to advance, and that eventually we “originalists” might be able to wrest the term back from the current revisionists.

        I may be wrong and we may have to go the way of euphemism creep, but I hope not. And if true feminism is going to succeed it depends very much on the support of both men and women, just as the US Civil Rights movement depended on both blacks and whites for success.

        • mcirvin14
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

          I suppose we’re talking about the difference between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. I feel like most liberals my own age (40s) are pretty much on board with 2nd wave feminist principles of sex/gender equality. The 3rd wave is where the radical intersectionality and hierarchy of oppression narratives seem to take precedence – narrative is more important than facts/truth in any sort of objective sense.

          • Diane G.
            Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

            That probably makes me a first wave (but where does that leave the suffragettes, etc.?), as my feminism dates back to my grad school days in the early 70’s. But yes, you’ve nailed the current nonsense. As much attention as they’re receiving, I think there’s still a strong corps of earlier feminists outside of academia, men and women alike, and root for the decay of the latter (3rd wave feminism, not academia. 😉 )

        • Dragon
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

          I refuse to cede the term. I feel there are more of the original feminists than these new radicals. We may not be as vocal individually though. All the women in my family are old style feminists. My sister is a radical of the old style.

          • Diane G.
            Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

            My feelings exactly! More power to your sister. 🙂

  15. Jeremy Tarone
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    While I don’t believe universities or colleges should be assessing guilt or innocence in regard to accusations of rape, they do have an obligation to protect students and provide a safe environment for all.
    I don’t see that they have any obligation to investigate incidents that happen outside their property, anymore than an employer can for employees.

    Colleges and universities do have an obligation to deal with people who are accused of maliciousness, harassment or assault so they do not present a threat to staff or students.

    This could be a suspension, or ensuring the people involved are kept apart until a determination is made by a jury or judge. This can develop into a complex bed of worms for the college, trying to deal with the competing rights of individuals, the right to due process set against the right to be safe from attack or harassment, and being confronted daily by your attacker. I’ve had that experience myself, I’m sure many students have in the case of simple assault from bullies at school, or finding yourself suspended because you were defending yourself from an unwarranted illegal assault on your person. Some students have committed suicide over constant harassment, reasonable people can agree that some behaviour is intolerable.

    Enough people have already pointed out that school institutions do not have the authority or training to properly investigate, they have no ability to get search warrants, compel witnesses to appear, or collect certain information. Nor do they have the necessary protections available for both the accused or the accuser, for instance sufficient penalties for perjury or malicious accusations. But then I’m not sure there is sufficient prosecution for those crimes in criminal or civil court. Regardless, I believe criminal acts should be investigated by the proper law enforcement authorities.

    All that said this particular case is beyond the pale of poor judgment, and does not even represent the low bar of the guidelines.

  16. Posted May 16, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    {1} I don’t understand it either, why it is the business of the university to investigate serious crimes. They don’t even have any business in punishing a perpetrator. I suppose the law has a response once someone was found guilty in any other case, too (whether it’s a neighbour, or a colleague). What makes it different when it happens on a University campus?

    {2} There needs to be some way for the accused and accuser to get on with their lives while the investigation is underway. If this is a serious case, some burden is usually placed on the accused, maybe even custody. Maybe they have to keep distance to their alleged victim in cases that don’t warrant arrest. Again, the university has nothing to do with this. The law enformcent should impose this, and citizens (students, staff) merely report back when the arrangement was violated.

    {3} Unlike what some people say even in the atheist-skeptics movement, this has nothing to do with believing (or disbelieving) anybody. Secularists and atheists should know there’s a third state: not yet knowing and not being convincined either way. It’s the job of the law enforcement to investigate and find out. They are not in the business of believing. Other people can believe or disbelieve as they want, and how close they are to either side, obvioiusly.

    {4} It’s the job of law enforcement to determine what happens when the accused was found guilty. Again, no special rules required.

    {5} If the accused was not found guilty, it’s also their job to clear the accused’s name and repair the damage that was done to them as good as possible and proportional to the findings. This doesn’t mean they didn’t do it, nor does it mean the accuser lied. Nothing could be demonstrated, either way. But if it turns out that the accuser lied in the process, the whole game is flipped around, and they should be investigated for potential incorrect indication and calumny.

    The reason for this recent trend seems to be indeed authoritarian in nature. A lot of people, especially also the US secular movement, loves to have employers, or university or some other authority above everyone that can mete out a special form of punishment that is more parental and disciplinary in nature. I guess when you cannot invoke God, Secular Americans crave for something else that does it for them.

    • Diane G.
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:02 am | Permalink

      Please make that just some Secular Americans.

      • Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

        I regard it as mainstream. The opening bracket was when Richard Dawkins wrote his “Dear Muslima” response, where he was also a pioneer in evoking “Islamophobia” resentment, then without the name.

        The closing bracket saw him disinvited from the NCSS conference, for retweeting a video that struck into the core of the Authoritarian Left.

        Mainstream news, Wikipedia to Know Your Meme report about incidents also in a manner that is factually distorted, and again, in a way consistent with with social justice corner. If this was merely a minority, then how come that such wrong information can persist and become the defacto “how it happened” (I know the mainstream is wrong, because the first hand sources tell a different story, which I have double and triple-checked in the years ever since).

        In between and especially with the disinvite, the secular movement has demonstrated clearly that New Atheism is dead, and that the new chapter shall be “social justice”.

        The most extreme social justice people, who had formerly colonialized the conference track by the dozens seem to be out of the picture now, but the talking points are now absolutely common and surprise nobody anymore. The cis-heteronormative-marginalization-of-the-lived-experiences talk is commonplace. People introduce themselves by saying they are “cis-white males” as a way to check their privilege. This is expected.

        The blue tribe reporting in the news follows the same pattern. Who are these people if not the secular mainstream? They and most blogs, especially from known american authors will not leave any opportunity to mention Richard Dawkins “problematic” tweeting, deemed politically incorrect. That’s simply how it is.

        When Atheist Ireland once made a certain point, they were largely alone. The US secular mainstream did nothing whatsoever, at best added that “schock blogging” was not helpful.

        Of course that doesn’t mean everyone. Obviously, Jerry has a different stance on this and so have a few others. But they were always more rogues, or stray cats, who do their thing.

        Reason Rally is soon, and the issues are also largely social justice and feminism. They are worthwhile goals, and I fully agree with them, though I also know that in this context, it means Tumblr style Social Justice Warriors than anything else, which is usually anti-intellectual postmodern rubbish.

        Hence, I disagree. It’s not “some”, it’s the mainstream now.

  17. rskurat
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been following this topic for months now, and my possibly-flawed conclusion is that the primary motivation of the administrators involved is preservation of their own jobs. If the school is sued by a student or money pulled for a Title IX violation, the school will suffer but they will have covered their behind.

    This motivation may be conscious to a greater or lesser degree depending on the situation, but the plain and obvious rigging of these kangaroo courts is appalling. I’ve cut all ties with my alma mater as a result (Yale) and will have to vet my nephews’ higher-ed decisions carefully.

    And Jeremy, I completely agree with you about the ‘regrets’ issue – by that standard I could’ve charged several women with rape, but sexism is so thoroughly internalized by the authoritarian left that a man being raped by a woman would be dismissed out of hand. SMH.

    • GM
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 12:17 am | Permalink

      Didn’t Yale expel the captain of the basketball team for what appears to have been consensual sex?

      • rskurat
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 2:22 am | Permalink

        ambiguous. They had been dating & thew sex was consensual, and then supposedly the last one or two times they had sex it wasn’t. I suspect it was more of a ‘regrets’ situation similar to what Jeremy was talking about, but who I doubt that the woman in question even knows anymore. Ivy League schools are such hothouse cultish places that you can get talked into almost anything, like studying Derrida fer chrissakes!

  18. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the land-sharks are going to profit off this one.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      I hope they do. Might teach idiots in college administrations to be more sensible in future.


  19. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Frickin’ unbelievable. I hope Neil takes the college for millions. He should include the third-party accuser in his lawsuit too, though I doubt if she’s worth suing.

    Amongst other things, it has likely put a strain on and possibly poisoned the relationship between Neil and the Jane Doe (we don’t know how good the relationship was but it’s hard to keep an even keel with that sort of nonsense going on).

    Are colleges regressing to the days of witch hunts, unAmerican activities and show trials? It’s starting to look like it.


  20. LFP2016
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Excellent post. Hopefully pressure from us on the left (and not just sexists on the right) will lead to the long-overdue end of Title IX.

    Rape is a felony and should be treated just like any other felony — by the police and the courts, not the universities. Why is rape at a 7-11 different than a rape at Harvard? It’s ludicrous.

    Feminists need to focus their attention on reforming law enforcement practices, not coming up with a unique system for their particular hobbyhorse.

    • Diane G.
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:09 am | Permalink

      “… lead to the long-overdue end of Title IX.”

      Hey, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater! Title nine has made a huge difference in giving women the same opportunities to pursue sports that men have always had. Just because the present pomo crowd is screwing things up big-time doesn’t mean that the original legislation didn’t make-up for decades of unequal treatment.

      • jay
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        …except that it was based on percentages rather than reality.

        Fewer women go strongly out for sports, fewer spectators follow them (biologically established male aggression has a lot to do with it). Compare audiences WNBA and NBA.

        But we STILL have to spend equal amounts of money, because, well because 50-50. Rather than let demand (both spectator and participant) influence spending.

        Unfortunately many programs like Title IX are based on ideologically determined values rather than reality. And artificially pumping one side up us really useless except for getting government brownie points.

        • Dragon
          Posted May 17, 2016 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

          If I remember correctly, Title IX has three ways a university can demonstrate compliance. One is as you say 50/50 – assuming the student body is 50/50. If the student body is 30/70, the sports must be 30/70 under that method. That method is easy to demonstrate compliance. At least one of the other two ways can take into account differences in demand. But they are harder for the administration to be certain will stand up in court. For example, a judge may not agree with your more nuanced choices. Hence many administrations choose the easy and certain method.
          We likely need a couple test cases on the other two methods to let the less adventurous administrations go the other routes.

        • Diane G.
          Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:31 am | Permalink

          “Fewer women go strongly out for sports, fewer spectators follow them (biologically established male aggression has a lot to do with it).”

          Many more women go out for sports now than before title IX; now they have both opportunities and encouragement.

          Women’s tennis has long had famous female players; women’s golf and soccer are growing rapidly and getting much publicity. Too many assumed that women just weren’t interested in sports, when in fact there were just no opportunities for them back in the day.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 18, 2016 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

            Yet, there are some sports that most women don’t seem to be interested in, with a few notable exceptions**.

            I’m thinking of motorsport for example. At club level, disappointingly few women drive. (And this is mostly one car on the course at a time, against a stopwatch, so any intimidating element in racing is absent). With modern cars the driver’s strength or stamina aren’t a factor – unlike most sports. And it isn’t a question of mechanical knowledge since most guys can’t fix their own cars either. There may be a component of ‘male’ aggression involved in driving a car flat out on the edge of control – even if ‘losing it’ just means going for a skate on the grass.

            So I dunno.


            ** One of the most thrilling rides of my life was in the passenger seat of a jetsprint boat driven by a middle-aged woman. Having tried a number of entertainingly desperate but undistinguished runs myself, those things are balanced on a knife-edge between understeer and oversteer – much trickier than any car I’ve driven. And she was going for it – blasting round markers with inches to spare. All I could do was hang on tight and enjoy the ride.

  21. KD
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Let’s not be naive. We have a perfectly good court system to adjudicate crimes as well as civil actions such as sexual harassment.

    So why are we setting up an alternative system to adjudicate allegedly criminal and/or tortuous behavior on Campus? You can tell from the semantics, “victims” “afraid” to come forward, e.g. a procedural process that will not provide for confrontation of accusers, discovery into the background of the accusers, as well as secret, non-public, star chamber style proceedings, etc.

    If we have any doubts about what this alternative system will look like in practice, one can familiarize oneself with Solzhenitsyn’s description of the Soviet Justice System in the Gulag Archipelago: Justice based on mere accusation, guilt by mere association.

    How many innocent people will end up being branded as rapists in these Kangaroo courts?

    Have no doubt that the purpose of this system is to evade the basic procedural protections afforded to parties in the actual American justice system. Further, they are setting it up this way for a purpose, and they will use it to go after perceived enemies. Actual liberals (not the PC Fascistoid SJW set) should be concerned, because they will be looking to purge you, and they now have an administrative procedure for it.

    Have no doubt that the witch trials are coming, and the lives of many innocents will be destroyed in a “progressive terror” operation where you may be brought up on rape accusations or racism or some other thoughtcrime. [With respect to witches and witch trials, I don’t understand those who recognize the need to prosecute witches on campus, but who dissent from the defective procedural aspects of witch trials. . . they sound like they may be witches themselves.]

    • Filippo
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:05 am | Permalink

      I think most if not all of these same sentiments can be expressed about that darling of corporate private tyrannies, arbitration.

      • Diane G.
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Good point!

  22. KD
    Posted May 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    People really are not cynical enough about the Left.

    The Left is a political movement.

    The purpose of the Leftist political movement is to seize power for Leftists.

    The Left is perfectly happy to outright lie, for example, cite bogus sexual assault statistics, in order to gain power.

    They are perfectly happy to set up Kangaroo Courts to go after innocent people on anonymous rumors, because it gives them even greater power–the power of political terror.

    If one is hard pressed to make a distinction between Left and Right, it must come down to their distinct styles of tyranny.

  23. jay
    Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    There was at time in the old South when the word of a white woman could get a black man imprisoned or hanged. Looks like we’re going back there, except all men are at risk.

    —“Yes, such is the fate of liberals these days—having to agree with conservatives because the Authoritarian Left is sometimes even more misguided.”—

    That was a transition I made over the past 15 years or so (though interestingly, it was Hillary’s behavior during the Bill presidency that started me thinking that way). I no longer consider myself a (modern US style) liberal, I no longer feel odd about reading/quoting (thinking) conservative writers, though I probably fall pretty much into the libertarian camp.

  24. jay
    Posted May 17, 2016 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Another thought.

    My wife and I have a running joke “It’s Obama’s fault” because the blogosphere is obsessed with blaming Obama for everything.

    However, in this case, the Dept of Education, which has been pushing all sorts of absurd restrictions on speech and behavior under the guise of ‘protection’ is very much under the administration’s control. This is not the Repubs, this is not Congress. He could stop this with a signature. But in nearly 8 years things have been getting worse on that front.

  25. eric
    Posted May 17, 2016 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    I’m going to take the devil’s advocate side a little bit here. First, however, the many points of agreement: I agree Universities should not be investigating or adjudicating criminal accusations. They are neither equipped for it nor socially contracted (like the courts) to do it. I agree the Dept of Ed should not be using the coercion of the wallet to force Universities to take such a role. I also agree this is an absurd case where, even under my devil’s advocacy position, the University didn’t follow good processes, came to the wrong conclusion, and then punished a student unfairly.

    Having said all that, I don’t necessarily think the Uni should have no response to criminal accusations regarding a student. Even in our court system, we recognize that a civil suit using a different standard of evidence can go on in parallel with the criminal suit…and rationally reach different results. Example: OJ Simpson. I have little problem in principle with Unis offering student victims of sexual harassment a similarly parallel process in order to investigate and possibly punish aggressors when the courts choose not to. Particularly since sexual harassment often leaves no physical evidence that a crime was committed (vs. a voluntary act), I think this is valuable for student victims. And I have little problem in principle with a Uni temporarily suspending a student found guilty under a preponderance of evidence standard, even if the courts determine they weren’t guilty under criminal standards.

    This case is absurd, in my humble opinion, not because the whole process should be outlawed but primarily because the “victim” is telling the Uni no crime was committed and everything was voluntary, and they are ignoring that victim’s testimony. Which seems just outrageous.

    • jay
      Posted May 17, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      But even civil suits are handled BY THE COURT, not by some arbitrary body like a university.

      [The civil suit standard was designed to facilitate settling disputes between citizens not criminal matters.

      Unfortunately the use if civil suits to get around constitutional restrictions is one great poisons in our legal system. Prosecutors launch ‘civil’ suits to seize property, or take other actions against defendants when actual criminal charges will not stand up to scrutiny]

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 17, 2016 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely agree with Jay there, particularly on the misuse of ‘civil’ suits to sidestep legal protections, or inflict financial penalties far beyond what the law prescribes.


  26. jay
    Posted May 17, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    There was another case a while back (Oregon as I remember) where a student was accused of sexual assault.

    After he was proven innocent, he was STILL BANNED from campus because he LOOKED LIKE the assailant and was causing ’emotional distress’

  27. Posted May 17, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    What a travesty. I too have a problem with universities doing their own thing when it comes to legal cases …

  28. harrync
    Posted May 17, 2016 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I can understand that although reporting a rape or sexual assault to the police is the preferred action, it is sometimes a difficult thing to do, and that student discipline might be the best route in some cases. But it is pretty absurd to use “preponderance” in a quasi-criminal case. There is another standard that probably would be good to use here: “clear and convincing evidence.” My informal definition: I am not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am still pretty damn sure I’m right.

  29. Posted May 18, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Meanwhile, at the University of Washington, Title IX sensitivity is being spread with force. (I’ll expect punishment for off-campus, same-sex affiliation soon.)

    Dear Students,

    As a University, we must do all that we can to prevent and respond compassionately and effectively to sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, relationship violence, domestic violence, stalking and sexual harassment. To improve our ability to do so, we have created a Title IX Investigation Office, which as of May 16 is responsible for investigating allegations involving students. The investigators in this office have the experience and training to ensure a thorough investigation, due process and a trauma-informed approach, based in an understanding of how to recognize and respond to different forms of trauma.

    At the same time, we are also reshaping the hearing process by establishing designated Title IX Panels, which will consist of faculty who will receive in-depth training on the complexities and sensitivities of adjudicating sexual misconduct cases.

    Every member of our community deserves to be respected and supported, and these changes reflect our ongoing commitment to preventing and responding to sexual misconduct.

    For all students, the UW Police Department’s Victim Advocate is a resource, as is the Health & Wellness Advocate for students enrolled in Seattle. These advocates provide confidential support, information and assistance. This includes options for reporting sexual assault, relationship violence and other forms of sexual misconduct, whether to the University and/or law enforcement.

    As always, if you or someone you know has been impacted by sexual assault or any other form of sexual misconduct, please connect with one of our advocates. To reach an advocate or for more information visit the Sexual Assault Resources website.

    Ana Mari Cauce
    Professor of Psychology

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 18, 2016 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

      I’m just so glad I’m not a student now. As I recall from my student days, a large percentage of our time was spent contemplating, plotting or celebrating sexual misconduct. Sometimes, we were even insensitive about it.


%d bloggers like this: