Saturday reading: Yoffe on Title IX, Pluckrose on intersectional feminism, Hastie and PuffHo on “Muslim feminism”

It’s Saturday, and if you’re not outside enjoying nice weather, or the weather is dire and you want to read, here are three articles worth your time. There’s also a PuffHo article worth your rancor.

The unfomfortable truth about campus rape policy, by Emily Yoffe in Atlantic. This is apparently the first article in a three-part series. Since the Obama administration sent around its “Dear colleague” letter to American universities, urging them to enforce Title IX (the anti-sex-discrimination policy) in a certain way or face loss of federal funds, universities have been falling in line. The most controversial part of the new regulations involves sexual assault and how it is treated, with the government now saying the accused should be found guilty if there is a “preponderance of evidence” against him (accused are nearly always men). That means that if the intuitive likelihood of the accusation being true is 50.01% or larger, the party is guilty. This differs drastically from the standards of criminal courts (“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”), and those differences have led not only to controversy, but to a host of lawsuits from students found guilty based on flimsy evidence or unreliable and irrelevant third-party testimony. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has made noises that this policy is going to change, but she hasn’t said how. Because she’s Betsy DeVos (and I do think she was a dreadful choice for the job), it doesn’t matter: anything she proposes will be laughed out of court by the Regressive Left.

Yoffe, deeply sympathetic to the plight of assault victims, nevertheless recounts a number of chilling tales about the incompetence and draconian policies of college administrators when it comes to adjudicating sexual-assault cases. Her conclusions for this first article are these:

At its worst, Title IX is now a cudgel with which the government and school administrators enforce sex rules too bluntly, and in ways that invite abuse. That’s an uncomfortable statement. It does not cancel or diminish other uncomfortable statements: Women (and men) are assaulted on campus, those assaults can be devastating, and the victims do not always receive justice when they come forward. But we have arrived at the point at which schools investigate, adjudicate, and punish the kind of murky, ambiguous sexual encounters that trained law-enforcement officials are unable to sort out—and also at the point at which the definition of sexual misconduct on many campuses has expanded beyond reason.

Institutions of higher education must protect their students from crimes and physical harm. They should also model for their students how an open society functions, and how necessary it is to protect the civil liberties of everyone.

Breaking News: I just saw this at the Chronicle of Higher Education but haven’t yet read it carefully. It’s the demonized Christina Hoff Sommers with a new piece on the same issue:  “Protecting due process in sexual-assault cases on campus.

The Western-centric nature of intersectional feminism by Helen Pluckrose at Why do Western feminists seem to neglect the plight of women oppressed in Muslim nations? It’s not that those feminists don’t care, argues Pluckrose, but that the changing nature of feminism has reduced the priority of individual rights and increased attention to the guilt and complicity of the West in the world’s affairs. This, says Pluckrose, is not only misguided but racist:

The problem does not stem from a belief that western non-Muslim women matter more than Muslim women. It’s much more tortuous than that. With the advent of postmodernism-inspired critical race theory, post-colonial theory and intersectionality, the focus of mainstream feminism has shifted from universal human rights and sisterhood to cultural relativity and identity politics. General principles of human rights, freedom and equality have been subordinated to redressing a very real historical injustice by the West against the East.

. . . In attempts to valorise Eastern cultures, western intersectional activists decide which things can be owned by them and which are forced upon them by the west. Therefore, elements of culture seen as positive or neutral – clothing, art, spiritual practices or symbolism – are often fetishised and ruled off-limits to westerners whilst negative aspects – religious fundamentalism, sectarian violence, political instability – are considered to be solely a product of western military intervention.  The fact that the East has a long and complex history of its own, filled with well-established religious and cultural values existing independently of the West is usually glossed over in these cases. This constrains the ways in which people wanting to talk about it can do so greatly and attempts by ex-Muslims, reforming Muslims and liberal Muslims particularly to criticise their own religion and culture are frequently shut down and individuals vilified.

Her piece is long but thoughtful, and well worth reading. It also includes this Facebook post:

“Is Islam a feminist religion?” by Heather Hastie at Heather’s Homilies. I take a bit of credit for instigating this nice piece, as I sent Heather the link to a HuffPo article (“A feminist religion” by Leena Khan), which is the usual Big Lie apologetics about the deeply woman-friendly nature of Islam. I told Heather it was “right up her alley”, and so it proved to be. With her usual thoroughness, Heather dissects the claims that Islam mandates equal treatment of men and women, that women have the same property rights as men, and that Muslim women are given educations equal to those of men. This is an essential read for assessing the Regressive-Left claims that Islam really is a feminist-friendly faith.

h/t: Grania, Orli



  1. Craw
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Actually I think DeVos was one of Trumps few good picks. This issue being given one reason why.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      It figures. DeVos, the Amway of Education and the Blackwater of defense. Possibly Trump could have found someone richer but the pool of candidates is small. Such a promoter of public education as well.

      • somer
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:25 pm | Permalink


    • Ken Phelps
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      I found it creepy and uncomfortable to think she might be having a useful idea.

      • nicky
        Posted September 10, 2017 at 2:55 am | Permalink

        But at least it is a good idea. She maybe a nut -or worse- in other ways, but we have to give her credit where credit is due.

      • Harrison
        Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:56 am | Permalink

        I hate her position on vouchers, but it’s really hard for me to weigh that against the harm being done at present by college kangaroo courts.

    • jay
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      I agree. Her stand on alternate education is what is needed on many of our worst school systems. State sponsored education varies from good to abysmal, and the abysmal is often in the toxic neighborhoods of our cities. Unfortunately the teachers unions have a strangle hold on the Democratic party.

      • Alex
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        Her stand on “alternate education” devastated the school system in my home state of Michigan. The solution to the problems of public schooling is to improve the public school system, not funnel taxpayer money into religious schools (an unconstitutional move) via vouchers.

  2. DrBrydon
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    As the issue of campus rape and Title IX has grown, I began to wonder why schools were pretending to adjudicate these charges. If there is a credible charge, it should go to the police, and if a person is found guilty of a crime, then the school can decide what disciplinary action is appropriate for the student as student.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      That makes two of us. Why are schools involved in something they know little about?

      • Joshua Thom
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Schools do this because the Obama administration’s Dept of Education ordered the schools to. And if the schools did not then the risked loosing funding.

        • Randy schenck
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

          Yes and do you do everything that you are told to do? I would say you risk loosing funding playing judge and jury on a criminal matter. Do they also handle murder on campus?

          • BJ
            Posted September 9, 2017 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

            They don’t handle murder because the Obama administration didn’t say that they had to adjudicate murders or lose their funding. Losing funding for most public university’s means shutting down entirely. They had no choice once the Dear Colleague letter was sent.

            • BJ
              Posted September 9, 2017 at 6:12 pm | Permalink


      • nicky
        Posted September 10, 2017 at 2:59 am | Permalink

        Because of the infamous “Dear Colleague” letter by Ms Ali. Now this is/was indeed one misstep (one of few, IMMO) by the Obama administration.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      There’s a rough parallel with the Catholic church “dealing with” sexual abuse in-house. IT’S NOT YOUR f***ING JOB!

      • DrBrydon
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I’ve thought of the parallel as well. Schools seem to be protecting themselves.

        • jay
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          Schools have a biasing interest, not only in not causing a scandal, but also in sucking up to various extremist positions.

          Rape and sexual assault are serious issues, and should be dealt with by police and court systems, NOT by politically motivated university administrators.

      • Harrison
        Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:59 am | Permalink

        Except not at all. Nobody in government ORDERED the Catholic church to police themselves.

        Schools are just as much victims in this as many of their students, although given how some schools and their administration have so callously complied, it’s tough to see it that way at times. But there are still many schools who would love nothing more than to hand these matters over to police as they rightfully should, but are unable to.

    • Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      Campuses will promote almost anything- including Bystander Intervention- rather than suggest that women could benefit from taking women’s self-defense courses. They mostly refuse to even mention the subject.

    • somer
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

      The interpretation of Title IX to reduce the parameter of judging guilt for rape accusations to 50.01% is a perversion of justice though and opens the way for all sorts of abuses. I don’t think thats a problem with the rest of title IX but just a need to insist on justice principles for criminal trials in cases where its actually very hard to get proof either way. We don’t have any such “preponderance of evidence” for accusations of such attacks here in Australia. In Australia though we’ve had a substantial rise (in reporting at least) of campus rape crime partly because of crowded housing and lighting issues and ignoring the victim. I do think university heads (we call them chancellors and vice chancellors) should have power to fail or expel students when there seems to be a predatory pattern to their behaviour reported by various people preferably including staff and involving several victims and they should just generally tighten up security like not allowing student run and staffed bars, more lighting and security staff for this purpose, breaking up fraternities that become toxic (as in St Pauls college at Sydney Uni) by forcing them to amalgamate with others etc. This record regarding administrative penalty should last say 2-3 years. And they should ask staff/security to report anything that looks like severe harassment and keep the report for a specified period of time before destroying.

    • nicky
      Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:02 am | Permalink

      You are perfectly right, rape and sexual assault are crimes, and should be dealt with as such.

  3. harrync
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    The argument for the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is that the hearings are in the nature of a civil suit, not a criminal proceeding. Not exactly true; civil suits are generally about restitution, not punishment; but these hearings are all about punishment – Expelling, suspension, etc. – not restitution. But even if they were civil in nature, they seem to in most cases omit virtually all the defenses of a civil suit: a right to a clearly stated “cause of action”, including what rules have been violated and what acts violated the rules; the right to an attorney; the right to “discovery” – that is, to see all the evidence that the plaintiff will present in court before the court hearing itself; the right to cross examine the plaintiff and their witnesses; the right to appeal; the right to counter-claim [like, should the defendant be able to ask the hearing officer to discipline the complainant if it finds the charges unsubstantiated?]; and probably other rights that don’t come to mind right now. I am not saying this is the right way to handle these cases; I am just saying that the “nature of a civil suit” analogy is bunk.

  4. BJ
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Regarding campus rape: I did not read the pieces above, but just to address what you wrote as a partial explanation of why these new Title IX rules are such a travesty: it’s not just the preponderance of the evidence standard. All these campus kangaroo courts don’t allow the accused to cross examine or in any way question their accuser the accuser’s supporting witnesses, the tribunal gets to decide if evidence from the accused will be allowed, the accused isn’t allowed any representation by a professional (while the accuser gets counselors and others who help them build their case and through every step of the process), etc. etc. It’s a trial done Soviet-style. And remember, if it’s a preponderance of the evidence standard, and if everyone running these tribunals believe that “we should always trust the victim,” then any he-said she-said case with no other evidence or witnesses will automatically result in the accused being found guilty, as the accuser’s word will always be considered trustworthy (and thus the 50.01% preponderance threshold is met).

    • Alex
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      The FBI estimates that the amount of false rape accusations as somewhere between 2% and 8%. That’s not something that warrants scrapping Obama’s Title IX rules.

      • BJ
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

        First off, that’s a purposeful misrepresentation of what the FBI says. The FBI statistic was a percentage of *forcible* rape accusations, and they were *determined to be false through investigation*. Why is this important? Well, first, the “forcible” part. Most of the cases these colleges are administrating relate to acts considered rape because someone was drunk or high, so even though they said yes and engaged enthusiastically at the time, the college now considers it rape (and some colleges don’t take into account how drunk or high, just whether someone was under the influence at all). Such cases are not covered in any way by the FBI stats.

        Next, the “determined to be false through investigation” part: the FBI stat is an account of accusations that were *proven* false by investigation. There are plenty of accusations between “proven false” and “proven true.”

        But yes, let’s go ahead and kick more innocent people out of college, put “rapist” on their permanent records so they can’t go anywhere else, all because you misunderstood a statistic.

        And even if it was 8% (which it isn’t), you’re perfectly happy convicting one out of every ten innocent people, huh? You don’t seem to like the idea of a legal system doing its best to ensure innocent people aren’t punished.

        • Craw
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

          Plus the false premise that the regular courts cannot convict most of those who are actually guilty simply because they afford due process.

  5. Alex
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry Jerry, but I have to disagree with you on Title IX. Title IX abuse does happen, but it’s not so common that it warrants scrapping “Dear Colleague”. Cases like the Duke Lacrosse Incident are the exception, not the rule. If anything, DeVos’ actions will likely make it more difficult to convict people that are actually guilty of sexual assault.

    • Craw
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

      Will it make it more difficult to convict people who are not guilty? Just asking.

      • Alex
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

        Considering the fact that false accusations of rape are not common, I don’t think it’s worth the trade off. Allowing one innocent person to go free along with like ten guilty people.

        • BJ
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

          The basis of every democratic legal system, for every crime, is that it’s better not to convict that one innocent person.

          • Craw
            Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

            Alex’s argument has all sorts of implications. A 25 year old black man is statistically far more likely than a 25 year old Asian or white man to be a criminal. Should juries consider that? (How about landlords and employers?)

            But as you say, the whole argument is bogus. I’m just pointing out it’s ugly too.

            • Alex
              Posted September 9, 2017 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

              My actual point is that it’s not smart to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The solution to the flaws of “Dear Colleague” is to patch them up, not get rid of it all together.

              • BJ
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:44 am | Permalink

                Your actual point is based on a falsely interpreted statistic. You have presented no other grounds for these kangaroo courts to exist.

              • Alex
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

                @BJ Is there any proof anywhere that false rape allegations are common? Multiple studies have looked into this and they all come up with something somewhere in the single digit range.

                Betsy DeVos’ proposal is about combating a problem that doesn’t exist.

              • BJ
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

                Alex, there is no “proof” either way because you can’t prove anything in a he-said she-said case. So to say, “well then, let’s just reduce the evidence standard to 50.01%, even though we have no idea whether or not we’re ruining the lives of 2%, 8%, or 50% innocent people” is absurd.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted September 9, 2017 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

            Most thoroughly agreed.

            I would also suspect that, presuming that the open-and-shut cases are more likely to have been reported to the police, the ones that end up with the college are likely to be the ones where the evidence is, shall we say, somewhat lacking.


            • BJ
              Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:45 am | Permalink

              Not to mention that the vast majority of cases, both in courts and on campuses, are he-said she-said. Those cannot be “proven” false through investigation, but it does not mean they’re true. There is a whole ocean of cases in between “proven false” and “proven true.”

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 9:59 am | Permalink

                Indeed. I served on a jury in one such case, a girl who was thoroughly drunk but swore that she woke up briefly during the night to find her uncle on top of her. (They were both sleeping in the same room after a party). Next morning she was alarmed to find blood on her panties. She told a friend who told an aunt who dragged her off to the police a few days later to lay a complaint – by which time the panties had been washed so no forensics whatever.

                We (the jury, about 50/50 male-female) had all individually concluded before we even discussed it that there was no evidence anything had ever happened, and the ‘uncle-on-top’ episode had likely been invented subsequently by her to strengthen her story. We felt she’d been railroaded by an over-suspicious aunt. I’ve never seen a jury so instantly unanimous, our only point of debate was whether going back immediately or waiting a half hour would give our ‘Not Guilty’ the more emphasis. We settled for a half hour and added a rider to our verdict that we felt, based on the evidence we’d seen, that the case should never have been brought.


      • BJ
        Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

        Alex’s entire argument is based off of a purposeful misrepresentation of a statistic that doesn’t even apply to most of the cases being adjudicated by these college panels.

        • Alex
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

          When someone is drunk or high, they are not in the right state of mind to give consent. That is why it is often considered rape. Some people do say “yes” to sex when drunk or high, but they also say they see purple unicorns in the sky. So basically you are saying that a guy who takes advantage of a girl just because she was just gave an alcohol-influenced “yes” and likely didn’t know what she was talking about, should be let off the hook with no charges at all.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted September 9, 2017 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

            Yes, he should be let off the hook. (Unless there’s clear evidence that she was obviously incapable). We all do stupid things when we’re drunk and I can think of no other case when drunkenness is an excuse and a justification for blaming someone else.

            Just exactly how ‘drunk’ or ‘high’ counts? Is it a defence if the guy was equally drunk or high (often the case)? Just what was he supposed to do, administer a breathalyser test? Why is he supposed to believe a “No” but absolutely ignore a “Yes”?

            Stand it on its head, if the guy was too drunk to understand a “No” answer, does that absolve him? (Call that reductio ad absurdum). Surely it should work equally well both ways.

            But in any case, if serious penalties are involved, the standards of proof should be that of criminal law, not civil cases.


            • Alex
              Posted September 9, 2017 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

              I was assuming that BJ was referring to cases where a drunk girl has sex with a sober guy and the guy goes ahead and screws her even though the girl was too drunk to know what she was talking about.

              But if both parties would be drunk, I’d say that the assailant should get a lighter sentence. Just like with murderers that commit their crimes while drunk. They’re not left off the hook completely, but they get a lighter sentence.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 4:50 am | Permalink

                Well, your first case comes within my exception (‘clear evidence that she was obviously incapable’).

                Our positions aren’t so far apart on that issue.

                I do feel that the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test must still apply. If this means that borderline cases slip through, that is unfortunate but it reflects the uncertain nature of real life. There is no guarantee that every wrong will be legally righted. I feel it is far worse, though, if the wrong is erroneously perpetrated by the processes of justice.


              • BJ
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:41 am | Permalink

                “too drunk to know what she was talking about.”

                How drunk is too drunk? Is it 1 beer? 5?

                How high is too high? Is a joint too high?

                “But if both parties would be drunk, I’d say that the assailant should get a lighter sentence.”

                Let me guess: the “assailant” here is the man, right? Even though they’re both drunk and agree to sex, somehow the man is still an assailant and the woman a victim? Thank you for demonstrating your bias and lack of care in this issue.

        • Craw
          Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

          Alex’s argument is that it’s easier to prove things with lax standards of evidence. This is true. If we lower our standards enough we can prove god exists, perpetual motion is possible, and Trump is a great man. This seems like a fair trade off to him.

          • Alex
            Posted September 9, 2017 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

            I’m not not arguing for “lax standards”. I’m arguing against absurdly high standards that would make a conviction impossible.

            • BJ
              Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:43 am | Permalink

              I guess rape is the one crime where we’ll lower the standards so perhaps we can raise the number of innocent people convicted to 50%! Hooray!

              I mean, you already got the “8%” stat wrong, and I notice you’ve resopnded to everything else in this comment section but my refutation of that. Perhaps it’s because that was your entire basis for reasoning more lax standards, but you still want to stick to lowering the standards regardless.

              • Alex
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 10:34 am | Permalink

                What standards are you arguing for? That every person should have a camera with them to prove that it was rape?

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink


                It would help.

                The point is, rape (or specifically, ‘date rape’) is the one crime where forensic evidence is likely not to be useful, and where it all hinges on conflicting statements from the parties involved.

                This is unfortunate but unavoidable.

                That doesn’t mean that standards of ‘reasonable doubt’ should be relaxed. Why would you lightly convict someone of a charge which carries a severe criminal penalty when you wouldn’t convict the same person of e.g. bank robbery on the same unsupported verbal evidence?


              • Alex
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink


                One thing I think that would help in cases that rely only on verbal testimony would be to check on the victim’s psychological state for any signs of trauma that would likely happen from a rape. If the trauma is present, then the victim would likely be telling the truth.

              • BJ
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

                Actually, you’re entirely wrong about the trauma question. Forgetting that one can act traumatized to get what they want, there’s also the issue that people believe something happened and thus suffer the effects of the belief, even if it isn’t true. For example, eyewitness testimony has been found to be wrong about 50% of the time, even though the eyewitnesses believe they are certain of what they saw.

                You want there to be an easy answer to this issue, but there isn’t one. Therefore, we must err on the side of not convicting innocent people, as is done in all just societies.

              • Alex
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

                @BJ What constitutes “trauma” to you? Some forms of trauma can’t be easily faked or aren’t really worth the effort to fake. For example: Is frequently peeing yourself worth any attention that you would allegedly get from lying about being raped.

                And, for the record, I actually do know a girl who lied about being raped by her boyfriend. It didn’t get her “positive attention”. It got her in major trouble with the police.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:41 pm | Permalink


                Re: psychological state as a confirmation of rape – that strikes me as being even more unreliable than a lie detector test.

                Aside from the fact that ‘psychological state’ relies heavily on a psychologist’s interpretation, it seems likely to me that someone suffering from a disturbed mental state occasioned by something else entirely (say a history of abuse) is the most likely to report a rape-that-didn’t-happen.

                So I would say that sort of psychological state is as much an indicator of potentially false accusation as it is confirmation.

                Note – I’m not saying that a complaint from a disturbed individual should be ignored; I’m just saying that the fact of their being disturbed is no help at all in verifying their claim.

                (Disclaimer: I’m not a psychologist)


    • Posted September 9, 2017 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

      I can only echo the comments from above. In cases of sexual assault accusations, the police should be investigating and the courts should be judging, not the colleges. There’s no need for a separate quasi-judicial inquiry by the college, especially not one where due process is not guaranteed by any kind of constitutional safeguards.

    • nicky
      Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:10 am | Permalink

      We haven’t got a clue how common false accusations are, I’ve heard between 2 and 8%, 6 and 10% and even 24%! (the latter was of all rapes, not specifically ‘Campus rape’).
      The fact that at present there is no due process might invite even more false -or half false (eg. when both were drunk, but not really incapacitated)- accusations.
      Yes, I’ve had sexual encounters that I seriously regretted afterwards, but I would not dream of calling that rape or assault.

      • Alex
        Posted September 10, 2017 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

        24% is definitely not the true number. The percentage of rape allegations that are false never go beyond the single digit range in practically every study that was done.

        • Posted September 10, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

          That is not a peer reviewed article. For the most part the references are not peer reviewed or the article does not address false accusations using survey data.

          There have been almost no studies on the number of false allegations.

          • Alex
            Posted September 10, 2017 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

            What makes you say that?

        • nicky
          Posted September 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

          As I said, we haven’t got a clue.
          Locally here in South Africa, in a majority of rape cases the complaint is withdrawn, despite an official policy of encouragement to proceed.
          Does that mean a majority of cases are false accusations? No it does not. There are many reasons for withdrawing.
          It is extremely difficult to get a reliable idea, 2% is just as much a guess as 24% or any other percentage.

          And then we didn’t even go into the details of what rape actually is. There are some seriously different definitions.
          Why would you assume (note, I would assume that too) that the male is the perpetrator and the female the victim if both are drunk?

          Fact is, false accusations do exist, -as does rape- and it is not up to a “Dear Colleage” letter to lower the standards of a justice system. That is as wrong as it gets. Already we see a backlash like: college rape? ‘Just-girls-getting-drunk-to-have-sex-and-playing-innocent-victim’ kind of thing, trivializing actual rape.

  6. somer
    Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Just want to say a year or so ago in discussion of intersectionality, gender and free speech, I may have inadvertently criticised Title X because as an Australian I confess I had forgotten what it is – Ive since posted positive comments on it and its a great program. Some people here think anything for women is oppressive – title X is very different from the gender denying and free speech silencing activities by some in student bodies.

    • somer
      Posted September 9, 2017 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      Oh dear – I meant Title IX **N*I*N*E**

    • BJ
      Posted September 10, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      How is it a “great program” with regard to these campus tribunals? There are many arguments within the articles posted and this comment section explaining how it’s horribly unfair and completely lacking in due process for the accused. What are the arguments for it being a “great program”?

  7. jwthomas
    Posted September 10, 2017 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    I’ve tweeted Heather’s blog entry to my followers on Twitter. Hope she doesn’t mind.

  8. nicky
    Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Jerry, for linking to Yoffe and Pluckrose. Good articles. Heather’s I had already read (and as well argued as usual with her).

  9. Genghis
    Posted September 10, 2017 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Looks like the UK is following suit.

%d bloggers like this: