Posted on 02/19/2015 11:02:59 AM PST by rightistight
A college student in Oregon has been banned from anywhere on campus that a fellow student is, not because he has done anything wrong, but because he “resembles” the person who raped that student.
That means if the student lives in a dorm and the student who was raped is there, he cannot sleep in his own dorm. If she has a class in a room near him, he is not allowed to go to class.
Again, this is not because he did anything, but literally because he “looked like the person who had raped her.”
The campus, which is not being named by the Harvard professor who wrote the exposé that first reported on the incident, then investigated the student for a month, checking into his sexual and criminal history.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
The issue is one of the opportunities for a reality check on the slippery slope of the extreme feminist view that a man is guilty ONLY because of how he “makes” a woman feel.
You’d think the feminists, always wanting to portray women as “strong” would acknowledge we are all each of us in charge of our feelings, and our thoughts and thinking on any subject aside, we are responsible for how we react.
Instead, the feminist twisted logic searching for male guilt actually portrays women as too weak to be in charge of their own feelings.
To put it another way, this unnamed college will not accept any student who looks like they might be a rapist.
Sounds like a case of “attending college while male” if this story is to be believed.
I have my doubts, though.
I would sue.
I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/
It’s in the Harvard Law Review. Scroll down, it’s near the end.
And I won't TELL you what barack obama brings to my mind ...
The sheep?
So the male student must know where the female student is at all times to comply with the order.
It in a way forces the male student to be the female student’s stalker.
It is surprising that the administrators fail to see the injustice of this kind of treatment of a student.
ROTFL!
Ah yes, the feminazi mantra: “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”
ROTFL!
Yes funny but true.
The female student should be required to have a GPS enabled phone on her at all time.
The male student should have a matched phone with him linked to the female students phone displaying her whereabouts to him at all times.
Only then can the female student be assured of never having to set eyes on the male student.
If it is the administration’s desire that the female be absolutely comfortable on campus they must require this sort of technological leash on this female student.
If it is assurance that the female student never have to see this male student she should have no problem with this requirement.
I’d sue the university and the female student. Sue the living crap out of them.
Ok. Let’s accept that. Then, logically, racial profiling is perfectly acceptable.
Harvard Law Review-—that Obama led.:-)
I read what you suggested but to me it is meaningless without naming the college in Oregon.
.
If the college was named I’d be more inclined to believe it. It makes a hell of a story,though.
.
.
Yes indeed. I work for a large company, and I have seen that any denunciation, no matter how ludicrous, is taken as gospel by HR. The “investigation” consists of complete acceptance of the accusation, with the reasoning of “You wouldn’t deny it if it weren’t true”.
I despise HR departments everywhere. They exist only to try to keep their companies from being sued, not to do anything at all to help employees.
No doubt that “4 non-blondes” are involved.
Every single individual at this “college” should be charged with violating his civil rights under several constitutional amendments.
Bankrupt their stupid asses in court. Man I truly hate liberals.
Another FReeper once told me that he wears a spy camera in a pen and he records meetings with people who cause him problems and he’s successfully sued a former company that fired him for something the video proved he never did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.