Posted on 10/13/2014 1:10:56 PM PDT by Kaslin
Due process advocates have been up in arms over the past few months as California passed the first statewide “affirmative consent” law in the nation. According to the freshly signed SB 967, all college campuses accepting financial aid in the Golden State must enforce a high standard of establishing sexual consent in student disciplinary hearings, requiring both parties in question to vocalize their approval before engaging in sexual acts.
While an array of concerns have been raised about the legal ramifications of this law, one important question has been left out of the discussion almost entirely — why are rape cases even handled by colleges in the first place?
If it seems odd that a crime as serious as sexual assault is managed by the very same incompetent bureaucrats that harass students with asinine policies like dormitory curfews, it should come as no surprise that the federal government is at work. In fact, the law that created the current system of student disciplinary hearings is one that has been reviled for decades for a very different reason: Title IX.
Yes, the 1972 federal gender equality amendment infamous for forcing hundreds of colleges to cut male athletic teams is also responsible for the kangaroo courts that plague the American higher education. In the years immediately following the law’s passage, a number of female victims of sexual assault started suing their college campuses, claiming that their lack of a disciplinary pathway to hold their rapists responsible infringed upon their access to education under Title IX. A federal courtagreed in 1980, and colleges across the country quickly began establishing disciplinary boards for sexual assault thereafter.
Although this history development may look like a victory for justice at first glance, the reality is that disciplinary boards ultimately fail both victims and assailants of sexual assault while shattering the lives of countless falsely accused students.
Regarding the former, student disciplinary boards do not have the power to arrest or imprison actual rapists like the police. The worst punishment that they can inflict on a student is expulsion; the least is a mere mark in a student’s record, leaving them free to lurk campus among past and potentially future victims. True retribution can only be served by the justice system, where a rapist can be arrested and sentenced to prison after a fair trial.
Colleges can do none of this. In fact, many disciplinary boards have a lower standard of proof than criminal courts. California’s new law, for example, not only requires colleges to raise their benchmark of consent but also to lower their standard of proof to a “preponderance of the evidence” instead of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” measure that criminal courts use. This legal distinction is significant. Whereas the reasonable doubt standard requires judges and jurors to have virtually no uncertainty about the accused's guilt, preponderance of the evidence allows tribunals to punish if they merely think that the accused is more likely guilty than not — a standard of 50.01 percent.
This low benchmark has given rise to countless questionable conclusions of guilt. One 2013 case highlighted by the Foundation for Individual Rights for Education at Occidental College involved two students who sent each other text messages that seemingly established consent, such as “do you have a condom.” Despite the fact that an investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department concluded that the accuser “even though she was intoxicated… could still exercise reasonable judgement,” Occidental determined the accused was guilty at a subsequent disciplinary hearing and expelled from the university.
“It’s sad that this process can be abused and that the university can totally change somebody’s life, with very little evidence,” one recently punished student at Brandeis University told The Washington Post recently. “In the real world, rape and sexual assault are crimes punishable by going to jail — and rightfully so. Why is this left up to schools?”
Title IX has left thousands of college athletes in the cold by cutting male sports teams in the name of bureaucratic compliance. Now it’s depriving countless falsely accused students of the due process they’re entitled to and victims of sexual assault the justice they deserve in a real court of law. It’s time to reexamine this broken law in the name of restoring sanity on America’s college campuses.
I remember a movie called Cherry 3000 where there were attorneys at the singles bar. They were there to handle the negotiations between men and women regarding the quality and quantity of sexual content when they leave the place. And then both parties would sign the contract.
And on a slightly related note, in the movie “The Running Man”, a woman buys a coke at a vending machine and, at the time the movie was made, the amount was absurd. It was five bucks. And I was at the key arena three years ago and it was four bucks. I’ll bet it’s five now.
I just hate it because it causes colleges to ditch perfectly fine men’s teams to keep the bureaucrats off their a*ses.
I just hate it because it is one more element of total federal control over our lives. It is progressive. Little by little. Never ending.
Having sex with American women is dangerous especially if you are in college or at a university. If you have a set of nuts your life can and will be ruined.
Guilty until proven innocent, where you can’t be proven innocent with a committee of misandrists.
Whatever happened to keeping it in your pants until you were married? That system worked out pretty well in my day.
Whatever happened to keeping it in your pants until you were married? That system worked out pretty well in my day.
We do indeed live in a perverse generation.
This leads to women blitzed out of their gourds having sex with a men and then claiming they were raped because they were too drunk to consent. It would seem that the man’s defense would be to also claim that he was too drunk to give consent therefore the woman raped him. Of course, political correctness will claim the male is at fault because the woman is ALWAYS the victim.
Have you seen the video I posted? It is the ninth reply.
The easy solution to most Title IX problems is to eliminate athletic scholarships, pay coaches as ordinary support services staff, and take the money chase out of it. College athletics would be much healthier as well.
The easy solution to most Title IX problems is to eliminate athletic scholarships, pay coaches as ordinary support services staff, and take the money chase out of it. College athletics would be much healthier as well.
That was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.
I think that it will be best, for legal reasons, not to mention moral ones, to just get married.
Heck, even as a middle aged dude, I get raging hormones from time to time and am deeply grateful that I have a loyal wife I can turn to.
But young men are capable of reason and they need to learn to tame those hormones or they can lead to all sorts of adverse consequences.
For starters, any girl who will spread her legs for any guy isn't worth having. Definitely not as marriage material and probably not even as a one night stand.
Even a woman's privates will tell you a little about where she's been. The decent gals are almost always universally pink, pretty and fairly tight inside. In fact, over time, they actually mold themselves naturally to the shape of their one and only man's privates.
The whorish gals are misshapen, not uniform and loose because a lot of men have visited down there with different shapes and sizes. There may even be discoloration and parts hanging out from an excess of "partners".
It is not something a nice girl is going to offer to show you. In fact, she will probably give you a good slap if you suggest it. But it is something young men ought to know as a last resort in turning off those raging hormones and turning the brain back on.
If a guy trains his brain right, even sex can be approached scientifically . . . up to a point.
No idea. It should be a police matter.
Cherry 2000.
I’m not huge fan of Melanie Griffith but she looked hot with the fake red hair.
I’m not huge fan of Melanie Griffith but she looked hot with the fake red hair.
I’m not huge fan of Melanie Griffith but she looked hot with the fake red hair.
Good call, Impy. She also looked good in “Working Girl” (87-88); so she peaked 25+ years ago.
Now she looks like a smoking mop that was used to scrub barnacles off of a slow boat from China.
“...so she peaked 25+ years ago....”
Eh. Not much of a peak back then, either. Ditz, glitz, and a glass of warm Schlitz, maybe doable then.
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.