The New Rules Of College Sex: Male? Probably A Predator
The Federal government and a Pennsylvania lawyer (Brett Sokolow, founder of NCHERM, the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management) are rewriting the rules on campus hookups--using Title IX to tag young men as dangerous predators, writes Sandy Hingston in Philly Magazine:
Jack and Diane are at a party at their college. It's September of their freshman year. They're still excited about being away from home, on their own for the first time. They don't know each other, but they've noticed one another, at orientation and in the dining hall.Because they're underage, they can't drink at this party, but before she arrived, Diane "pre-gamed," as the girls in her dorm call it--downing mixed drinks, doing gummy-worm and Jell-O shots. Jack had a few beers.
The liquor's gone to Diane's head. On the dance floor, she makes eye contact with Jack. He maneuvers his way toward her. She grabs him by the crotch, then whirls around and pushes against him, letting him grind away. Jack can't believe it--she's so pretty. She smells so good.
"I can't hear myself think in here, it's so loud!" he shouts into her ear.
She smiles at him. "What?"
"Too loud!" He takes her hand and leads her outside, into the autumn night. She looks at him expectantly. He puts his arms around her, pulling her close, and begins to kiss her. She drapes against him. He touches her breast, and when she doesn't protest, does it again. He moves his hands to her rear, cupping her buttocks. She kisses him back, frantically eager. He reaches underneath her dress.
Jack doesn't know it, but he's just created what the Department of Education calls a "hostile environment" for women on his campus--a violation of Title IX for which his college could lose all federal funding. Should Diane press sexual assault charges against him with the school, he'll be tried in a judicial hearing that fails to guarantee him the most basic American legal rights--the right to counsel, the right to confront his accuser, the right not to be convicted unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He could well be expelled, and have a record that will hound him should he try to get into another school.
And here he thought it was his lucky night.
Next up, we've got the Vice President pushing bullshit rape stats -- a "one in five" figure in this case. (See debunking links here.)
More:
But wait, you say. Didn't Diane consent when she let Jack touch her breast? No, because consent has to be active, not passive. And Jack has to get Diane's consent every time he wants to move up another base--a policy first instituted at Ohio's Antioch College in the early 1990s. Here's how an Antioch women's center advocate explained it to freshmen: "If you want to take her blouse off, you have to ask. If you want to touch her breast, you have to ask. If you want to move your hand down to her genitals, you have to ask. If you want to put your finger inside her, you have to ask." Reaction to Antioch's policy--including a Saturday Night Live skit--was wildly derisive; eventually, the college closed down. The policy, however, as detailed by NCHERM, lives on all over the country.Besides, the NCHERM model says that even though Jack had no way of telling whether or how much Diane had been drinking, it was his responsibility to determine if she was "incapacitated"--a term of murky meaning. If she was, any fondling they did, no matter how great her zeal, was sexual assault. She doesn't even have to lodge a complaint; the college has to investigate if, say, Diane's resident adviser- sees her and Jack outside the party and suspects she's drunk. And OCR says a single incident of sexual assault can be enough to create that hostile atmosphere.
My friends at the campus free speech-defending organization FIRE of course come through for due process on campus:
But Samantha Harris, of the Philly-based nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which advocates for individual rights at colleges, says the new standard violates accused students' due process rights. "Campus judicial procedures already have questionable -validity," she says. "The preponderance standard, which essentially means 50.1 percent proof, will just compound those problems." She says the Supreme Court's precedents demonstrate that evidentiary standards should be higher, not lower, when so much is at stake, as FIRE argued in a lengthy letter to Russlynn Ali. "We're not sending these students to prison," Harris says, "but the terminology is the same. They're found guilty of serious criminal offenses." Perpetrators are subject to expulsion, which affects their employment and social prospects. Harris blames the guidelines, not the schools: "Their hands are tied. The loss of federal money would be catastrophic."Why don't colleges just turn sexual assault cases over to police to prosecute? Because there's rarely enough evidence to convict in a real court of law. Harris points to a case at the University of North Dakota in which a judicial board found a student guilty of rape under the preponderance standard and expelled him. The victim had also reported the rape to police--who charged her with filing a false report. "The potential for abuse and injustice is tremendous," Harris says. "We have to protect victims' rights, but how many innocent students is it right to convict to do so?" Due process, she says, doesn't just safeguard the accused; it preserves the integrity of the judicial system. "If I were sending a son off to college now," she adds, "I'd be very concerned."
Sokolow's response? "FIRE is sticking up for penises everywhere."
Somebody has to.
This, from Sokolow, is particularly disgusting:
"'The number of expelled students is going to go way up,' Sokolow predicts--a prospect he's looking forward to."
Viper.
Details on FIRE's protests of the new regulations here.
Well I was just at a local Waffle House. A young guy came back in after his meal and asked the cute, young, blond waitress for her phone number. She said she wasn't interested.
He said "Ok. Have a good one." and left.
Was that sexual harassment? She didn't think so. But I could imagine if there were feminazis around.
Jim P. at August 31, 2011 11:53 PM
@jim: Legally, not likely. If he had instead responded with something along the lines of "Oh, common! It would be fun!" Potentially yes. And the waitress employer could be held liable for a hostile work environment.
At least according to what the lawyer in the mandatory employee training everyone at the company had to go through a couple of years ago.
The Former Banker at September 1, 2011 12:34 AM
These rules should be struck down under "The Seinfeld Principle"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-a64OwOYqU
Ltw at September 1, 2011 12:54 AM
And then Sokolow turns around and testifies on behalf of a young man who found himself in exactly this type of situation. Perhaps he saw the error of his ways and realized he had gone too far?
LINK
Steve at September 1, 2011 4:47 AM
I'm sorry to say this - but are americans COMPLETE idiots? I mean, I know everything is bigger over there, but I didn't know that also meant blatant stupidity. How the f*** did you guys let it come to this?
I can't help thinking that a huge part of americans are constantly wondering if everyone has completely lost it, yet does nothing.
Jesper at September 1, 2011 5:38 AM
Jesper, there are some people over here that want something for nothing, or at least very little effort. This gives it to them.
I'm not sure how it came to this, tho all-women colleges becoming echo chambers and coloring outlooks, and incubating bullshit statistics (1 in 5 raped, 75 cents on the dollar for pay) seem to part of the problem.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 1, 2011 6:13 AM
Sems to me the simplest thing to do would be to round up all these guys who were expelled and not charged criminally and file a class action lawsuit againt the govenment deptartments, colleges and individual adminitraters.
And file it under Title IX.
Afterall given the loose way that POS legislation is written the fact that an equal number of girls havent been expelled is proof of gender bias, so is the fact that an equal number of male complaint of sexual assult havent been heard by these committies.
Tie them all up in legislation for as long as possible, waste their money, and dribe these programns and collges into finacial ruin
lujlp at September 1, 2011 7:01 AM
This will do wonders for the gender imbalance on campus.
If I were a young man, I'd study abroad.
MarkD at September 1, 2011 7:14 AM
> If I were a young man, I'd study abroad.
Anybody want that? It's just sitting there.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 1, 2011 9:41 AM
Sokolow is a lawyer. He wants billable hours, and he doesn't care how he gets them. I am beginning to think that the practice of law is de facto a criminal enterprise.
alittlesense at September 1, 2011 9:44 AM
> These rules should be struck
A favor, LTW? Save that link next time Amy starts yammering about the hip-to-waist ratios. (Be attentive, we're overdue)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 1, 2011 9:48 AM
I am beginning to think that the practice of law is de facto a criminal enterprise
I've been thinkin' that for years.
If I were a young man, I'd study abroad.
I'm right here. Whaddayawannaknow?
o.O
Flynne at September 1, 2011 10:06 AM
So Sokolow is acknowledging that he hasn't drafted these guidelines in good faith. He is not simply interpreting Federal requirements. He has an agenda.
For the record NCHERM is not actually an independent risk management firm. Nor is it the National Center for anything. It's Sokolow's private law firm in Malvern PA. Literally.
It's amazing to me that these schools would allow someone with a financial interest in the outcomes to draft these policies. If they're challenged on them, there's no way that they can argue that they were developed in a prudent and impartial manner. The guy that wrote the standards is on record endorsing biased outcomes and mocking the rights of the accused.
If men on campus were smart, they'd go out and get themselves 'assaulted', then organize a class and sue themselves a free education at the expense of their colleges.
jerple at September 1, 2011 10:22 AM
Consider the first example of the young excited couple. His consent is apparently implied by the fact of being a guy. Hers must be proactively obtained at every stop along the way, even though she may be too wasted to really provide it. In fact, they are both wasted but only he has the responsibility to assess her ability to provide consent. If one party is held to a higher standard, then the parties are not equal in the transaction.
We don’t expect young children to sign contracts or deal with most real-world matters. They are not the equal of adults in this regard and thus need to be protected. Some universities apparently consider young women unequal and in need of special protections because they are not as capable as men of the same age in acting in their affairs. These university rules are sexist at their core. I would hope most women would see that and be offended. For those women who don’t see it, don’t expect equal rights to men because you are not equal. And I am not the one saying it. You are – along with your male allies.
Just a guy at September 1, 2011 12:43 PM
These new regulations are exactly what college bound men need. The lad in the example should file a complaint against the female sexual predator. Did she not grap his crotch without asking? Did she not rub up against him with her breasts without seeking verbal permission? Didn't she kiss him without explicit permission to do so.
She should have been aware that he might have had a few beers and thus be an "impaired/vulnerable." (Actually all males above the age of puberty have a short circuit between their dick and their head and are always "impaired/vulnerable" when it comes to sexual matters).
This female sexual predator and those like her should be expelled immediately. Tht is the only way to protect innocent young men from being sexually preyed upon.
Jay at September 1, 2011 12:45 PM
You know, you make a good point about the double standard. She didn't get permission to grab his junk. Of course just a guy makes the point of implied consent being a guy (which is hard to argue with).
Maybe we can sic this bastard on the TSA. They don't have my consent implied or otherwise to grab my junk.
DrCos at September 1, 2011 2:31 PM
"Some universities apparently consider young women unequal and in need of special protections because they are not as capable as men of the same age in acting in their affairs. [...] I would hope most women would see that and be offended. "
I saw the Philly Magazine article yesterday, and a lot of the female commenters there got this. They realize that if you argue that you are not competent to engage in adult interactions, then you are making a case for losing your rights.
Cousin Dave at September 1, 2011 4:08 PM
Flynne gets it!
> I'm right here. Whaddayawannaknow?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 1, 2011 5:04 PM
(So to speak.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 1, 2011 5:08 PM
But this is precisely the outcome the feminazis were after: equal, but special.
They wanted equal access to opportunity, with special dispensation when they fuck up, and the ability to push responsibility for all their bad decisions off on someone else.
Oh, and the ability to insult anyone who pointed this out.
brian at September 2, 2011 5:46 AM
Let's not forget another reason a lot of universities don't want something like this turned over to police: it means an official crime report, and most universities don't want that because it might make their stats look bad to people considering going there.
Read an article years back by an officer who'd worked at a PD in a campus town; the pressure brought by the university to hush up or overlook actual crimes got downright nasty at times.
Firehand at September 2, 2011 11:48 AM
Leave a comment