The New Sex Differences On Campus: If You're Female, You're A Victim; If You're Male, You're Guilty -- Of Something
Ashe Schow writes at the WashEx of how unbelievable it's gotten. This story is from Georgia Tech -- yet another young man on campus accused of sexual misconduct, and never mind that the supposed victim didn't feel victimized:
The young man let his female friend stay in his apartment while she waited for her roommate to return to their dorm because she had lost her keys. Instead of sending the drunk young woman to wait alone in the cold and dark early morning hours, the young man kept her safe at his apartment. Sometime later, a friend of the young woman accused the young man of holding the alleged victim against her will.Text messages from the young woman thanking the young man for allowing her to stay at his place while she waited were disallowed in the young man's hearing. The young woman didn't even believe she was a victim, yet because of the accusation of the third party, the young man was suspended.
So, women are men's equals, yet they can't even be allowed to decide for themselves whether they were victimized or not?
This is not women as equals; this is women as kittens.
A Georgia lawmaker, State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, is calling for the resignation of Georgia Tech's President over this and other Title IX-driven witch hunts.
But the real problem is the Dear Colleague letter that removed due process rights from the accused -- almost always a male -- and ties compliance with a college continuing to receive federal funds. Jake New writes at InsideHigherEd:
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and for the past five years it has been the guiding document for colleges hoping to avoid a federal civil rights investigation into how they handle complaints of sexual violence.Last week, the department clarified in a letter to a Republican senator that the Dear Colleague letter acts only as guidance for colleges and does not "carry the force of law." But many college presidents and lawyers argue that the department's Office for Civil Rights treats the guidance as far more than a series of recommendations. Instead, they say, OCR uses the letter to determine which colleges are in violation of Title IX and to threaten the federal funding of those that don't follow every suggestion.
The 2011 Dear Colleague letter states that colleges "must use a preponderance of evidence standard" when adjudicating cases of sexual assault.
"The 'clear and convincing' standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the sexual harassment or violence occurred), currently used by some schools, is a higher standard of proof," the letter continues. "Grievance procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence."
Candidates need to be asked about whether they'd pull back this letter -- and the measures it calls for -- returning due process to males on campus and putting sexual assault investigation and punishment back where it belongs: in the province of law enforcement.
Meanwhile, as I've written before, if I were a parent sending a son to college, as I've said before, I'd send my son with a little extra money and advise him to timeshare escorts with his college buddies.
This shit will continue until and unless the victims of these kangaroo courts sue their oppressors as individuals, as well as the institutions that employ them, and refuse to accept any settlements that allow the oppressors to remain in their jobs.
When SJWs get to lash out without consequences, justice is destroyed.
-jcr
John C. Randolph at March 10, 2016 5:22 AM
Kinda bare on the detail, didnt the drunk freind testify she had not been kidnapped?
Why did the drunk friends friends think she had been kidnapped?
Sue the drunk friend, and the drunk friend's friends for both slander and libel, emotional distress, and tortious interference in his ability to earn a living and get an education.
My take away from this though? Its not even safe to be friends with women on any level anymore.
Cant have sex with fellow students for fear they might have taken a sip of beer or any OTC medication invalidating their capacity to give consent.
Cant have sex with non students anymore for fear their parents may file a complaint with the school even though they have no standing to do so.
Cant not have sex with a woman and offer her shelter in the middle of the night for fear of being accused of kidnapping.
lujlp at March 10, 2016 6:33 AM
"I'd send my son with a little extra money and advise him to timeshare escorts with his college buddies."
Won't do any good because of, as we see in the case described above, the third-party complaint. Anyone on campus could decide that your son is abusing the escort (or any other woman that he is seen to be in contact with), and the school will prosecute him.
There's a larger context in play in the Georgia Tech case. This is all happening against a background of a number of dorm-room-invasion robberies. (I hear tell that several students have been beaten in those robberies, but I haven't found a source that confirms that. Georgia Tech is in a not-so-great section of Atlanta; the robbers are probably coming from off campus.) The administration is telling students that there is nothing they can do about it. But they also won't lift the school's prohibition against concealed carry on campus.
It's all part of a overall pattern in which prosecutors are choosing targets based on how easy they are to prosecute, rather than what they've actually done.
Cousin Dave at March 10, 2016 6:43 AM
"Kinda bare on the detail, didnt the drunk freind testify she had not been kidnapped?"
She was not permitted to be present at the hearing, and the accused was not permitted to introduce her statements as evidence.
Cousin Dave at March 10, 2016 6:44 AM
I hope he sues the fuck out of GaTech.
I hope he recovers the cost of his education, and that going forward his education is provided gratis.
I hope that when he graduates, that the university's outreach program never hits him up for a donation.
I hope his lawyers recover their fees as well.
And maybe he should contemplate a libel complaint against the woman that accused him of false imprisonment. There's no money, there, but filing a suit is not expensive, and I suspect that the student would settle for making a public statement retracting her claim.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 10, 2016 7:17 AM
Don't ya'll understand? Men are expendable, cannon fodder in the battle for ultimate supremacy of the "oppressed" (and real-live battles against real bad guys, too). Good only for hard work and diein', I spose. Tell me ladies and progressives, who's gonna kill the spiders and unclog the toilets once you've chased off all the men?
bkmale at March 10, 2016 7:18 AM
"who's gonna kill the spiders and unclog the toilets once you've chased off all the men?"
They presume that, before they usher us out the door, we will invent robots to do those things for them.
Cousin Dave at March 10, 2016 7:44 AM
While I agree that the Dear Colleague letter is awful, I'm not sure that it is entirely to blame in this case. The Dear Colleague calls for a "preponderance of evidence." Georgie Tech, in this case, is not even allowing evidence to the contrary to be admitted.
Because even by the "preponderance of evidence" standard, this should not be an issue.
A non-witness says that the "victim" was being held against her will.
The "victim" herself says she was not being held against her will.
The accused says the "victim" is not being held against her will.
This should have been a non-starter, even by the bogus standards set forth in the Dear Colleague letter.
Patrick at March 10, 2016 8:46 AM
So I guess by the feminism measure Georgia Tech is a really, really decent place, right?
dee nile at March 10, 2016 9:23 AM
"This should have been a non-starter, even by the bogus standards set forth in the Dear Colleague letter."
There were obviously political motives behind this. Schools are falling all over themselves to look tough in the supposed epidemic of rape on campuses.
Jim at March 10, 2016 9:41 AM
I don't think I'll ever understand why the gov't feels they can impose such idiotic rules on others while deliberately not imposing the bill of rights.
Joe j at March 10, 2016 9:46 AM
I wonder if a college, instead of just quietly doing their best to comply with the standards put out by the Dear Colleague letter, simply decided to sue on the grounds that compliance would have placed an unfair burden on the college by forcing it to expend resources it doesn't have and performing investigations that it doesn't have the personnel to complete.
Most likely, that would have been met with outrage by the parents of potential students, and we would have heard things, "This college isn't interested in protecting my daughter from rape!"
Title IX is actually a pretty clever way of imposing this burden on the colleges. They can either comply or face the the outrage of the SJWs, who tend to react without thinking things through.
Patrick at March 10, 2016 10:26 AM
who tend to react without thinking.
FIFY.
I haven't seen any evidence of thought process from the lot. They seek scalps, regardless of the facts.
Like those around Patrick Kane.
More than a few puck bunnies on twitter wanted his head on a pike last fall. For those not following that story, he was accused of rape last summer.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 10, 2016 10:50 AM
I remember a Beverly Hills 90210 episode back in the late 90's or early 00's, where the "students" were at a "take back the night" rally, and one girl was going to publicly claim one of the main male characters raped her because she hadn't really wanted to sleep with him but she hadn't stopped him at any point, but another female character got to the podium first, and talked about how many times she'd woke up in the am and wished she'd not done what she did, but that it wasn't rape, because "I may not have said yes, but I never said No". Think any writer would have the balls to write that episode, now? Any channel would air it? Doubt it.
momof4 at March 10, 2016 2:46 PM
No way.
Amy Alkon at March 10, 2016 3:20 PM
I'm with Amy. No way would they air that now, even though it's true.
Patrick at March 10, 2016 8:00 PM
Momof4 & others;
Yea, they would air it; but, with a twist.
They might very well start the episode out with that speech; but, it would evolve into a shaming of that "traitor" who dared to say that women who didn't say "no" were not rape victims.
charles at March 10, 2016 8:50 PM
> Think any writer would have the
> balls to write that episode, now?
Judging these topics by media composed to pander to us is part of the problem. They want our money, so they stoke our feelings, not our insight.
And to be blunt, no modern teenager would waste time watching a TV show like that now. YouTubeTwitter&GodKnowsWhat
Crid at March 11, 2016 1:10 AM
Pulling back the letter would accomplish nothing -- because it would not create a precedent that could be used to resist the next letter like it.
What's needed is a court ruling that the letter is a violation of victims' civil rights. And preferably, that the individuals who wrote it are open to at least be sued for damages, and preferably prosecuted. Because writing the letter has the effect of writing a federal regulation that requires that kangaroo-court process.
jdgalt at March 12, 2016 10:09 PM
Leave a comment