They Say It's "Rape Culture" On Campus; It's Actually Aggressively Anti-Male Culture
"Rape culture" means a culture that condones and even encourages rape.

This describes Islamic culture -- because raping infidel women is sanctioned by the Quran and because of these sorts of behaviors a Muslim woman, Pamela K. Taylor, describes at Patheos:

As a community, we need to set our house straight. We need to change laws across the Muslim world to ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence are brought to justice, rather than forgiving them if they marry their victims, or worse, charging the victim with illegal sexual contact and punishing her while her attacker goes free.

We need to rein in and obliterate jirga councils that prescribe the rape of innocent women as a communal punishment for families whose male members have transgressed in some way.

We need to get serious about prosecuting those who harass women on the streets of the Muslim world.

And most importantly, we need to be honest with ourselves about how mainstream and conservative Muslim rhetoric and theology around modesty, hijab, gender roles, and etiquette between the sexes enables harassment and rape, and excuses and encourages men to become harassers and rapists.

Does any of that sound anything like any place in America?

Of course not.

But the "rape culture!" narrative serves an important purpose -- one that transforms all women into victims and all men into perps and abusers.

According to this narrative, you're all Mr. Privilege if you're male -- especially if you're male and white. And these are the sort of people the "rape culture!" accusers really want to bring down.

Since they can't very well earn their power with those classes where they talk about, oh, ski slopes as a form of masculine overreach, they use the government to bring a big fist down on men in colleges.

Call it "crony bureaucracy."

Yes, these days, thanks to the overreach of the "Dear Colleague" Title IX letter from the Obama administration, if you are male and accused of sexual assault on campus, your "privilege" on campus allows you to have your future judged in a kangaroo court where everything's stacked against you.

You are denied what you're entitled to constitutionally, in an actual judicial environment -- due process, meaning fair treatment in judicial processes.

That's a little vague, so here:

Aspects of Due Process ("Fundamental Fairness")

1. The government must provide notice of the charges against you.

2. The government must be able to show that there is an articulated (non-vague) standard of conduct which you are accused of violating.

3. The government must provide you with an opportunity to rebut their charges against you in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time (the "hearing requirement").

4. In order to sustain its position (i.e., its deprivation of your liberty or property), the government must establish--at a minimum--that there is substantial and credible evidence supporting its charges.

5. The government must provide some explanation to the individual for the basis of any adverse finding.

Some examples of procedural protections that may be required for certain types of deprivations:

1. Elevated burdens of proof that the government must satisfy, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal cases) or "clear and convincing evidence" (termination of parental rights).

2. The right to counsel.

3. The right to a pre-deprivation hearing.

4. The right to cross-examine witnesses.

5. The right to have a neutral person review an adverse decision.

6. The right to recover compensation for a wrongful deprivation.

7. The right to be present when adverse evidence is presented to the fact-finder.

KC Johnson writes at Heritage about how American colleges and universities have become anti-due-process -- mainly for men accused of sexual assault -- railroading the innocent. Schools were blackmailed into complying with the "Dear Colleague" letter:

Threatening the possible withholding of federal funds, the "Dear Colleague" letter:

Considered it a violation of Title IX to do anything but adjudicate sexual assault complaints utilizing the preponderance-of-evidence (50.01 percent) standard, in effect ordering colleges to change their procedures. When coupled with the preexisting denial of due process in most institutions' disciplinary proceedings--a denial of meaningful legal representation, the lack of mandatory discovery of evidence uncovered by the college, and the inability of colleges to require testimony under oath--the new standard makes it much easier to "convict" an accused student.

•Stated that colleges that allowed appeals in the disciplinary process (which means virtually all of them) must allow accusers to appeal a not-guilty finding, imposing a type of double-jeopardy principle for students accused of sexual assault.[

•Chastised colleges for taking too long to investigate and adjudicate complaints, with the Obama Administration suggesting a 60-day cap on the entire process.

•Discouraged colleges from allowing accused students to cross-examine their accusers even in cases in which the accuser is the only witness in a disciplinary hearing that could end with the accused being found responsible for committing sexual assault.

•The "Dear Colleague" letter imposed a nationwide set of standards, and then-OCR head Russlynn Ali also made clear that the office would welcome the filing of gender discrimination claims by students against their own schools.

...In response to the OCR's guidance, several new campus groups addressing the issue of rape have encouraged self-described "survivors" to file Title IX complaints. The two most prominent, SurvJustice and Know Your IX, have opposed anything approximating fair procedures for college students accused of offenses--while effectively downplaying the idea of requiring colleges to turn sexual assault adjudications over to the courts. Know Your IX co-founder Dana Bolger explained why to The New York Times. The "college disciplinary system," she argued, is superior to a "criminal justice system [that] notoriously fails rape survivors," since "police disbelieve victims, prosecutors refuse to take on the majority of cases because they lack witnesses, the standard of proof is impossibly high and juries buy into the rape myths that saturate our society and acquit perpetrators."

Sick. What she's arguing against is justice. Justice errs on the side of letting a guilty person go free rather than punishing an innocent one.

As KC Johnson puts it:

Sexual assaults on college campuses do occur and are a serious issue, but justice requires procedures that afford due process both to accusers and to the accused.

via @CHSommers