The Soviet Show Trial Has Been Rehomed -- Onto American College Campuses For Sexual Misconduct Hearings
Just like in the trials in the Soviet Union, those on Yale's campus who've been reeled in on some sort of sexual misconduct charge don't get anything even resembling due process.
The trial seems to be a mere formality, meant to look justice-y. It's justice-flavored. The justice version of cheese-food.
In the WSJ, Jennifer C. Braceras reports:
At Yale today, bureaucrats charged with investigating and punishing alleged sexual misconduct seem less interested in truth or fairness than in scoring political points.To start, they have expanded the terms harassment and assault beyond traditional legal definitions. Under Yale's sexual misconduct policy, sexual harassment includes verbal statements that have the "effect" of creating an "intimidating" environment. Sexual assault includes any contact without "positive, unambiguous, and voluntary" consent. According to Yale, consent must be "ongoing" at each stage of an encounter but "cannot be inferred from the absence of a 'no' " or presumed from "contextual factors."
With these expanded definitions in hand, "independent investigators"--eager to justify their employment by a university desperate to appear tough on sexual misconduct--rush off to find evidence of violations. They build dossiers on professors' offhand comments made decades earlier. They probe the murky "he said-she said" of drunken hook-ups seeking to prove that consent was not freely given, irrespective of whether a crime has been committed. Administrative tribunals, lacking due process protections provided in a court of law, determine guilt and mete out punishments that forever label people misogynists, harassers, or perpetrators of sexual assault.
Just ask Jack Montague, former captain of Yale's men's basketball team. Mr. Montague was expelled from Yale in February after one such tribunal decided that a fourth sexual encounter with a female student, known only as "Roe," constituted "non-consensual" sex. According to Mr. Montague's attorneys, Yale bureaucrats decided to investigate the basketball star after hearing secondhand that Roe had "a bad experience" with him more than a year earlier--a fact the university does not deny.
One of Yale's Title IX coordinators then spoke to Roe (who had not previously reported the alleged assault to the New Haven or Yale police or to Yale bureaucrats), after which she made an informal statement about her experience. A Yale Title IX coordinator, not the alleged victim, then filed a formal complaint against Mr. Montague.
So, the supposed victim did not bring charges against him -- some administrator independently did it.
So, women are such non-people in the eyes of college administrators that they cannot decide whether or not they've been victimized; the college needs to do it for them?
Of course, the ensuing tribunal process that comes out of this is just bereft of the provisions that go with anything that would resemble justice in this country:
Perhaps most concerning, Yale's courts of sexual misconduct do not allow accused persons to cross-examine the witnesses against them. This, despite the fact that American courts have long found the ability to cross-examine witnesses to be a critical component of due process, particularly where, as in Mr. Montague's case, the credibility of contradictory witnesses determines the outcome.In many ways, however, Yale's tribunals are less fair to the accused than even the dreaded Star Chamber, which allowed defendants to share information about the proceedings with friends and colleagues, call witnesses in their own defense, and bring along an advocate to speak and submit documents on their behalf. Mr. Montague was denied all of these opportunities.
Like many other universities, Yale determines guilt by a mere "preponderance of the evidence" rather than by the more exacting "clear and convincing evidence" standard traditionally used by universities in student disciplinary matters or proceedings involving faculty speech or conduct.
Of course, it's typically males that get reeled in by these practices. Any woman who is okay with this happening on that basis is only pretending to be for equal treatment for men and women. What lies behind has to be hatred of men.
And yoohoo, parents, if you're sending a son to college in America these days, my advice? Tell him to avoid all college women and give him money to timeshare an escort with his buddies. In the long run, it'll be far, far cheaper.
Tell him to avoid all college women and give him money to timeshare an escort with his buddies. In the long run, it'll be far, far cheaper.
Until some busybody files a charge on behalf of the hooker.
dee nile at October 23, 2016 5:11 AM
Most students just want to get their assignment done and get on with the more important stuff of their day.
Sadly we need some to just for the hell of it pick the most vocal "hang 'em by their balls" female student or administrator and
1. file a Title IX complaint for "hostile" environment,
2. request a restraining order if they have stated "I've got my eye on you." in any form,
3. send letters to the editor of the local newspaper (not the student paper),
4. copy the alumni association referencing the "negative" affect this environment is having on the athletic program, and
5. copy your State political representatives.
Rinse and repeat for effect. This stuff will not stop until the money funding it does.
Bob in Texas at October 23, 2016 6:13 AM
I love the sex workers I follow on Twitter. They fight back.
@Maggie_McNeill and SWOP (forget their exact handle) and Mistress Matisse, and others.
These are people who would stand up and tell everyone it was consensual.
Amy Alkon at October 23, 2016 7:30 AM
This post got me to do some reading to see if I could draw comparisons across the centuries. It looks like it's from from the same form of belief systems.
"Columbia threatens to punish students who take notes during sexual-misconduct proceedings"
www.thecollegefix.com/post/29543/
Canvasback at October 23, 2016 8:53 AM
Some reading about Torquemada, I meant. I wonder if putting the screws to people is where we got the term torque wrench?
Canvasback at October 23, 2016 9:08 AM
Lets see we have had men expelled for
Fathers of non students filing complaints, even with the woman in question saying she was not raped
Teachers filing complaints based on second hand gossip of heresy (teacher overheard friend of a friend of the woman who had sex) even though the woman in question said she initiated the encounter
For a single drunken text message that contained no lewd language and a rather pathetic confession of feelings
For a kissing incident that happened in the middle of a two month dating relationship
For doing nothing while reviving a blow job and a second guy (who was not expelled) approached the woman and began having sex with her and a third guy (also not expelled) slapped her ass. But the school suspended the guy she admits she willingly initiated a blow job with
For complaining that a woman was accusing him of rape. He was suspended even though he had proof he was not in the area when the alleged assault had occurred, and even if he had been his PHYSICAL HANDICAPS would have made it impossible for her to have been attacked in the manner she described
And then there is the guy Amherst expelled under the theory that while he was passed out drunk he used his mind control powers to compel his girlfriends friend to give him a blow job
So
you cant have sex with a willing student because she might retroactively withdraw consent months or years after the fact
you cant have sex with a willing student because some third party might touch her and it will magically be your fault
you cant have sex with a willing student because someone might file charges even if she doesnt want it
you cant have sex with non students because someone might file charges even if she doesnt want it
you cant tell a woman how you feel becuase that is sexual harassment
you cant not have sex with a woman becuase being physically incapable of the actions she describes is not proof that you didnt do it anyway
you cant even be alone with a woman becuase should she sexually assault you she can just claim you used telepathy to force her
It doesnt matter if you dont have sex, they will haul you into a show trail anyway
lujlp at October 23, 2016 11:12 AM
These college atrocities are in response to pressure and advisory letters from the Dept of Justice as constructed by the Obama administration. Hillary and her entire campaign staff were given immunity from prosecution by the Obama administration.
Vote for Trump if you want this to end, or Hillary to strengthen these policies.
I forgot, Trump will start a nuclear war, an accusation made against every Republican candidate for president.
Andrew Garland at October 23, 2016 1:40 PM
"These are people who would stand up and tell everyone it was consensual."
Then they won't be called to testify.
Ben at October 23, 2016 3:58 PM
punishments that forever label people misogynists, harassers, or perpetrators of sexual assault.
Don't the people who see those labels know how meaningless they are, given how broken the system is which applied them?
Rex Little at October 23, 2016 9:35 PM
"I love the sex workers I follow on Twitter. They fight back."
The movement to redefine prostitution per se as human trafficking will soon take care of that.
In the future, most men who pursue higher education will be getting it through the Internet. Colleges will essentially become harem palaces: male scions of powerful families will attend, surrounded by a certain category of women who want to think of themselves as smart although they are profoundly ignorant, and who want the privileges of adulthood without the responsibilities. It'll be great for the guys who are privileged enough; they can pretty much have any woman they want, and the women will be appreciative at being so close to power. Other men won't dare enter the campus.
Cousin Dave at October 24, 2016 6:42 AM
So what's the next step for these young Puritans?
Let's look to the ultimate government nanny state for the answer:
China bans 'erotic' banana-eating live streams
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 24, 2016 11:41 AM
One of the best movies suffered an instant death at the theaters because of the ending, and that also robbed John Hurt of an Oscar: 1984
The book and movie show us what Social Justice Warriors work towards, though whether they realize this is iffy. Safe spaces against hate speech? Not necessary with Newspeak, which removes words because they are the carriers of unwanted thought. Says Syme:
Radwaste at October 25, 2016 9:13 AM
Leave a comment