Institutionalized Discrimination Against Men
Cathy Young has a piece in reason about a male student who had a woman file charges of "nonconsensual sexual contact" a year after their encounter, and who, like other males on campus these days, has been denied due process. An excerpt:
New Rules for Campus SexYu, a U.S.-educated Chinese citizen, is now going after the Poughkeepsie, New York, school in federal court, claiming not only wrongful expulsion and irreparable personal damage but sex discrimination. His complaint argues that he was the victim of a campus judicial system that in practice presumes males accused of sexual misconduct are guilty. His is one of three such lawsuits filed last summer. St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia is being sued by an expelled student, New York state resident Brian Harris, who likewise claims he was railroaded by a gender-biased campus kangaroo court. And in August college basketball player Dez Wells sued Ohio's Xavier University for expelling him in the summer of 2012 based on a rape charge that the county prosecutor publicly denounced as false.
While the lawsuits target private colleges, they also implicate public policy. That was especially true in Wells' case: When he was accused, Xavier was under scrutiny by the federal government for its allegedly poor response to three prior sexual assault complaints, and his attorney says he was the "sacrificial lamb" to appease the U.S. Department of Education. In the other two cases, there was no such direct pressure, but the charges were adjudicated under a complainant-friendly standard that the Obama administration has been aggressively pushing on academic institutions.
In April 2011, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to college and university presidents laying out guidelines for handling reports of sexual assault and harassment. One key recommendation was that such complaints should be evaluated based on a "preponderance of the evidence"-the lowest standard of proof used in civil claims. (In lay terms, it means that the total weight of the believable evidence tips at least slightly in the claimant's favor.) Traditionally, the standard for finding a student guilty of misconduct of any kind has been "clear and convincing evidence"-less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but still a very strong probability of guilt.
Last May the government reiterated its commitment to the "preponderance" standard in a joint Department of Justice/Department of Education letter to the University of Montana following a review of that school's response to sexual offenses. The letter was explicitly intended as a "blueprint" for all colleges and universities; noncompliant schools risk losing federal funds, including student aid eligibility.
Why sacrifice funding when men, with their right to due process removed, sacrifice so easily?
As Young points out, "The campus is a place where sex happens a lot-including sex in random, often drunken encounters rife with potential for misunderstanding and regret."
This is the last place we should be tossing due process out the window, but it's disgusting that it has been thrown out anywhere in this country, especially at the behest of our government.
As with any crime, I'd rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person convicted.
And finally, Young is exactly right about this:
In the end, the "rape culture" crusade is not so much about rape as it is about remaking sex. It stigmatizes assertive male sexuality and promotes a sexual norm in which every act must be negotiated in advance and undertaken with a completely rational, literally sober mind.
Welcome to reality. Please leave your rights at the door, boys.
'No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. ... 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. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life.'
1984
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 17, 2013 10:25 PM
We witnessed this in the Anita Hill accusations against Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings.
Aides for Senators Kennedy and Biden followed up the Anita Hill accusations they received and, after interviewing her, promised she would not have to testify before Congress (they lied to her).
She told the Kennedy and Biden aides that she did not want to testify. She wanted her accusations presented to Congress, but did not want the accused (Thomas) to have a chance to cross-examine the accuser - and she was a law professor, no less.
Feminists and Democrats, eager to "Bork" Thomas, made statements to the effect that the accusation alone was ironclad proof of Thomas' heinous character and unsuitability to sit on the highest Court. Of course, many Republicans responded with an equally adamant attitude the accusations were made up or frivolous.
Senator Robert Byrd stated the "innocent until proven guilty" standard should not apply to Congressional confirmation hearings.
Eventually, Thomas and Hill were both able to present their cases to Congress - as it should be.
By the end of the hearings, public opinion polls showed the public believed Thomas over Hill be a vast majority. This angered feminists, who set out to make sure future administrative hearings about sexual harassment did not have to adhere to American jurisprudence standards.
The bedrock principles of American jurisprudence are that the accused is to be allowed to face his accusers, see the evidence against him, present a defense, and be presumed innocent until actually proven guilty.
The principle should apply equally in administrative hearings as well as in criminal proceedings. The standard may be different - i.e., preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. - but the burden of proof should always be on the accuser.
Conan the Grammarian at December 18, 2013 9:57 AM
Incidentally, in this comic strip, Lucy is a sexual predator and is sexually harassing Schroeder.
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/2013/12/16#.UrHiQPRDsig
Conan the Grammarian at December 18, 2013 9:59 AM
Still waitin' for my Cherry2000, even though it's 2013...
amusingly, I seem to remember a lot of filling out paperwork and such in bars in the movie which is why fish-out-of-water-everyman had his Cherry2000 in the first place...
The odds of finding a Edith "E" Johnson (Melanie Griffith) driving a mustang and slowly falling in love the old way? They aren't very high, and then? who knows, maybe something will happen, and suddenly:
"but officer, she tied ME up!"
'yeah? she hated every minute of it though, so you musta forced it on her. Tell it to the judge.'
I'd love to have hopes for all of this, but I keep being proved correct by way too many people.
Sometimes, people just suck.
SwissArmyD at December 18, 2013 10:10 AM
There was a movie, a comedy, in which a sexual encounter with a sports star and a woman he met in a bar, was about to occur. They both called their "on-call" attorneys to negotiate the settlement, PR, charges, etc., in advance and then signed documents to firm the agreement. It was hilarious and quite frankly a peek at where we are going. NO one will be able to have sex anymore without a witness, video camera or a signed consent form. It's ridiculous.
Lee Ladisky at December 18, 2013 11:12 AM
@Conan: Incidentally, in this comic strip, Lucy is a sexual predator and is sexually harassing Schroeder.
No, Lucy is being assertive. That's good. Schroeder said Hurtful Words in the last panel. That's bad, the self-absorbed, arrogant little bastard.
Of course, being a self-absorbed, arrogant little bastard is what I always liked about Schroeder.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at December 18, 2013 12:26 PM
Peanuts wasn't much about character distinctions, but IIRC, Schroeder was the only one of those mealy little fuckers who had any talent.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 18, 2013 12:44 PM
Tell that to 6-year-old Hunter Yelton.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/living/6-year-old-suspended-kissing-girl/
Conan the Grammarian at December 18, 2013 1:04 PM
"That crack ho Lucy was off the hook!"
A Charlie Bro Kwanzaa Director's Cut
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 18, 2013 3:24 PM
Real wrath of Gov stuff. Boys kissing girls, cats and dogs, living together... mass hysteria!
Strange game.
Sio at December 19, 2013 12:07 AM
Leave a comment