The way to show you believe something might have happened?
You open an investigation.
You're willing to spend time and money to find out if an accusation is true. That IS belief. As much belief as a neutral party can have until things are proven more completely.

Why is it not enough?

The way you investigate whether something has happened -- which is what the attitude should be -- is that the police are brought in, rather than sending these cases through some campus kangaroo court.

"In fact, this estimate is based on studies in which some eight percent of rape reports are proven to be groundless or fabricated--but the majority remain unresolved. "

It's even worse than that. The most widely-cited study (the "Making a Difference" project claims 7.1% as "false" but a further 8.5% as "baseless". Baseless meaning that the event complained of occurred, but that it didn't meet the legal definition of rape. There's a further 17.9% of accusations where the police just took a report and didn't need to investigate further (ie: even if everything complained of was true, no crime occurred). 28.6% of investigations were inactivated due to insufficient evidence one way or the other.

Bottom line is that over 30% of rape accusations to 8 police departments over a multi year period weren't actually, you know, rape. That doesn't include the 30% or so where they don't know.

Good fisking of the study here: http://www.datagoneodd.com/blog/2015/01/27/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-2/

Swiss Army D:

"Why is it not enough?"

I know that was a rhetorical question; but, we also all know the answer:

Some folks draw conclusions and then look for facts (if they look at all) to fit their conclusion.

This is the way journalism school has taught a lot of people and a lot of college professors are also teaching the same way. Design your theory first then get the facts to fit that theory.

The "rape culture" meme is one of many disturbing symptoms that grows out of the idea of the collective guilt of "privileged" white straight christian males,and the many subsets of that group. Regardless of whether a particular individual commits an overt act, his very existence is a "microaggression" and he is just as guilty as the person who actually commits an actual crime. Any "victim" of the "privileged" white straight christian culture is therefore justified or permitted to make factually untrue accusations and have them treated as true, because he or she belongs to a collective that have been or are "victims."

In a manner of speaking each white straight christian male is guilty of original sin and until there is some form of absolution, (monetary reparations in the form of wealth redistribution, of course, will help)actual conduct of any particular member of that collective is irrelevant. (Those individuals suffering from "white guilt" that think they can buy absolution are in for a shock.)

To bring about absolution will require the destruction of the foundations of western civilization.

Increasingly, we will see a return to forms of tribalism, where each individual belongs to a particular tribe and an offense against one member of the tribe is an offense against the entire tribe requiring retribution against the tribe of the offending member.

The greatest sin, of course, is committed by apostates, look to the treatment of black conservatives; "uncle tom,""house nigger."

In short, we are no longer individuals to be judged on our own merits, but by which tribe we belong to and our loyalty to our tribe.

A constitutional republic, with checks and balances, was a grand and noble experiment, but apparently the pull of human nature to belong to tribe or pack is just too strong and inimical to a the construct of a constitutional republic, at least in a heterogeneous or "diverse" society.

It is obvious that there are many potential rationales behind a particular woman claiming she was raped, when she was not:

She may be acting out of a desire for "revenge" against a man who had sex with her and then wasn't interested in pursuing a relationship, or was cold afterwards. Or who ended up choosing someone else. Or who had sex with her girlfriend.

She may regret the sex, it makes her feel guilty. So she either convinces herself, or simply tries to convince others, that she was forced to have sex against her will.

She is seeking fame and an easy gig as a victim, writing for blogs, carrying a mattress around, etc.

She is simply pyschologically unbalanced.

An understandable but by now vastly overwrought sympathy for women in general, has led to this blatantly unfair concept that if a woman claims she has been raped, she is likely telling the truth. If it is ultimately proven that she was not, or that she even lied, there are no consequences. The man in question is forced to pay for counsel, which could bankrupt him; his reputation is forever blighted; he gets death threats and castration threats (like those lacrosse players at Duke); he nay well find it impossible to stay in school or to get a job.

There is not an epidemic or rape, certainly not on college campuses. There never was. What there is, is a number of women who have decided that "rape" is any sexual experience that they later regretted, and that "a rapist" is someone whom they don't like. And that even if they just miss ruining such people's lives forever, they were simply "calling attention to a serious problem," and thus should be extolled for what should be a criminal offense.

"Why is it not enough?"

I know that was a rhetorical question;

I don't think it's a rhetorical question at all.

SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience. The feeling of the statement must also be taken into account, which can be affected by current news, cultural moods, and pop trends.

From Saturday's WSJ "In Campus Rape Tribunals, Some Men See Injustice"

"According to a hearing transcript, the key evidence the woman cited was an anonymous January call to Duke’s Title IX investigator from a self-described friend saying the woman seemed intoxicated that night.

Mr. McLeod presented two witnesses, a housemate saying the two appeared “cordial” upon arrival at his house and another saying the woman appeared “lucid” and “coherent” just before she left. "

"In its decision, the panel said it “unanimously agreed it was more likely than not” that the woman didn’t consent to sex. A “reasonable person would have known,” it concluded, that she “was too intoxicated to be able to give consent.”

So an anonymous call trumps 2 "eye" witnesses as to the girl's physical state. Sounds fair 'cause you know they were male.

Remember, college men: have your Title IX coordinator on speed dial. If you've been drinking and have sex with a fellow student, make sure you get the call in first.

Make them live by their own rules. Insist they follow those rules faithfully and to the letter. That is the lesson of the Soviet refusniks who tied their jailers up in so much red tape it was no longer advantageous to keep them locked up.

Hmmm...today's US college campus == Soviet era gulags?

Why the baying lynch mob of feminist-dominated media, college administrators and government functionaries willing to abandon any sense of fairness and due process? The underlying ideology demands it, according to one of feminism's primary architects, Catherine MacKinnon:

“feminism is built on believing women’s accounts of sexual use and abuse by men”

Without automatic belief of women -- and presumed guilt of men -- feminism itself crumbles, and is exposed as a hate movement. And for all the rent-seekers whose jobs depend on the "women good, men bad" narrative, THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!

Bottom line is that over 30% of rape accusations to 8 police departments over a multi year period weren't actually, you know, rape. That doesn't include the 30% or so where they don't know.

Well, all you can say for certain is that over 30% of rape accusations were dismissed by police departments. Maybe you read less Radley Balko than I do, but I don't give the police the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Police forces often face pressure to down-grade or dismiss crimes to keep their statistics healthy.

I think the rape culture stuff is way overblown. Part of the reason it is, though, is because of how hard it is to successfully identify and punish rape. We cannot dilute our system of justice to address this, but as a result rape is always going to be an ugly and contentious issue.

There is a special place in hell for women who put forward false accusations.

"...the Rolling Stone story [is] a 'useful case on how to report, with sensitivity, about victims of sexual assault while also verifying and corroborating the information they provide'."

Erm, no. It was a useful case of a leftist media outlet charging ahead with tittalating copy that was too good to corrobrate, and then engaging in obfuscation and special pleading when they got caught.