Posted on | February 12, 2016 | 71 Comments
Terms of the settlement in John Doe v. Washington and Lee University are confidential, as is customary, but given the self-congratulatory tone of the university’s statement — which the plaintiff’s attorneys must have approved — my hunch is this: The university agreed to expunge this charge from John Doe’s record, pay his attorney’s fees, and give him a relatively small sum (say, $10,000) in exchange for avoiding a trial that could have exposed the university to devastating negative publicity. Among the more than 100 lawsuits filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system, the Washington and Lee case was one that most blatantly demonstrated the kind of anti-male prejudice now rampant in higher education:
Doe’s lawsuit asserted that the odds were stacked against him during a hearing before the Student Faculty Hearing Board — a process that he argued was slanted to favor female accusers over male defendants.
For one thing, he claimed, a university administrator who handled the investigation in November 2014 recently had given a talk on campus about “regret equals rape,” or the argument that what first passes for a consensual sexual experience later can be called a rape by a woman who has second thoughts.
Doe’s alleged victim heard those comments, the lawsuit alleged, and was influenced by them in her decision to bring charges seven months after their sexual encounter.
And in alleging a rush to judgment by the disciplinary board, Doe pointed out that the decision to expel him was made one day after the publication of a Rolling Stone story — since discredited — about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The article prompted a national outcry against what it portrayed as UVa’s culture of indifference to rape victims.
“The negative impact of the Rolling Stone article on UVa influenced W&L’s decision to find the plaintiff responsible for sexual assault so as to avoid a similar fate,” the lawsuit alleged. . . .
(To interrupt: This highlights a problem that feminists refuse to recognize. Whenever concerns are raised about false accusations, feminists will instantly cite statistics to the effect that only a tiny percentage of rape accusations are false. However, those statistics refer to criminal prosecutions, rather than the kind of campus disciplinary procedures involved in these cases. Furthermore, feminists have recently taken to shrieking “rape culture” constantly, inciting a climate of hysteria where false accusations become more likely, and in which students accused of sexual assault have none of the due-process rights accorded to common criminals in a court of law. It is almost certain that among the 100-plus lawsuits filed by students who say they were falsely accused are charges that never would have been made, had it not been for the recent feminist fear-mongering crusade.)
Doe has maintained that he and the student had sex that not only was consensual, but was initiated by her after they met at a party and wound up back in his room. His lawsuit states that she never complained about the sexual encounter, or a second one a month later, until after he began dating another woman later in the school year.
Bingo! Here is the answer to the question of motive. This is something else that feminists expect us to ignore in cases like this. Feminists become outraged by any suggestion that a woman would ever lie about sexual assault. Even in the UVA rape hoax, where Jackie Coakley obviously fabricated the whole thing, including the non-existent “Haven Monahan,” feminists like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and Jaclyn Friedman won’t denounce the false accuser as a liar, and even refuse to use Coakley’s full name. Holding the false accuser accountable isn’t part of the feminist agenda, because to tell the whole truth about such matters might give a clue to why women sometimes do lie about rape.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
If you read John Doe’s complaint against Washington and Lee, you can surmise that the accuser was interested in a serious romantic relationship with John Doe, but he seemed to treat their two hookups as merely casual sex. When he later got serious with another girl, we may further surmise, his accuser regretted her previous liaisons with John Doe — she felt used, a “pump-and-dump” — and it was this sense of regret, and a desire for revenge against the boy who had treated her badly, that inspired her to accuse him of sexual assault.
Let me intrude here a thought that has crossed my mind in studying this general phenomenon. Despite the prevalence of shameless promiscuity among college girls nowadays, they are still very concerned about status and reputation. And the girl who feels she had been used and discarded may become self-conscious about the reputational damage she has suffered because — news flash — girls talk. Girls gossip and whisper and form cliques, and the girl who feels she has been snubbed by a friend or excluded from the “in crowd” will often become paranoid at her perceived loss of status. Did she hook up with the wrong guy? Did she go too far, too fast? Did he tell his buddies about their hookup? Has the gossip gotten around to her friends? Are the other girls talking about her behind her back?
This kind of concern — the shadow of shame — is a psychological undertow that is seldom mentioned in regard to the apparently cheerful hedonism of sexual “empowerment” that feminist celebrate. Robert Tracinski made a very astute observation about this:
Dubious claims about “rape culture” are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.
College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.
Furthermore, I believe, modern communications — smartphones, email, texting, dating apps, and especially social media like Facebook — have exacerbated many of the problems surrounding casual sex. On the one hand, good-looking young people can advertise themselves online via OKCupid, Tinder, etc., and easily find potential partners. This is what “selfie culture” is really about. The girl posing provocatively in selfies she posts online is seeking attention, and while she may only be fishing for compliments to boost her ego, I can guarantee the single girl will check the profiles of anyone who responds to her selfies by actively flirting with her. The phenomenon of “long-distance relationships” that begin with online flirtation is one aspect of how the Internet has affected romantic activity, especially among the young.
On the other hand, social media can make it difficult for sexual hedonists to play the runaround game without anyone catching on. Back in the day before cell phones, it was easy to explain way a missed phone call, but now it is assumed that everyone is constantly accessible by phone, and young people consider it rude not to reply to a text message. Meanwhile, people list their relationship statuses on their Facebook profiles and a girl who goes on a date with a guy is likely to post Instagram photos of their evening together. How could a guy possibly hope to get away with cheating on his girlfriend under these conditions?
And am I the only one who sees how all this factors into the phony “campus rape epidemic” scare? In an age when young people’s romantic lives are commonly so visible online, with sites like Facebook effectively creating a continuously updated permanent record, the stakes are very high for the college girl concerned about her reputation. This in turn has consequences for the college guys who are seeking casual short-term companionship — the quick hookup after a party, or a non-monogamous “friends with benefits” arrangement. When you hear stories about guys and girls “stalking” their exes via Facebook or sending them harassing emails or text messages, you realize how a single episode of carelessness can have enormous ramifications in the New Media Age.
OK, now factor in the Law of Large Numbers. If you have many millions of college kids out there engaging in episodes of carelessness on a regular basis, you will inevitably have a certain number of genuine sexual assaults. However, you will also have an even larger number of unhappy college girls with hurt feelings and remorse. Among those broken-hearted and lonely girls — and there must be many thousands of them on campuses all across the country — there will be a certain number who decide to turn disappointment into revenge.
We may not agree on what the overall picture is, in terms of percentages and statistics, and in many cases it is quite nearly impossible to tell whether an accusation of sexual assault is true or false, but John Doe v. Washington and Lee shows how feminists who foment a climate of sexual fear help create the conditions in which men are falsely accused and denied their due-process rights.
Are you ready for the real kick in the head? Washington and Lee, whose history stretches back to its founding before the American Revolution, was for more than 200 years an all-male school, and did not admit its first female undergraduate student until 1985. Scarcely 30 years after that, half the university’s enrollment is female, and any male student who enrolls there knows he will be immediately expelled if his ex-girlfriend decides “regret equals rape.” This is why parents pay for their sons to attend Washington and Lee (annual tuition $46,417), a school where “equality” means that male students have no rights at all.
At a school whose namesakes were honorable men, there is now not a shred of honor or decency left. The modern worship of “equality” has destroyed everything honorable about Washington and Lee, where corrupt administrators supervise dishonest faculty in the miseducation of their perverted students. Parents thinking of sending their children there should check out the Washington and Lee University Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Resource Center. Maybe your child will want to enroll in the Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) program at Washington and Lee University.
Is this hideous parody of “higher education” worth $46,417 a year?