The “rape culture” hysteria hyped by feminist fanatics keeps producing new atrocities at elite universities. I was frankly shocked when I learned the truth about Emma Sulkowicz’s vendetta against Paul Nungesser at Columbia. She accused him of rape six months after their last hook-up, without a scintilla of evidence, and when the university refused to expel Nungesser on her mere say-so, Sulkowicz then turned her accusation into a protest for which she received class credit.
This is part of a climate of fear fostered by feminists who have deliberately exaggerated the frequency of rape on campus using statistics derived from surveys of dubious methodology which, if taken at face value, would lead us to believe that male college students are more likely to commit rape than are other men. In other words, feminists are suggesting that the “best and brightest” males at elite schools are more dangerous than any common street thug.
Under pressure from the federal Department of Education, schools are moving to abolish due-process protections for accused students. The University of Pennsylvania’s new policy is under fire:
Law professors at the University of Pennsylvania are not happy about the university’s new sexual assault policies, which they say undermine due process.
Nearly one-third (16 out of 49 tenure or tenure-track professors) signed a letter to school administrators denouncing the new policy, which institutionalizes the low “preponderance of evidence” standard for sexual assault allegations and disallows cross-examination of the accuser.
“Due process of law is not window dressing; it is the distillation of centuries of experience, and we ignore the lessons of history at our own peril,” the faculty members wrote. “All too often, outrage at heinous crimes becomes a justification for shortcuts in our adjudicatory processes. These actions are unwise and contradict our principles.” . .
The new UPenn policy, unlike many universities across the country, does allow students to obtain legal counsel, although the lawyers cannot speak on their client’s behalf. The policy also prohibits cross-examination of accusers and their witnesses, one of the biggest biases against accused students.
The professors argue that threats from the federal government to curb funding if schools don’t adequately punish accused students provides quite an incentive for hearing panels to find students guilty. Recent findings from the Department of Education show an administration more concerned with looking tough on sexual assault than a fair hearing.
“Sexual assault is indeed an important problem, but the federal government has dictated a set of policies and twisted universities’ arms into compromising some of the safeguards that we teach our students are essential to fairness,” UPenn professor Stephanos Bibas, who signed the letter, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “There is a tremendous amount of money on the line. It is understandable that universities feel pressure to comply.”
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Will freshman orientation now include a Miranda warning? It should. The Sulkowicz Scenario — a vindictive ex-girlfriend making a rape accusation without evidence — is a nightmare that is likely to become more common before the current witch-hunt subsides. Accused students should remember they have the right to remain silent. Don’t try to talk your way out of it. Admit nothing. Deny nothing. Make no statement of any kind. Lawyer up immediately: “I have the right to have my attorney present during questioning.” And once you’ve vindicated yourself, sue the hell out of the university for violating your civil rights with their Stalinist “show trial” disciplinary procedures.
This is one of those situations when plaintiff trial lawyers can be a force of great good…
The sooner universities start facing major lawsuits over these policies, the sooner they’ll realize that RAPE IS A CRIME, not a disciplinary problem. That is what this all boils down to: Universities are trying to use administrative processes to deal with accusations in cases so flimsy that no district attorney would ever dare take them to a jury trial. If you can’t prove rape as a matter of law in a criminal court, guess what? You can’t treat the accusation as “proof” in any other context. This principle will eventually be established as a matter of law in federal appeals court. RAPE IS A CRIME, and the sooner we understand what that means, the sooner we can end all this “rape culture” bullshit.
Unfortunately, lawsuits are the only way this nonsense will be curbed.
Hear hear!
Welcome to the matriarchy
Progressive feminists (I know I’m repeating myself) think if they make an accusation it is true after all they feel that it is true so it must be true.
I know such a person she has accused former husbands and ex lovers of all sorts sexual impropriety, not one shred of proof off course.
Am I the only one astonished (if that’s the right word) that this chick got course credit for turning her baseless accusation into a protest?! Pity they would never think of doing that for someone who arranged a pro-life protest.
And thanks, btw, for using the word “scintilla” … I thought I was the last person who used that on a regular basis 🙂
I’ve discovered that lawyers are like guns: you need one because if only the bad guys have them, then we lose.
Funny I’m not surprised one bit. It has gotten so if I hear that someone has a college education I figure they are as dumb as a post and lie like a rug
Well you have three choices:
Declare you’ll sue the hind end of the school if they come after you with some kangaroo court.
Declare you won’t speak with any woman on campus, no matter who they are. That would be evidence in your favor if it came to it. Women aren’t the only ones who can do hysterically over-the-top protests.
I recommend the third: leave the school and tell them why.
When people see that the rule of law is a sham, they begin to consider… other measures.
There’s a line from some document – it’s, like, totally ancient, being more than fifty years old – but I think it includes the phrase “alter or abolish”.
She’s demonstrating for the Correct Reasons according to the Academic Overlords.
So she can do what ever the heck she wants.
What drives the whole prudish, anti-rape movement is the idol of authorship of sexual destiny. Sex used to involve two equal partners. Now one of those is reduced to be the other’s tool. Before he can escalate relations, he MUST acquire consent before proceeding. Even then an accusation of rape from her MONTHS later with ZERO corroborating witnesses and ZERO physical evidence can result in him being expelled without due process by the campus Gestapo. This puts her completely in charge of sexual intercourse and prioritizes her experience and gratification. (Of course, the way this plays out in real life is very scripted and unerotic.)
Yes, this is consistent with the feminist tactic to shame and emasculate men. But it’s important to the likes of Valenti and Filipovic in that it represents much more than reversing the traditional passive/active roles of women and men during coitus. At its core is the radical right to self-definition beyond behavior, beyond society, beyond biology. It raises consent to ultimate, unaccountable self-will. Of course, only infants get what they want when they want it, so the very nature of the created universe is destined to frustrate these monsters.
Progressives have always believed in their right to prosecute others for actions or beliefs that they think should be crimes, whether they are or are not in fact against the law.
She will suffer for that later.
She sure will. Water’s wet and you can’t argue with it.
These types who would tamper with the concept of (sexual) consent frighten me…
It’s not like ‘no’ means ‘no’, and ‘yes’ means anal, is it? And I doubt that university students have in no way ceased porking one another’s brains out at the drop of a hanky, either! So, what are they really up to?
I still operate under the well worn assumption that the end game of today’s progressive libertines is the elevation of “consent” to the sole determinant of sexual propriety, with an eye toward the abolition of the age of consent, amongst other things… Our Reptilian Overlords™ have engineered all this “rape culture” nonsense to that goal alone!
Actually I’m referring to her wrecking her back carrying that mattress everywhere.
So true
This case sounds like the basis for a lawsuit.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/19/male-student-banned-from-campus-because.
Perhaps her back-up life plan is to claim disability benefits if her artist gig doesn’t pan out…
I think it’s safe to assume the poor bloke isn’t a Musselman, Asian or Black…
One wonders if the Obama administration believes all this crap, or is this merely a sop to the fringe feminist faction.
Circumstantially, one may be inclined towards the latter, as Eric “my people” Holder’s DoJ has made a concerted effort to erode due process rights in racially-charged cases as well.
Depending on your definition, a determination to erode rights seems to be a pattern for all their endeavors.
When they’re gone, there’s going to have to be a widespread purge of the lawless elements from every level of government.
We already know the response: “You can’t deprive these selfless civil servants of a job!!! What about their due process rights?!?”
LOL
I think *some* elements see the long-term implications and approve of them. These elements are a tiny minority.
The rest are mindless zealots, like army ants. They pursue one goal, heedless of the way in which it interlocks with other issues.
I’m sure there are many leftists who still think pedophilia is abhorrent, for example, but they will promote the constituent policies necessary to bring it about even if they don’t foresee that end.
I just want to point out that one day this generation they’re teaching to act in this manner will begin making the rules in society.
They are one way. It is the institutions that are promoting this, and they are subject to all kinds of pressure.
Example: the son of a major endowment contributor will NEVER be put through this process (MONEY).
Neither will someone of social stature, even without the dollars to back it up (SOCIAL STIGMA).
P.S. I wonder if it’s possible to avoid the infringement of civil servant’s due process rights in firings by simply eliminating their positions.
As long as one weren’t too obvious by re-creating the position soon afterwards with another candidate, I don’t see why courts wouldn’t accept that.
So we get rid of the progressives and downsize government at the same time!
I doubt if she has a spine.
Correct metaphorically but anatomically unlikely.
“Due process of law is not window dressing; it is the distillation of centuries of experience, and we ignore the lessons of history at our own peril,”
Academia has been ignoring the lessons of history for some time now.
Not sure if eliminating certain positions works if other positions even genuinely different positions are created. Far better to eliminate entire agencies and federal departments.
Naw, society won’t last that long.
[…] Ivy League Lynch Mobs. […]
It doesn’t look that heavy, and she looks petite, so it must be the smallest: a futon twin.
A couple of decades ago, I chose #1 and then some. (I made it clear that if anything went on my permanent record, then the defendants would include the provable liar, her enabling mom, the official hearing the case, the University itself, and the entire board of directors for allowing that isht.) It worked, but that was before the OCR of the DoE made an existential threat to all colleges that don’t railroad accused men. I wouldn’t try it now.
It’s nice to see a little pushback, but their indignation is so cute, like this is a new thing.
It puts me in mind of Jonathon Chiat’s belated realization that PC is harmful and corrosive. Not because it’s wrong, but because he’s finding himself in the crosshairs.
It’s mildly amusing to watch progressives find their own ox being gored, but they’ve already done plenty of damage using those same tactics against others so their decision that the rules they’ve been following are flawed is, as you say, cute.
The only thing that will stop this is if they feel pain. Bureaucracies are very good at insulating their members from any consequence of their actions (one could argue that in a way that’s an underlying justification for a bureaucracy). It doesn’t matter if it’s the federal government, a university, the county clerk’s office, the managers making these policies and the functionaries carrying them out are protected. Even if they are overturned nobody finds Bruno from Security waiting at the desk with a box for their personal effects and instructions to escort the malefactor to the door and confiscate his ID badge.
So if the drones are exempt from the pain of making a mistake, and so are their bosses, then it has to be applied at a higher level. Attack the schools’ endowments, go after the regents and donors and find a couple politicians who can exercise oversight, get stories like this publicized to bring bad publicity. Make somebody hurt somewhere so that it stops.
It doesn’t have the weight but is about the size of a sheet of plywood and is awkward to carry. One should drag a sheet by one corner tucked under ones arm whenever feasible.
Good Lord. Of course, the keywords are “Oregon” and “liberal arts”, but still. And people mock Floridians.
It’s everywhere you go. Anyplace there are liberals/idiots, this sort of thing is bound to happen.
I hope this guy gets a vicious, piranha-like lawyer and takes a bunch of people to the cleaners, starting with the so-called victim, who is letting this travesty happen.
I think you’re right, I think his race is “patriarch”.
Good one.
You meant to say performance art, I think.
I think it’s funny how we can’t help being concerned for the physics of her project, and she would doubtless resent any input of ours.
Oh I’m not concerned I hope her back is a train wreck.
Not me! I hope that she practices safe lifting, in order to maximize our opportunities for Schadenfreude in the rest of her life.
While this might be true, it’s not an automatic. Consider the Jameis Winston case down at FSU as a counter-example.
Tangentially, of course it gave me trust issues. It would be weird if it didn’t. So, that might help explain certain things.
Stacy hasn’t discussed this, but I think the current lawsuit at Occidental College is sadly prototypical of the whole business. (See http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/06/lawsuit-professor-brands-college-student-rapist-because-he-got-good-grades-played-sports-and-was-from-a-good-family/)
The basic facts are: the young man and the young woman involved are both freshmen. At the end of the first week of Fall semester they are both drinking and enjoying themselves. She flirts with him, then they arrange a meeting to have sex by text message.
The following week she has misgivings and goes to see a counselor who refers her to a feminist sociology professor. That professor convinces her that the man is a serial rapist, because he fits a profile of a young man with good grades from a good family who was an athlete.
She file rape charges, he gets expelled by the kangaroo court, and now he has sued Occidental.
I would be interested to hear what Stacy has to say about the whole business.
With due respect, I don’t think this is quite correct. Consent is raised as a standard, but its meaning is deformed for political ends. Consider those feminists Stacy has dug up who vehemently assert that no woman is heterosexual. In this framework, consent to heterosexual sex is impossible, so the consent standard is rendered nugatory.