Drunk male, sober female, and yet he is still a "rapist" according to Amherst College

[Loren Pechtel]

I remember a list of legal challenges in which plaintiffs claimed to have been treated unfairly, or to have been denied a chance to cross examine a witness, or because they wanted to have a lawyer present when they went before the disciplinary board and the college wouldn't allow it. But I don't recall a list of cases in which gender bias was proven to have affected the outcome. Please re-post the list so we can all have another look and see what's on it.

It wasn't specifically about gender, it was about kangaroo courts.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does anyone know how many rape/sexual assault complaints are dismissed by the university?

They tend to involve mentally unstable females dragging a mattress everywhere for years and then shooting porn on it.

You have had some really impressive performances in here, Derec, but this is easily in the top five of the most insensitive things you have ever posted on this board.

Congratulations.

 

[Arctish]

 

I am saying that your criteria for finding these tribunals "Okay" are so broad and useless, you'd have to find nazi courts "Okay" as well, because they also follow procedures, issue rulings and impose penalties.

If we're talking about a written agreement between the Nazis and individual citizens wanting to attend their institutions that stipulated violations of the agreement would be subject to review by a disciplinary board, and possible consequences for violations included being expelled, then yeah, I suppose so. But if this is just more ad Hominem Godwinning bullshit that has nothing to do with written agreements, or Codes of Conduct, or what happens when someone breaks the rules they agreed in writing to abide by, then no, this is not like that at all.

Besides, what "evidence" do you allege these kangaroo courts are evaluating? Certainly not any possible exculpatory evidence because they systematically block accused male students from introducing it.

You haven't even shown that there are kangaroo courts, much less anything about how they operate. Your claim that these disciplinary boards systematically block accused male students from introducing exculpatory evidence is completely unsupported.

The article in your OP reports that the student referred to as John Doe says he found new evidence after the disciplinary process had run its course. Is this what you are talking about? An appeal based on newly uncovered evidence? Or are you still claiming there was no evidence at all at the original hearing, or that the student had exculpatory evidence (other than what would require him to use a time machine to acquire) and that he was prevented from presenting it?

The college should have allowed the appeal to proceed when the new evidence was uncovered. I agree that refusing to hear the appeal was unfair to the student who was expelled.

Well that's at least something.

But that does not mean there was no evidence in the first place, or that the people on the disciplinary board decided to expel the guy out of political correctness rather than due to the conclusions reached in good faith based evidence gathered over the course of an investigation conducted in accordance with the school's established process.

Just because there is a "school's established process" doesn't mean that it is any good. In this case the case against the male student was so wear his false accuser was actually charged with a crime. There was no justifiable reason to expel him in the first place.

This is where you're supposed to show your work. You're supposed to show the evidence presented in the original hearing and point out the weaknesses in it. Or show that there was no evidence, if you're still trying to claim that.

But the fact that new evidence was uncovered after the process concluded does not mean the process failed, or that it was unfair. It means there's more that should be considered. The process should allow for an appeal based on newly uncovered evidence to be heard.

But if you have evidence there was nothing presented to the disciplinary board, no testimony from the participants or other witnesses, no pictures or other forensic evidence, but the board members decided to expel the guy anyway, by all means show it to us. Show us the record of the hearing in which no evidence was presented.

Do you have any evidence that any evidence for his guilt existed at all, other than the female's say-so? The fact that she was the one charged with a crime speaks against there ever having been any evidence to expel him. Unless you can show any of course, which you can't. Otherwise you would not be trying so hard to argue that there may have been evidence.

You appear to be making the same mistake Loren made by doing what you claim the college "kangaroo courts" are doing: reaching a conclusion without having reviewed the evidence, based on gender and politics.

The police found evidence the female student lied, therefore without even bothering to review the evidence you conclude she lied, and you are using that as a base for making a nonsense argument about a kangaroo court that convicted someone without any evidence at all.

Suppose that upon an actual review of the evidence against her, it is determined by the disciplinary board or a court of law that the female student lied. That doesn't mean there was no evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing. It means her testimony was untruthful and should be thrown out entirely. If the finding against the male student was based on her testimony, it should be overturned. And she should face the same disciplinary board for her violation of the part of the Code of Conduct that required her to be truthful. But even if she lied, that doesn't support your claims about a kangaroo court that acted despite there being no evidence upon which to act.

Also, you are once again conflating a criminal prosecution with a college disciplinary proceeding. Those are two separate things, conducted under separate authorities. The school did not prosecute the guy for rape. It investigated allegations the guy broke his written agreement to adhere to the Code of Conduct.

And that's one of the problems. Colleges are ill suited to run these kinds of investigations and when there is political pressure to increase punishment rates it becomes much, much worse. Especially when violations of code of conduct are enforced very selectively along gender lines - i.e. two drubk people have sex, male gets punished, female gets victim cred.

It would help your argument tremendously if you could actually show that violations of code of conduct are enforced selectively along gender lines. Instead, all you have are arguments that assume your conclusions or leave out relevant information i.e. writing things like "two drunk people have sex, male gets punished, female gets victim cred" while leaving out the part about the use of force.

Do you have any sources on code of conduct violations by both female and male students that show both commit them but only males get punished? Or do you only have a smattering of questionable cases in which different alleged code violations resulted in different punishments?

I don't know why this point is so difficult for people to understand and remember: colleges and universities enforce their own rules, not criminal law. Some of their rules have nothing to do with criminal law, like the rules about cheating on biology quizzes and not having blocks of cheese stuck in between the window panes and the screens. Some of their rules parallel criminal laws, like the ones about theft and assault. But their enforcement of the rules in not enforcement of the laws, and their disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials.

And that justifies expelling without any real evidence because of political expediency? That justifies enforcing rules against male students only?

Prove it.

Proof is in the utter lack of evidence that results in expulsions. Proof is in the gender bias when enforcing rules.

It's not gender bias if it applies equally to men, women, intersexed, and gays. Which it does.

But it doesn't. Not in practice at least. Drunk man has consensual sex with drunk female. Guess who invariably gets expelled, even when the male is much drunker than the female.

And it's not case after case if you only have one.

By one you mean Occidental? You are ignoring UND UGA, Vassar, Amherst etc.

So now you're going to throw in French radicals, Bolshevism, and Obama on top of the Godwin + ad Hominem in the beginning of your post? Since when was name calling an acceptable substitute for evidence in support of a claim?

Obama is directly responsible for the change in policy that largely got us into this mess.
And not French radicals, but a Russian moderate socialist who expressed his policy of working with radicals to his left (Bolsheviks) rather than fellow moderates to his right (which worked out real well, didn't it?) and chose to express the policy as a French phrase. Just like Mattress Girl chose a French phrase for the title of her art porn project.

Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion.

Ditto. All I hear is apologetics for bad policies and even worse enforcement of them.

Then you're not reading what I write. I'm in favor of good enforcement of good policies.

I haven't read the Code of Conduct at Amherst or UND. But I'm familiar with Codes of Conduct at the University of Alaska and at a couple of other colleges where I took classes. I signed them when I enrolled. I affirmed in writing that I understood the rules and that I would abide by them, and that I understood and accepted the consequences if I was found to have violated them.

It's the same for every other student we have discussed. They agreed in writing to abide by the rules of their college or university, the same rules that were spelled out in the written agreements they signed. I don't agree that disciplinary hearings to investigate and deal with rules violations are a bad thing.

If you are arguing that certain rules at certain schools are bad (as you have in the past) we need to read the Code of Conduct in question.

If you are arguing that enforcement of the rules is bad (as I think you intended in this thread) then we need to examine the actual enforcement process, not just declare a process must be unfair because we don't like the outcome.

So what is the process at Amherst? Do you have a source that outlines how it works, like a copy of the handbook that spells it out for students? Do you have information on what the school allows or doesn't allow during a hearing?

 

[zorq]

Regarding the OP.

A person can, if they choose, force their fist into another person's face without that second person's consent..
This is known as assault.

A person can, if they choose, force their fingers into the private orifice of another person without that second person's consent.
This is known as sexual assault.

All four people in the above scenarios may or may not be intoxicated, the labels still apply. The problem we are running into in this thread is that past a certain point of intoxication it is both impossible to assault others and to resist the assault of others. The two scenarios above both feature one aspect we know to be true. The first person in each scenario has not crossed that drunkenness threshold. We know this because it requires an act of will to force fists or fingers upon another person. As for the second person in each scenario. We don't know if they have crossed that threshold or not because assault and sexual assault do not require the victim to be conscious.

Let's quickly examine the actors.
Drunk and sober people can assault. Passed out drunk people cannot. Drunk and sober people can sexually assault others. Passed out drunk people can not.
This is as true for sexual assaults as it is for assaults.

But what about recievers?
Drunk, and sober people can consent to a punch in the face. Passed out drunk people cannot. Drunk and sober people can consent to sexual activity, but passed out drunk people cannot.

Every time a person forces fingers or fists onto another person who is passed out drunk they have committed an offence against that second person.

So the big problem is how do we tell the difference between the drunk people and the passed out drunk people if we want their consent to punch them in the face or have sex with them? We usually can't because that passed out drunk phase is not definitive. There is a point where people appear conscious but really don't have control of themselves or their bodies. They are effectively "passed out drunk" even if they are reacting to the world around them. So it's best to avoid punching and having sex with others until you are certain they are sober enough to consent (Or you are willing to go to jail for your offences against them).

Was either subject in the OP case "passed out drunk?" The both seem to agree that they weren't.
Did one of the people withdraw consent? One says yes. The other says "I don't know."
Was there a rape in this scenario? It is certainly possible but we don't know. It depends on whether you believe the person who says they withdrew their consent.

The drunk rape angle in this case is a red herring because as I said, both people seem to agree that they both weren't "passed out drunk."

PS Go ahead and substitute the word "penis" with the word "finger" where ever you want in this post.

 

[Arctish]

Amherst College Student Handbook - Student Rights and Policies

Appendix C details the procedures for addressing sexual misconduct complaints against students. Some of them are things we have already discussed in this thread such as:

3. Effect of Criminal Proceedings: The filing and processing of a complaint of sexual misconduct is independent of any criminal investigation or proceeding. The college will not wait for the conclusion of any criminal investigation or proceedings to commence its own investigation and proceedings outlined herein. Neither law enforcement’s determination whether or not to prosecute a Respondent, nor the outcome of any criminal prosecution, are determinative of whether sexual misconduct under the college policy occurred.

5. Amnesty: An individual who files a sexual misconduct complaint or serves as a third party witness during the Student Conduct Process will not be subject to disciplinary action by the college for his or her own personal consumption of alcohol or drugs at or near the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, provided that such violations did not and do not place the health or safety of any other person at risk. The college may initiate educational discussion or pursue other educational remedies regarding alcohol or other drugs.

6. Advisor: Complainant and Respondent both have the right to be assisted by an Advisor during the Student Conduct Process. The Advisor may be a College Advisor who has been trained in the College's Sexual Misconduct Policy and the Student Conduct Process, or anyone else. The Complainant will be offered a College Advisor at the time the complaint is filed and the Respondent will be offered a College Advisor at the time he or she is notified of the complaint. The Complainant and Respondent may select from the list maintained by the Dean of Students of trained College Advisors, select anyone else to serve as an Advisor or decline the assistance of a College Advisor. An Advisor serves to guide the student through the pre-hearing and hearing process and may accompany the student to any meeting with a college employee and to the hearing. The Advisor is not an advocate for the student and may not direct questions to or otherwise address the Sexual Misconduct Hearing Board (Hearing Board) but may consult with the student that he or she is assisting.

There's more about how the investigation is to be conducted, and there's a section about the hearing process, witness lists, standard of proof, the appeals process, etc. It's pretty comprehensive. I don't see anything in there that supports gender bias. In fact, there is a very firm rule against it.

So, if no one has any specific complaints about how the process is supposed to work, we can move on to how it did work in the case presented in the OP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You appear to be making the same mistake Loren made by doing what you claim the college "kangaroo courts" are doing: reaching a conclusion without having reviewed the evidence, based on gender and politics.

The police found evidence the female student lied, therefore without even bothering to review the evidence you conclude she lied, and you are using that as a base for making a nonsense argument about a kangaroo court that convicted someone without any evidence at all.

No, you are blindly holding to the accuracy of the kangaroo courts.

The police found she lied--that's something the kangaroo court should care about. They didn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Amherst College Student Handbook - Student Rights and Policies

Appendix C details the procedures for addressing sexual misconduct complaints against students. Some of them are things we have already discussed in this thread such as:

5. Amnesty: An individual who files a sexual misconduct complaint or serves as a third party witness during the Student Conduct Process will not be subject to disciplinary action by the college for his or her own personal consumption of alcohol or drugs at or near the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, provided that such violations did not and do not place the health or safety of any other person at risk. The college may initiate educational discussion or pursue other educational remedies regarding alcohol or other drugs.

There's more about how the investigation is to be conducted, and there's a section about the hearing process, witness lists, standard of proof, the appeals process, etc. It's pretty comprehensive. I don't see anything in there that supports gender bias. In fact, there is a very firm rule against it.

So, if no one has any specific complaints about how the process is supposed to work, we can move on to how it did work in the case presented in the OP.

So if you've "raped" someone (had mutually drunk sex) you get an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card by filing a rape complaint against them.

 

[Arctish]

You appear to be making the same mistake Loren made by doing what you claim the college "kangaroo courts" are doing: reaching a conclusion without having reviewed the evidence, based on gender and politics.

The police found evidence the female student lied, therefore without even bothering to review the evidence you conclude she lied, and you are using that as a base for making a nonsense argument about a kangaroo court that convicted someone without any evidence at all.

No, you are blindly holding to the accuracy of the kangaroo courts.

The police found she lied--that's something the kangaroo court should care about. They didn't.

The police found evidence she lied. And you didn't bother to review that evidence before declaring it to be The Truth. That's something you claim the disciplinary board did, and why you call it a kangaroo court. Should we call you a kangaroo jurist?

Also, the evidence of lying was not discovered until the disciplinary process had run its course. If the school does not have an adequate or fair process for reviewing new evidence, aka a good appeals process, then that's a problem that should be corrected. That doesn't mean the original ruling was made without evidence, or with bias.

ETA: just to be clear, the evidence of lying which was discovered after the conclusion of the disciplinary process is part of the UND case. The Provost at UND ruled the student was unfairly denied an appeal, the appeal was heard, and the expulsion of the student was overturned.

The Amherst case does not include evidence of lying. That appeal is based on text messages purporting to show the sex was consensual. But the female student said it was consensual at the start and only became non-consensual when she wanted to stop. The dispute is over whether the male student forced her to continue, not whether he forced her to start.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, you haven't heard his side of the story then. Don't you think it's a little out of line to assert that he's a rapist without that? He may have some undefined and surprising reason as to why the sex was consensual. Your approach of considering him guilty until proven innocent is wholly unjustified.

Is there some sort of blockage of reading comprehension here? Let's take this one step at time in order to deal with lack of reading comprehension in this thread. First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape? Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape? Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

This is a complex issue with multiple people doing multiple wrong actions, and that is enabling you to look at the other wrong actions instead of the wrong action that is the focus of this thread. You are expert at looking at the wrong thing.

So. Let us simplify. Let us look ONLY at the activity that happened BEFORE she took a break. Only that part. If you mention even the slightest part of what happened after she took a break you are off topic. We're only discussing what happened BEFORE she took a break.

BEFORE she took a break, she was engaging in sexual activity with someone who was intoxicated. She was not intoxicated, and BEFORE she took the break she was not forced in any way. He was intoxicated.

By every feminist standard described in this forum, were the roles reversed he would be guilty of rape. So, judging by what happened BEFORE she took her break, is she guilty of rape? She was sober, he was drunk, she came on to him BEFORE she took her break.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be making the same mistake Loren made by doing what you claim the college "kangaroo courts" are doing: reaching a conclusion without having reviewed the evidence, based on gender and politics.

The police found evidence the female student lied, therefore without even bothering to review the evidence you conclude she lied, and you are using that as a base for making a nonsense argument about a kangaroo court that convicted someone without any evidence at all.

No, you are blindly holding to the accuracy of the kangaroo courts.

The police found she lied--that's something the kangaroo court should care about. They didn't.

The police don't make findings. They collect evidence. Courts make findings.

 

[maxparrish]

Yet Another Sexual Assault Accusation at Amherst Turns Sour - After Accused Expelled

We’ve discussed extensively the problems and scandals surrounding the campus sexual assault investigation process. Procedures that favor the accuser, and offer no protection to the accused, have led to lost academic careers, ruined reputations, and high-profile lawsuits brought by the accused against the institutions that allegedly threw them under the bus.

One such lawsuit has risen out of sexual assault allegations brought against “John Doe” by another female student at Amherst College. John Doe was expelled after Amherst’s kangaroo court decided with 50.01% certainty that he may have raped “AS.”


After the expulsion, John Doe’s attorney dug deeper into the case, and discovered a series of text messages that eviscerated AS’s testimony:

In fact, as Doe’s attorneys later would discover, AS had texted two people after the hookup—a friend, and a possible paramour. Even before hooking up with Doe, AS had texted the other male student, telling him, “I mean I happen to have my room to myself this weekend, if you wanted to come over and entertain me.” After she finished with Doe, AS resumed flirtatious texting with the male student, who came to her room and spent the night with her. He found her “friendly, flirtatious, and spirited,” and not “anxious, stressed, depressed, or otherwise in distress.”…
Just after Doe left her room, AS also had (as she told the disciplinary panel) texted a friend. But (contrary to what she told the disciplinary panel) she didn’t invite the friend over to her room. Instead, she informed the friend, “Ohmygod I jus did something so fuckig stupid.” Coarse language from her in subsequent texts implied an awareness that she had initiated sexual contact with the student she later accused of rape. AS was upset in these messages—but not from being raped.
Rather, she worried (not unreasonably) about the fallout of a sexual liaison with the boyfriend of her roommate, who “would literally never speak to me again” if she found out. AS continued texting her friend after the male student arrived; she described her attitude toward her guest: “Like, hot girl in a slutty dress. Make. Your. Move. YEAH.” At 5am, she sent another text to the friend indicating that some sort of sexual liaison had occurred with her male visitor.
​

In spite of this new information, Amherst College is refusing to reopen John Doe’s expulsion.
Yes, really.

In fact, his student record now shows he was expelled for "disciplinary reasons"...something he can forward to the next college he applies to.

But hey, these new rules of inquiry have been promoted and approved under the "civil rights sensitive" Obama administration...they must be more than just, right?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/0...ther-victim-of-campus-assault-investigations/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Didn't we already have a thread about this where everybody hated women or thought all men were rapists?

 

[Arctish]

Something like that.

It's here.

 

[RavenSky]

~~ carry on

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh thank god. This is an issue that just doesn't get enough threads on it here. Over 5,100 males were expelled in 2015 from colleges because of Obama's new "Fuck males who had legit sex" policy.

 

[zorq]

Is there some sort of blockage of reading comprehension here? Let's take this one step at time in order to deal with lack of reading comprehension in this thread. First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape? Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape? Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

This is a complex issue with multiple people doing multiple wrong actions, and that is enabling you to look at the other wrong actions instead of the wrong action that is the focus of this thread. You are expert at looking at the wrong thing.

So. Let us simplify. Let us look ONLY at the activity that happened BEFORE she took a break. Only that part. If you mention even the slightest part of what happened after she took a break you are off topic. We're only discussing what happened BEFORE she took a break.

BEFORE she took a break, she was engaging in sexual activity with someone who was intoxicated. She was not intoxicated, and BEFORE she took the break she was not forced in any way. He was intoxicated.

By every feminist standard described in this forum, were the roles reversed he would be guilty of rape. So, judging by what happened BEFORE she took her break, is she guilty of rape? She was sober, he was drunk, she came on to him BEFORE she took her break.

Firstly you are wrong about the facts. They both admit they were both drinking that night. They were BOTH drunk. He was likely the more intoxicated of the two.

Now to answer your question, she did not force him to have sex with her using superior strength. She did not coerce him to have sex with her using threats, or blackmail. So no she did not rape him on any of these grounds.

Was he so completely intoxicated that he could not move himself to prevent his erect penis from being forcefully inserted into her?* I don't think so.
Was he so completely intoxicated that he could not indicate his preference to abstain from intercourse? I don't think so.

*As a side note it is extremely common for human male penises to remain flaccid during periods of extreme intoxication. Even in the presence of attractive members of the man's sexual preference and despite his deep desires for it to arise.

On these grounds and from what we know he could have but did not act to prevent sex or indicate that sex was not appreciated.

She didn't rape him.

Then things happened after the break.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Didn't we already have a thread about this where everybody hated women or thought all men were rapists?

We have rampant denials from many on here, perhaps showing more cases will sink in.

 

[Derec]

Meghyn Kelly (of Fox News) had his lawyer on.
Atty of Former Student Falsely Accused of Rape: His Life Is in 'Complete Ruins'
It goes into her changing the story and her communications that indicated that she was the "moving force" throughout this sexual encounter.

 

[ksen]

So she moved his hand onto the back of her head and forced it to push her mouth up and down on his dick?

 

[Derec]

So she moved his hand onto the back of her head and forced it to push her mouth up and down on his dick?

Huh? It is clear from everything we know about this case is
- she admitted in text messages that the sex was consensual
- he was very drunk, drunk enough that if he was female it would be enough to deem him "unable to consent". But of course, there is a double standard.
- the falsely accused male student did not receive due process in the kangaroo court that had no interest in justice, merely in expelling male students whether he is guilty or not.