No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[laughing dog]

George Will: victimhood enjoys a "coveted status"

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

So the problem isn't that sexual assault on college campi are a thing, but that college administrators are bowing to progressive pressure from Washington to give the victims coveted status.

Wat?

In my experience, I have found that either George Will has no idea what he is writing about or that no one else has any idea what he is writing about. So, I have not understand how he has lasted as a columnist.

 

[Toni]

The university policies that restrict accused's right to due process and lower the burden of proof to the lowest possible setting have been discussed at length and are not even disputed by your side.

I dispute it. You have offered no evidence to the contrary.

The link entitled Vassar gives Yu's side of the story and then of course, the woman must be lying because Yu was purportedly a virgin and also the daughter of a geology professor (i.e. privileged skank). Never mind that two witnesses suggest that she appeared drunk at the time.

First of all, I am not saying that she "must be lying" (although it is likely given the evidence available to us).

Which evidence is that, exactly? Yu's version of the incident plus two eye witnesses who state that she appeared to be drunk? How shocking that the person who is accused of rape denies that it was rape. Thank heavens that accused rapists are known for their honesty and forthrightness.

If I've missed evidence, other than Yu's testimony, plus witnesses who say she appeared drunk, please point it out to me.

That you assume this means that you have internalized the "presumed guilty until proven innocent" doctrine, i.e. that you think the only way a male student accused of rape or sexual assault should avoid punishment is to prove that "the woman was lying".

That you can make such a statement demonstrates that your assumption is that women always lie about rape and that men are all hapless victims of women.

But the burden of proof should always be on the accuser. If it can't be proven she was assaulted, he should not be punished in any way. The only purpose proving she was lying should serve is when it comes to punishing her. If we can't prove either way nobody should be punished.

You have posted no evidence that the burden of proof does not lie with the accuser. You have posted no evidence that the burden of proof was not met in this case.

However, you continue to confuse university disciplinary policies and procedures with criminal law. They are not the same, nor are the consequences the same.

You have offered only one sided 'evidence.' Yu's version of events might be factually correct; they might be partially correct or complete fabrication. If you can provide more information that speaks to evidence, it would be appreciated.

All this should be noncontroversial in a civilized society. It is very sad that many disagree with it in the name of "protecting" female students no matter whose rights get violated in the process.

It would be sad and wrong indeed if anyone believed that the mere accusation of rape should result in severe consequences for anyone else. It is sad that you still seem to believe that rape only happens to girls and to women.

Second, the girl or the college never challenged the claim that she only brought her accusation a year after the alleged incident. Why didn't she contact the police right away? Why didn't she seek medical help? If she was really raped or assaulted, why wait that long? Specifically, why wait until the very last moment to file the claim? That shows calculation.

Can you demonstrate that your assertions are true? We have only Yu's side of things.

It is not unusual for a rape victim to not contact the police or to not seek out medical help. A victim of rape is traumatized and often overwhelmed with attempting to process events and often is not functioning at his or her highest level.

Third, about the alleged witnesses that saw her "appear drunk". Being (or appearing) drunk doesn't mean she was unable to consent. Also, how drunk was he?

Since it is your link, perhaps you can point out the portion which states that Yu was impaired in any way.

Sauce of the gander should be sauce for the goose. But colleges disagree. Drunkenness, according to them, renders a female incapable to consent but it has no such effect on the male.

Please link to any university policy which states the above.

Furthermore, I am very skeptical of the ability of these alleged witnesses to recall who appeared drunk on a specific night a year earlier. Who are these alleged witnesses? Friends of the accuser? Was their identity disclosed to the accused? Was he able to cross-examine them?

Derec, it's your link. Why ask me?

Fourth, you have ignored exculpatory evidence. Rightly, there should not be any need for it given that inculpatory evidence is so sparse as to be virtually non-existent.

"Evidence" whether inclulpatory or exculpatory is decidedly sparse and is limited to Yu's version of events almost entirely. Why would you think that he would be likely to give 'evidence' which would implicate himself?

But it further illustrates the travesty of justice Vasser committed here. To wit, the accused and the accuser were exchanging friendly messages in the year between the alleged incident and her filing the accusation. Now if she was really raped why would she continue to have voluntary and friendly contact with the accused?

Again, according to Yu. However, to answer your question: I have talked about the fact that over a period of several years, a member of my extended family attempted to rape me and did in fact commit lesser sexual assaults and even attempted to kill me, in front of witnesses, no less. Yet, I still attended events where he was present, for a variety of reasons. I told no one, again, for a variety of reasons. We had normal conversations and interactions, in fact. I would begin to believe that whatever happened was some isolated incident and would never happen again. But it did happen again, periodically for some few years.

Fifth, the point of her father being professor was not that she is a "privileged" (that's progresso-authoritarian language just like "micro-aggressions") but that the guy was judged by professors (i.e. her father's colleagues) after Walker requested that no students be present in the tribunal.

Don't be ridiculous. I am married to an academic and I know very well how thin that 'privilege' is. I used the term for your benefit, not because I felt it fit.

How many female students has Vasser expelled after a mutually drunken hookup? The wording might be gender neutral, but the application is very gender specific. Female accuses a male of sexual assault a year later, there is no evidence the encounter was non-consensual, male student gets expelled regardless.

Again, there is no evidence that the sex was non-consensual. None whatsoever (if there is please present it or forever hold your peace). Yet the male student was expelled.

The only 'evidence' you have presented is Yu's version of events which do not entirely support his claims. If you have other evidence, please link it.
If you have evidence that male students are being expelled on the word of female students, please submit such evidence with links. Or forever hold your peace, since I am certain you wish to be held to the same standards you are attempting to hold me.

Anyway, if I was on the jury I'd vote to give Yu Vasser's entire endowment for punitive damages. What that college did was unconscionable.
Also I think every male student unjustly expelled should file a lawsuit and force the colleges to defend their actions in actual court (as opposed to their own kangaroo variety). Last but not least this seems the only way to make the identity of the accusers public. Without the lawsuit we would not have known that the name of the girl in question is Mary Claire Walker for example.

So glad that you have such a good handle on context of harm done, if indeed, harm was done.

Why not go all the way and put her in stocks and make her wear clothing embroidered with a giant red letter A?

 

[Bronzeage]

If you think this is a serious problem for men, I suggest you never allow yourself to be alone with a woman. I've been having sex with females(girls at first and later women) since I was 14 and have never been falsely accused of rape, and certainly never raped anyone.

That sort of dismissive attitude would not be tolerated in regard to actual rapes. "I've never been raped myself so it really can't be a problem"

The fact is, false rape allegations happen and they are a serious thing that is unfortunately not taken seriously enough by law enforcement, courts and colleges. On the other hand, colleges especially have reduced burden of proof to ridiculously low levels and made it much more difficult for male students to defend themselves substantially increasing the likelihood that an innocent male student is wrongfully expelled or otherwise punished. That is the fruit of the culture of "rape culture" hysteria prevalent on the feminist Left.

In this case, the hysteria is from men, not feminists. People are accused of crimes they did not commit. It's not a significant number compared to the number for real crimes, but it happens. The false rape hysteria is different because it is based on fear of the perceived power of a woman's sexuality.

It's not that the burden of proof has been reduced to "ridiculously low levels", the definition of the crime has been broadened to include behavior once classified as "shit happens."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you think this is a serious problem for men, I suggest you never allow yourself to be alone with a woman. I've been having sex with females(girls at first and later women) since I was 14 and have never been falsely accused of rape, and certainly never raped anyone.

That sort of dismissive attitude would not be tolerated in regard to actual rapes. "I've never been raped myself so it really can't be a problem"

The fact is, false rape allegations happen and they are a serious thing that is unfortunately not taken seriously enough by law enforcement, courts and colleges. On the other hand, colleges especially have reduced burden of proof to ridiculously low levels and made it much more difficult for male students to defend themselves substantially increasing the likelihood that an innocent male student is wrongfully expelled or otherwise punished. That is the fruit of the culture of "rape culture" hysteria prevalent on the feminist Left.

I had no idea that:

1) Women lie about rape
2) That you feel this way
3) That this problem is so endemic that you need to bring this shit up so often

 

[doubtingt]

It's not that the burden of proof has been reduced to "ridiculously low levels", the definition of the crime has been broadened to include behavior once classified as "shit happens."

No, the definition has been broadened to include most college "hook-ups" and a huge % of consensual sex acts between students in a committed relationship (nothing more than one or more of the people "intoxicated" to some completely subjective arbitrary degree) AND the burden for the accused to be formally charged has been reduced to zero (a mere accusation results in automatic rape charges and what amounts to a "trial" by a University panel), AND the burden to be found guilty has been greatly reduced to require nothing more than the school officials having a purely emotion based subjective feeling that its more likely than not that the accuser is giving an accurate account (that is what "preponderance of the evidence" amounts to).
This isn't just individual schools doing this. The Dept of Ed has issued a statement to schools telling them this lowest possible standard of "proof" (which in no way counts as "proof" by any reasonable definition of the term).
Oh, and those Dept of Ed guideline recommend that the moment any student is accused that their educational progress and ability to graduate be hampered by "prohibiting the accused student from attending class for a period of time". This could easily result in a semester delay of graduation, increased expenses and loans, loss of employment opportunities, etc..

 

[doubtingt]

Getting back to the OP and analysis of what George Will actually said, here is something legit to criticize in his article:

The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.

George Will's argument takes the underlined phrase and wrongly assumes that "while in college" also means "on campus". His cited 98 assaults from 2009 to 2012 are only those where the assault took place on campus, property owned or controlled by the school, or public property that is contained within or directly adjacent to campus boundaries. Even a rape by the school president of a student wouldn't be counted among the 98, if it didn't occur on campus. It still might be the case that the 12% reporting rate and the 1 in 5 rate do not line up, even with the total reported rapes on campus plus all off campus rapes of college students. But, Will's 1 in 34 figure is likely to be at least 2-4 times below the true figure.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In my experience, I have found that either George Will has no idea what he is writing about or that no one else has any idea what he is writing about. So, I have not understand how he has lasted as a columnist.

I knew I didn't have to listen to George Will anymore when he said this: ""How do we explain the heat? One word: summer."

 

[RavenSky]

Well, as usual, we can count on progressive California to come up with the right answer to solve the sexual assault problems on college campuses:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-pushes-into-college-sex-lives-to-help-rape-5535057.php#photo-6414096

California lawmakers want to take the burden of preventing rape off victims by requiring that college students looking to hook up prove they had agreed to have sex.

The "affirmed consent" standard - already in place at many universities - could be required at all publicly funded California colleges and universities under a proposed state law being considered by the Legislature.

The move comes as women's groups - joined by President Obama - have expressed outrage at the lax way college officials across the country have responded to reports of rape on their campuses.

But some say that requiring each partner to explicitly agree to have sex goes too far into people's bedrooms and unfairly limits due process rights of the accused.

And you all thought it was just the right wing nutters that wanted to control what's going on in the bedroom...

How is this trying to control what goes on in the bedroom? Are you suggesting that society should ignore all rape? Or are you suggesting that lack of consent doesn't equal rape?

From the article:

Affirmed consent is defined as an "unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in a mutually agreed upon sexual activity" with the consent ongoing throughout.

The proposed bill, SB967, says that "lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence," and it's the responsibility of the person initiating sex to ensure the other person consents.

What is your objection to an "unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in a mutually agreed upon sexual activity"?

 

[RavenSky]

A. The Bogeyman of the False Allegation

The fear of a false accusation of rape is well documented. What is also well documented is the fact that false accusations of rape are no more prevalent than false accusations of other types of major crime. Indeed, when such false accusations do occur, they tend to be made by young women, and are dealt with rapidly and efficiently by the police. Prosecutors act as an effective screening mechanism here as well—given the difficulty of convicting a rapist, they tend only to prosecute the clearest cut cases, where the chances of conviction are greatest...

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/affirmative-consent-as-legal-standard/

This is a very good article overall. Too bad those who most need to read it, won't.

Ultimately, the matter of whether a woman consented or not will come down to a matter of belief by the jury. Simply moving to an affirmative consent standard does not prevent the accused from claiming that he asked permission and the woman gave it to him.

The article included a very interesting analysis of making "rape" into several "degrees" with different penalties - something many of us have discussed in other threads. I particularly liked this point in the article:

Dripp identifies another concern; that six months [for certain types of rape convictions] just does not do enough. He brushes this aside with the idea that consecutive sentences for repeat offenses, enhancements and sex offender registration will combine to impose punishment. Here, I think he’s basically right, but mostly for another reason. Lisak’s research shows that most rapes are by recidivist predators. Even if the sentence is short, an adjudication in the first case for a misdemeanor that could serve as prior bad acts evidence in a future trial would make it much, much easier for a survivor to get justice before a jury. Tagging them once, however lightly, would vastly increase the chance of taking the predators out of the population at some point before they reach their normal average of six victims, and would mark them as men to be avoided by targets that might otherwise get to know and trust them.

 

[RavenSky]

BTW, this guy:

"The only thing this does is decrease the number of men on campus," said Professor Gordon Finley of Florida International University, a critic of affirmative consent policies. "How do you prove affirmative consent? It's inherently impossible to prove. It's so far removed from everyone's sex lives."

from this article: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...-lives-to-help-rape-5535057.php#photo-6414096 is one of those MRM guys.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/affirmative-consent-as-legal-standard/

This is a very good article overall. Too bad those who most need to read it, won't.

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, this guy:

"The only thing this does is decrease the number of men on campus," said Professor Gordon Finley of Florida International University, a critic of affirmative consent policies. "How do you prove affirmative consent? It's inherently impossible to prove. It's so far removed from everyone's sex lives."

from this article: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...-lives-to-help-rape-5535057.php#photo-6414096 is one of those MRM guys.

Well, unless you tape it how do you prove affirmative consent??


All of these standards are basically he must prove innocence rather than the state must prove guilt. That's not how our legal system works. That's the point, though--they want higher conviction rates so they do everything they can to short-circuit the protections built into our legal system.

 

[RavenSky]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

 

[doubtingt]

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/affirmative-consent-as-legal-standard/

This is a very good article overall. Too bad those who most need to read it, won't.

What's too bad is that too many people have read that and been mislead by its invalid psuedoscience rife with unsupported claims. Its only pretense at evidence that false accusations do not occur come from the study by Koss that was long ago exposed for its invalid methods and use of highly ambiguous questions that, contrary to Koss' claims, were NOT consistent with the legal definition of rape and were guaranteed to highly inflate "rape" rates. 73% of the women Koss claimed were raped disagreed with Koss' conclusion that they were "raped" and viewed their own situation as a "miscommunication" or one where they "did not feel victimized", and where the person Koss defined as a "rapist" is someone the women later had consensual sex with. Koss' question wording meant that a women who didn't think they were in any way victimized but "engaged in sex" (strongly implying active and willing participation) because a guy bought them drinks would be categorized as a rape victim by Koss. Her invalid under-reporting stats are base in this same data. Sure, women who by their own standards and that of most people outside of feminist political activists were not raped, do not report consensual sex as rape But since Koss defines such consensual sex as rape, these count as cases of under-reported rape. This peer reviewed article does a decent job of dissecting the rampant methodological and statistical errors of Koss' work (along with related advocacy "research"), in addition to her dishonest fraudulent misrepresentation of her data. The article is by a highly published and respected leader in the social welfare field who is the director of several Child and Family Welfare and Poverty research institutes at UC Berkeley.

The article included a very interesting analysis of making "rape" into several "degrees" with different penalties - something many of us have discussed in other threads. I particularly liked this point in the article:

Dripp identifies another concern; that six months [for certain types of rape convictions] just does not do enough. He brushes this aside with the idea that consecutive sentences for repeat offenses, enhancements and sex offender registration will combine to impose punishment. Here, I think he’s basically right, but mostly for another reason. Lisak’s research shows that most rapes are by recidivist predators. Even if the sentence is short, an adjudication in the first case for a misdemeanor that could serve as prior bad acts evidence in a future trial would make it much, much easier for a survivor to get justice before a jury. Tagging them once, however lightly, would vastly increase the chance of taking the predators out of the population at some point before they reach their normal average of six victims, and would mark them as men to be avoided by targets that might otherwise get to know and trust them.

IOW, you endorse the horrifyingly fascist suggestion of robbing people of their basic civil right to a trial by jury, via disingenuously reducing the severity of the crime to a level that you don't actually agree it is, but that serves the political purpose of allowing a trial by only a judge, which increases the chance of conviction, since you don't actually need to present enough valid evidence to convince 12 people that he's guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

Here's a summary of a lot of studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29

Note that the median is over 10%. That's *FAR* above the false rate for other serious crimes.

 

[RavenSky]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

Here's a summary of a lot of studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29

Note that the median is over 10%. That's *FAR* above the false rate for other serious crimes.

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

From your Wiki source:

it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace. He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported.

 

[RavenSky]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

Here's a summary of a lot of studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29

Note that the median is over 10%. That's *FAR* above the false rate for other serious crimes.

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

From your Wiki source:

it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace. He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported.

Your source again:

Rumney draws two conclusions from his review of literature. First, the police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounding" criteria. Studies... found that police decisions to no-crime were frequently dubious and based entirely on the officer's personal judgement... He adds that "qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as 'proof' of a false allegation."

Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies.

I do not think your source says what you think it says, my dear.

The researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%.

Regarding FBI statistics:

However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation... As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.

"Kanin’s 1994 article on false allegations is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations."... Kanin, Lisak writes, took his data from a police department whose investigation procedures are condemned by the U.S. Justice Department and the International Association of Chiefs of Police

Your source

 

[Metaphor]

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

I suspect he doesn't, which is why he reported the median value, and not the highest value or even the average.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

Here's a summary of a lot of studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29

Note that the median is over 10%. That's *FAR* above the false rate for other serious crimes.

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

From your Wiki source:

it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace. He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported.

Of course the outliers are probably wrong. The outliers in both directions. That's why I looked at the median.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

I suspect he doesn't, which is why he reported the median value, and not the highest value or even the average.

Agreed. That 90% number is either garbage or something unusual was going on. In either case it shouldn't be used. Furthermore, the data doesn't distribute in anything like an ordinary curve, taking a mean would not give an honest picture.

On the flip side--while there isn't enough data there to evaluate, in other situations I have seen the lowest numbers from locations that aren't primary investigators. In other words, cases that weren't found false in the first pass. Again, this isn't a realistic number and should be thrown out.

 

[RavenSky]

He's arguing the false rape rate is no higher than the false rate for other serious crimes. I find this very hard to believe and thus I find him not credible.

Then produce some facts to refute him. Just pouting and saying "nu uh" doesn't impress me.

Here's a summary of a lot of studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29

Note that the median is over 10%. That's *FAR* above the false rate for other serious crimes.

One of the "studies" from which you extrapolate a 10% rate claims that 90% old reported rapes are false. Do you believe that one?

From your Wiki source:

it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace. He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported.

Of course the outliers are probably wrong. The outliers in both directions. That's why I looked at the median.

Looking at the median means nothing when the raw data is shit, which is what the rest of the very same article you cited basically said.

You've given us nothing to contradict the one premise in the article I posted that you disagreed with, and therefore ignored the entire rest of the article.

The denial is strong with you on this topic, isn't it.