Campus "rape", a clear indication that Loren is still talking about it wrong
Why?
1. You have no idea what actually happened in the room. Consent or even being the initiator to kissing and lewd gestures at the bar does not guarantee that she gave consent to any type of sexual act in her room.
What does it matter that it "does not guarantee"? Should male students be punished if it can't be guaranteed that the sex was consensual? The burden of proof should be on the girl to prove she did not consent, not on the guy to prove she did.
I am not suggesting that the young man should be convicted of rape given what we know (and don't know), but YOU do not get to claim that no rape happened later at her dorm because of the young woman's behavior in the bar.
None of us is omniscient. But the probability is highly skewed toward this being a consensual hookup that the girl decided she regretted at some point thereafter. But a woman should not be able to withdraw consent retroactively.
Let's be crystal clear on this point, because it is important. A hypothetical woman can be the "initiator" every single step of the way, but the minute she withdraws consent and he continues anyway - he is raping her.
But she should have to prove it. Unfortunately universities often just take her word for it and expel the male student regardless of evidence. In the North Dakota case that led to the perverse outcome of the girl being criminally charged with filing a false report but the university still expelling the male student.
2. University policy is not the same thing as city/state/federal criminal laws.
No shit Sherlock! But even so, university policy should be sensible and not capricious and biased against male students.
As Laughing Dog has already pointed out, you have no idea what, exactly, the University is investigating at this point;
Sure, we cannot guarantee that they are not investigating her. But the overwhelming likelihood is that they are investigating him.
But as we have seen in other situations, some Universities have conduct policies (these are not laws) against against having sex with someone who is obviously inebriated. IF a student is expelled for violating any university policy, this is not an example of them "doing it wrong" because university conduct policy is not the same thing as city/state/federal criminal law.
Again, university policies should not be capricious or biased based on gender. if two people are drunk, and always the male student is expelled because he had sex with somebody drunk, and the female is always treated as an innocent victim even though she did exactly the same as the male student, then the system is obviously broken.
- - - Updated - - -
I will, however, dispute article's assumption that the woman's behavior in the bar has any bearing on whether she was raped in her dorm room. One has nothing to do with the other, and her sobriety or lack of does not play into that point.
It most certainly does have a bearing. The claim was that she was too drunk to consent. The footage showed her not being too drunk to consent. The footage also showed her to be the sexual aggressor, but despite this feminists like you take her side just because she is female.
And I will dispute Loren's position that a Judge's ruling of no rape automatically means the young man is also innocent of violating University policy. One has nothing to do with the other, and it is up to the University to determine if their own code of conduct was violated.
The policy in question is the one dealing with sexual assault and rape. If whether he violated this policy has
nothing to do whether he actually sexually assaulted or raped anybody, then the policy is most certainly faulty and should be revised. Often universities will treat any alcohol consumption as evidence of "too drunk to consent" but only against the guy, never against the girl.
