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

[Loren Pechtel]

I am curious. When police determine that there is probable cause that the accuser lied and charge her with a crime, is it still ok for the college to expel the accused? That's what happened at University of North Dakota.

Okay in the sense that the college followed its procedures, arrived at a conclusion, and imposed a penalty? Yes. The article says the university ruled on the matter in February 2010, and the police didn't discover evidence of lying until May. So unless you think universities can't do a thong about rules violations until time machines have been perfected, there's nothing wrong with them going forward with their disciplinary processes based on the best evidence presented before them.

Okay in the sense that the college did not allow an appeal filed more than 5 days after the initial ruling to be heard, and that a second filing of an appeal failed because of a preliminary ruling that the new information would be an "unproven allegation"? No, that's an unreasonably small window of opportunity, and disciplinary boards hear and rule on unproven allegations all the time. They should have given him a decent chance to present his appeal.

According to the linked article, persistence paid off for the student. The college Provost found the university's decision not to re-open the case "inconsistent with the fundamentals of fairness", and nineteen months later the ruling against him was vacated. That doesn't make everything all better. The guy's plans for college were completely derailed, and it looks very much like a lying female was to blame. But if you're trying to make the case that feminist inspired gender bias was to blame for his treatment by the college, you're going to have to show what happened when a female student was accused of a similar offense, and whether her appeal was heard when his wasn't.

BYW, I noticed that the initial ruling was made about a year before the Dear Colleague letter was circulated. So this had nothing to do with that.

Yet you seem to still defend the kangaroo courts even after seeing the result.

 

[Arctish]

Okay in the sense that the college followed its procedures, arrived at a conclusion, and imposed a penalty? Yes. The article says the university ruled on the matter in February 2010, and the police didn't discover evidence of lying until May. So unless you think universities can't do a thong about rules violations until time machines have been perfected, there's nothing wrong with them going forward with their disciplinary processes based on the best evidence presented before them.

Okay in the sense that the college did not allow an appeal filed more than 5 days after the initial ruling to be heard, and that a second filing of an appeal failed because of a preliminary ruling that the new information would be an "unproven allegation"? No, that's an unreasonably small window of opportunity, and disciplinary boards hear and rule on unproven allegations all the time. They should have given him a decent chance to present his appeal.

According to the linked article, persistence paid off for the student. The college Provost found the university's decision not to re-open the case "inconsistent with the fundamentals of fairness", and nineteen months later the ruling against him was vacated. That doesn't make everything all better. The guy's plans for college were completely derailed, and it looks very much like a lying female was to blame. But if you're trying to make the case that feminist inspired gender bias was to blame for his treatment by the college, you're going to have to show what happened when a female student was accused of a similar offense, and whether her appeal was heard when his wasn't.

BYW, I noticed that the initial ruling was made about a year before the Dear Colleague letter was circulated. So this had nothing to do with that.

Yet you seem to still defend the kangaroo courts even after seeing the result.

What kangaroo court? The disciplinary board I'm talking about in the post you quoted, where I said they were wrong? The board at Occidental that I said appears to have treated the students unequally and therefore unfairly?

Or do you mean the Urban Myth kangaroo court where feminazis prosecute men before the presiding Bogeywoman, and every guy is unfairly punished while the girls are given ice cream and lollipops?

 

[Arctish]

You are confusing me with a guy who would willingly read through feminist treatises. But subjecting oneself to hundreds of pages of their drivel is not necessary - their articles are sufficient. Just look at feminist support for these new rape laws that make it easy to expel innocent male students. Or feminists like Jessica Valenti supporting reversal of burden of proof for rape cases. Or feminists being against making divorce laws more equitable between genders.

Articles written by feminists are sufficient for the most part, but only if you actually read them and make an honest effort at understanding the opinion being expressed.

You don't have to agree with them. You might reject their arguments entirely. You might think their proposals are dangerous, foolish, stupid, or worse. But as a member once put it on another board "First understand, then criticize. Not the other way around." You have to actually read the articles, in full, not just the quote mines somebody else found for you. You have to make the effort to understand the point he author is making, not just assume you already know just by reading the title. If you're not a guy who would read feminist writings, then you're not a guy who knows what he's talking about when he posts about them.

**ETA: you can start here if you'd like. It's the Jessica Valenti article you keep referring to, about the murky legal area surrounding consensual sex that becomes non-consensual mid act.

You have cases in which males were punished, but you don't have evidence the outcome was the result of misandry.

If a male and a female student are both drunk and engage in consensual sex and the male student gets expelled what would you call it? If colleges were in the habit of only punishing the female students under these circumstances you would not have any difficulties calling it misogyny.

Suppose a college has a first-past-the-post system for identifying victims and alleged perpetrators, where the student who first reports a mutual drunken sexual encounter gets the benefit of the doubt? That's a system that could be exploited to a person's advantage, but it's gender neutral. Men like Charlie reporting they were mounted without consent would get the same consideration as women.

First of all, that system is extremely unjust as well. If an investigation determines that two people engaged in same behavior the college should not selectively punish only one of them.
Second, there is no evidence that this is what colleges are doing rather than sexism. In case after case it is the male getting expelled and you and other feminists are just fine with that.

If men are more likely than women to commit sexual assaults (which they are), and women are more likely than men to come forward when they are the victim of a sexual assault (which they are), then men are more likely than women to face a disciplinary board as an alleged assailant, and women are more likely than men to go before one as an alleged victim. Simply pointing out that women are usually considered victims and men assailants doesn't prove anything about misandry being a factor. You have to show that gender bias is influencing the outcomes.

If men and women are actually determined to have done the same thing (like at Occidental) then only punishing the male is unjust. And since it only happens to men, gender bias is evident, especially in light of sexist feminist screeds about the alleged "rape culture".
Furthermore, if the female has sex with a drunk man (like at Amherst) it is still the male who gets expelled. And yet you still deny feminist anti-male bias.

You keep ignoring an important difference between the male and female Amherst students. Only one of them was alleged to have used force.

You obviously don't believe the female. Given your frequently expressed opinions about the reliability of women's testimony, I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who has been reading your posts for more than a week. But the disciplinary board accepted her testimony as true and accurate, and acted accordingly. Maybe they got it right, maybe they didn't. But there is a perfectly understandable reason why the board would not have treated them the same, it is contained in the article you posted, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Where is the evidence these rules are only being enforced against males? That is the central part of your claim. It needs more support than a scattershot of cases in which the only unifying factors are the guy got expelled and you blame feminists.

Do you have any case of a female getting expelled for sex with a drunk male student? In case after case it is the male student who gets expelled even when he did nothing wrong.

"Did nothing wrong"?

You haven't posted a single case where there was no allegation of a violation of college or university rules. You haven't shown a single instance where expulsion was not a possible consequence for the behavior a student was alleged to have committed. You have posted one case where the ruling was overturned on appeal (UND). In all the others, the disciplinary board found sufficient cause to expel the student who was expelled.

The question is, are males being expelled at higher rates than females who are found to have committed the same offenses? That's the crux of your argument, and that's where your evidence is lacking.

Both the Amherst and the Occidental College cases involve sex between drunk students. One involved an allegation of forcible sex, while the other definitely involved sex with a minor (yes, I know, she was almost 18 but we're talking about Codes of Conduct and state laws; it matters that she was under the age of legal consent). But if all things had been equal and the genders reversed, would the outcome have been different?

For the use of force, I don't think so. That sort of behavior will get anyone booted pretty damn quick. For the sex with a minor, I think probably yes. I've already said I think the Occidental College incident looks like gender bias. But I don't have evidence it is, and I don't think you do, either.

Show

"yeah, that's gender bias, which I oppose BTW because I'm a feminist".

LMFAO!

How much did her status as a minor affect the charges and the outcome?

It didn't bother the police when they concluded it was consensual, so why should it bother the university? They were both freshmen, they were both around 18, they were both drunk, they both engaged in consensual sex. The male student gets expelled, the female student gets protected as a "victim" because a radical feminist professor convinced her she was "raped" when she clearly wasn't.

Did she get victim status because she claimed it, and he didn't because he never reported being victimized?

Why should that matter one iota if the facts show they both did the same thing? Also would the feminist professor have told him that he was "raped"? No way in hell, because that doesn't fit the feminist party line.

Has something like this happened before? If so, what was the outcome? You have to consider those factors before you can say there's evidence of men being unfairly disadvantaged at Occidental. And then you have to show evidence of the same unfairness at other colleges before you can say there's a pattern of gender bias in these systems. And then you have to show how it derives from feminism before you can say the feminists are to blame.

In case after case there are male students being expelled under very dubious circumstances. In the case of University of North Dakota, police determined the female was lying and issued a warrant for her arrest. That didn't matter to the university who expelled him anyway.

Okay, so I listed some of the facts of the case and you responded with quibbles and blaming everything on feminism. What is the point here? Are we going to argue whether the legal age for drinking should be lower

I think it should be but that's beside the point. The point is that the two did the same thing, yet only the male got punished.

or if schools should be required to report adults who have sex with minors on campus?

They are basically the same age.

That topic should have it's own thread. But if we're going to discuss unequal treatment of students then let's focus on that.

Yes, let's. They did the same thing, yet only the one with a penis got punished. Because feminism.

I agree that the treatment of both students was unequal despite their rule breaking behavior being pretty much the same. I would like to know why.

No it doesn't.

Why not?

1) All you have shown are the results of apparently flawed systems. You haven't presented the means necessary to separate out the results of a flawed gender-neutral system from a flawed gender-biased system or a well functioning gender-biased system. Why was she treated as a victim? Is it because she is the one who reported being victimized, or because she was a minor and he was an adult? Did she get leniency in exchange for cooperating with the board as it investigated the alleged sexual misconduct? You haven't shown which, if any, of these possibilities affected her status in the eyes of the disciplinary board.

It's her having a vagina. That makes her automatic victim just like having a penis makes one an automatic "rapist" as far as feminism goes.

2) Saying something is the result of feminism without showing decent evidence that feminism affected the outcome is like saying "God did it". That's an explanation that only satisfies the believers.

No. Denying clear feminist gender bias is like apologists denying the Bible contradictions and inventing increasingly complex scenarios to justify inerrancy.

All you've done in the part I put behind HIDE tags (for the sake of keeping this post manageable) is repeat your unsupported claims about widespread misandry. You have not established that gender bias is prevalent in college disciplinary boards. Merely pointing to the number of men being expelled does not prove anything. Correlation is not causation.

A single case that might be gender bias is a start. Now you have to find another. Not just a case where a woman was believed and a man wasn't. You need a case like the Occidental College one where both male and female students committed the same offenses but received different punishments. If you can find a pattern of unequal treatment at the same institution, that will make your claim much stronger. If you can find the same pattern repeating among several, that will fully establish your claim. But right now, all you have are guys getting expelled for various violations of college Codes, like using force to compel a continuation of oral sex. That doesn't demonstrate gender bias.

Also, I don't see how posting a picture of a moonbat saying "Feminism" helps your argument. I mean really, have you looked at that guy? He looks like his last two functioning brain cells are sharing bong hits.

It's just ridiculous to put strict conditions on consent like that. All that matters is that a) consent was freely given and b) that the person was capable of giving it. Anything else is a dangerous slippery slope.

I bolded the part of your post that is exactly right. All that matters is that the consent was freely given (no coercion, duress, or other asshattery to extract a yes from someone who is saying no), and that the person was capable of giving it (no falling down I-can't-find-my-dorm drunk or drugged, dazed and confused sex partners).

The reason for his reluctance, in this case his fears for what might happen if he said no to the woman who slashed her legs before breaking into his home to demand sex, are no obstacle to the sex being considered consensual?

Home invasion certainly is. That's a bit more than reluctant consent though.

Suppose we use the term "unencumbered" to denote an agreement to have sex free from coercion, trickery, and manipulation. Ben did not actually want to have sex with his ex- but he feared a worse outcome if he didn't. His consent was affirmative but not unencumbered. Does that mean he really did consent, or that he really didn't?

Trickery or manipulation? That, like your requirement for "sober" and "enthusiastic" consent would make a large percentage of people into rapists. Is a person who lies about their age, marital status, occupation or level of feelings for the other a rapist?

Successfully tricking Person A into thinking you are Person B in order to have sex with them is rape. He or she didn't consent to having sex with you, they consented to sex with Person B. You can go to prison for that sort of thing.

Lying about being HIV negative, or about being unmarried, or about being a French underwear model might get you into someone's bed, but it can also get you into a hell of a lot of trouble. You might escape a criminal charge, or you might not. You probable won't escape having to defend yourself in a civil lawsuit if the person you duped is upset enough to pursue one.

Show

She used that as an example of pressure tactics and coercion to force a non-consenting person into performing or allowing sex acts they don't want. If a couple must both contribute to pay the rent or cooperate to get themselves to work each day, a threat by one to end the relationship is a threat to make the other homeless or jobless or both. That's some serious leverage.

Nobody should be forced to continue in a relationship they no longer want to be in. Nobody should be forced to house a person they do not want to house. And sex is an important component of most relationships and a valid deal-breaker. If a woman threatens to break up if her boyfriend doesn't do more housework and he agrees is he a victim of forced labor? If not, why different rules for sex?

"Do what I want or else....." where the "or else" is a very unpleasant outcome is coercion.

Nonsense. It depends on what the very unpleasant outcome is, especially if the "unpleasant outcome" is not a result of an action (like violence) but failure to do something (like no longer being her boyfriend).

In the sense of it being gleeful and energetic? No.

Definition of enthusiastic:
en·thu·si·as·tic
inˌTHo͞ozēˈastik,enˌTHo͞ozēˈastik/
adjective
adjective: enthusiastic
having or showing intense and eager enjoyment, interest, or approval.
"the promoter was enthusiastic about the concert venue"
synonyms: eager, keen, avid, ardent, fervent, passionate, ebullient, zealous, vehement; excited, wholehearted, committed, devoted, fanatical, earnest; informalhog-wild, can-do, gung-ho, rah-rah, psyched
"an enthusiastic supporter of Latin American baseball"

In the sense of it being given without coercion, trickery, or other unethical behavior tainting the genuineness of the consent? Yes.

I do not see any of this in the definition above. And again, I think this is way too broad.

I don't think it's an ideal situation to have having college administrators trying to decide where consent ends and non-consent begins, but I do think it's necessary. Administrators have to at least try to identify the sex offenders and get them off campus, and evaluating the quality of the consent they claim to have been given is part of the process.

Identifying sex offenders is the job of the police and the criminal justice system. What they want is a way to expel male students with little to no evidence because of feminist pressure.

Preponderance of evidence is the standard in civil actions, which the Obama Administration correctly pointed out.

POE is the standard for torts. Non-tort civil actions, particularly administrative ones, often use "clear and convincing proof". Colleges used to use that standard for sexual assault cases and still continue to do so for other administrative matters. The change to poe by Obama administration was purely political to appease the radical feminists and increase expulsion rate. Unfortunately poe has a very high false positive rate as could be seen in the slew of wrongly decided cases since the policy went into effect in 2011.

It's the same one used when an employer fires an employee for cause, or when the Boy Scouts kick out a scoutmaster for homosexuality.

Maybe (do you have a citation?) but it is not the standard used for colleges to expel students for non-sexual matters.

It might not be the best standard.

That's an understatement. The only reason it was adopted is politics and pressure by feminists to expel more male students.

But if the standard is too low it should be raised for in all such cases, not just the ones affecting men attending college. That requires changing the laws that govern those parts of the civil code.

The only thing you'd need to change is rescind the Obama/Biden edict of 2011.

IMO what needs to happen is for the legal community to 1) determine which standard is the appropriate one under the law, and 2) determine if there's a need to change it.

So the first question is this: the Dear Colleague letter states that the law requires colleges to use the preponderance of evidence standard. Is that correct? I'm not asking if this is the standard you prefer. I'm asking if this is what the law requires.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Just curious: Exactly how did the police get involved?

It was either a lawyer or a detective who was a friend of the family, I don't know which. She asked him if it would be possible to get a restraining order or something; when she told him the details, he suggested she file charges. The D.A. took it from there.

It's worth remembering that the easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the victims that they brought it on themselves. There are echoes of that in her text messages, IMO; it would be interesting to see how the rest of that conversation went face-to-face.

The next easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the police that the victim brought it on him/herself and wanted it. If that doesn't work, there's always the jury.

Which is why I always get suspicious when pieces of evidence are brought to the media before being brought to trial. It sounds like someone is trying to win in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a trial altogether.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet you seem to still defend the kangaroo courts even after seeing the result.

What kangaroo court? The disciplinary board I'm talking about in the post you quoted, where I said they were wrong? The board at Occidental that I said appears to have treated the students unequally and therefore unfairly?

Or do you mean the Urban Myth kangaroo court where feminazis prosecute men before the presiding Bogeywoman, and every guy is unfairly punished while the girls are given ice cream and lollipops?

You're admitting they were wrong yet you continue to defend the system that uses such a broken approach.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What kangaroo court? The disciplinary board I'm talking about in the post you quoted, where I said they were wrong? The board at Occidental that I said appears to have treated the students unequally and therefore unfairly?

Or do you mean the Urban Myth kangaroo court where feminazis prosecute men before the presiding Bogeywoman, and every guy is unfairly punished while the girls are given ice cream and lollipops?

You're admitting they were wrong yet you continue to defend the system that uses such a broken approach.

That doesn't really answer the question, though, does it?

The disciplinary process of the Universities has its own set of consequences, its own burden of proof, and its own flaws. The justice system is -- theoretically -- alot more disciplined and a lot more focussed, but is also not without its flaws.

Fortunately, the University disciplinary boards do not have the power to sentence students to prison, and a criminal prosecution does not have the power to expel a student from the university.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was either a lawyer or a detective who was a friend of the family, I don't know which. She asked him if it would be possible to get a restraining order or something; when she told him the details, he suggested she file charges. The D.A. took it from there.

It's worth remembering that the easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the victims that they brought it on themselves. There are echoes of that in her text messages, IMO; it would be interesting to see how the rest of that conversation went face-to-face.

The next easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the police that the victim brought it on him/herself and wanted it. If that doesn't work, there's always the jury.

Which is why I always get suspicious when pieces of evidence are brought to the media before being brought to trial. It sounds like someone is trying to win in the court of public opinion and thereby avoid a trial altogether.

This unfortunately happens. Even worse how when a case goes to trial the prosecutor is given high profile to its case and summons the media to hear its side of things. In the UK such things are pretty much low key.

 

[Arctish]

What kangaroo court? The disciplinary board I'm talking about in the post you quoted, where I said they were wrong? The board at Occidental that I said appears to have treated the students unequally and therefore unfairly?

Or do you mean the Urban Myth kangaroo court where feminazis prosecute men before the presiding Bogeywoman, and every guy is unfairly punished while the girls are given ice cream and lollipops?

You're admitting they were wrong yet you continue to defend the system that uses such a broken approach.

One instance of a university initially denying an appeal on unfair grounds before a Provost ruled the appeal must be allowed, and another instance where gender bias might have been a factor in the different results for different students does not mean the entire system is broken.

How many thousands of disciplinary actions were carried out over the same time frame as the UND and Occidental College actions? How many of those were poorly handled? How much poor handling was the result of gender bias? Can you point to any studies that support the central claim being made in this thread?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're admitting they were wrong yet you continue to defend the system that uses such a broken approach.

One instance of a university initially denying an appeal on unfair grounds before a Provost ruled the appeal must be allowed, and another instance where gender bias might have been a factor in the different results for different students does not mean the entire system is broken.

How many thousands of disciplinary actions were carried out over the same time frame as the UND and Occidental College actions? How many of those were poorly handled? How much poor handling was the result of gender bias? Can you point to any studies that support the central claim being made in this thread?

While the details vary this is certainly not the only person who has brought suit for improper actions of university kangaroo courts.

 

[Derec]

Since most cops are men let me suggest there is a bit of Baltimore reaction needed to bring this institution and its partner, the prosecutorial institution, into line with reality.

You want feminists to riot, loot and arson? Weren't burning bras of the 70s stupid enough?

How else can one explain law telling enforcement to evaluate rape kits and rape kits routinely not being evaluated.

You will find no disagreement in the need to test rape kits. However, they are not useful in cases where the sex itself is not in question nor are they useful when the female doesn't report the alleged rape immediately because there is no possible evidence left to collect. Rape kits are also not part of college kangaroo courts (they look too much like actual evidence which seems to be anathema in these tribunals!), so they are pretty useless in this discussion.

 

[Derec]

With Derec's mind already made up he goes on to spout opinion based on uninformed bias for over 1000 words.

My mind is already made up that we have to respect due process. My mind is made up that sufficient evidence should be required to expel somebody. I am sorry you disagree.

 

[Derec]

And again, you have not established that this is, in fact, her text message;

You have not established that this is disputed by anybody involved, including the accuser.

nor established context nor time frame nor anything else necessary to make these alleged text messages meaningful.

The reported timeframe is shortly after she fucked him. Context is her talking to a friend about having fucked him.

Right now you are simply doing exactly what I asked Loren about: you are assuming that she is lying and he is telling the truth.

I am not assuming that. I concluded that based on available evidence.

And before you bother replying that I am doing the same in reverse, you'd better have a direct quote with link to back you up.

You are dismissing evidence without any good reason just because it doesn't fit your ideological position about the scourge of the so-called "rape culture".

 

[Derec]

Okay in the sense that the college followed its procedures, arrived at a conclusion, and imposed a penalty? Yes.

By that standard you'd be ok with the Volksgerichtshof.
After all, the "People's Court of Law" "followed its procedures, arrived at a conclusion and imposed a penalty" in many a case.

The article says the university ruled on the matter in February 2010, and the police didn't discover evidence of lying until May.

The problem is that they made their ruling of "guilty" based on evidence so flimsy that the police actually found probable cause to charge her. I.e. they didn't have any evidence but followed the politically correct position to punish the male student even though they didn't have evidence to conclude he raped her. That would have been bad enough by itself, by of course, that's not all.

So unless you think universities can't do a thong about rules violations until time machines have been perfected, there's nothing wrong with them going forward with their disciplinary processes based on the best evidence presented before them.

I expect them to not expel a student unless there is good evidence of his guilt. They expelled him just because it was politically expedient.

Okay in the sense that the college did not allow an appeal filed more than 5 days after the initial ruling to be heard, and that a second filing of an appeal failed because of a preliminary ruling that the new information would be an "unproven allegation"? No, that's an unreasonably small window of opportunity, and disciplinary boards hear and rule on unproven allegations all the time. They should have given him a decent chance to present his appeal.

Instead of reversing their position once the false accuser was charged they persisted in their original ruling. That was inexcusable.

According to the linked article, persistence paid off for the student. The college Provost found the university's decision not to re-open the case "inconsistent with the fundamentals of fairness", and nineteen months later the ruling against him was vacated. That doesn't make everything all better. The guy's plans for college were completely derailed, and it looks very much like a lying female was to blame.

It took a lot of pressure to reverse an ideological decision that should never have been made.

But if you're trying to make the case that feminist inspired gender bias was to blame for his treatment by the college, you're going to have to show what happened when a female student was accused of a similar offense, and whether her appeal was heard when his wasn't.

BS. In case after case we find colleges expelling innocent male students while feminists cry that it's not enough because some (like Mattress Girl's victim) are still found "not responsible" and seek to impose increasingly totalitarian rules (Dear Colleague, Affirmative Consent etc.) and you are still denying gender bias?

BYW, I noticed that the initial ruling was made about a year before the Dear Colleague letter was circulated. So this had nothing to do with that.

So UND was at the avant garde (Left wing radicals love French, like "pas d'ennemis à gauche" that was used as apologia for Bolshevism) of a very bad idea. That doesn't excuse neither UND, the Obama administration nor does it make their idea to up the expulsion rate at any cost any less disastrous.

 

[Derec]

Articles written by feminists are sufficient for the most part, but only if you actually read them and make an honest effort at understanding the opinion being expressed.

I understand their opinions all too well. They are quite clear in their disdain for the due process for those accused of rape and think demanding evidence is tantamount to reraping the "victim". They also try to explain away any incosistenices (or outright lies) with the effects of "trauma" thus claiming that there is no way to falsify a rape allegation.

You don't have to agree with them. You might reject their arguments entirely. You might think their proposals are dangerous, foolish, stupid, or worse.

I'll take all of the above, Alex!

But as a member once put it on another board "First understand, then criticize. Not the other way around." You have to actually read the articles, in full, not just the quote mines somebody else found for you. You have to make the effort to understand the point he author is making, not just assume you already know just by reading the title. If you're not a guy who would read feminist writings, then you're not a guy who knows what he's talking about when he posts about them.

Treatises are longer works. Life is too short to read drivel in such a long form. Articles, like those I posted about radical feminists (one of them a male 5th columnist!) defending the false (and utterly discredited) accuser in the UVA case, Jackie Coakley. I read those articles in full and they are disgusting.

It's the Jessica Valenti article you keep referring to, about the murky legal area surrounding consensual sex that becomes non-consensual mid act.

No it's not the article I keep referring to. She writes many articles, you know. This one is less vile than most, because she at least acknowledges the possibility that the accused is innocent, probably because of his left-wing bona fides. But in other articles she for example defends the notion that burden of proof should be reversed for rape or that rape accusers should be believed automatically.

You keep ignoring an important difference between the male and female Amherst students.

How could I forget the first tenet of matriarchy!

Only one of them was alleged to have used force.

There was no evidence he used force. Instead, we have evidence she described the encounter as her fucking him.

You obviously don't believe the female.

I both believe and disbelieve her, just like you and others on here. But I believe her initial words to her friend, that she fucked the male student while he was drunk enough to be puking.

Given your frequently expressed opinions about the reliability of women's testimony, I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who has been reading your posts for more than a week.

It is not the reliability of a woman's testimony that I question per se, but the sufficiency of any testimony by the accuser in the absence of other evidence (or even in light of existence of exculpatory evidence). Other evidence should be needed. The feminist position is that in questions of rape, a woman's testimony should be enough to get a male punished. I strongly object to that.

But the disciplinary board accepted her testimony as true and accurate, and acted accordingly.

Given the rules that set burden of proof irresponsibly low, rules that severely limit ability of the accused to defend himself, the political pressure colleges are under to increase the rate of expulsions and the likely ideological makeup of the "disciplinary board" that outcome is hardly surprising. But it has no relationship whatsoever with the veracity of her allegations.

Maybe they got it right, maybe they didn't.

Should a man's life be ruined just because he is "maybe" guilty? What happened to "in dubio pro reo"?

But there is a perfectly understandable reason why the board would not have treated them the same, it is contained in the article you posted, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Yes, she has a vagina and women "don't lie about rape".

"Did nothing wrong"?

Yes, he did nothing wrong. She had sex with him while he was drunk.

You haven't posted a single case where there was no allegation of a violation of college or university rules.

She is the one who had sex with a drunk student. But because she is female and he male, he gets treated like a rapist and she as a victim even though she admitted she fucked him.

You haven't shown a single instance where expulsion was not a possible consequence for the behavior a student was alleged to have committed.

Possible consequence. Alleged to have committed. A lot of hedging to defend an indefensible system.
And even if he did violate some arcane rule that majority of other students also violate (like have sex with a person not totally sober) she did the same, and he was much drunker than she. Yet he gets expelled and not her. Because she has a vagina and that gets her automatic victim points.

You have posted one case where the ruling was overturned on appeal (UND). In all the others, the disciplinary board found sufficient cause to expel the student who was expelled.

There are many other very dubious cases - Occidental, Vassar, UGA to name a few. That they found sufficient cause has no relationship whether there actually was sufficient cause because these tribunals are driven by ideology, not facts.

The question is, are males being expelled at higher rates than females who are found to have committed the same offenses? That's the crux of your argument, and that's where your evidence is lacking.

Yes they are. I know of no case of a female student expelled for having sex with a male student who has been drinking even in cases like Amherst and Occidental.

Both the Amherst and the Occidental College cases involve sex between drunk students. One involved an allegation of forcible sex, while the other definitely involved sex with a minor (yes, I know, she was almost 18 but we're talking about Codes of Conduct and state laws; it matters that she was under the age of legal consent). But if all things had been equal and the genders reversed, would the outcome have been different?

The allegation of force in Amherst is not backed by any evidence and is contradicted by the accuser's own words (that she fucked the accused).

For the use of force, I don't think so. That sort of behavior will get anyone booted pretty damn quick. For the sex with a minor, I think probably yes. I've already said I think the Occidental College incident looks like gender bias. But I don't have evidence it is, and I don't think you do, either.

Mere allegation of use of force should not get anyone booted. Anybody can falsely accuse anybody of use of force. The burden of proof should not be on the accused, but in Amherst case we even have exculpatory evidence in the form of the accuser admitting that she fucked the accused.

All you've done in the part I put behind HIDE tags (for the sake of keeping this post manageable) is repeat your unsupported claims about widespread misandry. You have not established that gender bias is prevalent in college disciplinary boards. Merely pointing to the number of men being expelled does not prove anything. Correlation is not causation.

This is an internet discussion forum, not a dissertation. I have shown cases of dubious expulsions (including cases where only the man is punished when both are engaged in same behavior like drunken sex) and feminists clamoring of more on even less evidence every time a man is not expelled following an accusation.

A single case that might be gender bias is a start. Now you have to find another.

Amherst, UGA, Vassar, UND. Even the initial response to the case-that-shall-not-be-named (as feminists are allergic to the very name!) was dripping in anti-male sexism.

Not just a case where a woman was believed and a man wasn't. You need a case like the Occidental College one where both male and female students committed the same offenses but received different punishments.

Amherst fits because there is no evidence he ever used force and in fact there is evidence she was the driving force behind the sex (presumably because he was so drunk).
UGA, Vassar and UND also fit.

If you can find a pattern of unequal treatment at the same institution, that will make your claim much stronger. If you can find the same pattern repeating among several, that will fully establish your claim. But right now, all you have are guys getting expelled for various violations of college Codes, like using force to compel a continuation of oral sex. That doesn't demonstrate gender bias.

It does if her word is taken as gospel without any evidence (and in fact despite contrary evidence) and when it is ignored that he was much drunker than her. Why not punish her for violating college rules?

Also, I don't see how posting a picture of a moonbat saying "Feminism" helps your argument. I mean really, have you looked at that guy? He looks like his last two functioning brain cells are sharing bong hits.

Well unlike his aliens radical feminists actually exist and are an actual threat. But I just thought it was funny.

I bolded the part of your post that is exactly right. All that matters is that the consent was freely given (no coercion, duress, or other asshattery to extract a yes from someone who is saying no), and that the person was capable of giving it (no falling down I-can't-find-my-dorm drunk or drugged, dazed and confused sex partners).

Yes, whether they are enthusiastic is irrelevant. Whether they are sober is irrelevant.

Successfully tricking Person A into thinking you are Person B in order to have sex with them is rape. He or she didn't consent to having sex with you, they consented to sex with Person B. You can go to prison for that sort of thing.

That's crazy.

Lying about being HIV negative, or about being unmarried, or about being a French underwear model might get you into someone's bed, but it can also get you into a hell of a lot of trouble. You might escape a criminal charge, or you might not. You probable won't escape having to defend yourself in a civil lawsuit if the person you duped is upset enough to pursue one.

I get the HIV part but the rest is just insanity. Do you really think this guy is a rapist?

Or how about Barney Stinson?

Being dumber than a bag of hammers does not make you a rape victim. Also, taken this principle to its conclusion would make majority of people in singles bars (or online dating) rapists, because both men and women tend to fudge, exaggerate or outright lie. Same goes for colleges and stupid "sober" and "affirmative" consent rules.

IMO what needs to happen is for the legal community to 1) determine which standard is the appropriate one under the law, and 2) determine if there's a need to change it.

And that shouldn't be done by an administration letter.

So the first question is this: the Dear Colleague letter states that the law requires colleges to use the preponderance of evidence standard. Is that correct? I'm not asking if this is the standard you prefer. I'm asking if this is what the law requires.

I know most colleges used the stricter and more appropriate "clear and convincing" standard until then. Also, it's not like courts rules on this - it was politically motivated action by the Obama/Biden administration.

 

[Arctish]

By that standard you'd be ok with the Volksgerichtshof.
After all, the "People's Court of Law" "followed its procedures, arrived at a conclusion and imposed a penalty" in many a case.

So a college following it's disciplinary procedures, evaluating evidence that students might have violated their written agreement to abide by the school's Code of Conduct, and reaching conclusions based on testimony and/or other evidence submitted before it, is just like Nazis setting up courts outside the law and imposing penalties on people for doing things no one agreed they wouldn't do. Because feminists. Or something.

The article says the university ruled on the matter in February 2010, and the police didn't discover evidence of lying until May.

The problem is that they made their ruling of "guilty" based on evidence so flimsy that the police actually found probable cause to charge her. I.e. they didn't have any evidence but followed the politically correct position to punish the male student even though they didn't have evidence to conclude he raped her. That would have been bad enough by itself, by of course, that's not all.

Bullshit.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

So unless you think universities can't do a thong about rules violations until time machines have been perfected, there's nothing wrong with them going forward with their disciplinary processes based on the best evidence presented before them.

I expect them to not expel a student unless there is good evidence of his guilt. They expelled him just because it was politically expedient.

Prove it.

Or if you don't have proof, at least offer up some actual evidence that supports your claim, not just opinion masquerading as fact, or an argument that assumes your conclusion.

Okay in the sense that the college did not allow an appeal filed more than 5 days after the initial ruling to be heard, and that a second filing of an appeal failed because of a preliminary ruling that the new information would be an "unproven allegation"? No, that's an unreasonably small window of opportunity, and disciplinary boards hear and rule on unproven allegations all the time. They should have given him a decent chance to present his appeal.

Instead of reversing their position once the false accuser was charged they persisted in their original ruling. That was inexcusable.

According to the linked article, persistence paid off for the student. The college Provost found the university's decision not to re-open the case "inconsistent with the fundamentals of fairness", and nineteen months later the ruling against him was vacated. That doesn't make everything all better. The guy's plans for college were completely derailed, and it looks very much like a lying female was to blame.

It took a lot of pressure to reverse an ideological decision that should never have been made.

But if you're trying to make the case that feminist inspired gender bias was to blame for his treatment by the college, you're going to have to show what happened when a female student was accused of a similar offense, and whether her appeal was heard when his wasn't.

BS. In case after case we find colleges expelling innocent male students while feminists cry that it's not enough because some (like Mattress Girl's victim) are still found "not responsible" and seek to impose increasingly totalitarian rules (Dear Colleague, Affirmative Consent etc.) and you are still denying gender bias?

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

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

BYW, I noticed that the initial ruling was made about a year before the Dear Colleague letter was circulated. So this had nothing to do with that.

So UND was at the avant garde (Left wing radicals love French, like "pas d'ennemis à gauche" that was used as apologia for Bolshevism) of a very bad idea. That doesn't excuse neither UND, the Obama administration nor does it make their idea to up the expulsion rate at any cost any less disastrous.

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?

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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. 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.

Their behavior when confronted with the truth shows what they were really after.

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.

The problem is that the "evidence" was totally one-sided. He was told not to attempt to gather evidence, nobody else tried to gather evidence for his side. Kangaroo court.

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.

This was a de-facto rape prosecution except they are limited to ruining him rather than jailing him.

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.

It's hard to understand things that aren't true. This was a rape prosecution whatever the offense was called. The courts won't convict these guys because they didn't actually commit rape, the government told the universities to convict them anyway.

So unless you think universities can't do a thong about rules violations until time machines have been perfected, there's nothing wrong with them going forward with their disciplinary processes based on the best evidence presented before them.

I expect them to not expel a student unless there is good evidence of his guilt. They expelled him just because it was politically expedient.

Prove it.

Or if you don't have proof, at least offer up some actual evidence that supports your claim, not just opinion masquerading as fact, or an argument that assumes your conclusion.

The one-sided nature of the "trial" is enough for me. That level of "justice" is only adequate when you have a smoking gun.

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

Except we have a case where she is the "rapist" yet he was expelled.

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

Selective memory? A while back I posted a list of several dozen cases where people had gone after the university for such bogus expulsions.

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

The problem is you define "discussion" as agreeing that this was proper. As far as I'm concerned the guy should get a 7-figure judgment from them. Nothing but lots and lots of $ is going to make them stand up to the Feds on this.

 

[fromderinside]

With Derec's mind already made up he goes on to spout opinion based on uninformed bias for over 1000 words.

My mind is already made up that we have to respect due process. My mind is made up that sufficient evidence should be required to expel somebody. I am sorry you disagree.

Were that true I wouldn't make the comment I made.

A recent sample by you of throwing out stuff meant to make a 'point' which is actually unsupportable.

So UND was at the avant garde (Left wing radicals love French, like "pas d'ennemis à gauche" that was used as apologia for Bolshevism) of a very bad idea. That doesn't excuse neither UND, the Obama administration nor does it make their idea to up the expulsion rate at any cost any less disastrous.

Seems all Americans love 'French' (left wing radicals) since our constitution is based on the spouting of such as Locke (England) Rousseau (Geneva-France-England-France) and Voltaire (France) and codified in "the Rights of Man: approved by the National Assembly of France in 1789. Seems you pick and choose derec select french bad ideas and conveniently forget the radical french-'merican good ideas.

No matter. The point is made. You spout political crap which is convenient for inciting without justification just to make a political, not rational, 'point'.

Gr'up.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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

 

[Arctish]

Their behavior when confronted with the truth shows what they were really after.

You just did the exact same thing you accuse the college disciplinary boards of doing. You have reached a conclusion without bothering to even look at the evidence, and you did it because of bias and your political affiliation.

You read that the police uncovered evidence a witness may have lied, and without even bothering to review that evidence you have declared it to be "the truth". You then took this "truth" and used it to declare the original hearing to have been entirely without merit, and the decision to have been made entirely without evidence. And then you took your conclusion and did this:

The problem is that the "evidence" was totally one-sided. He was told not to attempt to gather evidence, nobody else tried to gather evidence for his side. Kangaroo court.

This was a de-facto rape prosecution except they are limited to ruining him rather than jailing him.

It's hard to understand things that aren't true. This was a rape prosecution whatever the offense was called. The courts won't convict these guys because they didn't actually commit rape, the government told the universities to convict them anyway.

I expect them to not expel a student unless there is good evidence of his guilt. They expelled him just because it was politically expedient.

The one-sided nature of the "trial" is enough for me. That level of "justice" is only adequate when you have a smoking gun.

Except we have a case where she is the "rapist" yet he was expelled.

He was told not to attempt to gather evidence? If the courts won't convict these guys because they didn't actually commit rape, the government told the universities to convict them anyway? They expelled him just because it was politically expedient? Where do you get this stuff? And why do you post it without so much as a link, when you know damn well people around here aren't going to accept your basketful of road apples as Revealed Truth without at least a source for your claims?

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

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

Selective memory? A while back I posted a list of several dozen cases where people had gone after the university for such bogus expulsions.

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.

 

[Derec]

So a college following it's disciplinary procedures, evaluating evidence that students might have violated their written agreement to abide by the school's Code of Conduct, and reaching conclusions based on testimony and/or other evidence submitted before it, is just like Nazis setting up courts outside the law and imposing penalties on people for doing things no one agreed they wouldn't do. Because feminists. Or something.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

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.