Can You Sue a College for Having Sexual Consent Rules

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Idaho

My public university made a policy that threatens to defame and expel any student who breaks it by exercising their free speech. I'm so upset about the threat that my grades declined and I withdrew from my classes, but am still signed up for the fall.

1. If I drop those classes, will I immediately lose standing to sue for injunction?
2. I believe my school, like thousands of others, is bowing to threats by federal administrators. Should I sue my school in state court or federal court? (I suspect I don't have standing to challenge the federal administrators directly).
3. Would I likely have standing under the chilling effect doctrine?
4. If forcing my school to change its policies puts it at risk of liability from federal administrators, should I just bow out, or am I doing a good thing by challenging this?

My school says that when two students are kissing each other, they must ask permission for each kiss. The previous kiss does not constitute consent. If they don't ask, that does not mean the school will punish them. But if one of them complains, they will ask the other if they asked permission for that kiss and got a yes. If they say no, they get suspended for sex misconduct. Some students got their names in the paper, though the school denies involvement there.

I should not have to ask permission 50 times. I met with administrators and asked if their policy really meant what I think it does. They said yes. They want students to ask. I told them that violates my free speech and freedom of association. I should only have to ask the first time, and then pay attention for signs of likely future welcomeness, not certain future welcomeness to the specific action. I'm OK with asking before penile penetration, but not for every other kind of touch 50 times.

If I date, I must either ask 50 questions until my date kicks me out, or I must know that she can have me expelled and branded for sexual assualt if she wants to. The Department of Justice has also defined sexual assault as any sexual touch without explicit consent. To know you have it, you must ask in advance, otherwise you take a risk. For now I've chosen to not date at all, rather than be forced to choose between the 2. It made me angry. No one follows those rules, yet they threaten to enforce them and do for the unlucky.

5. Is this unconstitutional? I would love to set a federal precedent striking them all down, but will settle for just my state.


The justification is that requiring students to get consent first prevents sexual assault. The problem I see with that reasoning is that rapists will just claim they asked for and got consent at every state. The Stanford swimmer claimed just that. Luckily there were witnesses to prove otherwise. All this rule does is control the speech of those who are not sexually assaulting anyone.

Thank you.

Guess what? There's no right to freedom of speech in an (even public) university. You being "upset" and allowing your grades to decline isn't anybody's fault but your own.

1. Injunction for what? An injunction has to have some action that you want to enjoin.
2. So what?
3. You've not said anything that indicates a restraint on your speech that the doctrine would apply.
4. Again, so what? Liability is always a concern for organizations.
5. No.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Guess what? There's no right to freedom of speech in an (even public) university.

---

Not so. There is a right to freedom of speech at a public university. But like all rights, the right to free speech is not absolute.

But in any event I doubt that a court will say that these rules involve any unwarranted restriction on free speech. As ridiculous as I think this trend on college campuses is for these sorts of rules that require explicit permission for every single touch in a romantic situation, the school is likely allowed to have such rules. I’d vote with my feet and attend a university that does not cave so easily to the liberal position of the day. It’s only when students speak out against this kind of ridiculous policy and threaten to pull their dollars out of the school will administrators actually listen and come up with more realistic policies to deal with campus rape than rules that totally ignore how real people interact.

But if the OP wants to take it up as a free speech issue, he certainly may try, and he could do so in federal court if he pleases. It will take at least a year to litigate, probably, and cost many thousands of dollars in legal fees. Trying to litigate a case like this without an attorney is pretty much a sure set up for failure. Even with a lawyer, like I said, I doubt the courts will frame this as a first amendment issue so the litigation may still fail anyway.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

If they don't ask, that does not mean the school will punish them. But if one of them complains, they will ask the other if they asked permission for that kiss and got a yes. If they say no, they get suspended for sex misconduct.... If I date, I must either ask 50 questions until my date kicks me out, or I must know that she can have me expelled and branded for sexual assualt if she wants to.

---

As you indicate, these rules only come into play if you are accused of non-consensual sexual activity. If you are obsessed with worry that your partner might accuse you of sexual assault, your actual problem is not the college rules -- it's that you are either exceptionally careless in your choice of sexual partners, or that you resent that you can get into trouble for ignoring your partner's objections if you get a "yes" for the first kiss.

Begin thread hijack:

a university that does not cave so easily to the liberal position of the day. Ah yes, things were so much better back when a star athlete could rape someone, get an absurdly light sentence because to actually pay for his actions would "have a severe impact on him"" and then whine that after all, since she was drunk how could anyone say she didn't consent? - oh wait, that happened last month.

Of course the school policy is absurd. But it's cases like the above that have set the tone for them. Maybe if more guys were able to accept that fact that no one owes him sex because he buys her dinner or a drink, no one would feel the need to set such ridiculous rules.

End thread hijack

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Begin thread hijack:

a university that does not cave so easily to the liberal position of the day. Ah yes, things were so much better back when a star athlete could rape someone, get an absurdly light sentence because to actually pay for his actions would "have a severe impact on him"" and then whine that after all, since she was drunk how could anyone say she didn't consent? - oh wait, that happened last month.

Of course the school policy is absurd. But it's cases like the above that have set the tone for them. Maybe if more guys were able to accept that fact that no one owes him sex because he buys her dinner or a drink, no one would feel the need to set such ridiculous rules.

End thread hijack

---

By the same token, we must be extremely wary of creating policies based on emotion and/or moral outrage. It's never good when the pendulum does a complete 180 in either direction.

But back to this OP. I'm a tad concerned that the policy as described has caused enough turmoil that the OP's grades have actually dropped and he withdrew from classes.

Why is that?

There is a HUGE push today on college campuses to doubly assure that all sexual activity is consensual. Yes, many are going overboard, but, it is the plethora of new laws to blame, not so much the universities. These new "affirmative consent" laws are sweeping the country, and in my state of CA they have recently proposed further legislation that will pretty much guarantee that males who have relations with an impaired partner could be charged with rape (never mind that there are already laws on the books addressing this). So, get used to these laws. In fact, some universities actually have legal documents that you can download and have a partner sign. Say goodbye to spontaneity and hello to release of liability.

Oh, and such laws are NOT unconstitutional. Draconian, perhaps, but, not unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

By the same token, we must be extremely wary of creating policies based on emotion and/or moral outrage. It's never good when the pendulum does a complete 180 in either direction.

---

Oh, agreed. I said the policy is ridiculous. I'm just commenting on the culture that created an atmosphere where anyone should think it was necessary at all.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Ah yes, things were so much better back when a star athlete could rape someone, get an absurdly light sentence because to actually pay for his actions would "have a severe impact on him"" and then whine that after all, since she was drunk how could anyone say she didn't consent? - oh wait, that happened last month.

---

I never said that, never implied that, never said that rape was ever ok, and that you would even imply that is disingenuous at the very least. Note that in no state today, if rape is actually proven, is the student likely to get “an absurdly light sentence.” Have you looked at the rape laws of even your own state? If you have taken any time to look at them you will see that rape sentences are from light.

The problem with many of these cases is proof; we don’t (or at least shouldn’t) send a guy to prison for years, possibly decades, and saddle him with all the limitations of sex offender status that follows, without proof that he is in fact a rapist. I trust you agree with that, don’t you? Or do you think it ought to be open season on men when rape is alleged, evidence be damned?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Of course the school policy is absurd. But it's cases like the above that have set the tone for them. Maybe if more guys were able to accept that fact that no one owes him sex because he buys her dinner or a drink, no one would feel the need to set such ridiculous rules

---

That’s poor argument, and I think you know it. You are in effect justifying a clearly ridiculous rule because a few men (and it is only a few, despite the prominence of this issue lately) commit rape on college campuses. You are saying all men (and though the rule is ostensibly gender neutral I think few would disagree it targets men) deserve to be saddled with a ridiculous rule for the transgressions of a few. Evidently though you believe all (or at least most) men think that a woman “owes him sex because he buys her dinner or a drink” or you’d not have made what to me is an offensive generalization. The generalization is not true. All men do not think that way. All men do not have the mindset of a rapist.

Our institutions of higher learning are supposed to be run by some of the smartest people we have. And yet this kind of rule is the best they can do to combat college rape? They abrogate their responsibility to student safety when they put out rules like this and then claim that will solve the problem. Does anyone really believe that? I can’t believe colleges say it with a straight face, but they do. Certainly college rape is a serious issue that needs serious attention. Colleges can certainly do better than this to fight the problem without coming up with ridiculous stuff like this.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

End thread hijack

---

That will end my rant of your hijack.

These rules have nothing to do with any legislative trend, as there is no legislative trend to pass laws that would require anything like these rules. They exist to simplify the lives of college administrators who would rather do something with their time other than trying to address sexual abuse claims between students or deal with the media fallout when their efforts are inadequate or are alleged to be inadequate. While a "he said, she said" element will remain even with this sort of rule, it's probably as close as a college can get to a bright line rule that allows them to impose discipline without having to get into the issue of intent. The rule is not so much about resolving disputes between students as it is about avoiding accusations that the campus has created an atmosphere that tolerates sexual abuse, or negative media coverage associated with that type of allegation.

If you don't like this type of rule and are inclined to want to identify somebody at whom you can point a finger, it in fact is the administrators who are "to blame".

Tax, you should know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't accusing you of saying anything of the sort, or making the kind of generalizations you accuse me of. Maybe you missed the case I was referring to, which was widely reported; the one in which the judge stated FROM THE BENCH that although the young man in question had been found guilty of raping an unconscious woman, he was sentencing him to only 1/4 of the jail time typically given for such cases because "jail would have a severe impact on him". We are talking about a case where a couple of passersby were able to tell from several feet away that there was something wrong and who pulled him off her and where he was convicted in a court of law. That's hardly the same thing as a blanket indictment of all men who are accused whether they are found guilty or not.

I work on a college campus. I am not accusing all men, or even most men, of having a rapist's mentality but you may rest assured that there are quite a few who do. I completely agree that the rules are ridiculous and I am not defending them - I am saying that I understand (even if I don't agree with them) why an administrator might put them out there.

Affirmative consent and preponderance of evidence are two separate dimensions. As a guy, I'm OK with preponderance of evidence as long as the penalty is just suspension or expulsion and not defamation. What bothers me is the affirmative consent rule, which I think sets a dangerous precedent against freedom of expression. If lightning strikes, it strikes, but they should not use that threat as a means to scare me into waving my right to freedom of expression.

I'm OK with affirmative consent before a first touch, while drinking, or before penetration. I think it is ridiculous for sober people to have to ask permission between kisses with someone who already consented to the first kiss, when that person shows no signs of unwelcomeness, and the instigators conduct is not forceful in any way.

I say if a guy has sex with a woman, and she complains in 24 hours that he scared her into submission, and the stories are equally believable, then that should be enough for some kind of penalty, though not prison. Expulsion or suspension. What really bothers me is they are expelling guys for recent accusations about stuff that happened months or years ago. That means once a guy has sex with a woman, he better not every say anything that upsets her in the future, or she can say the sex was not consensual then, thus controlling his free speech since proof is not needed.


Also, I don't need to win the case. I just need to threaten to proceed. It will cost them money or time to fight it. I might be able to settle out of court with them compromising on their policy.

So, you don't think the federal government is in on this? The department of justice defines sexual assault as touching someone without their explicit consent, which anyone who can read knows means you must ask in advance of each touch. I suspect it is more than just administrators. I think the department of education administrators are pressuring schools. I could be wrong, though. I'd like to sue them directly, but I don't know how to get standing for that. A school would have to.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Maybe you missed the case I was referring to, which was widely reported; the one in which the judge stated FROM THE BENCH that although the young man in question had been found guilty of raping an unconscious woman, he was sentencing him to only 1/4 of the jail time typically given for such cases because "jail would have a severe impact on him".

---

I did not see the reporting on that case. There are from time to time judges who sentence way below or way above the norm for a particular offense. But the fact that it happened in a particular isolated case does not mean that rapists as a group are getting slaps on the wrist. I think you know that. I can understand not liking the outcome of that particular case, but to somehow suggest that kind of case rationalizes stupid rules, especially stupid rules issues by supposedly smart people, boggles my mind.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I work on a college campus. I am not accusing all men, or even most men, of having a rapist's mentality but you may rest assured that there are quite a few who do.

---

(bolding added.) You are telling me that you don’t believe the generalization in one breath but in another you make the same generalization: that a lot of men have a rapist mentality. I believe that assertion to be flat out wrong. I think it’s unfortunate that you believe that to be true. Certainly there are some men who have that mind set, but “quite a few”? I think not.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I completely agree that the rules are ridiculous and I am not defending them - I am saying that I understand (even if I don't agree with them) why an administrator might put them out there.

---

I guess that’s one of the key differences here; I can’t understand it. I completely understand why college administrators would want to reduce campus rape but putting out ridiculous rules like this as though that will solve the problem is not the way smart people would tackle the matter. Perhaps I am giving college administrators credit for being smarter than they really are.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Also, I don't need to win the case. I just need to threaten to proceed. It will cost them money or time to fight it. I might be able to settle out of court with them compromising on their policy.

---

I strongly urge you to rethink this idea. Once they've done dragging you back and forth to court, repeatedly, knowing fine well that you have no case to begin with, you're going to get stuck with their legal fees.

Please don't do this to yourself.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

I could be wrong, though. I'd like to sue them directly, but I don't know how to get standing for that. A school would have to.

---

Even if the Education Department is pressuring the schools to do it, it would not give you standing to sue the federal government. The schools are not obligated in any way to bow to whatever pressure the feds are asserting. If there was a free speech violation here (and again I’m not seeing it) you’d need to sue the entity that is imposing the rule: your school.

And I'm sorry that you can't see that there are men with a rapist mentality. Again, I am not saying all or most - but they exist. Perhaps I should send you some of security warnings that are distributed on campus? Which are sent out in response to specific, actually-happened attacks? Or perhaps they don't happen where you are.

I'm sorry you can't see that I am neither rationalizing nor defending such rules - only that from an administrative standpoint, I can understand what they are trying to do. Yes, as Doggie said, the pendulum has swung much too far - but that's often necessary in order to get to a more reasonable position.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I strongly urge you to rethink this idea. Once they've done dragging you back and forth to court, repeatedly, knowing fine well that you have no case to begin with, you're going to get stuck with their legal fees.

Please don't do this to yourself.

---

I meant I would not initiate the suit with the idea that I don't have a case. I'd make sure I had a case before going in. But if they also have a case, and it looks like a 50-50 toss up how the court would rule, I think they might decide to settle.

In order for them to make me pay their fees, doesn't the court have to rule that my case was obviously flawed and that I filed when I should have known it was not valid? I thought the awarding of attorney fees was not common.

And how are they not violating my free speech? They are saying that I must speak a certain way at a certain time, or else be labelled a rapist if my partner ever in the future develops a grudge against me and decides to reference one of the times I did not specifically ask. I am not allowed to express myself how I want in a peaceful way by touching my partner without first getting explicit permission for every touch, when she has already shown interest in previous acts.

I don't think they can claim campus safety as a justification for impeding free speech here. All rapists, including the Stanford rapist, will just claim they got consent. And all false accusers will deny that he did even if he did. It is back to he said she said. The only effect of this rule is it forces everyone else to give up their freedom of expression.

If they want to make a case for campus safety, they can argue that for the preponderance standard, but not for the yes means yes standard. As for the preponderance standard, they really need to count the amount of time passed as evidence tipping the scales. If she complains within 24 hours, the burden of preponderance could shift to him. If she waits over 72 hours, she should have some proving to do. The mere fact she waited should count for a lot.

As for how many rapists there are, even if it is just 1% of men, if 1% of women complain of rape each year, it is likely at least half of the accusations are true. Same if only 1% of women falsely accuse; if only 1% report rape each year, half could be false. We are measuring small quantities that are not representative of the bell curve, and often are impossible to prove one way or the other. That is why I say we hedge our bets. If she reports it soon, and her story sounds believable, and he can't prove otherwise, then suspend or expel, without saying he was found guilty. Just say it is policy. That should discourage rapists, yet be survivable by the innocent, as long as other colleges can't discriminate against them without convincing evidence or multiple independent accusations.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And I'm sorry that you can't see that there are men with a rapist mentality. Again, I am not saying all or most - but they exist. Perhaps I should send you some of security warnings that are distributed on campus? Which are sent out in response to specific, actually-happened attacks? Or perhaps they don't happen where you are.

---

I specifically said that some men have that mentality. But I disagree with your assertion that it is “quite a few.” How many men are there that attend and work at your university? And how many of those alerts do you get in a year? What percentage does that come out to be? A couple percent, if that? That’s a far cry from being “quite a few” unless your meaning of that term is very much different from what I think the usual meaning of it is.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

---

We may have to do that, since I think you believe that far more men have a rapist mentality than is truly the case, and neither of us is likely to convince the other to change their mind on this.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

I meant I would not initiate the suit with the idea that I don't have a case. I'd make sure I had a case before going in. But if they also have a case, and it looks like a 50-50 toss up how the court would rule, I think they might decide to settle.

In order for them to make me pay their fees, doesn't the court have to rule that my case was obviously flawed and that I filed when I should have known it was not valid? I thought the awarding of attorney fees was not common.

And how are they not violating my free speech? They are saying that I must speak a certain way at a certain time, or else be labelled a rapist if my partner ever in the future develops a grudge against me and decides to reference one of the times I did not specifically ask. I am not allowed to express myself how I want in a peaceful way by touching my partner without first getting explicit permission for every touch, when she has already shown interest in previous acts.

I don't think they can claim campus safety as a justification for impeding free speech here. All rapists, including the Stanford rapist, will just claim they got consent. And all false accusers will deny that he did even if he did. It is back to he said she said. The only effect of this rule is it forces everyone else to give up their freedom of expression.

If they want to make a case for campus safety, they can argue that for the preponderance standard, but not for the yes means yes standard. As for the preponderance standard, they really need to count the amount of time passed as evidence tipping the scales. If she complains within 24 hours, the burden of preponderance could shift to him. If she waits over 72 hours, she should have some proving to do. The mere fact she waited should count for a lot.

As for how many rapists there are, even if it is just 1% of men, if 1% of women complain of rape each year, it is likely at least half of the accusations are true. Same if only 1% of women falsely accuse; if only 1% report rape each year, half could be false. We are measuring small quantities that are not representative of the bell curve, and often are impossible to prove one way or the other. That is why I say we hedge our bets. If she reports it soon, and her story sounds believable, and he can't prove otherwise, then suspend or expel, without saying he was found guilty. Just say it is policy. That should discourage rapists, yet be survivable by the innocent, as long as other colleges can't discriminate against them without convincing evidence or multiple independent accusations.

---

Wow.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Affirmative consent and preponderance of evidence are two separate dimensions. As a guy, I'm OK with preponderance of evidence as long as the penalty is just suspension or expulsion and not defamation. What bothers me is the affirmative consent rule, which I think sets a dangerous precedent against freedom of expression. If lightning strikes, it strikes, but they should not use that threat as a means to scare me into waving my right to freedom of expression.

---

Kissing, fondling, and groping are NOT instances of "freedom of expressions," sorry.

While the rules may sometimes be excessive, it is not a free speech issue.

Quote:

---

I say if a guy has sex with a woman, and she complains in 24 hours that he scared her into submission, and the stories are equally believable, then that should be enough for some kind of penalty, though not prison. Expulsion or suspension. What really bothers me is they are expelling guys for recent accusations about stuff that happened months or years ago. That means once a guy has sex with a woman, he better not every say anything that upsets her in the future, or she can say the sex was not consensual then, thus controlling his free speech since proof is not needed.

---

Yeah, it sucks. All the more reason for guys to keep it in their pants! Actually getting to know someone before jumping into the sack with them might help ... we used to call this quaint tribal custom as "dating."

Quote:

---

Also, I don't need to win the case. I just need to threaten to proceed. It will cost them money or time to fight it. I might be able to settle out of court with them compromising on their policy.

---

Oh, YOU will not be able to cow the university at all! If they have a complaining "victim," they will stand by their policies because that is what tends to keep them safe. You do not have the resources the school has, and they have a heck of a motivation to be seen as combating sexual predation.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And I'm sorry that you can't see that there are men with a rapist mentality. Again, I am not saying all or most - but they exist. Perhaps I should send you some of security warnings that are distributed on campus? Which are sent out in response to specific, actually-happened attacks? Or perhaps they don't happen where you are.

---

We get those at the University where I now work. But, the perpetrators are rarely ever fellow students, and the incidents generally do not involve stranger assaults. Most often the warnings sound much worse than the reality of the underlying incident was.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Kissing, fondling, and groping are NOT instances of "freedom of expressions," sorry.

While the rules may sometimes be excessive, it is not a free speech issue.

---

Rulings overturning laws against lap dances seem to disagree, not that I'd want to risk those getting overturned. So I won't use those.

But what if two people want to grope each other without speaking a certain way. This rule forces them to speak or risk severe penalties, for doing something that is not illegal.

Sexual assault involves force or knowing the other person does want it. Has the department of justice overreached when it said it is touching without explicit consent?

Quote:

---

Yeah, it sucks. All the more reason for guys to keep it in their pants! Actually getting to know someone before jumping into the sack with them might help ... we used to call this quaint tribal custom as "dating."

---

I read that flawed argument a lot, but the fact is even someone you date can decide to falsely accuse you later. The problem is giving one human too much power over another human. If she can have you expelled whenever she wants, that is too much power. Relationships can sour years later, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is no way to know what someone will do with power until after they have it.

There are men expelled who said they never even touched their accuser. It does not matter if you keep it in your pants or not. Women can expel any man just on their word.

Kissing, touching, and fondling are expression. The question is whether they are free expression. I'm not arguing that they are 100% free. I'm saying there is no public interest to validate using affirmative consent in every case, such as when 2 people are already making out.

My school also has a rule against abusing the accusation process. Any reasonable person knows that is in place to chill men from using it against women. All this rule does it give women power over men.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Rulings overturning laws against lap dances seem to disagree, not that I'd want to risk those getting overturned. So I won't use those.

But what if two people want to grope each other without speaking a certain way. This rule forces them to speak or risk severe penalties, for doing something that is not illegal.

---

If the other party does not complain, there would be no alleged violation to be investigated. If the other party is okay with the activity, they would ostensibly never complain in the first place.

Quote:

---

Sexual assault involves force or knowing the other person does want it. Has the department of justice overreached when it said it is touching without explicit consent?

---

Not sure what you are getting at here. States and the feds all have their own legal definitions of these various and sordid offenses.

Quote:

---

I read that flawed argument a lot, but the fact is even someone you date can decide to falsely accuse you later. The problem is giving one human too much power over another human. If she can have you expelled whenever she wants, that is too much power. Relationships can sour years later, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

---

A false accusation "years later" would not be an issue for the university system, but for the court system. And to be charged with a crime and successfully prosecuted, the evidence needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The college or university can act administratively, the courts cannot.

Quote:

---

There is no way to know what someone will do with power until after they have it.

---

Just ask Hillary.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If the other party does not complain, there would be no alleged violation to be investigated. If the other party is okay with the activity, they would ostensibly never complain in the first place.

---

Same with illegal rape. If the victim does not complain, it is not enforced. So, the school is enforcing the law against failure to express yourself the way they tell you to the same way that police enforce laws against illegal rape. The only difference is the schools use preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

A false accusation "years later" would not be an issue for the university system, but for the court system. And to be charged with a crime and successfully prosecuted, the evidence needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The college or university can act administratively, the courts cannot.

---

There have been cases of schools suspending students for a kiss that happened years ago, even though the "victim" continued to date the guy after the kiss. My school says it can revoke degrees of students after they graduate, if they later find by preponderance of evidence that sex misconduct occurred during the earning of the degree. These administrators have great ongoing power over tomorrow's leaders.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Tax, you should know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't accusing you of saying anything of the sort, or making the kind of generalizations you accuse me of. Maybe you missed the case I was referring to, which was widely reported; the one in which the judge stated FROM THE BENCH that although the young man in question had been found guilty of raping an unconscious woman, he was sentencing him to only 1/4 of the jail time typically given for such cases because "jail would have a severe impact on him". We are talking about a case where a couple of passersby were able to tell from several feet away that there was something wrong and who pulled him off her and where he was convicted in a court of law. That's hardly the same thing as a blanket indictment of all men who are accused whether they are found guilty or not.

I work on a college campus. I am not accusing all men, or even most men, of having a rapist's mentality but you may rest assured that there are quite a few who do. I completely agree that the rules are ridiculous and I am not defending them - I am saying that I understand (even if I don't agree with them) why an administrator might put them out there.

---

Stanford swimmer guy? He was not convicted of rape so he is legally not a rapist. He was convicted of sexual assault. The prosecutor dropped the rape charge and changed it to sexual assault. But that conviction carried a 14 year sentence, the prosecutor wanted six and the judge gave him six months (which is really going to be 3) because of what you stated.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Affirmative consent and preponderance of evidence are two separate dimensions. As a guy, I'm OK with preponderance of evidence as long as the penalty is just suspension or expulsion and not defamation. What bothers me is the affirmative consent rule, which I think sets a dangerous precedent against freedom of expression. If lightning strikes, it strikes, but they should not use that threat as a means to scare me into waving my right to freedom of expression.

I'm OK with affirmative consent before a first touch, while drinking, or before penetration. I think it is ridiculous for sober people to have to ask permission between kisses with someone who already consented to the first kiss, when that person shows no signs of unwelcomeness, and the instigators conduct is not forceful in any way.

I say if a guy has sex with a woman, and she complains in 24 hours that he scared her into submission, and the stories are equally believable, then that should be enough for some kind of penalty, though not prison. Expulsion or suspension. What really bothers me is they are expelling guys for recent accusations about stuff that happened months or years ago. That means once a guy has sex with a woman, he better not every say anything that upsets her in the future, or she can say the sex was not consensual then, thus controlling his free speech since proof is not needed.


Also, I don't need to win the case. I just need to threaten to proceed. It will cost them money or time to fight it. I might be able to settle out of court with them compromising on their policy.

So, you don't think the federal government is in on this? The department of justice defines sexual assault as touching someone without their explicit consent, which anyone who can read knows means you must ask in advance of each touch. I suspect it is more than just administrators. I think the department of education administrators are pressuring schools. I could be wrong, though. I'd like to sue them directly, but I don't know how to get standing for that. A school would have to.

---

I think you need to research sexual assault and rape victims. Many, many victims never report or do not report until days, months or years later. Also realize that those are not gender specific crimes or perpetrators. Anyone can be raped or sexually assaulted and anyone can be a rapist.

Honestly I cannot see how you think you have a case. It is not the school's fault your grades dropped. YOU let them drop. If you are so traumatized by this policy go see the college counselor. Most, if not all, colleges have therapists or counselors.

I refer you to this: https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c

I believe that sums up everything you have said on this thread.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Same with illegal rape. If the victim does not complain, it is not enforced. So, the school is enforcing the law against failure to express yourself the way they tell you to the same way that police enforce laws against illegal rape. The only difference is the schools use preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

As opposed to legal rape? Rape, by definition, is illegal.

Quote:

---

There have been cases of schools suspending students for a kiss that happened years ago, even though the "victim" continued to date the guy after the kiss. My school says it can revoke degrees of students after they graduate, if they later find by preponderance of evidence that sex misconduct occurred during the earning of the degree. These administrators have great ongoing power over tomorrow's leaders.

---

I'm interested in those cases - got cites?

(No folks, seriously - it's for my own research for a home-grown project)

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

I meant I would not initiate the suit with the idea that I don't have a case. I'd make sure I had a case before going in. But if they also have a case, and it looks like a 50-50 toss up how the court would rule, I think they might decide to settle.

In order for them to make me pay their fees, doesn't the court have to rule that my case was obviously flawed and that I filed when I should have known it was not valid? I thought the awarding of attorney fees was not common.

And how are they not violating my free speech? They are saying that I must speak a certain way at a certain time, or else be labelled a rapist if my partner ever in the future develops a grudge against me and decides to reference one of the times I did not specifically ask. I am not allowed to express myself how I want in a peaceful way by touching my partner without first getting explicit permission for every touch, when she has already shown interest in previous acts.

I don't think they can claim campus safety as a justification for impeding free speech here. All rapists, including the Stanford rapist, will just claim they got consent. And all false accusers will deny that he did even if he did. It is back to he said she said. The only effect of this rule is it forces everyone else to give up their freedom of expression.

If they want to make a case for campus safety, they can argue that for the preponderance standard, but not for the yes means yes standard. As for the preponderance standard, they really need to count the amount of time passed as evidence tipping the scales. If she complains within 24 hours, the burden of preponderance could shift to him. If she waits over 72 hours, she should have some proving to do. The mere fact she waited should count for a lot.

As for how many rapists there are, even if it is just 1% of men, if 1% of women complain of rape each year, it is likely at least half of the accusations are true. Same if only 1% of women falsely accuse; if only 1% report rape each year, half could be false. We are measuring small quantities that are not representative of the bell curve, and often are impossible to prove one way or the other. That is why I say we hedge our bets. If she reports it soon, and her story sounds believable, and he can't prove otherwise, then suspend or expel, without saying he was found guilty. Just say it is policy. That should discourage rapists, yet be survivable by the innocent, as long as other colleges can't discriminate against them without convincing evidence or multiple independent accusations.

---

As already stated to you - the only way you would have to worry about this is if you are reckless with who you choose as partners. I guarantee you are the only person at the college who wrings his hands about this policy.

Go to a different college if this policy bothers you so much. I cannot even continue to comment on your posts as they are ridiculous and insane.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Same with illegal rape. If the victim does not complain, it is not enforced. So, the school is enforcing the law against failure to express yourself the way they tell you to the same way that police enforce laws against illegal rape. The only difference is the schools use preponderance of evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.




There have been cases of schools suspending students for a kiss that happened years ago, even though the "victim" continued to date the guy after the kiss. My school says it can revoke degrees of students after they graduate, if they later find by preponderance of evidence that sex misconduct occurred during the earning of the degree. These administrators have great ongoing power over tomorrow's leaders.

---

What the hell is "illegal rape?" Rape is illegal so what would be legal rape? You need to just stop before you get yourself in a hole and cannot climb out. What cases are you talking about? Sources? Can you cite these cases?

Quote:

---

What the hell is "illegal rape?" Rape is illegal so what would be legal rape?

---

I'm not in a hole. The problem is when people don't read what I wrote correctly. Please read below:

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

As opposed to legal rape? Rape, by definition, is illegal.

---

As opposed to the definition these colleges are using. Sexual contact without asking explicitly for permission first before every little step.

Of course they found him responsible. It is much cheaper to side with her than to face a million dollar law suit or loss of federal funding if they don't appease her. They need convincing evidence of his innocence to know their butts are covered in a lawsuit.

Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case.

Quote:

---

Go to a different college if this policy bothers you so much.

---

$20,000 per year of out of state tuition at other colleges. Plus, almost every college has this rule. They all are caving in under the threat of losing their federal funding if they ever don't appease an accuser.

Quote:

---

As already stated to you - the only way you would have to worry about this is if you are reckless with who you choose as partners.

---

Tell that to rape victims. If you think people judge people, tell rape victims to judge guys better. You are victim blaming. How can a guy tell, especially what she will be like a year later?

Quote:

---

I guarantee you are the only person at the college who wrings his hands about this policy.

---

Most men are afraid of being branded "rape apologists", a nasty name the left came up with to silence their opposition. Men are afraid everywhere, and too afraid to speak up. That is why I am.

Quote:

---

I think you need to research sexual assault and rape victims. Many, many victims never report or do not report until days, months or years later.

---

Alleged victims.

Given the super low standard of evidence, basically automatic conviction unless he can prove his innocence, the ability to go retroactive months or years means she is boss over him. He better not ever disobey or upset her or she can have him expelled just on her word. Do you not see something bad about that?

Quote:

---

Also realize that those are not gender specific crimes or perpetrators. Anyone can be raped or sexually assaulted and anyone can be a rapist.

---

99% of those found responsible are men. My school even has a rule that abusing the conduct tribunal process is grounds for punishment, decided at the preponderance level. I'm sure that rule is there to scare men from filing accusations against women.


They have taken the most stigmatized, hard to prove crime, broadened its definition so wide that everyone must break it, and are using a low standard of evidence so they can take out whoever they want. This is how dictators get power, putting everyone in fear.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'm interested in those cases - got cites?

---

I'll try and dig them up again. I read them over the last year or 2, so not all are surfacing in google searches the way I found them. Check back and I'll have some links.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

Stanford swimmer guy? He was not convicted of rape so he is legally not a rapist. He was convicted of sexual assault. The prosecutor dropped the rape charge and changed it to sexual assault. But that conviction carried a 14 year sentence, the prosecutor wanted six and the judge gave him six months (which is really going to be 3) because of what you stated.

---

Well, it appears he was convicted of assault to commit rape - a violation of PC 220. That means he WILL have to register as a violent sex offender the same as someone convicted of "rape" per PC 261.

Quote:

---

Honestly I cannot see how you think you have a case. It is not the school's fault your grades dropped. YOU let them drop. If you are so traumatized by this policy go see the college counselor. Most, if not all, colleges have therapists or counselors.

---

College is not - or SHOULD not - be about sex. It is about education. If the OP wants to party and hook up, perhaps he ought to re-think his career options.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

As opposed to the definition these colleges are using. Sexual contact without asking explicitly for permission first before every little step.

---

A college can establish rules, but they do not have the impact of law. You have a choice if you do not like the rules: follow them, or, leave. Yeah, it might suck and it might not be easy, but if you run afoul of the rules you could find yourself punished by them.

Quote:

---

Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case.

---

This is NOT true at all! If you study the psychology of rape for more than 5 minutes, you will understand that many victims will not report the crime for some time. Why? Well, the short version includes a discussion of shame, fear, embarrassment, ad nauseum. I have known victims to wait weeks and months before reporting, and others do not report at all until something happens that compels them to come forward. It's rarely some effort to mess with a guy years later, but finally coming to terms with what happened to them and coming forward.

Understand that a rape victim has to suffer through physical exams, numerous interviews by officers, investigators, prosecutors, defense investigators, and on the stand. They have to repeat their embarrassing and traumatic tale repeatedly. This thought, by itself, discourages many victims from coming forward.

And, the rate of successful prosecutions for rape claims is very low. Even good cases can be difficult to prove, and this is a further deterrent to coming forward.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

I'm not in a hole. The problem is when people don't read what I wrote correctly. Please read below:


As opposed to the definition these colleges are using. Sexual contact without asking explicitly for permission first before every little step.

Of course they found him responsible. It is much cheaper to side with her than to face a million dollar law suit or loss of federal funding if they don't appease her. They need convincing evidence of his innocence to know their butts are covered in a lawsuit.

Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case.


$20,000 per year of out of state tuition at other colleges. Plus, almost every college has this rule. They all are caving in under the threat of losing their federal funding if they ever don't appease an accuser.


Tell that to rape victims. If you think people judge people, tell rape victims to judge guys better. You are victim blaming. How can a guy tell, especially what she will be like a year later?


Most men are afraid of being branded "rape apologists", a nasty name the left came up with to silence their opposition. Men are afraid everywhere, and too afraid to speak up. That is why I am.


Alleged victims.

Given the super low standard of evidence, basically automatic conviction unless he can prove his innocence, the ability to go retroactive months or years means she is boss over him. He better not ever disobey or upset her or she can have him expelled just on her word. Do you not see something bad about that?




99% of those found responsible are men. My school even has a rule that abusing the conduct tribunal process is grounds for punishment, decided at the preponderance level. I'm sure that rule is there to scare men from filing accusations against women.


They have taken the most stigmatized, hard to prove crime, broadened its definition so wide that everyone must break it, and are using a low standard of evidence so they can take out whoever they want. This is how dictators get power, putting everyone in fear.



I'll try and dig them up again. I read them over the last year or 2, so not all are surfacing in google searches the way I found them. Check back and I'll have some links.

---

Everything in your post is wrong. Completely wrong.

Here is your legal advice that everyone has already given you: You have no hope in winning a case against the college or the federal government. So just stop. How about if you focused more time on your classes in college and less on why you cannot get women to have sex with you, you might not be failing.

I am not wasting my time to provide you the ACTUAL statistics on rape and sexual assault. But your "99%" is waaaay off base.

This quote: "Tell that to rape victims. If you think people judge people, tell rape victims to judge guys better. You are victim blaming. How can a guy tell, especially what she will be like a year later?"

Completely contradicts this quote: "Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case." You just victim blamed. In all of that.

As stated you have no clue about the psychological impacts of rape or sexual assault on a victim of ANY gender. Rape is not gender specific. How many times must that be said to society? When you sit there and have to help a rape or assault victim and then tell them that their case was unfounded due to lack of evidence or for any number of reasons, and see the crushing defeat in their eyes, then you can come back and say something about how they react.

This is what I think you are so upset about this for: You tried to come on to or have sex with some female, she rejected you and maybe she even reported you and now you want to find a way out of it. Or you wonder why women constantly turn you down for dates or sex. ALL of your posts are the reason why no woman wants you. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

As opposed to the definition these colleges are using. Sexual contact without asking explicitly for permission first before every little step.

---

Show me where a college has differentiated between "legal rape" and "illegal rape". I'll wait.

Quote:

---

Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case.

---

Please show us something - anything, Mikey - to support your claim here. (The reality is that it's all too often the exact opposite - rape and sexual assault cases are typically far more difficult to "win" than people realize).

Quote:

---

Given the super low standard of evidence, basically automatic conviction unless he can prove his innocence, the ability to go retroactive months or years means she is boss over him.

---

You haven't actually looked into the real facts behind rape at all, have you?

Quote:

---

I'll try and dig them up again. I read them over the last year or 2, so not all are surfacing in google searches the way I found them. Check back and I'll have some links.

---

Oh, if they're real, they'll be there. Find the, please.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Show me where a college has differentiated between "legal rape" and "illegal rape". I'll wait.



Please show us something - anything, Mikey - to support your claim here. (The reality is that it's all too often the exact opposite - rape and sexual assault cases are typically far more difficult to "win" than people realize).



You haven't actually looked into the real facts behind rape at all, have you?



Oh, if they're real, they'll be there. Find the, please.

---

I really wish there was a "like' button.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

College is not - or SHOULD not - be about sex. It is about education. If the OP wants to party and hook up, perhaps he ought to re-think his career options.

---

I agree with your first sentence and disagree with the second one. Schools should stay out of people's sex lives unless something criminal happens.

Quote:

---

A college can establish rules, but they do not have the impact of law. You have a choice if you do not like the rules: follow them, or, leave. Yeah, it might suck and it might not be easy, but if you run afoul of the rules you could find yourself punished by them.

---

You are saying public universities can make students waive any or all constitutional rights as a condition of attendance?

Quote:

---

This is NOT true at all! If you study the psychology of rape for more than 5 minutes, you will understand that many victims will not report the crime for some time. Why? Well, the short version includes a discussion of shame, fear, embarrassment, ad nauseum. I have known victims to wait weeks and months before reporting, and others do not report at all until something happens that compels them to come forward. It's rarely some effort to mess with a guy years later, but finally coming to terms with what happened to them and coming forward.

Understand that a rape victim has to suffer through physical exams, numerous interviews by officers, investigators, prosecutors, defense investigators, and on the stand. They have to repeat their embarrassing and traumatic tale repeatedly. This thought, by itself, discourages many victims from coming forward.

And, the rate of successful prosecutions for rape claims is very low. Even good cases can be difficult to prove, and this is a further deterrent to coming forward.

---

None of that is true on college campuses. Defendants are not allowed to cross examine their accusers. The school can go after the guy even if the woman does not wish to answer many questions. The process is very private, and the accuser almost always wins. If a school does not expel an accused guy, they can be successfully sued for millions. Gloria Steinem and others will rush in to sue them on a percentage basis. Given these facts, there is no excuse for a woman not to report the incidence to the school right away. I'm not talking about the police.



So basically we don't have any constitutional rights at all. The government can tax us and then give the money back with strings attached that organizations must have such rules. If they don't, they don't get paid and don't survive. And no one may challenge the laws since it is the organization that chose to take the money, not the government passing the law directly. And we don't have standing to sue against the original taxation.

There is no reason this will stop at just schools. Even private Harvard can't afford to fight back. Many private companies are subsidized by the government. The federal government is succeeding at taking away all our civil liberties indirectly in a way that bipasses judicial review. Am I the only person who cares about this?

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

....and less on why you cannot get women to have sex with you, you might not be failing.

---

I can get women to have sex with me. What I'm complaining about is that if I do sleep with them, they will have total power over me for years to come and can have my degree revoked at any time. That is so unfair. Why should I have to give that much power to someone as a condition to attending school? And that is on top of the requirement that I follow the school's stupid rules.

[quote]
I am not wasting my time to provide you the ACTUAL statistics on rape and sexual assault. But your "99%" is waaaay off base.
[quote]
Show me one instance of a female college student getting convicted of sexually assaulting a male college student, both under age 25. The 1% of females found responsible are lesbians accused by lesbians.

Quote:

---

This quote: "Tell that to rape victims. If you think people judge people, tell rape victims to judge guys better. You are victim blaming. How can a guy tell, especially what she will be like a year later?"

Completely contradicts this quote: "Given how guaranteed it is that women win, I think a 24 hour rule is very reasonable. The only excuse to wait longer is if you are afraid you won't be believed, which no longer is the case." You just victim blamed. In all of that.

---

Not a contradiction. I was attacking the "don't victim blame" crowd. I do hold victims accountable to report in a timely manner when the school does not allow cross examination of them, keeps everything private, and almost guarantees they will win. The victims know this. There is little reason not to report it. What about false accusations? False accusations are usually long afterward, when people get in arguments about something else.

Quote:

---

As stated you have no clue about the psychological impacts of rape or sexual assault on a victim of ANY gender. Rape is not gender specific. How many times must that be said to society? When you sit there and have to help a rape or assault victim and then tell them that their case was unfounded due to lack of evidence or for any number of reasons, and see the crushing defeat in their eyes, then you can come back and say something about how they react.

---

That is with police and the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard. None of that applies in college campus tribunals.

Quote:

---

This is what I think you are so upset about this for: You tried to come on to or have sex with some female, she rejected you and maybe she even reported you and now you want to find a way out of it. Or you wonder why women constantly turn you down for dates or sex. ALL of your posts are the reason why no woman wants you. Deal with it.

---

Proof that your judgement is off. I have never came on to a woman on campus. I've avoided dating so that I may avoid having my life regulated. I'm upset I have to turn down women I like for fear of them being able to control me years later.

Why do you assume that all accusations are true? Do you not see how assuming that gives women tremendous power to control men? That is what this movement is really about. It is not about ending rape, which is rare. It is about giving women the power to control men. They can silence anyone who speaks out, just by accusing him of an old rape that they never reported until after he becomes politically active.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

I agree with your first sentence and disagree with the second one. Schools should stay out of people's sex lives unless something criminal happens.

---

Schools also have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a safe learning environment for students. That includes being safe from unwanted sexual advances, assaults of all stripes, violence, threats of violence, cheating, etc. Schools can act on non-criminal activity and they always have. Primary and secondary schools had the right to discipline you for acting out in non-criminal matters when you were younger, and colleges have the same rights - as well they should.

Quote:

---

You are saying public universities can make students waive any or all constitutional rights as a condition of attendance?

---

What Constitutional right do you feel has been waived by establishing rules of conduct? You do not have a First Amendment right to harass other people, have sex with them, cajole an impaired person to have sex (which is RAPE in many/most states), etc. The only "right" that I see regularly infringed upon at public universities these days is political speech ... but, that's a separate topic.

Quote:

---

None of that is true on college campuses. Defendants are not allowed to cross examine their accusers. The school can go after the guy even if the woman does not wish to answer many questions. The process is very private, and the accuser almost always wins. If a school does not expel an accused guy, they can be successfully sued for millions. Gloria Steinem and others will rush in to sue them on a percentage basis. Given these facts, there is no excuse for a woman not to report the incidence to the school right away. I'm not talking about the police.

---

Well, I work on a college campus. And, yes, you are correct that is some proceedings on some campuses, there is little or no right to cross examine an accuser in an administrative proceeding. But, in all the ones I am aware of there is a process to appeal any decision.

As for actions against "the guy" I can say that actually penalizing an accuser is far less common than you might think. Yes, there are a few apparently egregious examples out there where some guy appeared to have gotten railroaded, but it is rare. In truth, there is no way to know the actual percentages because universities are not going to publish much info about these hearings. And if the woman/victim wants to remain anonymous and avoid scrutiny, she's NOT going to be suing the university because that opens the whole thing up to PUBLIC scrutiny and compelled depositions and countersuits.

But, each incident must be considered on its merits. Without a specific example or facts & details to discuss, it's all supposition and you are freaking out about nothing.

Quote:

---

So basically we don't have any constitutional rights at all.

---

I don't know what makes you say that.

Quote:

---

The government can tax us and then give the money back with strings attached that organizations must have such rules. If they don't, they don't get paid and don't survive. And no one may challenge the laws since it is the organization that chose to take the money, not the government passing the law directly. And we don't have standing to sue against the original taxation.

---

The government taxes us to provide a great many programs many of us do not agree with or like. There are strings attached to most federal and state government funding that is passed down to colleges, universities, cities, counties and special districts. That's how they cajole these organizations into "voluntary" compliance. One can argue whether this is right or wrong, but, it has been the way of the world for as long as I can recall such things (and the first time I recall this was in the 1970s when the feds tied 55 MPH speed limits to highway funds).

Quote:

---

There is no reason this will stop at just schools. Even private Harvard can't afford to fight back. Many private companies are subsidized by the government. The federal government is succeeding at taking away all our civil liberties indirectly in a way that bipasses judicial review. Am I the only person who cares about this?

---

There are a great many college or university policies to take issue with - I know of a few at my own University, but, a policy that slaps some cold water on sexual activity is not one that is likely to gain much traction outside of a frat house.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Schools also have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a safe learning environment for students. That includes being safe from unwanted sexual advances, assaults of all stripes, violence, threats of violence, cheating, etc. Schools can act on non-criminal activity and they always have. Primary and secondary schools had the right to discipline you for acting out in non-criminal matters when you were younger, and colleges have the same rights - as well they should.

---

Affirmative consent does not make college safer. I'm not defending all those other illegal actions you just mentioned.

Quote:

---

What Constitutional right do you feel has been waived by establishing rules of conduct? You do not have a First Amendment right to harass other people, have sex with them, cajole an impaired person to have sex (which is RAPE in many/most states), etc. The only "right" that I see regularly infringed upon at public universities these days is political speech ... but, that's a separate topic.

---

I'm not defending harassment and all that. I'm attacking affirmative consent, which states that people must ask for permission before every single touch during a sexual interaction. If she every complains years later that one of his touches was not welcome, the school will ask whether he asked permission for that one. The way they ask is asking him to detail the event. If he says he asked 50 times, they will find that unbelievable and convict him based on his lying. If he admits he did not ask that one time but that she seemed willing, they will say he should have asked. Convicted. If he says what happened was not severe enough to impair her education, they will say that touching without consent is sexual assault, which is severe. Convicted. Degree taken. You actually defend this?

Quote:

---

Well, I work on a college campus. And, yes, you are correct that is some proceedings on some campuses, there is little or no right to cross examine an accuser in an administrative proceeding. But, in all the ones I am aware of there is a process to appeal any decision.

---

They can't appeal the truth of the what happened. They can only appeal on the severity of penalty at my school. I also think the appeal would be just as biased as the conduct process, since the school does not want to be sued by her.

Quote:

---

As for actions against "the guy" I can say that actually penalizing an accuser is far less common than you might think.

---

Only if the guy lies and says he asked for permission before each and every touch. I should not have to lie to not be abused by the system.

Quote:

---

Yes, there are a few apparently egregious examples out there where some guy appeared to have gotten railroaded, but it is rare. In truth, there is no way to know the actual percentages because universities are not going to publish much info about these hearings.

---

How do you know they are rare, when you admit they are secret?

Quote:

---

And if the woman/victim wants to remain anonymous and avoid scrutiny, she's NOT going to be suing the university because that opens the whole thing up to PUBLIC scrutiny and compelled depositions and countersuits.

---

She can make millions of dollars and have famous Gloria Steinem represent her, probably on straight percentage.

Quote:

---

But, each incident must be considered on its merits. Without a specific example or facts & details to discuss, it's all supposition and you are freaking out about nothing.

---

All I have to go off of is news articles. Reports saying students are suspended or expelled merely for failing to get explicit permission before a given touch. Students winning cases alleged to have happened months or years ago. Schools finding a student responsible because the accuser's story was merely plausible.

Quote:

---

The government taxes us to provide a great many programs many of us do not agree with or like. There are strings attached to most federal and state government funding that is passed down to colleges, universities, cities, counties and special districts. That's how they cajole these organizations into "voluntary" compliance. One can argue whether this is right or wrong, but, it has been the way of the world for as long as I can recall such things (and the first time I recall this was in the 1970s when the feds tied 55 MPH speed limits to highway funds).

---

The difference is those policies did not impair civil liberties, or at least not without a great public need for safety. These school rules do not help with safety. They simply impair freedom of expression with no benefit to student safety.


There are a great many college or university policies to take issue with - I know of a few at my own University, but, a policy that slaps some cold water on sexual activity is not one that is likely to gain much traction outside of a frat house.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

There are a great many college or university policies to take issue with - I know of a few at my own University, but, a policy that slaps some cold water on sexual activity is not one that is likely to gain much traction outside of a frat house.

---

Affirmative consent does far worse than slap cold water on students. Students will have sex anyway. It just means that men now must obey their ex's. If they get angry seeing him date someone else soon after a break up, or merely break up with her, she can accuse him of rape. Do you see the power of coercion this gives women over men? The school claims it wants to end coercion, yet it gives one group the power to coerce the other. If we had a 72 hour rule, it would leave victims the power to expel their rapists, but would not give women ongoing power to control their ex's. And we all know that if a man accuses a woman, the administrators will say his story was a hair less credible than hers. This is about female superiority, not about ending rape.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

Affirmative consent does not make college safer. I'm not defending all those other illegal actions you just mentioned.

---

I never said it does. But, it is how the universities are seeking to mitigate the perceived harm that is done. Only through pressure from donors, alumni, and even legislators will this change. Unless and until state legislators add some sort of statutory language absolving universities of liability in sex assaults that occur under their watch you can expect all manner of rules to remain in place to effectively stifle sexual activity.

Quote:

---

If she every complains years later that one of his touches was not welcome, the school will ask whether he asked permission for that one. The way they ask is asking him to detail the event. If he says he asked 50 times, they will find that unbelievable and convict him based on his lying. If he admits he did not ask that one time but that she seemed willing, they will say he should have asked. Convicted. If he says what happened was not severe enough to impair her education, they will say that touching without consent is sexual assault, which is severe. Convicted. Degree taken. You actually defend this?

---

You throw out a lot of "if" statements (as in, hypothetical) without any facts. We cannot possibly comment on "what if" scenarios because they lack any particular fact set to discuss. But, I suspect that it is not so easy to arbitrarily and retroactively withdraw a conferred degree based upon hearsay as you seem to think it is.

Quote:

---

How do you know they are rare, when you admit they are secret?

---

A grad school research project into the identification and prosecution of sexual assaults which included research from universities. But, no, there is no way to know the actual and true numbers since these matters are, largely, a star chamber affair. But, when you look at the resulting litigation of findings against alleged offenders claiming to have been wrongly found liable, there is a serious lack of such suits. And in speaking with my own university's people responsible for these matters, I have found that action can rarely be taken against an alleged offender simply because there IS a lack of "evidence."

Quote:

---

She can make millions of dollars and have famous Gloria Steinem represent her, probably on straight percentage.

---

Uh, even a civil suit must have proof. It's a lesser burden than required for a criminal prosecution, but proof is still required in a court. Not to mention many of these high profile attorneys only show up when there is a point to be made, or the case is already in the headlines.

Quote:

---

All I have to go off of is news articles. Reports saying students are suspended or expelled merely for failing to get explicit permission before a given touch. Students winning cases alleged to have happened months or years ago. Schools finding a student responsible because the accuser's story was merely plausible.

---

And the news media often has to sacrifice details and depth for time and print space. Rarely are ALL the details published. I have seen and read about a great many criminal and civil actions that I have first-hand of knowledge of presented in the media in such a way as to present a flawed interpretation. In the case of some publications and media outlets, these misleading details are intentional. In others, it is simply a matter of expediency and space ... then they move on to the next story.

Quote:

---

The difference is those policies did not impair civil liberties, or at least not without a great public need for safety. These school rules do not help with safety. They simply impair freedom of expression with no benefit to student safety.

---

I recall at the time that there was a hue and cry about how restricting the maximum speed DID, in fact, curtail civil liberties and one's right to travel!

And YOU claim that these rules do not help with public safety, but, I suspect that the colleges and universities will argue otherwise. And, if they present greater awareness to the frat boy mentality that still results in luring in girls and plying them with liquor in order to bed them, great! In virtually every state having sex with someone who is impaired is a crime - we call it RAPE. If these rules help to highlight this distinction and make some of today's more morally flexible (or bankrupt) youth think twice before dropping their trousers, great!

Quote:

---

Affirmative consent does far worse than slap cold water on students. Students will have sex anyway.

---

Then they do so at their own risk knowing that their activity can come back to bite them.

Quote:

---

It just means that men now must obey their ex's. If they get angry seeing him date someone else soon after a break up, or merely break up with her, she can accuse him of rape.

---

An accusation without proof is impossible to pursue, criminally. Whether there is enough proof to proceed to an administrative hearing is a different matter.

Quote:

---

Do you see the power of coercion this gives women over men?

---

I've heard THAT claim my entire life! Some groups decried enhanced domestic violence laws for the same reasons you argue here. The law has not changed. There must still exist probable cause to make an arrest and proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT to convict.

While the law has changed how reporting of sexual assaults is done, and has encouraged universities to enact new procedures to report and curtail such aggression, they are not simply believing the woman straight up. At least that is not a universal practice by any means.

Quote:

---

The school claims it wants to end coercion, yet it gives one group the power to coerce the other. If we had a 72 hour rule, it would leave victims the power to expel their rapists, but would not give women ongoing power to control their ex's. And we all know that if a man accuses a woman, the administrators will say his story was a hair less credible than hers. This is about female superiority, not about ending rape.

---

You are NEVER going to get a 72 hour rule. It won't happen. The psychology of sexual assault can prevent reporting for a long time after the assault. There are victims of sexual assault and, in particular, child abuse that may keep quiet for many years. And when they do step forward, even if prosecution or a civil suit is remotely possible, they do not automatically prevail simply because they made the complaint. Granted, colleges do not have to adhere to the same legal standards, but neither do they want to be sued for violating due process rights of someone. Hence the reason that many such complaints result in no action.

Clearly nothing will change your opinion on this issue. So, about all we can due is suggest that you become the aggrieved party in some action by your college and then gather your pennies and sue. Until then, all you can really do is speak to the trustees of your college or university, speak to the alumni and donors, and to your state legislators about what you think and see if they might be moved. As I said previously, I cannot imagine you will get much traction on the issue as it is not politically palatable to be seen as being soft on sexual assault or coercion. But, you can do as others have and lobby your heart out.

In the meantime, if you are so terrified of running afoul of these policies, you can always keep it in your pants, actually DATE people, and then find a nice girl you want to spend your life with and marry her. But, I suppose that's too old fashioned. Though that worked for most in my generation and we didn't face these tend to face these kinds of claims.

Quote:

---

Quoting MikeSmith321

---

It is about giving women the power to control men. They can silence anyone who speaks out, just by accusing him of an old rape that they never reported until after he becomes politically active.

---

Oh please.

[QUOTE=MikeSmith321;961961]I agree with your first sentence and disagree with the second one. Schools should stay out of people's sex lives unless something criminal happens.



You are saying public universities can make students waive any or all constitutional rights as a condition of attendance?




None of that is true on college campuses. Defendants are not allowed to cross examine their accusers. The school can go after the guy even if the woman does not wish to answer many questions. The process is very private, and the accuser almost always wins. If a school does not expel an accused guy, they can be successfully sued for millions. Gloria Steinem and others will rush in to sue them on a percentage basis. Given these facts, there is no excuse for a woman not to report the incidence to the school right away. I'm not talking about the police.



So basically we don't have any constitutional rights at all. The government can tax us and then give the money back with strings attached that organizations must have such rules. If they don't, they don't get paid and don't survive. And no one may challenge the laws since it is the organization that chose to take the money, not the government passing the law directly. And we don't have standing to sue against the original taxation.

There is no reason this will stop at just schools. Even private Harvard can't afford to fight back. Many private companies are subsidized by the government. The federal government is succeeding at taking away all our civil liberties indirectly in a way that bipasses judicial review. Am I the only person who cares about this?


I can get women to have sex with me. What I'm complaining about is that if I do sleep with them, they will have total power over me for years to come and can have my degree revoked at any time. That is so unfair. Why should I have to give that much power to someone as a condition to attending school? And that is on top of the requirement that I follow the school's stupid rules.

[quote]
I am not wasting my time to provide you the ACTUAL statistics on rape and sexual assault. But your "99%" is waaaay off base.

Quote:

---

Show me one instance of a female college student getting convicted of sexually assaulting a male college student, both under age 25. The 1% of females found responsible are lesbians accused by lesbians.


Not a contradiction. I was attacking the "don't victim blame" crowd. I do hold victims accountable to report in a timely manner when the school does not allow cross examination of them, keeps everything private, and almost guarantees they will win. The victims know this. There is little reason not to report it. What about false accusations? False accusations are usually long afterward, when people get in arguments about something else.


That is with police and the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard. None of that applies in college campus tribunals.


Proof that your judgement is off. I have never came on to a woman on campus. I've avoided dating so that I may avoid having my life regulated. I'm upset I have to turn down women I like for fear of them being able to control me years later.

Why do you assume that all accusations are true? Do you not see how assuming that gives women tremendous power to control men? That is what this movement is really about. It is not about ending rape, which is rare. It is about giving women the power to control men. They can silence anyone who speaks out, just by accusing him of an old rape that they never reported until after he becomes politically active.

---

WHERE did you get your information and statistics? PLEASE share with us where you are getting this biased, bullshit, FALSE information.

No anyone who you have sex with does NOT have control over you for the rest of your life. Nor can they get your degree "revoked." How in the world do you get a degree "revoked?" They cannot just take your degree back if you successfully completed all your classes and there is no evidenced of plagiarism or anything else violating the rules going on.

What the hell does this mean: "That is with police and the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard. None of that applies in college campus tribunals."

You have yet again contradicted yourself: "Proof that your judgement is off. I have never came on to a woman on campus. I've avoided dating so that I may avoid having my life regulated. I'm upset I have to turn down women I like for fear of them being able to control me years later." Yet you said you have no problems getting women to have sex with you. So which is it? Lol - I'm pretty sure you are not the one turning down women...based on all your comments. I very much can assess based on what you posted that you consistently get turned down, it upsets you, and you want to find a way to punish those people who turned you down.

All accusations must be investigated and taken seriously regardless of your opinion. The majority of accusations are true - from women AND men. False accusations and reports are rare.

"Do you not see how assuming that gives women tremendous power to control men? That is what this movement is really about. It is not about ending rape, which is rare. It is about giving women the power to control men. They can silence anyone who speaks out, just by accusing him of an old rape that they never reported until after he becomes politically active. "

This statement right here proves my point about you exactly. Rape and sexual assault are NOT gender specific crimes. Men are raped by women. Women are raped by men. Men are raped by men. Women are raped by women. ANYONE can rape and ANYONE can be raped.

Politically active? What the hell does that mean? What movement are you talking about in particular?

You are quite possibly the most ignorant person I have ever had a conversation with. You need to educate yourself on legitimate stats and facts. Not myths and half truths.

The bottomline is you get rejected by women and you are mad at them so you want to punish them. End of story. Get some therapy.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

You are quite possibly the most ignorant person I have ever had a conversation with. You need to educate yourself on legitimate stats and facts. Not myths and half truths.

The bottomline is you get rejected by women and you are mad at them so you want to punish them. End of story. Get some therapy.

---

Co-signed.

Actually he reminds me - very much - of the guy on another forum who wanted to make a binding contract that wimminfolk would sign before gettin' it on, ensuring that he'd never be liable for child support if one of his teeny tiny swimmers happened to find its way to some unsuspecting egg by mistake. Maybe it took a wrong turn. Or something. I dunno.

Anyway. Despite his protestations to the contrary it was clear to everyone else that he had nothing to fear at all, given that such a situation was so astronomically unlikely to begin with.

And being a victim of sexual assault by an unknown person while in college, I find much of Mikey's conjecture to be appalling! No personal responsibility but wants "free expression" with no consequences.

Honestly, here's the advice I have been giving my son: Know your partner well enough before getting physical to have some idea as to whether he/she is spiteful, manipulative, etc so those "ifs" are taken out of the way before you even kiss her the first time! If you chose to become physical, you are taking chances on a lot of "ifs" -- not just the fact that he/she might claim assault/rape without consent. You are taking chances on diseases, pregnancy (No form of birth control is 100% effective except abstaining), etc. Yes, your future could be tied to this person for the rest of your life in one way or another. Be mature enough to accept the responsibility that sexual activity entails. But then I guess you could call me an 'Old fogey" too.

And in the end I would be willing to bet Mikey everything I have that there are a whole lot more unreported assaults than something reported where someone is lying/being spiteful. While I agree with him that it could happen, no one wants to out themselves as a victim and yes, it can take years (just hit my 27th anniversary on July 4th) to work through the consequences someone else forced on me through NO fault of my own. Would this "rule" have helped in my situation? No! But if it gets both people to think about their actions, I don't see the problem... And yes, I have a daughter who goes to a university with some of the toughest policies/honor code/rules in the country and on that goes to a university with on real rules. They chose their universities knowing those rules. Maybe you just ought to pursue an online degree!

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Co-signed.

Actually he reminds me - very much - of the guy on another forum who wanted to make a binding contract that wimminfolk would sign before gettin' it on, ensuring that he'd never be liable for child support if one of his teeny tiny swimmers happened to find its way to some unsuspecting egg by mistake. Maybe it took a wrong turn. Or something. I dunno.

Anyway. Despite his protestations to the contrary it was clear to everyone else that he had nothing to fear at all, given that such a situation was so astronomically unlikely to begin with.

---

*Like button*