According to The Center for Public Policy, and as reported here and in many other places, at the University of California at Davis, the school’s director of Campus Violence Prevention Program, Jennifer Beeman, fabricated a total of 108 sex offense reports over three years.
As everyone knows, the lies seemed to be primarily related to funding. According to the article: "Would high rape statistics really help a sexual assault prevention program win a grant? Possibly. UC Davis was a repeat recipient of a Justice Department grant through the Office On Violence Against Women, intended in part to increase reporting of sexual assault. There was an expectation, said S. Daniel Carter, public policy director at the watchdog group Security On Campus, Inc., that the school would have a greater reporting rate than other similarly sized schools." Moreover, sexual assault statistics are recorded as part of grant progress reports.
But here is the most chilling aspect of the article: "Over the course of our investigation, we spoke with several dozen victim advocates at campuses across the country. Many said they aimed to facilitate reporting of sexual assault in order to make students feel that they had options in pursuing justice, and to reduce the incidence of rape on campus. Some also said that higher rates of reporting helped them make the point that sexual assault deserved attention and funding." (Emphasis added.)
“Administrators want to know where the problems are,” said Elie Axelroth, head of counseling at California Polytechnic State University, which reported zero forcible sex offenses in 2008. “If we can’t show that sexual assault is a problem, then we’re not going to get the resources. That’s just the practicality of it.”
Ms. Axelroth's cold, calculating rationalization is disturbing on a multitude of levels. And the implications are simultaneously chilling and depressing. Parents who pay exorbitant tuition bills for their sons to attend college likely have no idea that the schools have an institutional interest in falsely accusing their boys of rape -- in order to "make a point" and to get more funding.
Were any innocent young men hurt by the runaway rape inflation at UC Davis? We don't know the particulars, but it is obvious that a witch hunt atmosphere pervaded the campus. It is likely that any allegation of rape was automatically chalked up as a sexual assault regardless of the facts.
As with every other distortion of the truth in this area, such wrongs are minimized or justified as necessary to accomplish the greater good of fighting the war on rape. The article states: ". . . victim advocates see the incident [at UC Davis] as an unfortunate distraction from the well-documented problem of silence surrounding sexual assault."
Statistics on underreporting are, if anything, unreliable, primarilty due to the fact that this area has become unnecessarily gender politicized. While clearly some women do not report, it has never been demonstrated by objective and reliable data that their numbers are significant.
What is beyond doubt is this: rape feminists insist that unreliable stats on underreporting be accepted as gospel while reliable stats on false rape claims be rejected out of hand.
How's this for a novel approach, college administrators? The truth. No more lying about rape, no more making sacrificial lambs of your paying customers just because they born with penises and just so you can obtain more funding and appease the rape feminists.
And some people wonder why young men are staying away from college in droves?