Consider the following facts, which are neither new nor controversial:
(1) "College administrators nationwide say that alcohol is the worst health risk their students face." http://www.wlu.edu/x53500.xml
(2) "In most allegations of sexual assault, alcohol is involved." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/04/135109643/colleges-universities-told-to-do-more-to-prevent-sexual-assaults
There is no dispute that, aside from its clear and unmistakable correlation to health risks unrelated to sexual violence, alcohol is a significant contributing factor in most sexual assaults that occur on campus.
So, how do college administrators combat both the foremost health problem on campus (alcohol abuse) as well as the most politicized (sexual assault)?
If the goal is to reduce both, the answer is simple: deter the use of alcohol in all cases.
If the goal is to pander to the politicized sexual grievance industry, a different answer would be expected. Indeed the trend is not to deter alcohol in all cases but to arrive at the different answer.
The Department of Education's April 4 directive to college administrators on how to handle sexual assault tells schools to consider whether punishing students (almost always women in this instance) for alcohol offenses will have a "chilling effect on victims' . . . reporting of sexual violence offenses."
In fact, many schools have policies that forbid charging rape accusers for alcohol-related offenses because "some women have complained that when they went to school administrators to say they'd been sexually assaulted, they ended up getting punished for breaking school rules on drinking or using drugs." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/04/135109643/colleges-universities-told-to-do-more-to-prevent-sexual-assaults
Imagine that -- holding a student accountable for her misconduct! The fact that this sort of accountability is entirely verboten and politically incorrect tells us all we need to know about the so-called "rape culture" on campus.
For example, the University of Wisconsin and Madison Police Departments "do not issue underage drinking tickets to sexual assault victims." http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/sexual-assault-report-numbers-vary-at-uw-1.2190936 According to Tonya Schmidt, an assistant dean in the Division of Student Life for the University of Wisconsin: "If something like that [issuing underage drinking tickets to sexual assault victims] happened, [the Division of Student Life] would be all over it, calling and saying that ‘you cannot do this. We highly advise you to take the ticket away, this person has been a victim of an assault,' she said. 'But we've never had to do that.'"
If an intoxicated underage male reported he'd been beaten badly, he would be charged with underage drinking because his victimization isn't the right kind. Several questions arise:
(1) How is "victimhood" is determined? With false rape claims running rampant on college campuses, as we've demonstrated on this blog, it is assumed that "victimhood" is determined solely on the basis of the rape accuser's say so. When a claim is determined to be false, is the accuser then charged with an alcohol offense? My guess is she's not, and that if she would be charged, the usual suspects would chant about a "chilling effect" (because to them, there is no difference between a victim and an accuser).
(2) Aren't college administrators simply fomenting both alcohol and sexual assault problems by not taking a zero tolerance stance against alcohol?
(3) And finally, why is there no public discourse about the dangers such policies pose to innocent men on campus? When an intoxicated women needs only to cry "rape" to avoid getting in trouble for underage drinking, colleges are painting proverbial targets on the asses of innocent young college men.
We have reached the stage on campus where a consensual tryst can lead to an innocent young man being falsely accused of rape and charged with underage drinking while his equally intoxicated, false accusing partner is both lionized as a rape victim and excused from underage drinking charges. The frightening part is that politicized zealots who deny that false rape claims are a problem would insist that this scenario is perfectly fair and just, without even cracking a smile.
Tell me again: why are young men avoiding college in droves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
The more the perverts manipulate law enforcement to harvest more innocent men and boys, the quicker there collapse.
"Tell me again: why are young men avoiding college in droves?"
I'm surprised that even more young men are not avoiding college. Perhaps those numbers will continue to increase with even less males going to college.
How far and vast will our society transform? Men are increasingly going for the trades and other non-college specialties while women take over the legal, healthcare, engineering, general business, academic, and government leadership fields. If that is the plan of the radical-feminists; it is destructively-brilliant to transform society.
More than ever, in our history, America needs a highly educated and motivated male population that is engaged with society. Unfortunately, the advocates for a big police-nanny state that of course includes the progressive radfems are increasingly dominating American politics and influencing the laws.
In my particular case, the girl admitted to using cocaine, and her saying she split it with somebody else.
-I ended up being dismissed, because why would a woman ever lie about being assaulted?
-the guy who procured the coke for her a la splitting beer was suspended for a year.
-and the girl, the only one to actually admit breaking conduct rules had no charges against her, and furthermore saw two students held responsible with nothing more than her word.
Awesome society we have here. Almost happy to see it collapse.
Anonymous - ”The more the perverts manipulate law enforcement…”
Um, this has NOTHING to do with Law Enforcement.
It’s painfully obvious how much you hate the police, but really, could you try to keep you standard inanity confined to those stories wherein the police at least play some role?
As I’ve suggested many time to you, you should READ the damned articles before attempting to comment on them. It would help you avoid coming off as someone who doesn’t understand the difference between colleges and their tribunals, and actual law enforcement agencies.
The broader point which has slipped your grasp is that the directives being issued are actually done for the purpose of doing an end-around law enforcement and the Criminal Justice System. The Dept of Education cannot order police to change their policies, nor can they demand that criminal courts change the standards by which people are to be judged. And, they certainly cannot demand that citizen juries work towards a “preferred” verdict.
But, thanks to the viable, even if inappropriate, threat of withholding federal money (Title IX), they certainly can mandate any and all of these “outcomes” from schools who accept that Federal funding. They cannot make police stop arresting underage women for drinking and drug use. They cannot force courts to adopt a different standard for sexual assault cases. And, they cannot punish the police and/or courts if a greater percentage of men accused are not “convicted”.
But, they sure as Hell can get colleges to do as they demand.
Who’ve invented this silly notion that DV and sexual assault arrests are somehow turned in for a bounty, and you chant it as if your creation of that belief makes it reality. Of course, you’ve continually failed to provide any backup detailing this non-existent mechanism of “reward-for-fostering-FRAs”. I’ve shown you ample (linked) evidence of how the system actually works (competitive grant proposal system), and still you cannot accept that your are just plain wrong.
It seems that in your hatred for LE, you consistently wish to shift the burden of responsibility for FRA’s away from the women who actually chose to make those FRA’s and onto your nebulous idea of LE (which, at times has seemed to include victims advocacy groups, legislatures, the criminal courts, and now, colleges administrations) for somehow fostering those FRA’s (which, in your view would not happen otherwise).
But, in the article above (which, of course, you did not read), Pierce lays it out quite well:
”Aren't college administrators simply fomenting both alcohol and sexual assault problems by not taking a zero tolerance stance against alcohol?”
The problem is not, nor has it ever been the “reward system” for law enforcement, but has always, quite clearly been the “reward system” for those who make FRA’s – attention, revenge, alibi, financial gain, and even avoiding punishments for other rimes.
It’s really that simple and straight forward. Woman make FRA’s because they serve to benefit them personally. We so many stories wherein LE either gets there proper role correct, or don’t even factor into an FRA. Yet, you still wish to suggest that it’s not the women to blame, but the LE organizations who are using some secret system, that only you know about, to cash-in arrests for money. Simply preposterous.
If the goal is to deter sexual assaults - if that is really the goal - then it's necessary to deter the underage drinking by charging it whenever it occurs. Underage drinking fuels sexual assault. The policy of not charging underage drinking has it exactly backwards. It encourages women to drink without fear of being charged, and that drinking fuels sexual assault on campus. This policy actually will increase the risk the sexual assault on campus.
Women are far more likely not to report because mom and dad will know they were screwing around.
Question for the feminists who favor this law: if the woman is caught lying about rape, should she then be charged with underage drinking? Should she be charged with making a false rape claim?
This is one thing about college that pissed me off the most.
College is in theory an ideal time to meet young women.
Unfortunately, their heads are immediately filled with garbage and male-hating poison from the "acadamia nuts" that have politicized the crime of rape.
Unfortunately for the kids, and their parents, all those professors all have "tenure".
"In fact, many schools have policies that forbid charging rape accusers for alcohol-related offenses because "some women have complained that when they went to school administrators to say they'd been sexually assaulted, they ended up getting punished for breaking school rules on drinking or using drugs." "
As was the policy at my school. The fear, apparently, was that women wouldn't come forward if they faced an underage alcohol hit if they reported an alcohol-fuelled sex assault.
That such a policy existed told me all I needed to know about the situational and uneven nature of accountability and justice at my school.
Someone had a better solution that I read.
If the police come and find some women who have been drinking underage or DUI, and they cry rape, they still get charged with the DUI or underage drinking.
If a woman goes to the police station and says "I've been raped" (and they can see she's been drinking) she does not get charged with underage drinking.
This way, women will not fear going and reporting a true rape, but they also cannot use false rape accusations as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they have been caught drinking.
Cel - "If a woman goes to the police station and says "I've been raped" (and they can see she's been drinking) she does not get charged with underage drinking."
Better, but still potentially problematic. In cases such as that of Danmell Ndonye, women go to the police to report at the insistence of someone else - possibly the person they first lied to in making an FRA, often a husband or boyfriend.
So, while the "self-reporting" exemption could allow actual victims to report without additional consequences for drinking or drug use, it doesn't prevent non-victims either. If a woman needs an alibi for illicit activity, even the risk of being charged for a secondary crime might not dissuade her anyway.
But, I certainly agree with the part about women who are caught in one illegal activity not getting a "pass" on that crime simply by crying rape (it would reduce that rather significant incentive)
The bottom line here folks is college girls can now drink, use drugs, sell drugs, sell there ass on the weekends down on the corner, and still no law enforcement can hold them even a little bit accountable.
Unfortunately, their heads are immediately filled with garbage and male-hating poison from the "acadamia nuts" that have politicized the crime of rape.
Except for one thing: most girls aren't buying the propaganda.
It is always the one thing that drives most radical feminists up the wall. They whine about it endlessly.
They whine about how most college girls don't buy their propaganda. They demonize the women that don't buy their figures. They are trying to be subtle and sneaky about it, but it is by far their greatest concern.
Keep in mind that in the Duke Lacrosse case, a very healthy dose of vitriol was reserved for the Duke Lacrosse girls that stood up for the accused men everyone knew were innocent. The level of sexism that feminists (especially feminist men) threw at the Lacrosse women was secondary only to the amount of hate the accused men received.
What happened to equal right? Women cry they want equal rights for all. They should be charged accordingly and not lie that she was sexually assaulted and make a guys life miserable for as long as he lives just to get out of getting in trouble for drinking. What ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY? Thats the real problem, if people would start accepting responsibility for their action there may not be this outrage. Take your consequences and fess up with the TRUTH. What is our world coming too?
I just want to comment on that 2. link The person who wrote that article says,
"— Schools should use a "preponderance of evidence" standard to determine whether another student is responsible for an assault. That means that if it's more than likely that sexual violence occurred, there should be punishment. Some schools have used a much higher standard, including the "clear and convincing evidence" standard used in criminal court proceedings.
This is incorrect. The clear and convincing standard is Not a criminal standard but still a civil one and applies in certain civil actions eg. malpractise
Let me add that since rape is a crime then the DA must prove the allegation by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard". The preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence(a higher standard used in some civil cases) do ot apply to criminal cases. And what gives some college committee the juridiction to "try" a man and then come to some decision and expel him? Is the man or his attorney able to question the accuser? In a court of law the man doesn't even have to do anything and the DA has the burden of proof and must prove the case by the criminal standard of proof. What's also bad about some committee passing judgement is if the DA later decides to actually prosecute the man this committee's decision to expel the man from college may be used against him. College Committes have no right or jurisdiction to discipline any Adult student regarding his conduct. If someone accuses someone else of a crime then they should go to the cops and report it.
Some university police take a much more lenient stance on underage drinking, preferring to monitor parties and keep drunk students safe rather than give out as many tickets as they can. They ticket underage students who blatantly carry open alcohol, or who drive drunk, or who are disorderly and disruptive, but not your run-of-the-mill underage student holding a red cup at a party.
I would think this tactic (rather than the "punish everyone" most commenters are jumping toward) would be a much more realistic and tenable solution to the "cry rape to avoid underage drinking charge" problem. Students have always and are always going to drink.
Post a Comment