If you thought that colleges couldn't get any loonier when it comes to their handling of sex accusations, you need to know this: the University of Michigan defines "sexual violence" to include "withholding sex and affection."
What more can possibly be said?
Let's get one thing straight at the outset: don't be fooled by the gender-neutral language of college sexual assault policies. The incidence of women charged for college sex offenses is essentially non-existent Every single policy is adopted because of the belief that women are at inordinate risk of sexual assault.
To put the Michigan policy into perspective, you should know that colleges already punish men for engaging in consensual sexual behavior obtained by supposed emotional or verbal “pressuring.” They call it “sexual coercion,” and it sanctions men not for forcing themselves on, or physically threatening, women, but for doing nothing more asking for sex too much. For decades, society has been telling men to ask, but if they ask too much, they can be expelled, even if the woman agrees to have sex, and even if nothing stopped her from getting up and walking away. And, no, I'm not making that up.
Now, according to the University of Michigan, men commit "sexual violence" when women are the ones who want sex and men don't comply.
This is the triumph of lunacy, and it should be the last nail in the coffin to convince all rational people to say "enough!" -- colleges should not be handling sex offenses. Colleges have long been hostile to due process when it comes to sex charges against men, but what we've seen in the past couple of years is appalling.
It's not enough that an administrator at a premier college publicly questions why the school can't expel students on the basis of sex accusations, or that the school defends her for asking it.
It's not enough that California has just enacted a special rape law for college students (other women need not apply) that flips the burden of proving not just consent by "affirmative" consent to those accused of sex offenses, and that when asked how an innocent person is supposed to prove consent, the co-author of the bill in the state assembly said "Your guess is as good as mine." Not even due process-hostile Harvard would go that far because no one can say what "affirmative consent" means.
It's not enough that a statue of a sleepwalking man is "a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault" for women at one college, prompting the women to petition for its removal.
It's not enough that a United States senator circulates an extensive survey about sexual assault to hundreds of colleges and universities that classifies persons who make accusations of sexual misconduct as “victims,” and calls persons merely accused of sexual misconduct “offenders,” and that it lists "policies and procedures that may discourage victims from disclosing and reporting assaults" to include: "Disclosure of offender’s rights in the adjudication process."
It's not enough that a dean at a prominent university, when asked what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity and then had sex, said this: "Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex."
It's not enough that a prominent college professor, when asked about the spate of lawsuits filed by men against their college for denying them due process, said this: "These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape."
It's not enough that the Department of Education says students must be found responsible for sex offenses even when the college has a serious doubt about their guilt (the "preponderance of the evidence" standard) or that in all the new laws passed to govern campus sexual assault, none of them -- none of them -- provide for the due process rights of the accused or that those who illegally cross into the United States have more rights than a college student accused of rape.
We are rapidly approaching the day when the window dressing of college sex tribunals will be discarded and that colleges will expel, as that Dartmouth administrator suggested, on the basis of an accusation. That seems to be the feminist agenda.