Friday, June 26, 2015

Is there a college "rape culture," or are too many college women mistaking consent for sexual assault?

The notion that there exists a college "rape culture" has become ingrained in the academy, and it is used to justify policy after policy eroding the due process rights of college men. Is there a college "rape culture"?

RAINN, the nation's leading anti-rape organization, famously debunked the "rape culture" meme last year in a letter to the White House: "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime." RAINN decried the "inclination to focus on particular . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape."

We thought that RAINN's reasonable approach would go a long way toward stopping the "rape culture" canard, but we were wrong.

A new Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey also suggests there's a "rape culture," but like all such surveys, it treats every accusation of rape as a fact without bothering to consider the other side of the story, much less subject the claims to scrutiny or test them against competing claims of innocence. It is irrefutable that when rape claims are subjected to such scrutiny, the majority cannot be fairly labeled as "rape."

But this new survey contains a disturbing statistic that has been entirely overlooked in the news about it--a statistic revealing that almost half of all college women mistake consent for rape. According to the survey, a full 44 percent of college women think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. Only 51 percent--the barest of majorities--think "a nod in agreement" indicates consent. When so many women are mistaking consent for sexual assault, we should not be concluding there's a college "rape culture," we should be insisting that college women be taught things that grade school children ought to know.

Another study showed that "rape" can be cut in half, mainly by teaching women to resist psychological "coercion" and say "no." The implication is both stunning and disturbing because it suggests that college women are being "raped" at epidemic levels even though they have reasonable alternatives to avoid engaging in the sex act but choose not to exercise them. It also suggests that a lot of college men are considered "rapists" not for forcing themselves on women but for doing nothing more than asking for sex in ways that are politically incorrect or overbearing, and that a lot of women are "victims" because they choose to go along with the guys' entreaties.  In a culture where the roles of pursuer and hard-to-get have been fairly divided along gender lines for eons, when you suddenly make traditional masculine behavior a punishable offense, is there any wonder there's a "rape culture" and a "rape epidemic" on campus? Of course, this is "rape" only in some extremist gender ideologue's world. Unfortunately, extremist gender ideologues dictate the public discourse, and make public policy, on campus.

It is well to note that the two most celebrated rape accusations in the past year were made by "Jackie" in the infamous Rolling Stone article, and Emma Sulkowicz.  Given the substantial competing evidence suggesting (1) that no sex act even occurred in "Jackie's" case, and (2) that the accused is innocent in Sulkowicz's case, in a sane world, neither case would be held out as evidence of "rape culture." But ours is not a sane world when it comes to "rape" on campus.

So is there a college "rape culture"?

In John Ford's elegiac lament to the passing of the old west, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, beloved, long-time U.S. Senator Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) returns to his home town in the West and confesses to the town's newspaper editor that his legendary reputation--in fact his entire career--was built on a lie. Until then, everyone believed that in his youth, Stoddard had shot and killed a notorious gunslinger named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin). Now, at long last, Stoddard is coming clean, telling the world that Valance was really shot by a tough-as-nails rancher played by none other than John Wayne.

The newspaper editor hears Senator Stoddard's entire story, and he believes every word of it, but he's not interested in publishing any of it.

"You're not going to use the story?" the Senator asks incredulously.

The editor famously replies: "No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

The college "rape culture" canard has become "fact" -- even though it doesn't really exist.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The campus rape war is over, and the boys have lost because they never bothered to fight back

Despite all the support from nationally renowned legal scholars, despite an incredible backlash last year, the sexual grievance machine is in high gear, running roughshod over the rights of our sons. There's no slowing it, despite the efforts of so many. I asked myself how this can be, and my conclusion is going to anger some people.

The war on campus rape may be the first witch-hunt in history where the members of the group under attack don't care that they are in the cross-hairs of a lunatic fringe. Since they won't fight back, it's hopeless to think the tide can be rolled back without them.

The sexual grievance lobby has done everything it can think of to assure that a woman's cry of rape is tantamount to a finding of guilt, the evidence be damned, yet the boys at risk of being wrongly accused sit meekly on the sidelines--too ashamed, too emasculated even to protest, much less mount a vibrant defense. In fact, many of them march in lockstep with their moral superiors--the campus rape crusaders (you know, kids and peer pressure and all)--who insist that ours is a "rape culture," that campus rape isn't just a "thing" but an epidemic, that "the rates of false accusation pale — indeed, pale to the point of transparency!," and that masculinity itself needs to be reprogrammed.

The boys act like deer caught in the headlights as United States senators, the mainstream news media, and "experts" purporting to research the prevalence of rape treat every accusation of rape as a fact without bothering to consider the other side of the story, much less subject it to scrutiny or test it against competing claims of innocence. (Can you say "Jackie"? How about "Emma Sulkowicz"?) And when someone dares to air the "he" side of a "he said-she said" rape claim, the sexual grievance lobby has a conniption. Yet college boys don't say a word about it. When Prof. KC Johnson went to Ohio University to talk about due process for those accused of sexual assault, he was vilified by extremist loons, and there wasn't any counter-demonstration to support his message.

The only ones who fight back are the ones who've already been expelled, or their mothers--God bless FACE--but that won't cut it.

The sad part is that if the boys bothered to engage themselves in the issue--if they'd bother to speak up--they'd have ample ammunition to attack the "rape culture" idiocy.

First, some of the brightest, most progressive minds in America have spoken out against the injustices to college men, yet the boys themselves sit back and let the scholars do not just the heavy lifting but all the lifting. One of the more chilling indictments of the current system was lodged by a guru of the sexual grievance lobby, none other than Brett Sokolow, head of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM). Sokolow has done more to shape the sexual assault landscape on American college campuses than any person outside the Department of Education. Since the year 2000, NCHERM has had in excess of 3,000 college clients. No group has more effectively fought for the rights of sexual assault victims on college campuses. Yet, last year, even Brett Sokolow painted a chilling picture about the hostility on American college campuses to the rights of men accused of sexual violence. Sokolow said that in the "hook up" culture, the evidence is often too murky to warrant charging and punishing the male accused of sexual misconduct, but that's exactly what too many schools are doing. Sokolow said that "in a lot of these cases, the campus is holding the male accountable in spite of the evidence – or the lack thereof – because they think they are supposed to, and that doing so is what OCR wants." And: "We see complainants who genuinely believe they have been assaulted, despite overwhelming proof that it did not happen." Worse, Sokolow suggested that mental health issues play a role in "case after case" of wrongful claims: "We fear for the mental health issues impacting many students, but in particular for those whose reality contact issues manifest in sexual situations they can’t handle and campuses can’t remedy. We hate even more that another victim-blaming trope – victim mental health – continues to have legs, but how do you not question the reality contact where case-after-case involves sincere victims who believe something has happened to them that evidence shows absolutely did not?" (Emphasis added.)

Second, the "rape culture" myth is built on absurdities that are downright laughable--college guys are reduced to vile caricature because of  it, and if they wanted to take issue with it, this blog, and a lot of better sources than this, have been giving them all the ammunition they need for years. Start with the sexual grievance lobby's own internal inconsistencies--their silly "one-in-five" number is incredibly inflated when their numbers are crunched against their own almost-as-silly underreporting number. Hell, the Department of Justice recently said that it's not 1-in-5 college women who are sexually assaulted, it's more like 1-in 52 or fewer, perhaps a lot fewer. RAINN itself, the nation's leading anti-rape organization, debunked the "rape culture" meme: "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime." RAINN decried the "inclination to focus on particular . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape." Want to know why there's a "rape epidemic" on campus? One reason is because almost half of all college women mistake consent for rape. Don't believe me? A full 44 percent of college women think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. Seriously. Only 51 percent--the barest of majorities--think it is.  Another study showed that "rape" can be cut in half, mainly by teaching women to say "no," which means it probably wasn't rape in the first place.   Moreover, a whopping 56 percent of women think it's better that innocent young men be punished for offenses they didn't commit than to allow a guilty man to go free. (I guess they never heard of Blackstone's formulation.)

Third,  there are the idiotic things the sexual grievance lobby says. Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, declared that campus policies aren't going far enough to protect students. She asked: "Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Dartmouth defended Childress's comment. Caroline Heldman, a professor at Occidental College, said this about lawsuits filed by men for alleged violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: "These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape." Elisabeth Dee, who helped organize a mattress-carrying anti-sexual assault demonstration at Stanford, summed up the prevailing thought. She called on the school to reduce the standard of proof required to find someone guilty of sexual assault below the lowest legally permissible "preponderance of the evidence." Dee said that Stanford, should not be focusing on "defending the perpetrator, because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator.” Ezra Klein said its' "necessary" that "colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations." Julia Horowitz, a journalist at University of Virginia’s school newspaper, wrote that "to let fact checking define the [sexual assault] narrative would be a huge mistake.”  Zerlina Maxwell wrote this: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

What, on earth, does it take to light a fire under college men? The protests of law school professors and all the rest can't do it if the victims don't care, and at present, the victims don't care.

Before you cry "unfair," I know there are college guys who are trying to fight back. Some of them write to us. They are to be commended, and this post isn't about them. Unfortunately, they are in the distinct minority.

It's time to admit that the battle is over because it can't possibly be won when the victim doesn't even know he's a victim. It's time to move on to other battlefields, and other victims--victims who actually give a damn that their scrota are marked with a bulls-eye.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Another example of the deplorable way reporters cover false rape claims

My comments in red.

London Underground worker jailed for falsely claiming she was raped

A London Underground worker, who falsely claimed she was raped after a night out, has been jailed for eight months for perverting the course of justice, with the judge adding she had “let down genuine rape victims.”

The first thing the article makes sure to tell us is that the real victims here are "genuine rape victims."

The Old Bailey heard how Comfort Yinusa, 23, called police in the early hours one morning in October 2013, claiming two men had attacked her outside a pub near Liverpool Street in East London.

Ms Yinusa, from Tilbury in Essex, wept in the dock as judge Peter Rook QC told her she must be jailed for wasting more than 100 hours of police time.

Next, she must be jailed--because she wasted police time.

He added: “Taking all the circumstances into account, this matter is so serious that only a sentence of immediate prison is appropriate.

“Your actions have led to two innocent men being put through the humiliation of arrest and all the procedures that followed.”

Finally, we learn that the innocent men she named were put through a humiliating arrest. This ought to be the headline and the first line.

The following day after making the allegations, Ms Yinusa refused to be medically examined and also failed to turn up for police interviews.

After telling police detectives she wanted to withdraw her complaint, her lies were eventually exposed when suspicious police detectives analysed mobile phone data and CCTV footage which showed Ms Yinusa joking and laughing with the two men – hours after she alleged the attack had taken place.

The court heard how the two suspects had spent 14 and 16 hours in police custody – in what they have described as a “humiliating” ordeal – as well as six weeks on bail.

The two innocent victims were put through a six week hell--and the article is more concerned about hypothetical rape victims and wasting police time. Wanna hear about "wasting time," reporter? How about six weeks having a false rape claim hang over your head.

One of the men, an accountant, added he felt “shocked, shame and stigma” after being falsely accused by Ms Yinusa, who, the court heard, has had a history of cocaine and alcohol abuse.

He described how he offered Ms Yinusa a lift home after the night out, but that she got angry after he couldn’t remember where he parked his car, leaving her waiting for 45 minutes with his friend.

She told a rape lie because a man kept her waiting for a ride.

Describing the false allegation as “a monstrous act”, Ms Yinusa’s barrister, Neville Rudston, said: “The enormity of the consequences should have been clear. The reality is they weren’t.

“It was an outburst of anger. She said it and then she was stuck with it – she didn’t have the robustness or strength to say: ‘No, I take it back’ and that's why it turned out as badly as it did.” 

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

The families of Dylann Roof's victims are an example to the world

The relatives of Dylann Roof's victims offered this deranged and hateful young killer forgiveness. It was a gesture far more powerful, far more effective, than all the riots and all the angry protests for all the real and all the imagined grievances.

These loving people showed the world the true meaning of brotherhood and, in the process, exposed the hate of people like Roof better than anything they could have done.

Women's studies prof calls for 'men control'

Does this really need any comment? Ashwini Tambe, a women’s studies professor from the University of Maryland, wrote this:

Thursday, June 18, 2015

The Washington Post rape survey is not reliable--but it points up some very disturbing views held by college women

There's a new college rape survey with some very disturbing findings. The findings are disturbing not for the reasons the sexual grievance industry thinks, but because the answers shine a light on very troubling views held by college women -- about men accused of sexual assault, and men wrongly accused of sexual assault. The survey underscores that that our daughters especially, but also our sons, are in need of much remedial education about concepts that are basic to our jurisprudence. Read on, but not with an empty stomach.

Rape laws and policies are shaped by surveys where every rape allegation is uncritically accepted and none are tested against competing claims of innocence. The impact of these surveys on public policy is significant, even draconian. They are uncritically accepted to make laws that diminish the due process rights of young men accused of sexual assault in American colleges, and that is unjust. The only legitimate way to test for the prevalence of rape on campus would be to take a representative sampling of rape accusations and carefully examine the evidence (including interviewing the accused and all pertinent witnesses) as to each claim in a painstaking, objective manner. Every time rape claims are subjected to scrutiny against competing evidence of innocence, most are either deemed unfounded or false. Why on earth is every assertion in a rape survey accepted as true?

The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation have conducted a survey that, once again, uncritically accepts every characterization of sexual wrongdoing. The survey supposedly shows around 20 percent of college women are sexually assaulted. In fact, the survey is alarming on a host of levels, but not for the reasons the sexual grievance lobby insists. Here are some excerpts--and my comments:

First, college students -- women more than men -- are prone to rush to judgment and assume guilt based on an accusation:

Second, perhaps the most disturbing question of all shows that college students (especially college women) are woefully unschooled in the concept of Blackstone's formulation, that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This concept is imprinted on the DNA of our jurisprudence. We've written extensively about this concept (see here) and won't repeat ourselves here. Yet, in this survey, a whopping percentage of women think it's better that innocent young men be punished for offenses they didn't commit than to allow a guilty man to go free. Little wonder, given that the sexual grievance industry has dominated the public discourse on these issues for so long:

Third, there is a disturbing absence of understanding about what constitutes "consent." As but one example, a dizzying 44 percent of women polled didn't think nodding in agreement constitutes consent. This lack of understanding likely skewed the results of the survey, perhaps significantly:

Fourth, despite the responses of the women surveyed in question 35(e) -- where the vast majority don't think an absence of "no" is enough to show consent -- in the following response, more women prefer the "no means no" standard over "yes means yes" as the "better" standard to show whether an encounter was consensual. The absence of  a "no" under the "no means no" standard would show consent. So which is it, ladies? Given the confusion among respondents, we must seriously question the trustworthiness of this survey:

Fifth, the question about "physical force" fails to define "physical force" and fails to ask if the "physical force" was accompanied by the woman's consent (of course, if the women nodded their heads in agreement to sex, as shown above, a significant percentage of them would not think that's consensual anyway):

Sixth, the following query asks about "unwanted" sex -- a subjective standard that has nothing to do with the legal standard of sexual assault since women can outwardly manifest consent while secretly not wanting to engage in the act. The question asks about times when respondents "were unable to provide consent because you were passed out, drugged, or drunk, incapacitated, or asleep." The wording of this question dooms to the survey's usefulness. A reasonable person taking this survey would not assume "drunk" sex is the same as "incapacitated" sex (because the survey uses both words, so it's not reasonable to assume one word is surplusage or that they mean the same thing). By any measure, "drunk"sex is not sexual assault, yet we know that a staggering percentage of sex occurs after imbibing alcohol:

Seventh, sexual coercion (sex obtained by making promises such as inviting you to a party) is apparently considered sexual assault (which is absurd):


The survey is eye-opening because of the percentage of young women who think its better to sacrifice their wrongly accused brothers than to let a rapist stay enrolled in college. This reflects a disturbing undercurrent we've been writing about for many years -- that the wrongly accused are treated as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. (Of course, merely expelling a rapist isn't going to stop him from raping college or other women, often in the same off-campus place where he raped while he was a student. The sexual grievance industry doesn't seem very worried about that.)

Put all that aside, the survey is making headlines for reinforcing the 1-in-5 canard. As shown above, the survey is not reliable because of the way the questions are worded. Beyond that, even if the questions were worded properly, it would still be problematic. A recent scientific study shows that some women lie on surveys to minimize their consensual sexual encounters, likely because of societal double-standards that find it acceptable for men, but not women, to engage in sexual activity. These lies are designed to bring women in sync with their expected gender role, and it is the same reason many women lie about rape--to defend their femininity. Should we not expect, then, that some women report in surveys that they've been subjected to unwanted sex even when, in fact, the sex was consensual in order to be in sync with societal expectations about gender roles? The Washington Post survey doesn't take that into account.

Why is it assumed that sexual assault surveys are the moral equivalent of truth serum where women are incapable of telling anything but the one, objective truth? Why is every untested assertion of sexual assault assumed to be true based solely on the "victim's" side of the story?  The fact is, people exaggerate, lie, and claim their behavior is better than it really is in all sorts of surveys and other public pronouncements--not just sex surveys. People exaggerate the hours they work; how often they go to church; their height and their weight; and their altruism during emergencies. White voters lie in surveys about their willingness to vote for a black political candidate. Heck, people even lie about the reason they buy a new computer. Nearly one in four women admitted to exaggerating or lying in social media about key aspects of their lives between one and three times per month.

It is well to note that surveys also show that almost 30 percent of women claim to have seen a ghost. Should we conclude there's an epidemic of ghostly encounters afflicting college women? Or would we require some greater proof before reaching that conclusion?

This is a serious question, with serious implications. The issue we raise isn't some abstraction, and we do not write this to engage in some sort of "Oppression Olympics." The fact is, sexual assault surveys are routinely used to justify the policy of diminishing the due process rights of male students accused of sexual assault. There are legitimate reasons for doubting the reliability of these surveys, and these concerns should not be dismissed as rape apology, misogyny, or slut shaming. Nor should we be demonized for merely raising the issue. This is an issue that ought to be seriously, and respectfully, discussed.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Study shows rape rates sharply reduced by teaching women to say "no"--which suggests that it really wasn't rape to begin with

Do you want to cut the rate of "rape" in half? Teaching women to say "no" would go a long way toward that end, a new study shows.

The study reported on the effects of a new program, developed by a professor in Canada, that teaches women to "recognize . . . coercive situations, get past roadblocks to resist unwanted sexual behaviors and practice verbally resisting the behavior or actions." The professor said: “My idea is that the more confident and sure women are of what they desire, and what they want, the easier it is to say, ‘No, I’m not doing that’ — and there wouldn’t be that prolonged pressure that results in sexual assault or clearly unwanted sex.” The program stresses that “it’s OK to say ‘no,'” and that sex isn’t owed if a date buys dinner. Part of the training "focuses on positive sexuality education, because the more they understand their own desires and values, 'the faster they are at detecting that someone is trying to coerce them to do something they don’t want . . . .'" One participant in the program praised it because "getting in tune with what you’re comfortable with allows you to have confidence in yourself and your own sexuality. . . . If you already know what your limits are, you’re not as likely to get coerced into things that you’re not interested in doing.” For the harder cases--guys who won't take "no"--the program also teaches self-defense.

The overriding theme of the new program is that "rape" can be largely curtailed by teaching college women to just say "no," and the implications of that conclusion are disturbing. According to the folks who dreamed up this program, college women are currently being "raped" in epidemic fashion even though they have reasonable alternatives to engaging in the sex act but choose not to exercise them. In other words, a lot of college men are "rapists" not for forcing themselves on women but for doing nothing more than nagging for sex, and a lot of women are "victims" because they choose to go along with it.

In a culture where the roles of pursuer and hard-to-get have been fairly divided along gender lines for eons, when you suddenly make traditional masculine behavior a punishable offense, is there any wonder there's a "rape epidemic" on campus?

Transmogrifying “sexual coercion” into a punishable offense has been a dream of hard left gender crazies for decades. Twenty-five years ago, writer Joanne Jacobs aptly explained: “In the largest survey of campus date rape, 43 percent of women classified as rape victims had not realized they’d been raped.” Was this because women were hesitant to label rape as a crime? “Hesitant to label rape a crime?” Ms. Jacobs scoffed. “No, they were hesitant to label having sex ‘when you did not want it because you were overwhelmed by continual arguments and pressure’ as rape, which is what happened to most of the ‘victims.’ They weren’t raped; they were nagged.” Writer Sarah Overstreet once wrote: “Our college students need the tools of personal power and responsibility, not a false definition of rape. So do we all. Lacking the skills or confidence to resist verbal coercion doesn’t make it a crime.”

For decades we’ve preached that when a woman says “no,” the man must stop. Now we are telling young men that when a woman says “yes,” they are still rapists because the young men asked too much, or didn't ask in a politically correct manner. The usual suspects have trivialized sexual assault to the point that women who truly do not have reasonable alternatives except to give in to sexual abuse are being lumped in with women who merely regretted the exercise of their own free will the morning after. Colleges are re-imagining “proper” male sexual conduct in an effort to construct a progressive, supposedly female-friendly, sexual utopia, and the gender lunatics have won.

But, alas, it gets even loonier. Even though this program supposedly cuts "rape" in half (largely by telling women to do what every rational person knows they should do), that's a big problem for some radical gender zealots. Kathleen Basile, a lead behavioral scientist in the division of violence prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said this: "The main problem with a preventive approach that is focused on potential victims of sexual assault is that it puts the responsibility for preventing the assault on the potential victim, and does not acknowledge the role that potential perpetrators and the larger community play."

Here we go again.

In this new program, no one is "blaming" women for being "raped"--though many of the women the program saves from "rape" aren't really in danger of being raped--and no one is giving license to sociopaths who actually do rape. Nevertheless, extremists in the sexual grievance industry would prefer to withhold whatever good this program does provide in order to conform to some radical gender orthodoxy--the goal is not to stop "rape" but to insure that men are blamed for acting out their masculinity. The mind reels.

What they really need to teach young women, and young men, is about the regret asymmetry that separates young men and women when it comes to sex. Women feel much worse about themselves after a casual hook-up than men, and college students need to understand that. But regret is not rape, no matter how often the gender crazies insist it is.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Repeal the "Dear Colleague" letter, says respected legal journal

The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest daily law journal in America, says the "Dear Colleague" letter needs to be repealed:

2011 Update to Title IX: The Pendulum Has Swung Too Far
The federal law that requires gender equality in higher education, commonly referred to as Title IX, has brought about many laudable results since it was first passed in 1972. But at the behest of the U.S. Department of Education in 2011, the law that was passed to ensure that female students get equal opportunity was refashioned to require that schools investigate and punish sexual assaults on campus under DOE-approved procedures.

In the name of the wholly laudable goal of combating sexual assaults, the DOE placed schools in the precarious position of adjudicating allegedly criminal acts in their discipline systems, with the threat of potentially ruinous sanctions, should the schools' efforts fall short. Recognizing that at least some accusers have historically been mistreated, the department insisted on changes in how the system was to run, but those changes have gone too far and now undercut fundamental rights of those accused of wrongdoing. For instance, the DOE demanded that colleges apply a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in determining whether a sexual assault complaint has merit, and prohibited both the "clear and convincing" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" thresholds. Further, the department dictated that schools should prohibit the accused from cross-examining the accuser, warning that doing so could create a hostile environment—effectively taking the position that everyone accused is guilty, and that having the temerity to question the accuser would compound the trauma.

We can all agree that people who commit crimes should be brought to justice. At the same time, most of us share a profound commitment to affording those accused of a crime with certain rights—to know the accusation, to confront the accuser, to cross-examine witnesses and to due process. We know that each of these rights means that an accusation is less likely to result in a conviction. Yet no serious person proposes doing away with those basic rights, solely for the sake of increasing the conviction rate. If a mere accusation is sufficient to mete out punishment, we know how this story ends.

The damage is not confined to those who are falsely accused, nor to those whose valid complaints have been called into question by others crying "wolf." Even open discussion of the topic has become unacceptable to the zealots driving this initiative. When a professor at Northwestern University recently had the temerity to express her opinion that these measures were misguided and counter-productive for an academic institution whose mission should be preparing its students to become fully functioning adults, she herself was subjected to Title IX investigations at the behest of anonymous accusers. Like any other person facing such an investigation she was not permitted to know what the charges were against her in advance of her questioning, and she was not permitted to have her own legal counsel participate. This may sound like the stuff of an Orwellian dystopia and one that could never happen in a society committed to freedom of speech. Yet here we are—read it for yourself at

There are too many wrongs here to count. Higher education institutions are not designed, financed or suited to simultaneously play prosecutor, judge and jury. Faculty, administration and staff cannot magically be transformed into district attorneys and public defenders, even to satisfy the DOE's efforts to combat sex discrimination, and it is bad policy to force the square pegs of academia into the round holes of criminal prosecution. Moreover, those who face the prospect of being labeled as responsible for a sexual assault, expelled and having their future compromised by all that entails are just as vulnerable as those who are being prosecuted in the criminal justice system. We have constitutionally mandated requirements for due process in our criminal justice system, and if schools are to be tasked by the DOE with investigating and adjudicating quasi-criminal accusations, appropriate safeguards must be guaranteed to the accused.

We urge the Department of Education to repeal its 2011 mandate as both unconstitutional and unfair, and we urge that Congress amend Title IX accordingly.

The Hunting Ground's Amy Ziering: "92 to 98 percent of people who report rape are telling the truth."

"92 to 98 percent of people who report rape are telling the truth." 

No research has ever shown that.

We've written about it many, many times and won't bore our readers with the breakdown again. While only a relatively small percentage of rape claims can be definitively classified as false claims, only a relatively small percentage of rape claims can be definitively classified as actual rapes. Surprised? The majority of rape claims fall into a grey area where no one can say one way or the other whether it was rape. (Only in polls where every rape allegation is uncritically accepted and untested against competing claims of innocence is every rape claim construed as an actual rape -- but when claims are actually reported, most can't be proven by even a preponderance of the evidence.) Even Dr. David Lisak, whose research is widely touted in feminist circles, has demonstrated that the majority of rape claims can't be definitively classified one way or the other. Of those claims that can be definitively classified one way or the other, the percentage of false claims is much higher than 8 percent.

The wrestling coach who blogged about his son's ordeal in a college sex kangaroo court has been fired

Chalk up another victory for the college sexual grievance industry. C.D. Mock, the UNC-Chapel Hill head wrestling coach who has openly criticized the way universities handle sexual assault allegations in the wake of his son's ordeal at another college, has been fired. See here. The administration claims the firing was due to "performance" issues, but Mr. Mock says "it’s difficult to ignore the timing of this." He writes:
It’s ironic, the act of firing me may be confirming my viewpoint; there is a very dangerous thing happening across this country that is transforming our concept of personal freedom and individual rights. We are beginning to tolerate the idea that it is ok and in fact a reasonable strategy to silence any opposition to one’s beliefs and views rather than to encourage debate. Was I fired because my beliefs and views differ from those of the leadership at UNC? If one believes this to be true, there should be outrage throughout the Carolina community. Certainly not because a wrestling coach was fired; but, because a major University may have taken extreme measures to silence one of it’s own who is a vocal critic on an issue that has nothing to do with that individual’s job. Is the next firing going to be because of one’s religious preference? Or perhaps, the next coach or professor fired at UNC will be because of his or her views on gay rights? If this is ok, where does this end?
Mr. Mock writes about his son's case on his blog. See, e.g., here. Earlier this year, Mr. Mock endured a firestorm of criticism for his blunt indictments of the rush-to-judgment mentality that is the new norm on campus for young men accused of rape. And now he is out.

It is well to note that Mr. Mock expresses many of the same criticisms that many prominent law professors have expressed. Mr. Mock's "mistake" is that his writings are not couched in legal niceties, and he doesn't have the authority of being a Harvard or Penn law professor when he bemoans the absence of due process in college sex tribunals. For that reason, he is much easier to attack than, say, a feminist law professor at Harvard who criticizes the same things that Mr. Mock attacks. See here.

It is telling, and not at all surprising, that Mr. Mock was fired but that college professors and administrators are not even reprimanded, much less fired, for openly expressing the view that an accusation of college rape is tantamount to guilt. One college administrator openly questioned why students who are merely accused of sexual assault aren't simply expelled. Far from being fired, her school defended her. Another administrator asserted that when men and women engage in mutually drunken sex, only the male should be held responsible. A professor said this about lawsuits filed by college men alleging violations of their due process rights in connection with sexual assault claims: "These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape." Oh, and we must not forget the professor who who touted her allegiance to misandry (I'm sure she was just being "funny.")

Mr. Mock doesn't want to be a martyr to a cause, but whether he likes it or not, he is. His blog is replete with information about his son's ordeal--it is devoted to to raising awareness about these issues, and our readers should check it out.

Monday, June 15, 2015

The reason we have false rape claims

Feminist Avens O'Brien has written Want Fewer False Rape Accusations? Stop Slut Shaming, and it sounds an awful lot like the "regret asymmetry" that I write about. An excerpt from O'Brien's article:
The number of false rape claims cannot be known accurately, but there are many speculations about the percentages. There are many motivations for falsely claiming rape, and the most common one I hear people throw out is that “she was punishing him for something else”. Setting aside the debate about the level of vindictive behavior of some women, let’s not ignore what is definitely a factor in many false rape claims: slut-shaming.

A society that treats women like they lose something from sexual activity is going to find women defending themselves from that alleged loss by any means: including falsely claiming that sexual activity was neither wanted nor consented to.

A woman has sex, and is slut-shamed for it. This may cause her to feel the need to “protect” her perceived sexual “value” – how best to do that? Claim she didn’t want the sex in the first place. Suddenly, the man’s a rapist.

Don’t tell me this doesn’t happen, because it’s exactly what happened to a male friend of mine. A woman who internalized slut-shaming so much that she frequently called other women sluts and judged them harshly for promiscuous sexual activity, fooled around with someone I know, felt shame for doing so, and to protect her reputation as a virgin and someone who would never allow a man like him to have sexual access to her, claimed he raped her and ruined his life.

This is the result of slut-shaming, a concept that really shouldn’t exist amongst civilized people, particularly amongst my fellow libertarians who claim to have a fondness for logic and reason.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Haven't we all had enough of this generation of self-righteous nitwits dictating the public discourse?

Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and George Carlin. Three of the most successful comedians in recent history--no one would ever accuse them of being right-wingers, or "men's rights advocates." Their common bond, aside from their talent and their success, is a distaste for the knee-jerk political correctness on college campuses. Read about it here. Jerry Seinfeld won't play colleges any more, he says, because of the PC culture. Kids throw labels around, like "sexist," and "they don't even know what they're talking about," Seinfeld said. (If Jerry Seinfeld won't do colleges, think how brave Prof. KC Johnson and his ilk must be to go there!)

Political correctness runs amok on college campuses. Impressionable children masquerading as adults march in lockstep to the PC group-think dictated by their moral superiors, the campus social justice warriors who harbor imaginary grievances against groups they think have done them wrong. The minions happily parrot their angry overseers -- it's the same old story of kids and peer pressure -- and reduce anyone born into one of those supposed grievance-inducing groups to vile caricature. This explains why any woman who accuses any man of rape must have been raped, at least in the eyes of the bleating college mob and their extremist enablers on the blogosphere. And make no mistake, in their eyes the accused isn't worthy of fair procedures even while the school decides whether to destroy his life.

College students mostly live in a childish world of black and white, and they are so fearful of being on the "wrong" side of an issue, they refuse to acknowledge that most issues have grays and nuances and complexities. They can't fathom, for example, how we can have this blog and still support women who've been raped, because to them, if you're "for" due process when it comes to persons accused of sexual assault, you must hate women.

Haven't we all had enough of their childish thinking dictating the public discourse when it comes to these critical issues? We are raising a generation of self-righteous nitwits who need to be exiled to the kids' table while the adults grapple with tough problems in a world of grays.

Yet another likely false rape claim, but the college finds the male student guilty and expels him

So what else is new? Read about it here.

Pool party cops: All of them need to answer for rogue cop's actions

"I had 12 officers on the scene, and 11 of them performed according to their training," Police Chief Greg Conley said. "They did an excellent job."

No, they didn't do "an excellent job," Chief Conley. They stood by while the rogue cop terrorized a bunch of kids. They all need to answer for Eric Casebolt's idiocy.