Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The top three stupid arguments in opposition to the Safe Campus Act

The Safe Campus Act of 2015 sponsored by Republican Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona and Pete Sessions and Kay Granger of Texas is a significant bill because it provides rights for both the accuser and the accused. The bill provides, among other things that if an accuser "provides a notification to the institution [that she does not want the matter investigated by law enforcement], the institution may not initiate or otherwise carry out any institutional disciplinary proceeding with respect to the allegation, including imposing interim measures . . . ." Ashe Schow has provided the best and most cogent coverage of this proposed law outside of this blog.

There are innumerable invalid arguments in opposition to the proposed act. Here are my top three:

(1)  The proposed law creates a double-standard that requires women to report only for sexual assault but not for other alleged offenses.

The irony must be lost on the people making this argument: they are the ones who insisted that alleged sexual assault on campus should be held to entirely different legal standards than any other offense--standards that make it much easier to find young men responsible for sexual assault, as this blog has reported in probably hundreds of posts over the years. This double-standard was most famously stated in the unjust, anti-male "Dear Colleague" letter.

The Safe Campus Act is necessary in order to correct the terrible injustices this double standard has imposed on colleges across the country. If, in fact, sexual assault had been treated the same as other offenses, there likely would be no necessity for this law.

(2) The Safe Campus Act is inconsistent with Title IX.

First, it's not. Everyone knows that Title IX was not designed to allow colleges to construct anti-male kangaroo courts to hold show trials for alleged sex offenses, but that's how it's been applied.

Second, Title IX is not the Constitution, it is a federal law the same as the Safe Campus Act would be. Title IX poses no legal impediment to the enactment of this law. Unfortunately, the anti-due process forces opposing the Safe Campus Act seem to think that Title IX trumps even the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which is legally absurd.

(3) Sexual assault accusers may not want police involvement because women "can't get justice" by reporting to the police. 

This argument is among the sacred tenets of the sexual grievance industry, and it is both utterly preposterous and constructed on a faulty premise.

First, alleged sexual assault needs to be reported to the police in order that the accused not be subjected to a life-altering punishment and is not branded a "rapist" for life without due process. In addition, such alleged offenses need to be reported to police for the sake of women both on and off campus. Expelling a "rapist" and unleashing him on society at large does nothing to protect women off-campus, but the sexual grievance industry seems to have no concern for them.

Senator Claire McCaskill opposes the Safe Campus Act because, she said, young women robbed at gunpoint do not need to involve police to get their assailants expelled whereas, under this Safe Campus Act, police would need to be involved. This, of course, is the worst kind of straw man. Armed robbery is always reported to the police, and no law is needed to insure that it is. The Safe Campus Act would merely do what activists have long advocated but apparently never really meant: ensure that colleges treat sexual assault as a serious crime.

Second, any suggestion that women fear reporting to the police because they can't get justice is a red herring. RAINN's Scott Berkowitz testified in Congress a few years ago, and Amanda Hess live-blogged it:
On reporting: More victims may not be reporting their rapes, but the reasoning has changed over the past few decades. 'A generation ago,' the reasons were things like, 'fear of not being believed; fear of being interrogated about and blamed for their own behavior, and what they were wearing. In short, they feared that they would be the one on trial.' Today, 'the perception of many victims has evolved.' Now they don't report for these reasons: 'they don't want their loved ones to know what happened; they're ashamed themselves; they just want to put it all behind them.' Today, 'fear and shame of how the police wil [sic] treat them' has moved down on the list of reasons victims provide for not officially reporting the crime.
It is mind-boggling that the sexual grievance industry and its extremist media enablers are happy to deprive young men of critical rights in order to allow young women to cry "rape" in a way that would keep mommy and daddy from learning their daughters drink and are sexually active.