Scrolling through the comments section of articles detailing the Title IX lawsuit provides a telling picture of the fallacies and arguments which are deployed to silence victims of sexual assault.The writer posits two "examples" of these purported "fallacies" and attempts to "silence victims." Neither supports her epiphany:
“Could somebody explain to these women that the right to due process trumps Title IX everytime (sic),” one reader wrote.Okay, I had to read that multiple times to make sure I am not missing something. I'm not.
In what respect is this comment even remotely incorrect, unfair, or offensive? Title IX is not the Constitution, but sadly, the sexual grievance lobby seems to be under the gargantuan misapprehension that some radical feminist interpretation of Title IX trumps even the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which is legally absurd and morally grotesque.
Later in the article, the writer tips her hand about her real feelings about due process. ". . . when little institutional support is provided to sexual assault victims and trials are held behind the closed doors of the university (rather than in front of a jury in a traditional court of law), the assumption of innocence becomes an assertion." It "becomes an assertion"? What the hell does that mean? I don't know, but there's little doubt she's trivializing due process. The writer also not-so-subtly derides those advocating for due process by putting the words due process in quotations marks (for film buffs: CANDIDATE KANE CAUGHT IN LOVE NEST WITH "SINGER").
The writer isn't finished:
“Justice is a two edged sword,” another man wrote. “The accused male students just happened to be athletes. Were the girls suspended from their activities until trial?”The writer responds to this comment with indignation: "If the women who report a rape are also 'suspended from their activities until trial,' why would they even consider reporting it?"
Oh, I don't know--maybe they would if they were--you know--actually raped. While the writer deems it horrific to impose interim measures on accusers, upending the life of a young man on the basis of nothing more than an accusation is just fine, right? Tell that to the Hofstra false rape victims. His rights are not only trumped, they are eviscerated--by virtue of an unproven allegation.
Oh, but, you see, that silly business about "proof" is just a technicality, isn't it? After all, college rape is an epidemic, as we all know, right? The writer cites those scary college rape statistics--you know, the ones that assume every accusation of a rape was an actual rape even though that assumption is absurd. Why is that assumption absurd? Because even most rape reports made to police cannot be reasonably labeled "rape," for a variety of reasons. Don't cry--it's a fact. Every time rape claims are subjected to scrutiny against competing evidence of innocence, most are either deemed unfounded or false. Claims that can be definitively classified as false or unfounded are not only extremely common, they are more common than actual rapes.
And by the way, those same surveys that purport to show a campus rape "epidemic" also show that a shocking percentage of college women don't have the foggiest idea what "consent" means--please do check it out before libeling me as a "rape apologist." I know you can't believe what I am telling you is true, but that's because you are being fed lies and half-truths by the sexual grievance cartel and their media enablers.
I rarely respond to articles like this one--there are a lot of them, and it's generally not worth the time. But once in a while, it's important to remind our regular readers of what is being written in the newspapers of our vaunted institutions of higher learning. The guaranties of due process are the greatest bulwarks against tyranny ever devised by man, but college students seem to be not just blissfully ignorant of what due process is but downright hostile to it. Caving to peer pressure, as children are wont to do, they happily march in lockstep to the PC group-think of their moral superiors, the sexual grievance cartel that brands college men accused of sexual assault guilty by reason of penis. This disgraceful, anti-intellectual hostility to due process is about as un-progressive as anything could be. It is not liberalism. It is a manifestation of fealty to group identity politics of the worst kind. But try telling these children any of this and they are likely to have a hissy fit and accuse you of a micro-aggression.
I know two things: if they don't grow up quickly, the Republic is doomed. And they should not be allowed within a thousand yards of a ballot box this November.