Ashe Schow writes:
An independent investigation ordered by ASCA found Casares not responsible for sexually assaulting fellow ASCA board member Jill Creighton, who had been elected president of the group for the 2016-2017 term.
Despite the finding, Casares' reputation has been destroyed. How could anyone making a sexual assault accusation want to confide in someone who had himself been accused of sexual assault?
. . . .
Casares received more due process than he and his colleagues lobby for when it comes to students accused of sexual assault. While it would be easy to point and laugh like the "Simpson"'s character Nelson Muntz, one has to recognize that Casares just went through what hundreds of colleges students have experienced.At Inside Higher Ed's story on this incident, a comment from Joseph Colorado stated:
Another 'victory' for women's rights?"IrishCC" responded to Mr. Colorado's comment by echoing the mantras that, ironically, Title IX coordinators have long spewed:
It is scary that an accusation without evidence, nor criminal charges, is all it takes to encourage the resignation of the accused. Should evidence be presented indicating guilt, then the guy deserves to live in a prison cell. Should no evidence, or charges, ever come forward then the woman should become a pariah....but that won't happen because a person would never lie about this type of situation.
The stats on false reports indicating that it happens less than 2% of the time, and for exactly the reasons indicated by your comment - no one believes the women. I've heard the administration had been ignoring problems with him for a while, so it's not surprising it took an outsider to force a change.We responded to Irish CC--and found ourselves in the unusual position of defending someone who has worked for the sexual grievance industry. The fact is, we often defend people who do things we don't like, and Irish CC's comment was anathema to everything we work for at COTWA:
Your comment suggests that it is appropriate to discern the facts of one case based on what supposedly happened in others. The error, and the injustice, in this epiphany is self-evident. This is the sort of justification dictators have used to dispense with due process for eons. Beyond that, the 2% figure you've parroted is an invention of the sexual grievance industry that is used in an attempt to legitimize the very injustice you promote. The fact is, when sexual assault claims are subjected to scrutiny and competing evidence of innocence (that is, when the claims are actually examined), the majority can't be said to be either assaults or non-assaults. While there are relatively few claims that are conclusively false, there are also relatively few claims that are conclusively sexual assault. Your comment is a symptom of the rape culture hysteria that has become a cottage industry on campus. We are feeding our daughters falsehoods such as the one you posit, and this is the result: the recent highly touted Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey showed that a figure approaching half of college women think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent. That is chilling.