VA - Freshman daughter, mom 'good time drop off' outrages VA university

[katydid23]

here is an MSM article:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/2...e-tribunals-punish-without-proof-say-critics/

'Accused is guilty': Campus rape tribunals punish without proof, critics say

Published June 20, 2015

A former Amherst College student is just the latest in a long line of men whose lives have been turned upside-down after being accused of sexual assault in what they say were consensual encounters, punished in campus tribunals where, in some cases, critics say, they’re guilty even after proving their innocence.

The former student, whose name has not been made public, was expelled after his alleged victim, the roommate of his girlfriend, complained some 21 months after the incident and despite what evidence appears to show was consensual sex. As in many campus procedures which enforce school sanctions and not criminal law, only a finding that he was “more likely than not” guilty was necessary.


“Essentially the procedure there works under the assumption that the accused is guilty and needs to use the hearing to prove his innocence,” K.C. Johnson, .... “But he isn’t given the tools to do that. He doesn’t have discovery, he can’t get the relevant evidence he needs, he doesn’t have an attorney representing him [and has] limited right of cross examination.


n the Amherst case, the expelled student’s attorney is suing the school in federal court, where traditional rules of evidence have produced incriminating text messages sent by the alleged victim that appear to indicate she not only consented to, but initiated the sex. His attorney also alleges that the woman told campus investigators the sex began consensually, but that she revoked her consent during the act.

 

[Donjeta]

Of course 'consent is required' for sex. No question about that. The question is, since the accused can no longer rely upon showing initial consent as proof of their innocence, how are they now expected to prove that the accuser gave them 'on going affirmative consent?' Pretty much impossible task for the accused to manage.

And OF COURSE there should be due process for the accused. BUT THERE IS NOT ANYMORE on many campuses. And many cases do not make it to the courts because of a lack of evidence. But that doesn't stop University officials. They are expelling male students with very little, if any, evidence of wrongdoing.

I don't think initial consent ever was such a get out of jail free card that it's made out to be. It was always possible for what started as a consensual act to turn into rape in the middle. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Yeah I strongly disagree that ongoing consent is too much to manage. If you're really not okay with checking in with your partner then you really aren't ready to be having sex.

I feel like there's an opposition to ongoing consent here and I don't think I understand it. If there's so much concern about being wrongfully accused of rape then ensuring consent is ongoing is a way to make sure everything is clear.

People are wrongfully accused of crimes besides rape, too. Too much clarity re consent is never actually too much IMO.

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

It is unfair to the males because it puts an impossible burden on them to defend themselves from accusations. When a female has mutual contact, gives consent, and they have consensual relations, then the male has various ways to show that in a hearing. But if a woman can come back at him 2 yrs later and say she ' revoked consent during the act' ----there is NO WAY for him to defend himself. And the many lawsuits that are happening right now corroborate that, imo.

for example:

"In the Amherst case, the expelled student’s attorney is suing the school in federal court, where traditional rules of evidence have produced incriminating text messages sent by the alleged victim that appear to indicate she not only consented to, but initiated the sex. His attorney also alleges that the woman told campus investigators the sex began consensually, but that she revoked her consent during the act.

The suit seeks $75,000 and names the school, President Carolyn Martin and several officials for moving “with enormous speed to expel John Doe, eject him from the campus, and destroy his reputation.”

Other cases in which young men’s lives have been damaged by accusations that might not stand up in a traditional court have made recent headlines."

While no one doubts that sexual assault occurs on campuses and is a problem, Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “The War Against Boys,” says the so-called “rape culture” on campus is exaggerated, and the lines between consensual sex that is later regretted and actual assault is being blurred. A complaint is often enough to get the accused thrown out of school, she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/2...e-tribunals-punish-without-proof-say-critics/

 

[gitana1]

BBM

So a girl comes to a guys room late at night, drinks with him, fools around sexually, passionately, goes to sleep in his bed...and the onus is on the drunk 18 yr old guy not to take it further? That sounds like a dangerous way to act. And it does not sound like a very fair way for the girl to act. To get in a drunk guys bed and do passionate, sexual things and then put on the brakes. And go to sleep? Sounds kind of cruel to me. JMO

Yes. You may think it's "cruel" for an 18 year old boy not to be able to have non-consensual sex with a passed out girl who "teased" him but that's the law.

I hope we all tell our daughters that certain behaviors are very, very risky and unsafe and that they can easily be victimized if they do or don't do certain things. But I hope we also teach all of out kids that stupidty, ignorance, or inebriation do not cause a person to "deserve" it.

Goodness gracious. This is an attitude that blames the victim of rape. This is an attitude that states men are not in control of their sexual passions (which is pretty much what every extremist, fundamentalist religion believes, which is why women are segregated and covered in those cultures). This is also an attitude that can lead one's sons to be charged with and convicted for crimes that lead to prison time.

Let me be clear:

Yes, it is rape if it involves sexual penetration/sodomy of a person who cannot consent due to being a minor, or passed out or otherwise too incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to know what they're doing.

Damn that awful third wave feminism that led to such evil laws! Our poor teenaged boys don't even get to screw a passed out drunk girl! Even though she was flirting! Even though she was dressed like a ! Even though she stupidly went to his room, made out with him and passed out in his bed! Man she deserves to get the hell raped out of her by that poor 18 year old! I mean she essentially seduced him, poor guy! And he can't be expected to withstand blue balls, or even take care of his "excitement" by himself! Come on, he has a right to have sex with her floppy, drunken body!

Wow.

 

[Donjeta]

It is unfair to the males because it puts an impossible burden on them to defend themselves from accusations. When a female has mutual contact, gives consent, and they have consensual relations, then the male has various ways to show that in a hearing. But if a woman can come back at him 2 yrs later and say she ' revoked consent during the act' ----there is NO WAY for him to defend himself. And the many lawsuits that are happening right now corroborate that, imo.

So what are you proposing instead? What would be the point beyond which a woman, or a man for that matter, can't revoke their consent anymore? If they took their top off, they have to take panties off too? If they allowed him to penetrate digitally they have to do oral sex too? If they put on a condom and allowed him to enter their vagina, they have to go all the way and follow through until he orgasms even if it hurts?

 

[katydid23]

I don't think initial consent ever was such a get out of jail free card that it's made out to be. It was always possible for what started as a consensual act to turn into rape in the middle. JMO.

In the past, if a male could show that there was an initial consent, then it was much harder for a female to charge him with rape. She could say she changed her mind, but she had the burden to show that happened and she made it clear to him.

Now the burden has been shifted to the male to prove that the female gave his affirmative consent throughout the interaction. And since that is next to impossible, the male has no effective defense. A female can come back years later and claim that she revoked her consent and the NEW regulations assume the male is guilty.

 

[Donjeta]

In the past, if a male could show that there was an initial consent, then it was much harder for a female to charge him with rape. She could say she changed her mind, but she had the burden to show that happened and she made it clear to him.

Now the burden has been shifted to the male to prove that the female gave his affirmative consent throughout the interaction. And since that is next to impossible, the male has no effective defense. A female can come back years later and claim that she revoked her consent and the NEW regulations assume the male is guilty.

Well you know, it was not any less difficult for the woman to prove that she said no than for the man to prove that she said yes.

In most cases it's he said she said.

 

[katydid23]

So what are you proposing instead? What would be the point beyond which a woman, or a man for that matter, can't revoke their consent anymore? If they took their top off, they have to take panties off too? If they allowed him to penetrate digitally they have to do oral sex too? If they put on a condom and allowed him to enter their vagina, they have to go all the way and follow through until he orgasms even if it hurts?

She can revoke any time. I have no problem with that. My issue is with the new way of dealing with the assault claims and the unfair way it is stacked against the male students.

 

[Fairy1]

In the past, if a male could show that there was an initial consent, then it was much harder for a female to charge him with rape. She could say she changed her mind, but she had the burden to show that happened and she made it clear to him.

Now the burden has been shifted to the male to prove that the female gave his affirmative consent throughout the interaction. And since that is next to impossible, the male has no effective defense. A female can come back years later and claim that she revoked her consent and the NEW regulations assume the male is guilty.

In the past, if a female was wearing something or behaving in a manner deemed to be "provocative," the rape was her fault. Not exactly the good old days, IMO.

How about if males and females both take measures to protect themselves? The burden shouldn't be on only one gender.

For instance, hanging banners inviting young girls and their mothers to a frat house for a good time is probably not going to look good should those fellas ever come under suspicion.

 

[Fairy1]

Well you know, it was not any less difficult for the woman to prove that she said no than for the man to prove that she said yes.

In most cases it's he said she said.

And this is inherently the biggest challenge with proving/disproving this crime - most often involving only two people and no witnesses.

 

[katydid23]

Well you know, it was not any less difficult for the woman to prove that she said no than for the man to prove that she said yes.

In most cases it's he said she said.

Right. But if a woman goes to bed with a man, begins to have consensual sex, then decides, for whatever reason to STOP having the sex she is already having, and she then later accuses him of not stopping or not stopping quickly enough, --- a judge or a jury has to decide which story is more credible. Unless I know BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt, then I am not going to find that male student guilty of rape. But the new regulations take it down from a criminal finding to a civll finding. Anbd the accused has no due process.

"In an American courtroom, those accused of crimes have a right to a lawyer, a right to question accusers, and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty," said Sommers . "It’s all reversed in today’s campus rape tribunals."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/2...e-tribunals-punish-without-proof-say-critics/

 

[freckles]

Well you know, it was not any less difficult for the woman to prove that she said no than for the man to prove that she said yes.

In most cases it's he said she said.

And that is why these cases are so difficult and should be handled by our law enforcement and courts.

To be convicted of a crime, our court system states that it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is why there are so few convictions.

What some people are suggesting is that these rapes don't need beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction

 

[katydid23]

So what are you proposing instead? What would be the point beyond which a woman, or a man for that matter, can't revoke their consent anymore? If they took their top off, they have to take panties off too? If they allowed him to penetrate digitally they have to do oral sex too? If they put on a condom and allowed him to enter their vagina, they have to go all the way and follow through until he orgasms even if it hurts?

Revoking consent at any time is fine. But it is not fair for her to be able to waltz into a Title IX office 2 yrs later and make an accusation, with no proof or corroboration , that ruins a male student's entire life. JMO

 

[freckles]

Katy - looks like we had the same thought at the same time

 

[katydid23]

Yes. You may think it's "cruel" for an 18 year old boy not to be able to have non-consensual sex with a passed out girl who "teased" him but that's the law.

I hope we all tell our daughters that certain behaviors are very, very risky and unsafe and that they can easily be victimized if they do or don't do certain things. But I hope we also teach all of out kids that stupidty, ignorance, or inebriation do not cause a person to "deserve" it.

Goodness gracious. This is an attitude that blames the victim of rape. This is an attitude that states men are not in control of their sexual passions (which is pretty much what every extremist, fundamentalist religion believes, which is why women are segregated and covered in those cultures). This is also an attitude that can lead one's sons to be charged with and convicted for crimes that lead to prison time.

Let me be clear:

Yes, it is rape if it involves sexual penetration/sodomy of a person who cannot consent due to being a minor, or passed out or otherwise too incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to know what they're doing.

Damn that awful third wave feminism that led to such evil laws! Our poor teenaged boys don't even get to screw a passed out drunk girl! Even though she was flirting! Even though she was dressed like a ! Even though she stupidly went to his room, made out with him and passed out in his bed! Man she deserves to get the hell raped out of her by that poor 18 year old! I mean she essentially seduced him, poor guy! And he can't be expected to withstand blue balls, or even take care of his "excitement" by himself! Come on, he has a right to have sex with her floppy, drunken body!

Wow.

I did NOT say that the male should have sex with the drunk female. NOT what I said. That was in a longer conversation we were having about girls needing to have accountability as well. And that was the point I was trying awkwardly to make. That it should also be on the girls to keep themselves safe. They cannot get drunk with a male student and climb into his bed and think everything will be fine. And in my old fashioned opinion it is cruel to tease and taunt drunk teenaged boys. I know that is a very politically incorrect and unpopular thing to say during the 'date rape' culture times---but I have seen a whole lot of aggressive, sexual behavior by girls.

One time in particular, A friend of my daughters came over, after a wild party, and acted like she had no idea the boy she had slept with the night before, would think there was a green light, despite sending him naked pictures, calling him to come over at midnight, drinking with him, then the next morning, wondering if there was a rape or if consent was really given. She was asking us if she should accuse him of rape or not because she did not really remember if she consented. My daughter said " didnt you tell him to get condoms? " She said YES, but that doesn't mean we had to use them. That was just in case. " Didnt you send him a naked picture of you right before you went over there?" Yes, but I was just goofing around.

Is that FAIR treatment of the 18 yr old boy? I don't think it is. I think she was teasing him and manipulating him, and his entire life was in her hands at that point. JMO

 

[Donjeta]

So if a woman sends a male naked photos and talks about condoms, she can't revoke consent anymore and be fair?

If people, male or female, are too drunk to remember giving consent they may have been in no state to give consent and it could possibly be rape because of that even if there was a lot of teasing and foreplay beforehand.

 

[Donjeta]

Right. But if a woman goes to bed with a man, begins to have consensual sex, then decides, for whatever reason to STOP having the sex she is already having, and she then later accuses him of not stopping or not stopping quickly enough, --- a judge or a jury has to decide which story is more credible. Unless I know BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt, then I am not going to find that male student guilty of rape. But the new regulations take it down from a criminal finding to a civll finding. Anbd the accused has no due process.

"In an American courtroom, those accused of crimes have a right to a lawyer, a right to question accusers, and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty," said Sommers . "It’s all reversed in today’s campus rape tribunals."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/2...e-tribunals-punish-without-proof-say-critics/

I agree that the investigation into allegations and the consequences for rape should be dealt with by LE and the courts and not by deans and college disciplinary boards.

 

[katydid23]

So if a woman sends a male naked photos and talks about condoms, she can't revoke consent anymore and be fair?

If people, male or female, are too drunk to remember giving consent they may have been in no state to give consent and it could possibly be rape because of that even if there was a lot of teasing and foreplay beforehand.

Not just talk about condoms, but ask him specifically to go buy some before her visit. And sending naked photos of her for him to look at while 'he is waiting for her.' That does not sound like consent?

So we expect that an 18 yr old male, gets texts from a girl sending him naked pix, asking if she can come over at midnight, bringing a bottle of rum with her, asking him to make sure he has condoms---and we expect him not to think that is consent o have sex with him? She got into bed with him and had foreplay, that she remembers.

How can he be accused of rape ? Seriously. Are you going to say that it was rape and that this teen should be expelled from school, get fired from his job, be arrested and jailed, because after all of the MAJOR GREEN LIGHTS, she cannot remember if she revoked consent or not?


Am I the only one that sees her being in the wrong and not him? Just because she is a poor innocent 'female', it does not make it right to taunt, tease, manipulate others with that kind of passive/aggressive behavior. What is a male student supposed to think if a girl asks to come sleep over but wants him to go get condoms first? We need to retain some common sense in all of this mess.

 

[Donjeta]

It's quite possible she didn't revoke her consent.

However, it would be wise for all the horny young male students, and everybody else for that matter, to remember that sex with someone who is in no state to consent, could be a felony.

Inability to consent because of excessive intoxication effectively means no.

 

[katydid23]

wow, great article, but of all sources:

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...others-of-accusedcollegerapistsfightback.html

Mothers of accused college rapists fight back
Allison Strange talks weekly with mothers of accused college rapists, who say the system was stacked against their sons


Since America Tonight aired its Sex Crimes on Campus series last fall, more students disciplined for sexual assault have been firing back against their colleges, saying the system is stacked against them. Many schools have been handed lawsuits, including Brown University, Swarthmore, Vassar, Williams and Bucknell, just to name a few. And in a new twist, some claim their schools actually discriminated against them as men.

School hearings were built to judge plagiarism cases and don't afford the parties the same rights as a criminal trial. But, student sexual assault victims overwhelmingly turn to their schools – as opposed to law enforcement – for some form of justice, leaving colleges in the strange position of adjudicating violent crimes.

Federal guidance on the Title IX civil rights law instructs colleges to use a preponderance of the evidence standard in deliberating on sexual assaults, or "more likely than not." The administration says this lower bar is essential to ensure equal access to education. Critics say it exponentially ups the risk of railroading men.

Last month, 28 members of the Harvard Law School faculty wrote an open letter, charging the university's more victim-friendly sexual assault policy with violating "many of the most basic principles we teach." And in October, 20 lawyers wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate, saying the implementation of Title IX gender-equality law failed to address the rights of the accused.

We’re lawyers who are seasoned litigators, who’ve said this is not how you resolve a problem as substantially superior as sexual assault. It’s not fair to anybody, and that stain stays on those boys’ records the rest of their lives,” said Eric Rosenberg, one of the letter's signees, who's represented multiple college students he says were falsely accused of sexual assault. “I don’t think that, currently, students or faculty are educated on how to handle something that complex."