The rationale was dubious from the outset. Title IX, they said, entitled students to a safe environment, which morphed into an environment where no one, no matter how delicate or irresponsible, no matter how infantile or peculiar, would suffer unpleasant feelings, no matter what the costs. Those costs being the safety of, and fairness to, other students about whom nobody gave a damn.
And now, boom! The rationale was lost to the rubric.
California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson’s (D) bill, which would allow community colleges in the state to punish students for off-campus sexual assaults, was approved by the state senate unanimously this past week.
Her bill was introduced back in February. It now awaits Governor Jerry Brown’s signature to become law.
He’s a hard-working gov, that Jerry Brown. He must get hand cramps. From the Daily Nexus:
Jackson said the bill’s success was backed by the common understanding that all college students from UCs [University of California], CSUs [California State University] and community colleges should be held accountable for crimes such as sexual assault.
“I think, clearly, if everyone has to meet to the same standards, there won’t be the sense that someone can get away with something that another can’t,” Jackson said. “So there’s going to be accountability, and hopefully there will be disciplinary action in both circumstances.”
The notion of creating a chamber, adorning it with stars, for the purpose of vindicating the whims of some students, mostly of the female variety, at the expense of other students, mostly of the male variety, was bad enough. But then the idea upon which it was born flew out of Hannah-Beth Jackson’s head, and a completely new, totally unrelated, idea filled the void.
Suddenly, a sense of reverse fairness filled the air and the newfound standard that emerged from a “dear colleague” letter by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and could only be rationalized by some contorted application of Title IX with a very heavy dose of neo-feminist dogma miraculously became fairness to all women everywhere.
If a woman was entitled to special care and handling on campus, shouldn’t all women be so entitled? Shouldn’t the chamber, adorned with stars, be available to all?
Well, no. Not only because the chamber shouldn’t exist in the first place, but because the only justification for it, if you can call an appeal to sad feelings a justification, was the unique and bizarrely interpreted demands of Title IX. Not to mention the threat of losing federal funds for not building the chamber fast enough.
None of this, however, has any bearing on the world outside the campus. We already have a system for this, and it happens in courthouses where people accused of doing wrong are entitled to rights. Did no one tell Jackson about this?
“Our first priority is for student safety,” [Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) President Lori] Gaskin said. “We do not tolerate violations of our college student code of conduct on any of our three campuses, and this measure would extend that authority for sexual assault and other serious student misconduct outside our campus boundaries.”
If you feel the need to reread this quote, maybe even a few times, because it appears at first blush to be a complete non-sequitur, you’re not alone. What it means to say, even though it does so with the lack of devotion to the meaning of words one might expect of a college president, is that as long as they have the ability to inflict punishment on the guy, any and every woman from within or without can come to us with her complaint.
We’ll fix the little bastard for you.
According to Jackson, the bill mandates punishments such as expulsion and suspension for students found guilty of sexual assault regardless of whether or not the incident happened within or outside of campus boundaries.
“We will be monitoring this to make sure that disciplinary proceedings are effective and are pursued when there are allegations of rape and sexual assault,” Jackson said. “It is my expectation that I have discussed with the universities that they will follow this law and abide by it.”
Once the original rationale, dubious as it may be, is disconnected from the execution, the possibilities mushroom. If a college can adjudicate a sexual assault, why not a burglary, or a murder? Are they not evils to be eradicated, and certainly not permissible on campus? And if they can extend their jurisdiction beyond the campus walls for one, certainly they can do so for another. And another.
And rape is a horrible crime, which the college has deemed itself entitled to punish. And if it can punish, why not punish it more appropriately, as mere expulsion is inadequate retribution for so heinous an offense. Campuses will need to build jails, named after donors of course, and sentences of expulsion will fall to the wayside as sentences of imprisonment are necessary to address such horrible crimes.
What sort of rape apologist could argue against the need for college prisons to protect their students from rape? And others from rape? How could anyone object to imprisoning a male student for the protection of co-eds and all other women, who clearly deserve just as much protection?
And not only has California taken a dive down the slippery slope quickly, but without the slightest recognition of how they’ve abandoned all pretense at justification when crafting a secondary, subconstitutional, criminal justice system, devoid of constitutional protections, to save the world. And if Jerry Brown likes it, Andy Cuomo is sure to follow.
“Success” in this case equals “got past the legislature”, not “was good law”. People like California State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson do not care one whit about the latter; the only thing that matters is appearing to care.
Au contraire, Rob. She cares. She cares deeply. She just doesn’t care about you. Don’t be so privileged.
What a great business model. The schools build their own jails. They stock them with student “offenders”, probably all male. Then when the seemingly inevitable rapes happen in jail (which far too few seem to care about), then those prisoners can file their own sexual assault complaints against guards and put the guards in the same jail under the same flimsy standards. Then they get new guards, and the cycle begins anew. Think of all of the new jail buildings they would have to build (and of course name) every term. What a racket. I want in!
You realize if we play this game to the logical extreme, there could be vast riches to be had here.
I don’t understand. If a student is found guilty of a crime off campus, aren’t they going to be punished according for that by the court that found them guilty?
Should criminals be barred from attending college? That doesn’t seem a good idea to me.
You misapprehend the procedure, but it’s not your fault because you’re viewing this through the lens of reason and understanding, which are tools of the patriarchy to perpetuate the subjugation of women. If a woman anywhere complains of a sexual assault or rape by a student at a college, the woman will not be relegated to the harsh and unfair criminal justice system administered by a real court that applies laws with elements that are inherently unfair to women because they fail to accommodate her feelings and lack of evidence.
So now, the woman, despite her having no relation to the college and there being no Title IX rationale under any conceivable application, can still go to the college and enjoy the benefit of its process to assure that her feelings are vindicated, the male student punished, just as if she was a student at the college as well.
Hope that helps.
When you put it that way, time to think even grander. Let’s just enroll all men in the entire state of California into college (whether they apply or not). Then if any one of them is accused of sexual assault, they can be added to a school’s jail. Say they get sent to the school nearest to where they live (if they are one of those who is enrolled, but not actually attending any classes, say, because they never applied in the first place.) Women everywhere in the state will feel so safe! Men, perhaps, not so much.
OK, now I understand. The intent is to jail all men for the benefit of women who are afraid of all men. Thanks.
He was making a snarky joke, Beth. That’s humor. It’s a thing that goes whoosh over your head sometimes.
Wow, now I’m really confused about what the benefit of this law is. Thanks a lot.
Of course, to be truly effective, a law like this must be widely publicized. How else is the non-student going to know about her new recourse? Did they allocate enough funds for the billboard campaign, or will the law require PDs to ask complainants if the alleged perp was a student and then to inform them of this new alternative option (or will the overworked PDs see it as a rational thing to do anyway)?
There’s a new PR campaign in the works, “If you feel something, say something.” It’s a winner.
I almost always do say something when I feel something. That’s because I get slapped and I say “Ow!”.
Why not just imprison and isolate all students in what can be called “educational safe space” isolation cells and forbid them from any unsanctioned or unsupervised contact with other students or the outside world?
Surely this addresses all of the concerns resulting from unwanted interactions that may cause harm to individuals’ feelz and, if you ensure that there are plenty of comfort puppies, coloring supplies, university-approved counselling and such from within these cells, no doubt the educational system would create the safest and most self-actualized graduate classes that history has ever known.
Solitary. For their own protection.
Of course. If every man is a potential rock-and-roll cowboy, what choice is there but to hide our silver and throw our daughters in the hole?
Well, there’s always this, but it has its drawbacks.
Like metal detectors?
That’s one.
I’m just gonna leave this here…
You very quickly learn to not lose your keys.
so this is your attire while blogging ??
No. I can’t find it in my size.
It’s amusing to see how Puritan the Left has gotten these days (have you seen the “sexual contracts”? Whatever happened to free love?). It would be a lot more amusing if this whole Yes-Means-Yes business didn’t have such a viciously punitive streak to it.
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! Safe spaces for college campuses!
You might think so, and yet that’s not quite the case (or their argument). Progressive views entitle a woman to take any position toward sex that she chooses, and bolsters her right to hooking up, to sexting naked images, all the conduct that one might otherwise caution isn’t the most prudent. No, progressives say, we are entitled to do that and you are slut shaming to question our choices.
It’s just that they also have the right to change their mind later, to get angry later when things don’t turn out as they anticipated, and to reimagine the past to make the males rapists in retrospect. And that’s fine with them too.
So their solution for doing away with patriarchy is instituting matriarchy? I think I get it now.
Well, now that they’ve succeeded in applying affirmative consent to all women’s reports against male college students, I assume the next move is to seek to expand the class of men subject to it. Obviously it would get laughed out of criminal court. My best guess is that their next target will be employers or government services. So if a woman says she didn’t affirmatively consent to something, you’ll have to be fired or you’ll get banned from government buildings and denied services. This raises another question, though. The schools exempt self identified victims from punishment for anything. Which is the more effective route to actively incentivize women to lie, employers or government agencies?
I think my favorite part of this law is that, if it should come before California’s Supreme Court and get shot down, then all the usual suspects will shout “Court supports rapists.”
I’m telling you, as a Nihilist, these are very exciting times.
And to think I used to blow past these Title IX things cuz, ‘who cares anywayz’..
ok, so Title IX was about opening up opportunities to all in regards to sports in schools & college, (like girls playing football, or guys playing field hockey).. or at least back in the day, that’s what I was told.. But!! Now Title IX applies to how people deal with each other when their feelings get hurt !??! And now this absurdity has been sanctioned by the (sad) state of Ca..
You Gotta Be Fucking Kidding Me.. How does a law opening up opportunities to all get turned into a ‘smack them down cuz I don’t like them after we hooked up’ interpretation ??
while I get it that campuses are acting administratively, Isn’t there a ‘spirit of the law’ argument allowed ??
while my head has exploded on past issues, this one is really going off the charts.. I’ve got holes in my tinfoil hat now .. sheesh!!