Crazy Campus Consent Conundrum Collapses

Cynics. Can’t live with them but can’t deny they’re right. Of course, they may not be cynics, but rather people who refuse to be blinded by emotion and instead remain grounded in reason and fact.  But then, calling them cynics, as well as a host of other derogatory names, makes it easier to dismiss them without a second thought. Or even a first thought, because thinking is hard.

Few people have dedicated as much thought to the Catch-22 of the scenario constructed on college campuses as K.C. Johnson and Ashe Schow.

K.C. points out Georgia Tech’s zeal in destroying the lives of the accused without any semblance of due process.

With campus rape grabbing national headlines, Tech has expelled or suspended nearly every student it has investigated for sexual misconduct in the past five years, records show. And at Tech, officials finding a student responsible for “non-consensual sexual intercourse” must either expel the student or explain why they did not.

The school employs the “single investigator model” favored by the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

When a student accuses another of sexual assault, federal education officials prefer that schools use the “single investigator” model to look into the allegation— one highly specialized individual to investigate, decide responsibility and impose a sanction. Tech and the University of Georgia each use that model.

By “highly specialized,” they mean someone thoroughly indoctrinated in all the excuses for an accuser’s failure to comport with the normal and expected actions of someone who has been raped, as well as the modern translation of rape as being whatever a woman decides it is, before, during or after sex. Even, at Georgia Tech, 17 months later.

It’s left to this single investigator to impose their view on the life of a male student, ignoring his position and evidence, as well as the accuser’s failure. If the investigator is inclined to find a violation, then a violation it is. The male student’s world depends entirely on the prejudice of the investigator. Cool process, sis.

But then, as Ashe notes, the attempt to protect oneself from the potential of having one’s life destroyed by an errant unhappy female months, if not years, later has its own problems.

Of course the new policy is coming out of California, which led the way in inserting campus bureaucrats into the bedroom with its “affirmative consent” policies. These policies mandate how students must engage in sexual activity – not as a passionate act but as a contractual question-and-answer session. The only way to prove one followed such a policy is to videotape the encounter, but now, California colleges are making such recordings a violation of school policy.

Non-consensual recordings are already a felony in California, which is long on creating evils, but short on figuring out how innocent people should be enabled to survive them.

Due process advocates knew that one day a student would try to record an encounter to retain evidence that he obtained sober consent. We also knew that if an accuser claimed she was too drunk to consent to sex, someone would make the argument that she must have also been too drunk to consent to a recording. And that’s where the new policy comes in.

Put aside the obvious, the well-worn question of why two drunk kids means the male is a rapist and the accuser the victim. Sexist much? So what. Equality went out of fashion when women consented, no demanded, to be treated like helpless infants, incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. We’re well past the point of surprise at irrationality, and the neo-feminists, the “women must always be believed” advocates, have shouted down equality-feminists in their imposition of new Victorian standards, fainting couch included.

New policies in effect at California universities also shift the adjudication process away from hearings and evidence and deliberation to the single-investigator model, which is opened to severe bias. Now, an investigator and the university (who is under pressure from the Education Department to find more students responsible) will conduct the investigation and determine culpability. If the accused student is found responsible he or she (more likely he) can appeal the decision and only then will he get a hearing.

In using the word, “hearing,” Ashe may be overstating the process. Appeals don’t involve hearings, but a de novo assessment of culpability based upon the evidence presented by the single investigator. If that evidence comes from one side only, or if conclusive evidence contradicting allegations, like a video, is precluded as a matter of law or policy, then the appeal will suffer from the same failings as the prejudicial investigation.

The odds of the appeal body overturning a decision will be slim when the evidence they have is from a biased investigator. I’ve seen cases where appeals courts refuse to accept new evidence from accused students and end up affirming the original decision. The new California policies all but guarantee accused students will be found responsible without a fair or impartial investigation.

And despite the remarkable ignorance of smarmy politicians, these processes destroy lives.

Now back to the mandatory minimums. These schools don’t provide accused students with the means to defend themselves (and are now actively punishing them for providing the only evidence they could possibly present in their favor) and then want to impose mandatory minimum sanctions. Schools in California are railroading students and then ruining their lives without any care for the truth or due process.

But as more lives are ruined in this mad rush to placate the teary voices screaming “rape” when they mean regret plus irresponsibility, other lawmakers are starting to take notice.

“My concern is due process,” said Rep. Earl Ehrhart, the Cobb County Republican who chairs the legislative committee that allocates funding to Georgia’s colleges. “This is about things that can follow students their entire lives. It can destroy their lives. I cannot in good conscience continue to fund Georgia Tech at the level that it requests without some assurance to parents that there will be due process for their children.”

The clash of culture giving rise to creating a campus system deliberately designed to facilitate confirmation of the claims of co-eds at the expense of males isn’t an accident. The DoE OCR has made the decision, unlawfully and without authority (not that this was a tough sell, as progressive gender views in academia overwhelmingly support the neo-feminist view of life), but made it nonetheless, that the need to vindicate the neo-feminist vision of sex means that male college students must be sacrificed on the altar women’s feelz.

Piece by piece, bit by bit, the dismantling of any fundamental fairness for college males has led to the redefinition of rape and sexual assault to any claim by a female, the eradication of due process for these vile accusations by crafting a subconstitutional system, where the burden has been shifted to the accused to prove his innocence, and now the preclusion of any ability to prove innocence.

It’s not like this scenario hasn’t been playing out before our eyes all along, but that few have been willing to see something and say something.  Fortunately, brave souls like K.C. Johnson and Ashe Schow have done the heavy lifting and braved the constant attacks to keep us abreast of how far and fast this slide down the slippery slope has happened.

Whether legislators like Rep. Earl Ehrhart can use their control over the purse strings to counter the federal financial stranglehold to correct the flagrant improprieties is a mystery, but it’s not looking good. While we’ve forsaken reason in favor of sad female tears, a system has been firmly established to entrench neo-feminist views.

Undoing it won’t happen easily, if it can happen at all. And when you finally wake up to the disaster that’s happened on campus, and leached into the law, it will be too late to save the innocent whose lives have been sacrificed. But it’s not like K.C. and Ashe, and I, haven’t been telling you all along.

9 thoughts on “Crazy Campus Consent Conundrum Collapses

  1. concerned mother

    Very well written and articulated.

    Is this bad to say?
    I am so glad I don’t have a son going in to college?

    I do however dread the day my girls go to college- you see, this also has to do with our children’s mindset too, example: let’s say if you have a boyfriend in college (scary thought, I won’t be there to spy on her), you sleep with him (I can only hope my daughter will wait until marriage), then message on Facebook for 7 months and then claim rape because you realize he’s not into you.. Mattress Girl
    Ugh. I can’t.

    I really appreciate the press reporting on this issue.

    1. SHG Post author

      Nobody was seeking your approval, so save the validation for your babies. But if you want to show a little appreciation, then don’t use a phony email unless you’re hiding out from the Mossad. You’re not special.

  2. Mike G.

    The goal of the neofeminists is the eradication of any and all male presence on the college campus. The best thing a parent can do is tell their male children not to get involved with any woman on the college campus.

    most of this crap is coming out of college campuses like Harvard, Columbia University, ect, where tuition is around 50K a year. These women are screaming oppression and victimhood on Daddy’s money. They are no more oppressed than the man in the moon.

    1. SHG Post author

      You mad, bro? Yeah, it’s nuts and dangerous, but eradication of males? Subjugation, maybe, but not eradication.

      1. Mike G.

        You’re damn right I’m mad and any sane person should be as well. As far as eradication being too strong a word to describe what feminists want…no its not if you read some of the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the radical feminist agenda. Most of whom, by the way, are tenured professors at major colleges all over the country.

        1. SHG Post author

          I’m familiar with Dworkin and McKinnon, et al., as well, and I would agree with you as to their radical ideas. But I don’t think all female college students either know or agree with their ridiculous notions. I think most are caught up in their victimhood adoration of the day, and are being manipulated into allowing their self-serving feelings to serve as a substitute to thought and reason.

          There’s no changing the radicals, but there is a hope that by stopping these untenable ideas from becoming institutionalized as the “new normal” by explaining the harm they do, we can prevent shifts in law and policy that will eventually prove impossible to change. To do this, we must appeal to reason and good conscience, and that can’t be accomplished if we’re just as angry as Dworkin. Crazies will out-crazy you at every turn, so it’s not a fair fight. Instead, we need to remain calm, speak to reason, and keep pounding away at each wrongful harm.

  3. Mike G.

    You’re right that we can’t change the radicals, but some of their their untenable ideas are already becoming institutionalized as the new normal.

    Thankfully, we have people like you and others like Ashe Showe, K.C. Johnson and Robert Stacey McCain who are blowing the whistle on this craziness. Unfortunately, most of the sane population is either complacent or too busy with their daily lives to be concerned about these crazy ideas coming out of the radical left.

    It’s part and parcel of the march through the institutions written about and promoted by Gramsci and others of Marxist bent back in the early 1900’s. Radical feminism is just another facet of Marxism that is trying to destroy traditional moral values.

  4. kenm

    As a parent, I worry about my daughter.

    As a male, I worry about what’s happening.

    Since my daughter is still in pre-school, I can only hope that by the time she finally makes it to University, the insanity will have subsided, and someone will stand up and be an adult and stop this nonsense.

Comments are closed.