Now that Harvard has announced that it’s doing away with the standardized test, the LSAT, in order to assure diversity if not intelligence or capability, the door is open to sweeping change. And a group of passionate students are rushing through with their demands.

As Harvard Law School gears up to welcome a new class of students to campus this fall, we urge the administration to evaluate and disclose how it deals with the admission of students investigated or found responsible for, sexual misconduct at their previous college or university. We seek transparency on this issue so the university can engage in productive dialogue with students and administrators on how best to protect its students from sexual assault and discrimination. This information is particularly critical in light of the 2015 campus climate survey, which found that 7.6% of female graduate students experience sexual assault while attending Harvard University.

Welcome new students! Rapists to the right, victims to the left. One might initially draw a distinction between people merely “investigated” for sexual misconduct, since an accusation standing alone is meaningless, and those “found responsible.” They used to teach such things in first-year crim law, back when HLS taught law.

But then, who cares, given that the process for finding “responsibility” is devoid of due process, and even the question of “responsibility” for what is a huge black hole since the vagaries of sexual misconduct span telling a joke that a sensitive woman finds offensive to the horrific and exhausting “stare rape,” or post-hoc decision, after an emotional discussion with a gender studies major, that the beer imbibed before consensual sex converted it into a brutal rape, followed by six months of routine dating. What? Are you denying her lived experience?

Some might hope, if not expect, that law students with at least the first year under the belt would have some tiny degree of understanding about both vilifying the accused and the virtues of proof before demanding that Harvard Law School burn the witch. What would they want to do with this “critical information”? Brand the incoming student with the scarlet letter? Shun him. Hate him. Get no closer than ten feet lest he lash out in a rage of rapist fury?

Maybe they will put together a book to hand out to all the HLS women to alert them to the rapists in their midst. For their own protection, of course.

Under Title IX, colleges and universities have an obligation to protect students from sexual violence, and they are on notice of potential violence when admitting previous offenders. Different studies estimate anywhere between 20% and 63% of campus rapists are repeat offenders.

Given these statistics, we request transparency surrounding the risk assessment taken to evaluate whether students are likely to pose a threat to their peers.

Forget that these statistics are false. Debunking stats only works with people who don’t want them to be true. Forget that the “Dear Colleague” letter doesn’t create an “obligation,” except to those incapable of grasping the absurd overreach of feminist bureaucrats given the leeway to wield their politics like a bludgeon. We’re so deep into the lies, and the lies are so often repeated and deeply believed by those who want to deeply believe, that they’ll never accept the premise that their reality isn’t objective reality. And they’re Harvard Law students.

But this doesn’t end with demands that the school be transparent so they can know, in advance, whom to hate and shun. There are victims too, and we must not only believe the victims, but let them into Harvard Law.

As a consequence of sexual violence, many survivors experience academic decline or gaps in their education. Given that one in four women are sexually assaulted during college at Harvard, with many other undergraduate institutions reporting similar statistics, it is likely there will be applicants to HLS who may have suffered dramatic decreases in academic performance as a result of the trauma associated with sexual assault. (Emphasis added.)

Should the survivor-applicant choose to disclose that information as an explanation, the Admissions Office should presume honesty on the part of the applicant. This presumption should apply irrespective of the outcome of the survivor-applicant’s claim, or whether the sexual assault went unreported.  It would be inaccurate to assume that a survivor is telling the truth only when she reports an instance of rape or sexual assault because many of these instances go unreported.

Much as the litany of excuses for why anyone claiming to be a “survivor” must be believed makes it impossible for them to be wrong no matter what they do, or don’t do, or should have done, this argues for admission to HLS based not on academic qualifications, but victimhood.

Got lousy grades in college? It’s not your fault. It’s not that you’re, well, kinda dumb. Not if you were a victim. How can Harvard deny these survivors admission? Don’t they understand that it’s not that they’re unqualified, but they’re victims.

But what if HLS doesn’t choose to introduce its new students to the community as rapists, or give a preference to the survivor’s D?

Given that the Admissions Office failed to respond to our questions, we cannot be sure whether they are currently practicing the strategies discussed above. This failure to respond admits a deeply concerning lack of transparency, one that is not an act of neutrality but a tacit acceptance of sexual assault.

And as with all such demands, failure to do as they say means the school supports rapists and hates victims. After all, if they didn’t tacitly accept sexual assault, they would toe the line of survivor demands. Anything less is rape apology, Do Harvard Law School faculty and administration want to be rape apologists?

Schools owe prospective students sufficient information about risk factors in their environment so that they can make informed decisions about their academic future.

Whether or not that’s true, one thing is for sure. Based upon these demands from the students in the Harvard Law Gender Violence Legal Policy Workshop, HLS is up to its eyeballs in nutjobs of dubious rationality and malevolent intent. Hopefully, prospective students will see this before deciding on attending so they can make informed decisions. So too should prospective employers, who should note that students who were involved with this Workshop, at minimum, have no capacity to think like a lawyer.

H/T Edward Wiest