Home / General / Republicans: The Party of Rape

Republicans: The Party of Rape

Comments
/
/
/
564 Views

csa_shareable-01-600-600x320

Republicans are very nice people. They are targeting the most vulnerable people in all categories. Especially nice is the incoming head of the House Freedom Caucus, North Carolina (of course) Republican Mark Meadows, who is trying to figure out how to overturn those pesky Obama regulations against sexual assault on college campuses.

Incoming Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) suggested that the incoming Donald Trump administration reverse a set of President Obama-era guidelines aimed at combatting campus sexual assault, saying it wastes money and that it denies protection to the “often-innocent accused,” USA Today reported Friday.

Meadows issued a report this month on 230 rules that he advocated to be changed or dismantled within the first 100 days of the new administration. He then released a new list this week that added 70 additional rules. The document is not an official Freedom Caucus report because the other members of the group have not voted to adopt it, the group’s spokeswoman told USA Today.

Among the new additions is a call to reverse the April 2011 guidance document from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights which set the course and provided standards for how universities should handle sexual harassment and sexual violence complaints.

In the document, Meadows stated that the guidance has caused colleges to spend “hundreds of million” to fight sexual assault and that it denies the “often-innocent accused.”

“The Title IX guidance document on sexual assault and campus rapes has pressured colleges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and to create vast campus bureaucracies which drain tuition revenue, to investigate allegations of sexual assault (primarily date rapes, the incidence of which may be overestimated), and virtually dictates one-size-fits-all procedures which provide less protection to the accused, and deny the often-innocent accused basic due process rights,” it reads. “As a result, many complainants are discouraged from reporting rapes to the local law enforcement.”

Republicans, the Pro-Rape Party!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Snarki, child of Loki

    RWNJs bitching about stuff being “forced down their throats”: Projection, as always.

    (ETA: b-word above is a VERB, not a noun or an adjective, and can be performed by all genders, yet shouldn’t)

    • N__B

      “being” is, IMO, genderless.

      • DocAmazing

        Depends. Is it “queen being” or “drone being”?

        • runsinbackground

          Jeez, gimme that good ol drone being any day of the week! Nothing to do all day except fly around waiting for some hot chick to fly by and boink you, eat food you didn’t gather, and hey why are you pushing me stop it’s cold out there!

  • Cassiodorus

    Maybe my perspective is overly influenced by the traditional four-year college with dorms, etc., but a college is a community. Just like the crusade against “safe spaces,” this is yet another example of conservatives failing to understand that. It’s not analogous to going to the office. It’s the office and your house rolled into one. The standards for removing a guest from your home are going to be looser than removing them from some other space.

    • ThrottleJockey

      The problem with Obama’s regs is that it lowered the standard of proof too low. The standard it adopted amounts to a coin flip. Most schools were already using a Clear and Convincing Evidence burden of proof (lower than the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard used in criminal courts). Why would you want to expel someone–which amounts to a fine of tens of thousands of dollars–for anything less than Clear and Convincing evidence? That’s illiberal.

      This issue has been the biggest fuck up of Obama’s tenure.

      • (((Malaclypse)))

        The standard it adopted amounts to a coin flip.

        I’d like to assume you are merely lying, because nobody can be this stupid.

        • ThrottleJockey

          50.1% what do you call it Mal?

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            “Evidence”

            • ThrottleJockey

              Love to play pocker with you sometime…you probably think a Full House beats a Royal Flush.

              What you call “evidence” would’ve resulted in the expulsion of the Duke Lacrosse team.

              • Scott Lemieux

                What you call “evidence” would’ve resulted in the expulsion of the Duke Lacrosse team.

                The idea that there was a preponderance of the evidence against the Duke lacrosse players is absolutely absurd.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Well to you yes. But most people aren’t as open minded as you.

                  Why just Friday you were arguing that the white professor who wore blackface in front of her students wasn’t guilty of racial harassment and shouldn’t be defined for doing something “dumb”…whereas most people think wearing blackface is racial harassment and is well beyond dumb.

                • The Dark God of Time

                  Oh come on. I’m sure that Shurtz had an elaborate rationalization for why her use of blackface was a subtle attack on racism, but 1)the reaction to her use of blackface was entirely predictable and not in the least irrational and 2)it is beyond belief that Shurtz was unaware of the likely reaction. To state the obvious, the students seeing Shurtz in blackface were highly unlikely to be aware of the context of a fairly obscure year-old book and to immediately make the association. They were much more likely to see an affluent white woman wearing blackface, and to be perfectly reasonably offended by this. In an academic setting — and while it was a party at her house, if you’re inviting students from an ongoing class you should be acting as if it’s a classroom — you have to consider your audience and the context from which they’re viewing your actions. Here’s a handy rule: if you’re a white person and wondering whether you should wear blackface, the answer is “you shouldn’t.” And if you’re not wondering you probably should be.

                  Again, I don’t think Shurtz’s actions were in themselves legal harassment and I think they are therefore protected by the First Amendment and, like George Ciccariello-Maher’s witless and counterproductive tweets, by principles of academic freedom. But if you’re going to defend them on the merits or implicitly criticize the students who were offended, that’s where I get off the bus. A plea to my fellow white academics: if you want to try out your edgy race-related material, there’s probably an open-mic night at a local comedy club. Even if you were the next Richard Pryor, which you almost certainly are not, it’s unlikely to be an effective pedagogical technique, and it undermines the equality and dignity of your students.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  So I take it that you too Chronos are open minded and think that wearing blackface in front of your students is not racial harassment and is protected by the 1st Amendment?

                  Why…color me surprised…

                • The Dark God of Time

                  It’s risible how youwant to criminalize free speech, and have a zero tolerance policy on racial offensiveness, but are so blind when it comes to the issue of sexual assault on campus.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  You know black people are easily risibled…

                • The Dark God of Time

                  Keep reaching for that imaginary KKK membership in my hand, grasshopper.

                  I would feel the same way if a round-eyed professor had done a bit from The Mikado in front of any students of East Asian extraction.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  I’m almost certainly among the most avid supporters of free speech here. I support the right fit people to engage in hate speech. I thought OU severely erred in not granting those frat boys adequate due process when they were expelled for singing a racist song at a private party.

                  But the Civil Rights Act does entitle black folks to a discrimination free education and there’s a world of difference between a professor wearing blackface in front of her students and frat boys singing a racist chant in the privacy of their own bus off campus with no minorities around.

                  I’m going to take you at your word Chronos because I haven’t seen you comment on that subject much.

                  But I frequently read Lemieux commenting about racism among conservatives. When erstwhile liberals exhibit the same behavior and he calls it legal, not harassment, and says we shouldn’t define this professor by their dumbest moment then I think it’s fair to judge that he only calls racism when it’s in his partisan interests to do so. I don’t think be would be so generous with a conservative. Racism is not a partisan game where conservatives are wrong for it but liberals get a pass because they *cool like that.*

                • The Dark God of Time

                  “Hi, I’m TJ, and let me tell you about my program: How to suss out racism on the Internet in 5 easy lessons.”

          • Philip

            That 50.1% doesn’t refer to what you think it refers to.`

      • lizzie

        Um, you do realize that it’s the very same evidentiary standard that applies in most civil lawsuits? Requiring clear and convincing evidence is the unusual exception, not the rule. So yes, indeed, people can and do have to pay hundreds of thousands or millions in civil liability based a jury’s finding that it is more likely than not that they did what the plaintiff claims they did.

        • ThrottleJockey

          I recognize that but I’m not sure what that point means…You’re ok expelling someone from school and subjecting them to a fine that’s so large that it’s life altering on the basis of a coin flip?

          Stanford has taken some interesting steps to try and split the difference.

          This year, amid growing dissent over how it handles these kinds of cases, Stanford changed its procedure in a way that victims rights advocates say favors the accused. It now requires a unanimous verdict from a three-member board, making it an outlier among prestigious universities. Only one other school (Duke) in U.S. News & World Report’s list of the country’s top 20 colleges that use such panels has such a stringent requirement…

          Stanford’s decision to require a unanimous panel of three, in place since February 2016, stemmed from recommendations made by a task force last year.

          “In deciding we wanted well-trained, long-term panelists, it made sense to go to a three-person panel,” said Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford Law professor who is now chairwoman of a sexual assault advisory committee, “and having three people decide something by a preponderance of the evidence seemed to us the appropriate way of deciding whether a life-altering sanction should be imposed on somebody for his or her behavior.

          • lizzie

            The point, which I thought was obvious, is that our entire legal system is premised on the idea that it is ok to impose life-altering consequences on people on the basis of what you call a coin flip*, so why should this be any different?

            *Convincing another person that something is more likely true than not true is not the same as flipping a coin.

            • ThrottleJockey

              Because if the evidence against someone isn’t Clear and Convincing they shouldn’t be punished.

              • lizzie

                That doesn’t answer my question.

                • veleda_k

                  The answer to your question is clearly, “Bitches be lying.”

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Veleda I’ve never said bitches be lying. So please don’t misrepresent my words. Black men have been falsely railroaded on rape charges for lots of different reasons. We’ve been lynched for false rape charges. As you’re well aware it’s nothing new.

                • Bruce B.

                  A standard that doesn’t allow Bill Cosby to blow off all the accusations against him is, for TJ, no standard at all.

          • Cassiodorus

            What fine are you talking about?

  • A month or so before the election, I started asking people in authority at my school and elsewhere in the CSU what would happen if Trump won and reversed the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter; would our California state laws and system executive orders allow us to maintain our Title IX administration framework in light of a newly redefined Title IX? If anybody had given any thought to the matter, they weren’t sharing them with me. This could be huge, though, symbolically as well as substantially. With old “grab them by the pussy” in the White House, I don’t doubt that some students will view this as a license to do as they wish.

    • ThrottleJockey

      California state legislature adopted a “Yes means Yes” law last year. That lowers the burden of proof lower even than Obama had lowered it. In fact it essentially flips the burden of proof requiring the man to prove the woman consented. It also precludes drunkenness as a defense (men can’t say I was drunk and I thought she consented).

      • (((Malaclypse)))

        It also precludes drunkenness as a defense (men can’t say I was drunk and I thought she consented).

        I am genuinely horrified that you apparently think this is a bad thing.

        • The Dark God of Time

          Not surprising that TJ thinks “bitches be lying” and “I only had two or three drinks “, is at the bottom of most sexual assault accusations.

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            “Your honor, I was drunk, and I thought Bob would be okay with me hot-wiring his Camaro.”

            TJ thinks we should take this seriously.

            No, wait, he doesn’t. Because he takes property rights seriously, unlike women’s rights.

            • ThrottleJockey

              I take all rights seriously. Liberals used to believe that the accused had rights too. We used to believe in innocent until proven guilty. We used to believe in strong due process rights. It was Liberals who created and won these protections. I’m proud of these civil rights.

              So if 2 drunk people have sex Mal who raped who? Or did they rape each other? When you get around to answering that question then you can malign my position.

              • (((Malaclypse)))

                So if 2 drunk people have sex Mal who raped who?

                If both consented, rape didn’t happen. If neither consented, sex never happened. If one person didn’t consent, the other is the rapist. Was this supposed to be complicated?

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Your second point is wrong.

                  This is why I said it’s muddy. If neither party consented, sex could still have happened but because both parties are drunk neither remembers what happened, much less who consented.

                  Under the original version of the law the man was guilty in such a case. I *think* that might have been changed in the final version.

                • Hogan

                  Your second point is wrong.

                  So neither party consented to sex, but they had sex anyway? Was someone forcing them at gunpoint?

                • (((Malaclypse)))

                  So neither party consented to sex, but they had sex anyway?

                  Hard to believe TJ doesn’t understand “consent.”

          • ThrottleJockey

            You’ve proven time and again Chronos that you don’t know shit about me. And you most definitely don’t know how any thing about black men wrongly fingered for rape.

            Danmell Ndonye, 18, who had accused five men of gang rape, admitted the truth only when prosecutors confronted her after learning of a cellphone video that captured the whole sordid episode and showed she had willingly participated, officials said.

            Ndonye accused five men of raping her on the morning of September 13, 2009… Four of the five men were arrested, held on $350,000 bail, spent three days in jail under protective custody, and all charged with first-degree rape, which carries a possible 25 year sentence. Rondell Bedward was also suspended from Hofstra.

            https://www.nypost.com/2009/09/18/twisted-motive-behind-rape-story

            Note these guys were arrested and charged under a much higher standard than the standard Obama’s Administration adopted.

            I don’t think bitches be lying…I have always supported the traditional liberal philosophy that places the burden of proof on the system and not on the accused. As a whole cadre of liberal Harvard law professors wrote about these new policies are conservative and fundamentally illiberal:

            In the Opinion article, the professors complained that the new investigative office is a Title IX compliance entity, rather than one “that could be considered structurally impartial,” and that the policy lacks adequate safeguards for the rights of the accused.

            “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation,” the letter stated.

            • The Dark God of Time

              I know you’re an authoritarian asshole.

              • ThrottleJockey

                And I know you’re a privileged jackass.

                And please the only thing authoritarian here as the professors note is lowering the burden of proof and eroding due process rights. Shit Charles Ogletree signed that letter. If you have a problem with anything it’s traditional liberalism. Take it up with the Enlightenment and stop abusing me.

                • The Dark God of Time

                  Citing from authority doesn’t lend you any more weight, TJ.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  Your beef is with the Enlightenment dude not me.

                  You’re the God of Time, if you want just go back and change it!!! :-D

                • The Dark God of Time

                  I guess Dr. Dick was right, after all.

            • Hogan

              Note these guys were arrested and charged under a much higher standard than the standard Obama’s Administration adopted.

              “Probable cause” is not a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence.”

              • lizzie

                Good point. In fact, it’s a lower standard.

        • ThrottleJockey

          I presented a summary of the law. Not whether or not I agreed with it. The drunkenness part is a little muddy because of some last minute changes to the law.

          I generally think where both parties are drunk both parties are responsible for consenting. In the original version of the law it would be quite tricky. You could have a case where both people were drunk and raped one another.

        • Thank you.

      • Philip

        That law doesn’t say what you seem to think. “Yes means yes” has nothing to do with the burden of evidence, it refers to what qualifies as consent.

        • ThrottleJockey

          Wrong.

          Affirmative consent as it’s called requires the accused to prove the accuser consented. That’s flipping the burden of proof. Instead of having to prove the guy raped the girl, now the guy has to prove the girl wasn’t raped.

          Yes means Yes is a clever way to flip centuries of jurisprudence.

          • Philip

            Okay, first, the law doesn’t affect civil or criminal courts. It only affects how colleges receiving CA state funding handle sexual assault claims. So either you don’t know as much about this law as you think, or when you talk about jurisprudence you know that you’re lying.

            Second, affirmative consent is the kind of consent required under the law. The burden of proof is what is required to prove it. They’re separate, unrelated things. You could require a victim demonstrate they said “no,” and you could require a victim to demonstrate they didn’t say “yes.” Yes-means-yes is still perfectly compatible with that second one. This is obvious, so I have to believe you’re not making these arguments in bad faith.

            • ThrottleJockey

              I’m well aware of to whom the law applies.

              But how is affirmative consent not flipping the burden of proof? Requiring an accuser to prove she didn’t say Yes would be inconsistent with Affirmative Consent.

              Are you aware of cases in which it’s worked out like that?

          • JMP

            Because we have to worry so much about all those women accusing men of rape after having consensual sex, except for the part where that never happens and is just a complete invention of the pro-rape activists.

      • JMP

        Oh how horrible, it makes it slightly more likely that rapists might actually have to pay something for the rape they’ve committed! Considering that the vast majority of rapists never face any penalty at all, and the imaginary “false” rape accusations that the pro-rape activists like to lie and claim are commonplace are in fact so rare as to be virtually non3existent, that’s not a problem at all, and yes “I was drunk!” should not be an excuse to make committing fucking rape OK.

  • Who will protect men from all of those lying ladies who lie about being assaulted for fun and profit?

  • ProgressiveLiberal

    I think we need to rebrand the GOP. Not only are they the party of rape, but every time they propose another abortion ban that doesn’t include exceptions for rape, we need to call it The Rapists Bill of Rights, for example. They need to constantly be asked if they are going to vote for more rights and protections for rapists.

    Until our rhetoric matches how radical they really are, its going to be hard to get everyone to realize they’re not just another political party here.

  • gmoot

    Charles Gaba put together a handy list of 100 quotes from Republicans that highlight their ambiguous position on rape:
    https://goprapeadvisorychart.com/

    • Ramon A. Clef

      Nothing ambiguous about it. They’re all for rape as long as they get to be the rapists.

  • It’s not surprising to see that it’s not just on campus that Meadows thinks restraints against inappropriate behavior need to be loosened.

  • rdennist

    I don’t know what effect this will have on public institutions, but at my school, this will have no effect. If HR gets the sense that anything coming out of the administration is based on junk science or representative of the best practices in managing a school, it simply will not listen to non-professionals.

    Also, all this policy and regulatory uncertainty? It certainly makes it hard to make investments and create jobs!

    • MAJeff

      HR is part of the administration.

    • guthrie

      Some administrations will surely be bothered and ignore it, others, because of their authoritarian nature, will not. As we can see, when it comes to deciding between money or power, a lot of people will choose power.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        The threat of civil lawsuits from sexually assaulted students, against top Admins, Trustees, etc. is still there.

        And has been a primary driver of college admin policies over the past decade. That won’t change.

  • CP

    “The Title IX guidance document on sexual assault and campus rapes has pressured colleges to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and to create vast campus bureaucracies which drain tuition revenue, to investigate allegations of sexual assault (primarily date rapes, the incidence of which may be overestimated),

    If only there were some kind of “campus bureaucracy” to investigate these allegations. It could, among other things, tell you whether they’re “overestimated” or not.

    and virtually dictates one-size-fits-all procedures

    I know, it’s outrageous that people should be held to a universal standard.

    which provide less protection to the accused,

    But that’s a good thing. Remember? Our society is in such an awful state because our justice system is full of fucking liberal lawyers and judges who are more interested in coddling criminals than in seeing justice done, who’re always letting them go on technicalities, who don’t care about the victims’ rights. Isn’t that right? It’s certainly what you’ve spent the last fifty fucking years telling us. At least, whenever the accused was a black kid whose crime was smoking weed.

    and deny the often-innocent accused basic due process rights,” it reads.

    Citation needed. And see above.

    “As a result, many complainants are discouraged from reporting rapes to the local law enforcement.”

    So… rape is overestimated and it’s a waste to spend so much money on “vast campus bureaucracies” investigating it, but it’s also underestimated.

    Ow, my head.

    • runsinbackground

      If I may be permitted to quote myself, “rapists (or aspiring rapists) favor lenient punishments for rape, thieves (or aspiring thieves) favor lenient punishments for theft, and genocidiares (or aspiring genocidiares) favor lenient punishments for genocide.”

      • ThrottleJockey

        So all these black people complaining about mass incarceration and saying we need to lower penalties are murderers, thieves, and drug dealers huh?

        Got it.

        • The Dark God of Time

          You’re smarter than this, TJ.

          • DrDick

            No, he is not. He really is a complete asshole.

            • jim, some guy in iowa

              he’s smart enough to keep people jumping through his hoops by blurring the line between discussion and trolling

              • muddy

                +1000

            • ThrottleJockey

              You’re the most aptly named person on this blog Doctor.

              Let a nigga disagree with your liberal ponderings and now we’re assholes. There’s a certain kind of liberal that only has a use for blacks so long as we stay on the liberal plantation.

              • Stag Party Palin

                People who behave like TJ usually can’t spell very well. His ability to combine literacy with nonsensical self-destructive assholery is unique.

          • veleda_k

            Assumes facts not in evidence.

        • aturner339

          See this is the kind thing that suggests you may not be 100% serious about commitment to racial equality TJ

          • ThrottleJockey

            Huh, AT? Come again? I’m not committed to racial equality???

            • aturner339

              Just saying that trivilazig it in this manner suggests otherwise. No firm conclusion.

              • ThrottleJockey

                First I’m as black as you so I take racial justice pretty damn seriously. If you feel like that’s up for debate I’m happy to discuss it.

                Second I was pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument. Ultimately the argument is an identity based argument masquerading as a logic based argument: “When this disfavored group argues for reducing criminal penalties it’s only because they’re criminal, but when this favoured group argues for reducing penalties it’s because of civil rights.

                • aturner339

                  I never said you were less black. I merely wonder what the point is of trying to compare admistrative discipline practices at a university with our grossly unequal systems of criminal law. Except perhaps to use the incarcerated as human shields. Furthermore I’m not certain what the “class” here is that is disfavored.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  I know you didn’t question my race but you questioned my commitment to racial justice. That would be offensive coming from a white man but it’s just something to discuss with someone whose also black.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  So if you feel my policy views undermine racial justice I’m open to that discussion.

                  My comparison didn’t employ human shields. I simply flipped their logic on its head by way of showing it was an identity based argument not a logic based one.

                  Using that logic Loomis is a drug dealer because he advocates for eliminating drug sentences.

                • aturner339

                  But I don’t think that’s the argument. The argument is that of course people who do not respect the actual autonomy of others would prefer not to be held to account in that front.

                  Not that only rapists support fewer penalties for rape but of all of those who do rapists would surely be among them.

                • ThrottleJockey

                  We have different interpretations of what RIB meant. You might be right but after re-read I think my interpretation was correct.

                  Now what views of mine do you think undermine racial justice? Or do you think my analogy undermined racial justice?

                • eh

                  First I’m as black as you

                  You keep saying that, like you feel a need to convince people.

                • (((Malaclypse)))

                  TJ may be very, very wrong, but that was uncalled-for.

        • Nobdy

          BLM targets overall institutional reform, not lowering penalties for specific crimes.* The Republican rape apologists specifically target rape, like above where Meadows calls accused rapists “often-innocent” which I very much doubt he’d say about people accused of other crimes.

          That gives the game away.

          If you are for reforming the whole criminal justice system to be less discriminatory, arbitrary, and cruel then you are reform-minded.

          If you want to make the criminal justice system MORE discriminatory, arbitrary, and cruel but you are laser-focused on making it easier for rapists to escape consequences, then you are probably identifying with the accused for rape in a way you don’t for other crimes.

          At best that makes you a misogynist who believes women falsely report rape (for unknown benefits) more often than others falsely report robberies (which can have actual insurance benefits) or other crimes. At worst that makes you someone who engages in rapey activities and wants to protect yourself.

          It’s totally difference from seeking broad reforms for the whole criminal justice system.

          *Like many criminal justice reform groups there’s a focus on non-violent crimes, especially those related to drugs, but that’s because many drug penalties are so wildly out of whack.

          • veleda_k

            This is a really good comment, but it’s also obvious to anyone who isn’t being lead by a particular set of biases. (This isn’t to insult you. It’s to say there’s something very wrong with anyone who needs this explained to them.)

          • ThrottleJockey

            So Nobdy when Loomis advocates for eliminating the criminal penalties for drug crimes
            “specifically” it’s because he’s a drug dealer?

            Got it.

            Party at Loomis’!!!

            • runsinbackground

              I don’t know if I’d agree that Loomis is a drug dealer, but he might be (or have been in the past) a drug user. Or he might know people who are/were. I’m more sympathetic to the argument that drug dealing and drug use aren’t really crimes than I am to the equivalent arguments for rape and sexual assault.

            • (((Malaclypse)))

              So Nobdy when Loomis advocates for eliminating the criminal penalties for drug crimes
              “specifically” it’s because he’s a drug dealer?

              Yes, because Lord knows Erik never criticizes any other parts of the criminal justice system. It is genuinely impressive the way you handwaved away

              If you are for reforming the whole criminal justice system to be less discriminatory, arbitrary, and cruel then you are reform-minded.

              as though that were not the crux of the matter.

              This is some J-Otto level dishonesty.

              • ThrottleJockey

                See RIB’s reply to me and tell me that I wasn’t interpreting his comment accurately.

                Most often his posts complain about drugs…I don’t know that he thinks sentences for murder, assault and embezzlement should be lessened.

                • aturner339

                  Yes I think the reply shows that I was wrong about the nature of his argument

    • notahack

      to investigate allegations of sexual assault (primarily date rapes, the incidence of which may be overestimated),

      As we all know, if she went on a date or decided to live in the dorms, or pursue higher education, she was just asking to be raped.

  • Shorter Mark Meadows: Women frequently lie about rape for lulz.

  • keta

    George Will just grabbed a helmet and a bat, and is eagerly taking imaginary hacks in the on-deck circle.

  • AMK

    As a result, many complainaints are discouraged from reporting rapes to local law enforcement

    I don’t think for a minute that the Freedumbers are sincere…….but this does kind of make sense. College PR people can say what they want, but the record shows that the first thing these school admins do when the issue arises–from Stanford down to the community college in Meadows’ bumblefuck district–is cover it up. Rape and sexual assault are crimes; the guidance should be “go to the police.”

    • ThrottleJockey

      I think because rape is a serious crime the bias should be go to the police. Rapists should be in jail, full stop.

      I think the problem colleges caused for themselves is that for too long they pooh-poohed rape allegations by saying “boys will be boys”. Much like with the Penn State thing. So now outrage has increased to the point where people are IMO throwing out the good with the bad in their efforts to reform the system.

      • leftwingfox

        That attitude happens at the police level as well though.

        • ThrottleJockey

          Yes and at the judicial level as well if you recall the case against the Stanford swimmer.

          That being said at least the CJ system has the resources, personnel and experience to adequately punish rapists. I think the CJ system can be more easily fixed in rape cases than the institutional incapabilty of colleges be mitigated.

          • postmodulator

            That being said at least the CJ system has the resources, personnel and experience to adequately punish rapists.

            I recycle quotes here an awful lot, lately, so I’ll say once again that my primary concern here is that university staff are a bunch of idiots who know nothing about adjudicating these cases, and they’ll screw it all up. Probably it will go to the disadvantage of rape victims more often than whatever number of “falsely accused” there are.

            And on a larger note, everybody get a fucking grip.

            TJ, this guy is a North Carolina Republican. He’s in the Tea Party caucus. If he suggests something, it’s not because he hopes it will help. I guarantee it’s not because he hopes it will reduce false imprisonment or guarantee the rights of the accused. Don’t give the guy rhetorical cover just because he hit one of your hot buttons. If a guy like this advocates air, rethink breathing.

            Everybody else, the Innocence Project exonerates men accused of rape sometimes. It rarely has to do with “bitches be lying.” It involves all the same shit every other wrongful conviction does — false confessions, prosecutorial misconduct, public defenders’ offices that have been chronically underfunded for years, and chronic racism in law enforcement. The Innocence Project posts pictures of the people it has exonerated. Look at the pictures and see if there’s a reason that TJ might be bothered by the possiblity of false rape conviction (again — not false accusations) that is not “TJ is, himself, a rapist.”

            • veleda_k

              that is not “TJ is, himself, a rapist.”

              Has anyone claimed this? I certainly haven’t. We call it rape culture because it requires more than just rapists to support it. It requires the consent of our society.

              And let’s not pretend that the belief that women lie about rape isn’t the driving fear here, culturally speaking. “Feminists lie about rape because it’s a badge of honor,” as eh quoted above. Maybe that’s not where TJ’s coming from, but based on his past behavior, he really hasn’t earned any benefit of the doubt from me.

              • postmodulator

                The belief that women lie about rape is certainly the driving force for Mister North Carolina Fucknugget who’s actually quoted above, yeah. Which is why no one should project concerns about mass incarceration on to him. I guarantee his own beliefs about mass incarceration are that it doesn’t go far enough.

                I do think TJ might be merely misguided on this topic, is all.

              • ThrottleJockey

                Veleda have I ever said Bitches be lying?

                All I’ve ever said is that accusations of rape are serious and deserve the classical due process protections that liberals have always supported.

                I have no doubt that most men accused of rape are guilty of rape. Full stop. I also know that men are falsely accused sometimes though and that for this reason the due process protections liberals have fought for for centuries should not be blithely discarded.

                And yes as a black man I have a deeper investment in this than most because black men have been victimized by false allegations more than any other set of people. I have nothing to apologize for and if you can’t understand why liberals have supported these due process protections for centuries then it might be worthwhile reading up on the history.

                I’m not going to let a bunch of white people tell me that my black ass has nothing to fear here. They have no credibility. And their ass ain’t in the sling.

                • lizzie

                  I am all in favor of due process. Which, in a criminal case, includes requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re not talking about criminal cases, and we’re not talking about incarcerating anybody. We’re talking about what standard a school should use to decide whether to permit someone accused of rape to remain at that school. I’m still waiting for you to explain why it is not consistent with due process to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard when that is the standard that applies in most civil cases in court.

                • veleda_k

                  So, out of curiosity, what was your take on Bill Cosby’s dozens of accusers, back when you were championing his innocence? (Or is that still your position?)

    • Philip

      The police are frequently even worse.

      • ThrottleJockey

        From the news accounts i’ve read the police are generally better but can be even worst. I think the town where the University of Montana is located has an especially bad police department in these issues. There’s a lot of work needed here generally.

      • postmodulator

        There was a pretty good article in the NYT Magazine last year about the New Haven SVU. For me the quote that stood out was:

        But the most current thinking on sexual-assault investigations is that there is always corroborating evidence. Detectives just have to be willing to search for it.

        If you’ve been a victim of any crime in this country, chances are good that you’ve encountered a cop who simply wasn’t interested in what happened to you. Worlds removed from rape: a friend of mine had her dog stolen off the street last year. A car stopped, grabbed the dog, and drove off. She had a vehicle description and half the digits on the plate, and the cops wouldn’t so much as take a report.

        I don’t know how we get cops interested in doing stuff that isn’t a revenue enhancer. We’ve got them writing tickets and busting drug dealers at a pretty good clip, so they know how to enforce laws if properly motivated.

        • ThrottleJockey
          • postmodulator

            You did suggest upthread that it might be easier to fix policiing than to get this stuff properly adjudicated in universities. And who knows, you might be right, in the sense that it is easier to flap your arms and fly to the moon than it is to swim in molten lava.

            • ThrottleJockey

              To properly investigate a crime takes resources, experience, organization, and will. A university doesn’t have any of that. Police have at least 3 of the 4.

              How many employment actions have you been involved in? In my experience those things are always an exercise in going with the political winds. That’s sometimes the case with the police but it’s hardly always the case. As the liberal law professors I link to above note the prevailing organizational model here is too sensitive to organizational pressure. It doesn’t have am independent truth finding function. In addition to Stanford, Princeton has done some good work in trying to balance the competing rights at stake.

      • AMK

        I guess it depends where you are and who is involved, but even if in some cases the police are no better than the school admins in practice, going to them helps underscore the seriousness of the problem. The entire point is to break the “boys will be boys” mentality and make people take the issue seriously as a matter of public safety—-so why would you go to the people who are there primarily to glad-hand rich donors, mother the athletes and (maybe) police cheating on tests, instead of the actual police?

  • DrDick

    Just a friendly reminder that conservatism is simply about preserving (rich) white (Christian) hetero male privilege. That is really all you need to know to understand everything they do.

  • Dilan Esper

    This thread is one more reminder that I know nothing about education policy.

    I am in favor of reducing the sexual assault rate on campus. I am also against expelling innocent students. What standard of proof will best achieve those goals strikes me as an issue for experts. Given Obama’s tendency to respect expert opinion, I suspect his regulations are probably going to strike a good balance. Certainly nothing in this thread convinces me otherwise.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Why are only experts able to understand the correct burden of proof to apply?

  • mathguy

    At my institution, a medium sized school, we had three dismissals last semester for sexual assault. I always enjoy the RWNJ nonsense about “it’s not a real problem,” or, “it’s going to be a rape bureaucracy!”

  • I don’t comment on these threads anymore because a critical mass of the responses are demands that feminists should shut up about rape because solidarity with victims of the prison industrial system. Not TJ, in particular, but white libertarians and brogressives. It ends up a lefty version of Iron John, a woke all-boys drum circle.

    • postmodulator

      Ouch. So it’s clear, I don’t think feminists should shut up about rape.

      • That wasn’t a comment on you particularly, who I don’t know, but on past threads; I hadn’t read all the comments, but as usual few contributions from women commenters.

  • YosemiteSemite

    You know your party is in trouble when people ask, ‘Did the rape guy win?’ and you have to answer, ‘Which one?’ – Alec Baldwin

    Baldwin’s quip — if such it is — came during the election before Trump.

  • Brett

    There’s some serious flaws in the process of how these kinds of things are decided, but I don’t think the lower burden of proof is wrong. The stakes are lower, and more importantly the need for timeliness is higher.

    Say the victim reports the rape to the police, the police actually take it seriously, and they arrest the victim. There can still be a period of months or longer before the accused even faces trial, and longer still before sentencing. During which they might very well be out on bail and on campus, where they can harass the victim. Colleges need to be able to decide quickly whether to take steps to separate the accused and victim, and whether the case against the abused is egregious enough to mandate complete suspension pending the criminal case (or not if there isn’t one).

    As for Affirmative Consent, I don’t see it as any different than what we have for other crimes. If someone steals my car, I don’t have to prove that I didn’t give them permission to take it.

It is main inner container footer text