There is a big problem with campus rape. The Obama administration stepped-in to make Universities responsible for addressing non-criinal claims in an attempt "to do something." In what probably is a case of all good intentions go unrewarded, the administration required universities to adopt certain standards and procedures. Some likely are unconstitutional (both Harvard and Stanford law schools refused to adopt the standards and challenged the AG to sue them), and have left schools exposed. Cal is one of those schools. There have been posts on this issue, and us dumb lawyers said there would be legal push back, and its starting to cost the schools real money. Here is article about a Montana QB that was accused and later exonerated in the court. He agreed to about a $250K settlement, but the U of Montana also paid close to 7 figures in plaintiff and its own legal fees, so there is a million plus dollars that won't go towards education, in a university that doesn't have a massive operating budget. Hopefully, I did the link correct, and if not I will just copy the article. None of this means there is not a campus rape problem, but certainly a more thoughtful approach (perhaps not designed by federal bureaucracy) is in order.

http://wpo.st/yFdC1

Reading the article, one thing is clear, the accused wins an overwhelming percentage of cases. These verdicts provide additional protection for the accused while undermining any protection of the victim by the school. This reads like a lose, lose scenario. Explain how this is any different than an unsuccessful prosecution of any crime? Once an arrest is made and charges filed, the accused suffers the same 'injustices' as the accused in Montana, even if they are also acquitted. If the DA loses the case they should have the same liability for misconduct as any College or University. Private schools like harvard or stanford or religious schools get to shield information from the public in so many ways that I expect knee-jerk non-compliance to any new request for closely held information.
I really don't see a smoking gun of Federal bureaucracy in this story. "In Sept. 2014, the White House announced a national campaign, called “It’s On Us,” to combat the problem, enlisting the support of major college sports leagues and celebrities to get American university students to speak out about sexual assault." This hardly is a federal guideline on prosecution. Somehow lawyers have been convincing courts that college administration actions are actually criminal punishments and require a higher evidence of proof than civil cases. This story seems to advocate ignoring the estimated rape of 20% of college coeds on campus because the college can't win he said/she said cases if the college's actions are deemed criminal punishments.

sp4149;842649654 said:

---

Reading the article, one thing is clear, the accused wins an overwhelming percentage of cases. These verdicts provide additional protection for the accused while undermining any protection of the victim by the school. This reads like a lose, lose scenario. Explain how this is any different than an unsuccessful prosecution of any crime? Once an arrest is made and charges filed, the accused suffers the same 'injustices' as the accused in Montana, even if they are also acquitted. If the DA loses the case they should have the same liability for misconduct as any College or University. Private schools like harvard or stanford or religious schools get to shield information from the public in so many ways that I expect knee-jerk non-compliance to any new request for closely held information.
I really don't see a smoking gun of Federal bureaucracy in this story. "In Sept. 2014, the White House announced a national campaign, called "It's On Us," to combat the problem, enlisting the support of major college sports leagues and celebrities to get American university students to speak out about sexual assault." This hardly is a federal guideline on prosecution. Somehow lawyers have been convincing courts that college administration actions are actually criminal punishments and require a higher evidence of proof than civil cases. This story seems to advocate ignoring the estimated rape of 20% of college coeds on campus because the college can't win he said/she said cases if the college's actions are deemed criminal punishments.

---

You're missing a few larger points - (i) Colleges are poorly equipped to investigate and deal with these issues; and (ii) it isn't just the standard of proof - it is the fact that many university policies (adopted after federal pressure) deny the accused other due process and basic fairness protections, such as the right to question the witnesses, the right to know charges, the right to have an attorney, appeal to an impartial trier, etc.. Schools are adopting policies and procedures that are heavily weighted against the accused - that is the difference from all other forums. Stated differently, an accused doesn't have the basic rights he/she would have in a civil case, much less a criminal one. These policies are driven by the fed's "dear colleague" letter as well as on campus rape culture activists.

Also, there is no legitimate statistic indicating 20% of coeds are raped. You are repeating a falsehood which has been used, among other ways, to justify the absurd campus policies. I'm not defending rape - even 1% is not acceptable - but the problem has been exaggerated by some to justify a political/gender agenda.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980

I wonder what effect keeping their d*cks in their pants from time to time would have on the issue?

As a former prosecutor who has read some of the articles about the campus "courts", I am appalled. The feminists have made every statement by a woman as absolutely true. Pure BS - I remember a case in our office in which the cops were interviewing the victims of a burglar who had been the woman's lover and she accused him of raping her. Unfortunately for this liar, the guy had secretly videotaped all his assignations. I saw the film and I wish my girlfriends had been so enthusiastic. When told of this recording, she immediately dropped the allegations. Every group known to man has liars in it, and the court needs to give those who expose lies by any witness great leeway or lies will go unchallenged.

Our government has studied this.

The rate of rape and assault against non students was 1.2 times greater than for students.

The rate has been between 5-9 per 1000 females in the last 15 years, no way 20%

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

bearister;842649723 said:

---

I wonder what effect keeping their d*cks in their pants from time to time would have on the issue?

---

You mean the innocent students who were accused of rape but fully exonerated should stop having sex? Because they're men? You never had sex in college? You're right, the men are "asking for wrongful rape accusations" by their reckless behavior of having sex.

Just out of curiosity, should women stop having sex too?

We are talking government institutions, not DOJ and we are not talking about penalties involving incarceration. Every institution I have been involved with had a code of conduct and the appearance of a violation of that code was grounds for dismissal; if you read the fine print when you joined. Working within DOD I saw high ranking managers sacked for violation of the code although no criminal charges were ever brought. True it was unevenly applied, some were dismissed while others committing the same acts were transferred. I would argue that losing the retirement benefits of years of service is probably worse than what these college kids suffered because what was lost had been earned while the other was mere potential. In cases of sexual misconduct the individuals were removed from their jobs immediately by security, no delays for due process. Criminal investigations (if any) were done after the accused had been permanently removed. Our private sector contractors were even harsher and quicker to judge.

This seems to be a dangerous precedent, to turn civil proceedings into criminal proceedings with a frequently unattainable level of proof. These 'victories' will make it harder to discipline those who violate a code of conduct. It would mean that a school couldn't fire a football coach who had become a public embarrassment until after he had been charged and convicted in a criminal court.

I agree that legitimate statistics on sexual assaults are unavailable; for years the City of Chicago reported ZERO sexual assaults; a total I find harder to believe than the 20% estimated number. You realize that an estimate is not a real statistic? It may be a scientific guess to determine the scope of the problem; there is study data to indicate the vast majority of sexual assaults are never reported. I have relatives who told me that they had been assaulted but who never reported it to campus police. I had a roommate who became a successful lawyer who was probably guilty of dozens of statutory rapes, based on his boastings. I expect most sexual assaults to go unreported and that the total number is far greater than just the successful prosecutions.

BearGoggles;842649716 said:

---

You're missing a few larger points - (i) Colleges are poorly equipped to investigate and deal with these issues; and (ii) it isn't just the standard of proof - it is the fact that many university policies (adopted after federal pressure) deny the accused other due process and basic fairness protections, such as the right to question the witnesses, the right to know charges, the right to have an attorney, appeal to an impartial trier, etc.. Schools are adopting policies and procedures that are heavily weighted against the accused - that is the difference from all other forums. Stated differently, an accused doesn't have the basic rights he/she would have in a civil case, much less a criminal one. These policies are driven by the fed's "dear colleague" letter as well as on campus rape culture activists.

Also, there is no legitimate statistic indicating 20% of coeds are raped. You are repeating a falsehood which has been used, among other ways, to justify the absurd campus policies. I'm not defending rape - even 1% is not acceptable - but the problem has been exaggerated by some to justify a political/gender agenda.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980

---

sp4149;842649654 said:

---

Reading the article, one thing is clear, the accused wins an overwhelming percentage of cases. These verdicts provide additional protection for the accused while undermining any protection of the victim by the school. This reads like a lose, lose scenario. Explain how this is any different than an unsuccessful prosecution of any crime? Once an arrest is made and charges filed, the accused suffers the same 'injustices' as the accused in Montana, even if they are also acquitted. If the DA loses the case they should have the same liability for misconduct as any College or University. Private schools like harvard or stanford or religious schools get to shield information from the public in so many ways that I expect knee-jerk non-compliance to any new request for closely held information.
I really don't see a smoking gun of Federal bureaucracy in this story. "In Sept. 2014, the White House announced a national campaign, called “It’s On Us,” to combat the problem, enlisting the support of major college sports leagues and celebrities to get American university students to speak out about sexual assault." This hardly is a federal guideline on prosecution. Somehow lawyers have been convincing courts that college administration actions are actually criminal punishments and require a higher evidence of proof than civil cases. This story seems to advocate ignoring the estimated rape of 20% of college coeds on campus because the college can't win he said/she said cases if the college's actions are deemed criminal punishments.

---

I think the courts are not agreeing with your analysis The allegations against the school is that it failed to provide basic constitutional protections to the accused, unlike the court system which does. You say this is different - just some civil action. You ignore that schools are taking actions like suspending or expelling students without due process, that SCOTUS held are in fact constitutionally protected rights that require due process.

They are not simple civil matters as you suggest and for many a liberal, they should be glad this is the case (for example, the reason illegal immigrants can attend state colleges is the SCOTUS ruled that the right to higher education is a constitutionally protected right), The school could respond by saying it followed federal imposed requirements, but the problem for schools is that isn't a legal defense. I will spare you the metaphors we have in this country about letting the guilty go to protect the innocent, but those same metaphors apply to basic rights.

[

BearGoggles;842649762 said:

---

....You never had sex in college?....

---

Yes, I never had sex in college. I clutched rosary beads and drank two six packs of Guinness until the urge passed.

BearGoggles;842649762 said:

---

You mean the innocent students who were accused of rape but fully exonerated should stop having sex? Because they're men? You never had sex in college? You're right, the men are "asking for wrongful rape accusations" by their reckless behavior of having sex.

Just out of curiosity, should women stop having sex too?

---

Well isn't this a micro-aggression against coeds having sex with drunk men. Under the federal rules, consent can't be provided by the party who is intoxicated. How about a reoccurring example mentioned in a recent Furd alum article on the subject. Guy tells his girl friend he was drunk and didn't know he was screwing the other girl (yea, right), and the pissed girl friend reports the "rape." BTW, having talked to two women that attended orientation with the their sons, they basically told the boys if they want sex get it off campus. Maybe its the view of adult women with sons, as opposed to men with daughters, but they found the rules biased, demeaning to women (they can't ever say yes if they drink, do drugs, etc.) and highly unrealistic. Also, with zero tolerance rules at many schools, sororities pressure girls into not complaining less they be frozen out of the social scene. Its not working all that well.

BearGoggles;842649716 said:

---

Also, there is no legitimate statistic indicating 20% of coeds are raped. You are repeating a falsehood which has been used, among other ways, to justify the absurd campus policies. I'm not defending rape - even 1% is not acceptable - but the problem has been exaggerated by some to justify a political/gender agenda.

---

GB54;842649729 said:

---

Our government has studied this.

The rate of rape and assault against non students was 1.2 times greater than for students.

The rate has been between 5-9% in the last 15 years, no way 20%

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

---

OK, but what does any of this mean? Let's say that the real rate is only ~10%. That rate is not just too high, it's absurdly high. If that's the right rate, then a full lecture in Wheeler has, what, ~35 women who've been sexually assaulted in it? Every 20 person discussion section will have about 1 victim of sexual assault in it (this is where the "trigger warnings" regarding rape come from, btw). If you actually think in those terms while sitting in a lecture hall full of 18-22 year olds, it's crazy. You sat there in class, every day, with women who'd been raped on campus. Did your friends go to parties? If yes, then a few of them probably got sexually assaulted (for the record, this was certainly true for my social circle at Cal from 2004-8). So what can we actually do about this? Or do we just leave it be because as it stands there's effectively no evidence, short of body-cam footage, that can prove that drunken sex is non-consensual?

There's a line among pro-choice people that says "If men got pregnant, abortion would've been legal from the beginning." I don't know if that's true for abortion, but I have to believe that if more creepy dudes were pulling semi-conscious drunk guys into rooms to have sex with them against their will, we'd find some way to go after them.

berk18;842649830 said:

---

OK, but what does any of this mean? Let's say that the real rate is only ~10%. That rate is not just too high, it's absurdly high. If that's the right rate, then a full lecture in Wheeler has, what, ~35 women who've been sexually assaulted in it? Every 20 person discussion section will have about 1 victim of sexual assault in it (this is where the "trigger warnings" regarding rape come from, btw). If you actually think in those terms while sitting in a lecture hall full of 18-22 year olds, it's crazy. You sat there in class, every day, with women who'd been raped on campus. Did your friends go to parties? If yes, then a few of them probably got sexually assaulted (for the record, this was certainly true for my social circle at Cal from 2004-8). So what can we actually do about this? Or do we just leave it be because as it stands there's effectively no evidence, short of body-cam footage, that can prove that drunken sex is non-consensual?

There's a line among pro-choice people that says "If men got pregnant, abortion would've been legal from the beginning." I don't know if that's true for abortion, but I have to believe that if more creepy dudes were pulling semi-conscious drunk guys into rooms to have sex with them against their will, we'd find some way to go after them.

---

I contributed to your confusion. In my post above I cited the incidence of rape and assault in the DOJ report as 5-9%. It's actually per 1000 females not per 100 so a lot less

wifeisafurd;842649787 said:

---

Well isn't this a micro-aggression against coeds having sex with drunk men. Under the federal rules, consent can't be provided by the party who is intoxicated. How about a reoccurring example mentioned in a recent Furd alum article on the subject. Guy tells his girl friend he was drunk and didn't know he was screwing the other girl (yea, right), and the pissed girl friend reports the "rape." BTW, having talked to two women that attended orientation with the their sons, they basically told the boys if they want sex get it off campus. Maybe its the view of adult women with sons, as opposed to men with daughters, but they found the rules biased, demeaning to women (they can't ever say yes if they drink, do drugs, etc.) and highly unrealistic. Also, with zero tolerance rules at many schools, sororities pressure girls into not complaining less they be frozen out of the social scene. Its not working all that well.

---

There should be a whore house on Sand Hill Road. No shortage of clients or capital.

Great post. Given the good young boy nature of many Sand Hill capital firms, I bet there are full service organizations nearby.

bearister;842649723 said:

---

I wonder what effect keeping their d*cks in their pants from time to time would have on the issue?

---

Ah.... good old victim blaming.

Were you the type to say women who got raped should not have (blank)?

Phantomfan;842650032 said:

---

Ah.... good old victim blaming.

Were you the type to say women who got raped should not have (blank)?

---

I thought I was engaging in perpetrator bashing.

wifeisafurd;842650018 said:

---

Great post. Given the good young boy nature of many Sand Hill capital firms, I bet there are full service organizations nearby.

---

Well, there used to be... http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/09/silicon-vcs-flee-cougar-night-after-false-report-of-vice-crackdown/

GB54;842649729 said:

---

Our government has studied this.

The rate of rape and assault against non students was 1.2 times greater than for students.

The rate has been between 5-9 per 1000 females in the last 15 years, no way 20%

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

---

1%-3% is about right, and most of these are alcohol-related.

It should be noted that the DOJ (NCVS) study also reported the summary results of two other studies (NISVS and CSA) that yielded much higher incidents of sexual assault. The DOJ study focused on assaults of a criminal nature and had a heavy interviewer bias (observer effect) while the other studies focused on public health aspects of sexual assault. Another way of viewing the results is that one survey may count only those cases that would result in prosecution while the other surveys suffer from representing only the victim's of sexual assault. The DOJ statistics were part of a large overall study of nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older; this study required the participant to determine if the activity was criminal. The other studies asked questions about sexual behavior and then the study made the determination about possible criminal behavior. The methodology and objectives differ substantially so a difference in results would not be unexpected.

Comparing the various study data from the NCVS report, requires it to be normalized to reflect the same time period, i.e. the period of college enrollment. For comparative purposes I will assume an average of five years of total college enrollment as working students or mothers of young children frequently take longer than four years to complete their degrees. This also reflects that these assault statistics are solely based on assaults on women ages 12 to 25. The studies were conducted between 200713 for the NCVS report, 2007 for the CSA findings, 2011 NISVS for the NISVS data. The CSA 2007 study reported 140 assaults per 1000 during college enrollment; the 2011 NISVS study reported a 2% annual assault rate during the previous 12 months, or 100 assaults per 1000 during a five year college enrollment; and in 2010 NCVS reported an annual assault rate of 1% (which was more than double the rate of the entire 7 year study period, an unexplained discrepancy), which would be 50 assaults per 1000. Note all the studies appear to support assault rates during college much higher than 5-9 per 1000 (140,100, 50) and closer to the order of magnitude of 200 per 1000 (20%).

Also important is the population surveyed; only the CSA study limited the sample population to college students. The other two studies had population of non-institutionalized persons; including far more than just college students but also excluding the homeless, the mentally ill, and the incarcerated groups which may include parts of the student population. In the recent Iowa caucuses Trump was predicted the winner among likely Iowa GOP voters while Cruz was the predicted
winner among likely GOP caucus attendees. Obviously predictions based on the appropriate sample population can be more accurate. The DOJ study used a very elaborate interview process and a large sample population, but did not reveal how they selected participants (the sample population). From their report it is hard to determine how representative of the general population their sample is or how representative of the student sub-set. The DOJ study involved interviews and telephone followups with households over 42 months. Households have to be stable, that is non-transient, over that 42 months to be included in the sample population. Students who moved at least once during their college career would be excluded from the sample population. The requirement that the data (NCVS) is gathered over a 42 month period would seem to exclude many if not most college students. I am not surprised that the DOJ study might under report the incidence of sexual assaults on campus as their methodology could exclude many if not most college students from their sample population.

GB54;842649729 said:

---

Our government has studied this.

The rate of rape and assault against non students was 1.2 times greater than for students.

The rate has been between 5-9 per 1000 females in the last 15 years, no way 20%

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

---

Sp1419

I haven't read all these studies and won't do so but I will say this:

1. Earlier in this thread you cited a statistic that 20% of coeds have been raped but these surveys do not focus solely on the crime of rape but the more nuanced definitions of sexual assault. If 20% of students were being raped we'd be living in Germany among Russian troops at the end of WW2. It is a statistic that has no basis in common sense or our collective histories. It would also negate decades of awareness of womens issues in the home and classroom.
2. How good are these studies? The one you cited was a web based questionnaire. What is the response rate? If 20% respond and they report 20% assault, does that mean the rate of assault is 20%? Of course not.

Can't we at least assume campus rape and assault is a problem or we would not have all these cases and lawsuits?

wifeisafurd;842650752 said:

---

Can't we at least assume campus rape and assault is a problem or we would not have all these cases and lawsuits?

---

I'm not sure law suits correlate; part of it is no doubt due to this being treated as an arbitrary campus disciplinary problem not a criminal investigation with counsel.

Are there more sexual assaults or more awareness and sensitivity to sexual assaults? This is what some of us are arguing. There is no reason to suspect that young men today are more prone to rape than previously; in fact the reverse should hold. Alcohol is of course a big wild card here; for all the talk about micro aggression why isn't something that makes one side more predatory and the other more willing challenged?

berk18;842649830 said:

---

OK, but what does any of this mean? Let's say that the real rate is only ~10%. That rate is not just too high, it's absurdly high. If that's the right rate, then a full lecture in Wheeler has, what, ~35 women who've been sexually assaulted in it? Every 20 person discussion section will have about 1 victim of sexual assault in it (this is where the "trigger warnings" regarding rape come from, btw). If you actually think in those terms while sitting in a lecture hall full of 18-22 year olds, it's crazy. You sat there in class, every day, with women who'd been raped on campus. Did your friends go to parties? If yes, then a few of them probably got sexually assaulted (for the record, this was certainly true for my social circle at Cal from 2004-8). So what can we actually do about this? Or do we just leave it be because as it stands there's effectively no evidence, short of body-cam footage, that can prove that drunken sex is non-consensual?

There's a line among pro-choice people that says "If men got pregnant, abortion would've been legal from the beginning." I don't know if that's true for abortion, but I have to believe that if more creepy dudes were pulling semi-conscious drunk guys into rooms to have sex with them against their will, we'd find some way to go after them.

---

It means that the narrative of "rampant rape on campus" is false. It means that people with an agenda are trampling students' due process and other rights.