At the University of North Dakota, Yes Also Means No

Earlier today, Tim Cavanaugh noted that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has instructed colleges that due process in cases involving sexual harassment or assault is inconsistent with federal law. "In order for a school's grievance procedures to be consistent with the standards in Title IX," OCR's head, Russlynn Ali, wrote in an April 4 letter, "the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred)." Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate suggests that Ali's missive, which "sends the message that results—not facts—matter most," encouraged the University of North Dakota to overlook what sounds like an egregious miscarriage of justice:

On Jan. 27, 2010, [Caleb] Warner learned he was accused of sexual assault by another student at the University of North Dakota. Mr. Warner insisted that the episode, which occurred the month prior, was entirely consensual. No matter to the university: He was charged with violating the student code and suspended for three years. Three months later, state police lodged criminal charges against his accuser for filing a false police report. A warrant for her arrest remains outstanding.

Among several reasons the police gave for crediting Mr. Warner's claim of innocence was evidence of a text message sent to him by the woman indicating that she wanted to have intercourse with him. This invitation, combined with other evidence that police believe indicates her untruthfulness, has obvious implications for her charge of rape.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which Silverglate co-founded, urged University of North Dakota President Robert O. Kelley to re-examine Warner's case in light of this evidence. Six weeks after the Department of Education letter went out, FIRE received a reply from the school's general counsel, who said that she did not perceive any "substantial new information" and that in any case the proceeding that led to Warner's three-year suspension "was not a legal process but an educational one."

[Thanks to Hans Bader for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Spartacus||

    Here is the OCR letter itself, (April 4, 2011) in case anyone wants to read the actual document.

  • Spartacus||

    The letter is 19 pages of dense legalese, with nearly 50 references to other documents and court cases. It is also presented as "guidance" in order to "clarify" basic Title IX requirements, so according to OCR, it is nothing new. Really.

    This is a classic case of Federal arm-twisting, dressed up in legal niceties. Colleges are terrified of violating Title IX, so they are bending over backward to comply with the new "guidance". Actual impacts on students are just a distracting detail.

  • Zuo||

    Congratulations Mr. Warner, your reputation and possibly life has been ruined. But hey at least it was "educational".

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well going by just about every other Reason blog concerning police action I would have to conclude that the cops got it wrong and were harassing the rape victim by filing false report charges against her. I mean what's the likelihood of the police being in the right just this one and only time. I'm confused. Where's Balko when you need him.

  • ||

    AlmightyJB, is there any Reason blog that says the police are wrong because they are the police? Far more likely, they have some specific objection to some specific police behavior in that instance.

    But no, you're probably right, since Reason criticized the police in some other post, this poor kid should continue to suffer the consequences of a false accusation. Makes perfect sense to me, as it obviously does to you.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "since Reason criticized the police in some other post"

    Yeah, it was just one other post.

  • Patricia||

    Do the wing nuts at FIRE chant "no means yes, yes means anal" too?

  • Paul||

    'Cause when we kiiiiiissss woooooooooo

    FIWA!

  • ||

    Ooh... 30 year old Robin Williams reference.. Nice callback!

  • fish||

    Hey baby....how you doon?

  • ||

    "The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them. "

    Wow, what extremists. They must be stopped.

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Has anyone contacted the SPLC about these dangerous terrorists yet?

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH WANT KNOW IF PATRICIA WANT TAKE HIKE WITH STEVE SMITH.

  • ||

    Does "maybe" mean "oral"?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Maybe means "just the tip."

  • sevo||

    "Eatin' ain't cheatin'"
    Husband of current SoS.

  • Anomalous||

    "Maybe" means a hand job.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Why, you looking for a date?

  • Au H20||

    Patricia sounds like a fat persons name. Not like dangy t or hazel meade, those are normal people names. But Patricia is a fat and ugly person's name.

  • ||

    Do you mean that Patricia has a soul which is fat and ugly, or her body is fat and ugly, or both?

  • ||

    FIRE aren't wingnuts and they have done a lot to advance the cause of civil rights in education. Their record, which is amply documented on their website is proof of that.

  • ||

    Methinks Dunphy needs a sarcasm implant.

  • ||

    The colleges should just ignore the letter, and tell the Department of Education to eat shit and die.

    OT: Great video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqN7Xj9IU8w

  • RandomGermanDude||

    News at 11: (Most) Americans don't like football because it's presumably boring while (some) are defending Baseball as an presumably interesting game.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Dude people love football. Go Broncos!

  • RandomGermanDude||

    Way too predictable.

  • BakedPenguin||

    How about this: I promise not to watch any American Football this year.

  • ||

    Dude people love football. Go Broncos!

    I second this.

  • John "Seabiscuit" Elway||

    Me too! (Whinny, whinny)

  • cynical||

    Football less interesting than baseball? That is news.

  • Zeb||

    I like soccer and baseball because they're boring.

  • ||

    Don't forget the thrills and existential adventures that are cricket!

  • ||

    must mean metric football

  • ||

    Very troll-y.

  • ||

    The problem with football is the NFL turned an hour game into 4 hours of commercials.

  • ||

    Excellent comment, Res.

  • PR||

    Warner's three-year suspension "was not a legal process

    exactly. but it will be.

  • Paul||

    The argument is that colleges are not courts of law, therefore the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is completely unnecessary. QED.

    http://community.feministing.c.....-sponsors/

    Thanks to Auh20 for the link downthread.

    Reports of criminal actions made to institutes of higher education are not “criminal charges.”

    The Higher Education Act of 1965 will be amended to include:

    (v) Procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of an alleged incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, which shall include a clear statement that–

    (I) such proceedings shall–

    (aa) provide a prompt and equitable resolution;

    (bb) be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability; and
    (cc) use the preponderance of the evidence standard;

    emphasis added.
  • fish||

    Hey if there are any ND alumni on the thread now might be the time todrop a line to them to let them know that there won't be any more money coming.....

  • doomboy||

    Dear UND,

    You never got a damn cent from me, but now you really, really won't ever get one!

    UND alumnus

    "And the home of the . . . . . . . Sioux!!!!!!!!"

  • ||

    I read somewhere, can't find the link now, that what the OCR is doing wrong because that office doesn't have the authority to change the law.

    Also, if someone is suspended due to one of these administrative courts, I would think most other institutions would refuse to accept that student, if for no other reason than concerns for liability. Then, doesn't this amount to punishing the student without due process?

    A kangaroo court of the type described here and in the previous article can't qualify as due process.

  • Seer||

    Good to know constitutional guarantees to due process only exist for "criminal" charges.

  • ||

    maybe....but it is a public school...I smell a lawsuit in there somewhere

  • ||

    maybe....but it is a public school...I smell a lawsuit in there somewhere

  • ||

    this is false. due process guarantees exist. as much as i detest these kangaroo courts (which don't give due process), a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is not necessary. i would suggest preponderance is too low. clear and convincing is a better standard.

  • ||

    Shorthand for all of that act is 'If you want to get a check, get on all fours...'

  • ||

    Warner's three-year suspension "was not a legal process but an educational one."

    Oh, I bet he learned his fucking lesson, alright.

    Nothing drives home the point that the marxist fundies have taken over academia, more than these Kabuki theater productions.

  • ||

    Didn't I just read the same thing about Stanford? If you can't get drunk and laid in college, why bother?

  • Gerholdt||

    He would want to go back to a school run by such fascists because .... ?

  • ||

    Graduated UND last year, was on student government for three years. Can assure you, that school is ass backwards when it comes to due process for students. Senate tried (and since, probably has) instituted a new policy where students can even be suspended or expelled without a right to know the identity of their accuser (basic confrontation right denied). Anybody with the slightest grudge can make false accusations, anonymously, and get another kicked out just like that.

  • Paul||

    Student government is what the world would look like if young people ran it.

  • ||

    It actually seems like the oldsters in the administration and in the DOEd who are causing trouble here.

  • yonemoto||

    both can be true

  • ||

    Ah, I see the confusion. At an academic institution the [College|University|Faculty] Senate is a body made up of senior faculty that has to approve big policy changes proposed by the administration. It's not part of student govt.

  • ||

    college is what the US would look like if leftists ran it.

    college campuses are the last bastion in the US for actual hardcore leftists.

    i was in student govt. when i was in college (concert production was part of the govt.) and these fuckheads were astounding.

  • ||

    i was in student govt. when i was in college (concert production was part of the govt.)

    Extra-points awarded for the typical statist overeach.

  • ||

    what else would it be part of at a govt. run university? duh

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Student govmt is what it would look like if the kind of fuckheads who like to run for shit in elections ran everything.

  • Adam||

    I'd like to see the text of that proposed policy.

  • The Reverend Al Sharpton||

    "sends the message that results—not facts—matter most"

    And your point is ... ?

  • Sean Connery||

    You see guys, 12 'nos' and one 'yes' is still yes.

  • Friendly Josef Stalin||

    I always say, "find me the man, I'll find the crime."

  • L. Beria||

    That's my line, Uncle Joe!

  • Friendly Josef Stalin||

    Now YOU will be up on rape charges!

  • ||

    In Soviet Russia, charges rape YOU!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You have to be fucking kidding me. This is just beyond belief.

  • Fair Harvard||

    Never should have allowed chicks into Harvard. It's been downhill ever since.

  • ||

  • ||

  • Au H20||

    Our long national nightmare will end in four posts

  • rather||

    Reminds me of another jackass who kept repeating himself

  • Number 2||

    And I am busting ass to save money to send my daughter to one of these dumps? Geez.

  • ||

    I'm half convince that you'll have more justice by ignoring all rape claims.

  • ||

    in any case the proceeding that led to Warner's three-year suspension "was not a legal process but an educational one."

    No kidding.

    Hopefully, a lot of parents and students will learn a valuable lesson, and enrollment at UND will plummet. I'll be right over here, holding my breath.

  • wayne||

    Maybe Mr. Warner ought to bring a lawsuit against the university which would be both a "a legal process and an educational one" for the university.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    On Jan. 27, 2010, [Caleb] Warner learned he was accused of sexual assault by another student at the University of North Dakota. Mr. Warner insisted that the episode, which occurred the month prior, was entirely consensual. No matter to the university: He was charged with violating the student code and suspended for three years. Three months later, state police lodged criminal charges against his accuser for filing a false police report. A warrant for her arrest remains outstanding.

    For as much as English professors and other pointy-headed stimulate Arthur Miller's phallus with their mouths for writing that heavy-handed, "LOL MCCARTHY" tract called The Crucible, that maybe, just maybe, the presumption of innocence and due process are good ideas.

    Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.

  • GH||

    When I went to college (1978) the male to female ratio was about 60/40. When I learned the ratio is now the opposite at many colleges I became a bit envious of today's male college students. I'm cured of that.

  • ||

    BEGIN BEER-FUELED TRANSMISSION:

    This is another example of political America's dysfunction with sex in general and the male's role with sex in particular.

    Men are pigs. All women know this. Fuck, all men know this. Men are expected to be disciplined with themselves in Western society (vs. women being 'disciplined' in say, Islamic societies). Western law assumes the male mind can grasp abstract concepts like the other person, how she feels, what she wants, that she is your legal equal, and her rights guaranteed by such. What a concept. What took us so long collectively? I love being a libertarian by ethos if not label!

    I love the fact as a male I am given that responsibility and freedom in Western society. I am the pig, I must accommodate that for women because I care about people in general and being a little old-school I care about women maybe teensy bit more :) That's easy for a rational, reasoned mind.

    And as a reward women feel safe and in control enough to be provocative if they want, wear that mini if they want. Smile at me if they want. Explore all their powers and sexuality. Which is just a bonus for a bum like me!

    And they can do it all without fear I will turn into horrible shithead simply because I can; because I am expected to be that weak and stupid.

    That's been a fight for womens' rights in a way forever. To be as cool and hot and sexual as they want, and not be attacked/beaten/etc. for it. And then blamed for it when the asshole in question is exposed for such behavior.

    With this shit though it goes other way: 'Bob said this but mysterious 'she' said that.' Bullshit. Equal is equal. If I see a murder, or survive god-forbid an attempted murder - but not a 'sexual assault' - I'm all over TV by name. WTF? Really?

    Default guilt for the male pig in all men, and default 'protections' and 'assumptions' does not evaluate the behavior of individual men in dealing with their respective pig, nor the woman in their brilliant, intrinsic playbook of how to manipulate such - even in bad faith.

    How can such be integrated in law to accurately evaluate such cases? Because such cases - tragedies and farces - are out there, they are real, and they should be accounted for correctly; unlike this joke of asymmetric authorities. Its a tough deal. Needs social innovation.

    END TRANSMISSION

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    You, sir, have earned a slow clap.

  • anarch||

    Don't wish the clap on anyone. ;-)

  • wayne||

    my compliments. beer does not have that effect on me. drool, slobber, etc.

  • ||

    In Islamic countries if a woman is out alone, and is raped, it is her fault. Afterall, we all know men are pigs. If she gave them an opportunity by being alone, knowing men are pigs, why is she mad at the rapist for doing what men do?

    I disagree with Islam on many, many points, and this is one. But if feminists are going to portray men as pigs, this could be one consequence.

  • ||

    OFF TOPIC:

    Watching the news presently and they're reading NFL players tweets bitching about the owners: thoughts?

    Me, I say if you don't like what your employer offers take your marketable skills and find another fucking job.

  • GH||

    I'm not like real hard-core football fans. I can't watch college football. I'm nuts about NFL football though. I know that some apprenticeship is needed to sort out who is the best at playing football. College football does that, and is certainly valuable. But the wide open receivers who don't get thrown the ball and fumbles abound. The running college quarterback is akin to a novice chess player who can't keep his paws off the queen.

    I just don't want set myself down on Sunday afternoon to watch a football game unless it is played and coached by the best of the best.

    I get what your saying about the owners telling players to fuck off, but that's not a real option for a viewer like me. Outstanding football players are not labor commodities like GM assembly line workers.

  • ||

    The way I look at it is that most owners are billionaires with significant other business interests and without an NFL season they'll be fine. The players on the other hand have one skill which, while lucrative,is not necessary for the functioning of the larger economy.

    In negotiations the owners will calculate whether the players demands will cost less than a league shut down. What fans want is a distant second. What you'd like to see on teevee on Sunday afternoon is secondary to the cost/income ration that your eyeballs watching bring from advertisers.

    /sloppy

  • GH||

    The way I look at it is that most owners are billionaires with significant other business interests and without an NFL season they'll be fine.

    Any american with only about $2million banked can comfortably lounge around for the balance of his life. You seem to be flummoxed about why wealthy people continue to work. I can't help out that one pal.

    In negotiations the owners will calculate whether the players demands will cost less than a league shut down.

    Yes, the accounting will have to work out in the black.

    What fans want is a distant second.

    I'm just one datum point among millions of NFL fans. I won't watch a distant second football game.

    What you'd like to see on teevee on Sunday afternoon is secondary to the cost/income ration that your eyeballs watching bring from advertisers.

    On the business end of football, whether or not I watch a game, and the advertisements, if the only thing that matters.

  • ||

    I ain't yer fuckin' pal, bud.

  • GH||

    Ouch. I been unfriended.

  • ||

    don't call me bud, guy!

  • ||

    Lighten up, Francis!

  • ||

    Lighten up, Francis!

  • ||

    As real hard-core football fan, for a long time, I have sympathies for players.

    They get shit kicked out of them (older means = it was harder hits) and get empty pensions, from whatever contract in 1990 or whatever they were party to for retirement.

    Guys like that made the league the owners now cajole taxpayers into giving them $billions$ in taxbucks to build stadiums for their buddies.

    Normally I would be like 'That's what union deals get you' but with the owners (at least plurality if not majority of them) getting 'free' taxpayer-paid stadiums over same period of time for tax-buddies to get exec-boxes and make money; well, that's an 'open' contract right there. I hate the owners more than players in this but I am libertarian at my core... I hate them all.

  • ||

    Thing is, despite MSL's assertion I think the player's pr has been very effective over the past few decades.

    Think of it this way: If I own a multi-million dollar masonry company who's out there bitching about how my employees all have bad knees, or that I live in a great big house while my laborers live in the trailer park? I was a masonry assistant when I was younger; my forearms were huge and my back was 50 so I got another job.

    Do you think that owners receiving taxpayer money frees up more money for player salaries? I do. Salaries in all sports shot up during the arena/stadium building boom of the 90's to present.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    The players can't even get their bullshit PR story straight. First, the owners put in a bunch of stuff at the last minute. Now they are saying that they didn't even get a chance to read the agreement.

  • Au H20||

    Legitimate question: So, I have heard feminists say that between 1 in 6 to 1 in 4 women will be raped/sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. But they also say that only 1 in 10 rapes get reported. If the rapes are never reported, how the hell do they know that so many women experience it? I know that this question will get some less serious responses, but I really want to know their methodology.

  • ||

    I may be wrong, but I think it's similar to the fact that .5 of all Americans have tried an illegal drug but only .1 have been arrested for illegal drugs, i.e. . Maybe the women are assaulted but don't want to go through the ordeal of reporting it to the police and possibly a testifying in an open court.

  • ||

    Its more than .5, that's the only thing I know.

  • ||

    I was going to put an * to indicate that my numbers were totally made up, but something happened and I'm left raging at my poor posting skillz.

  • ||

    Its all cool. With work these days I can't post, but I might figure in some Reason drama on my automation routines and that's a LONG story. But either way man, enjoy! Good times!

  • ||

    the feminists' stats are bogus. they are based upon polls that ask questions like "i was pressured into having sex".

    that is NOT rape. iow, if somebody begs for sex or says stuff like "please. i promise i'll still respect you" etc. that's called "dating as we know it in college", NOT rape.

    but feminists define it as rape - "verbal pressuring"

    it's what is referred to as 'defining deviancy up'

  • rather||

    Fuck you; you don't know what you're speaking of. I know so many woman who will never admit to being raped to a man, certainly never to a cop

  • ||

    i know exactly what i am talking about. rape is a significantly underreported crime. DUH

    *nobody* denies that. amongst "victim'ed" crimes, as opposed to victimless crimes, it is amongst the MOST underreported.

    it also has a fairly high rate of false reporting. so does burglary. the primary difference between false burg and false rape reports are that the former are almost always done for insurance money and don't target a SUSPECT whereas false rape complaints almost always DO target a specific individual as in "john smith " or "the duke boys" raped me

    those are both tangential to the point i made.

    the hyperfeminist stats about 1/4 of college women being raped rely on polling that asks questions about being verbally persuaded to give in to sex demands , iow men pleading for sex or trying to convince women to have sex, which they then count as rape

    this inflates their rape stats by broadening the definition of "rape".

    this should not be difficult for you to understand. try harder

  • rather||

    Fuck you and your misanthropic culture

  • ||

    Your retorts are ALWAYS so rational and calmly presented. *eyeroll*

  • ||

    That was for the pickle.

  • rather||

    HERE IS THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT:
    FUCK OFF DENNIS

  • ||

    Thank you for the illustration. But everyone here already knew.

  • rather||

    BTW, is there something wrong with your eyes?

  • ||

    For the details on Dunphy's point, google "Enthusiastic Consent". It starts with a phrase that sounds good - yes means yes.

    Well, that sounds good for a start, right? But they don't mean "yes means yes". They mean that the man has to divine the true intentions of the "yes", and if it was a yes that wasn't enthusiastic and heartfelt, then it really means no. So this is a literal example of Orwellian logic - the label is "yes means yes", but they actually argue "yes means no". And they seek to back this up with criminal charges. Evil, evil people.

  • ||

    Been raped, Rather? Why so tense?

  • SFC B||

    I was going to make the exact point that dunphy made; the 1:4 stats are generally based on a definition of rape that includes things like "sex you regretted having the morning after" or "the guy asked a second time after you said 'not tonight' and you consented."

    I've read some of the survey questions they ask and if that is the standard they want to use it makes most any man a rapist. Hell, using those standards I'd be both a rapist and a victim of rape.

  • ||

    I may be wrong, but I think it's similar to the fact that .5 of all Americans have tried an illegal drug but only .1 have been arrested for illegal drugs, i.e. . Maybe the women are assaulted but don't want to go through the ordeal of reporting it to the police and possibly a testifying in an open court.

  • ||

    no, it's because they base those stats on polling questions that have an exceptionally broad definition of "rape" such that being "pressured" etc. verbally into agreeing to have sex = rape to them

    their agenda is to prove that rape is more prevalent than it is. thus, the questions are designed to broaden the definition

    a well known tactic among ANY ideological group

  • GH||

    Analogy fail. No aggression is instigated by one person against another by the consumption of an illegal drug. Unless you're a hopeless busybody you don't call the cops when you see a neighbor smoking a joint on his balcony. If you see a neighbor raping someone on his balcony, you'd be hopeless misanthrope not to call the cops.

  • ||

    it's an analogy fail because the stats are bogus in regards to these rape occurrences.

    it's based on a ridiculous definition of "rape" in order to define deviancy up

  • ||

    The analogy stands because it has nothing to do with the nature of the things being reported.

    My point was that stats reported to officials will be lower than those that are self reported. I don't claim any credence to any stats other than to say self reporting numbers will be more than officially reported.

    To argue otherwise is to say that every rape has been reported or that every drug crime has been reported.

    @dunphy
    So you argue that more sexual assaults are reported than actually happen(or that they are equal)?

  • ||

    Also, consider that if more officially reported rapes are false than self reported then numerically it would look like rapes were under-reported

  • ||

    no, i am explaining to you (mansplaining)? that these bogus stats come from a poll that DEFINES rape as (among other definition) being verbally pressured/coerced into sex.

    this SUBSTANTIALLY inflates the percentage unreported "rapes" hth

    if you define car theft as "somebody asking you to borrow your car when you don't really want to loan it to them and you do it anyway", you can inflate car theft stats, too!

  • ||

    Just because you had to take statistics at the community college that you got your criminal justice degree from doesn't make you good at math, dunphy.

    As an example let's say that there are 10 rapes per 1000 women as a fact, amuse me. Let's further posit that 9 rapes per 1000 women are reported to authorities, but 7 out of that 9 are false accusations. Now let's also say that when polled 15 out of 1000 women report being sexually assaulted because of bogus language. How many women are actually raped?

  • ||

    jeezus christ, i didn't go to community college (i love the faux elitism here. i'll put my SAT scores up against you beyotch)

    regardless, the issue first before you ask these questions is

    HOW DO YOU DEFINE "RAPE"

    iow, define your terms

    if you define rape as bing "coerced" verbally into sex, than a much greater ratio of unreported/reported rapes exist, since far fewer people are going to report "please have sex with me, please please please' as RAPE.

    get it?

    jesus h christ

  • ||

    So, to be clear, you're saying that more rapes (as you define them)* are reported than actually occur? Correct?

    Oh, and I love the elitism label. You and John love to throw that shit around. Event though you're both educated metropolitan government employees that are paid very well, and I'm an uneducated white trash motherfucker. But, I'm good at math and you can't buy that SAT-boy.

    *AS YOU FUCKING DEFINE THEM!!!

  • ||

    no. i'm not saying that. your reading comprehension sucks.

    what i am saying is that the hyperfeminists' alleged report of how many rapes happen is overinflated due to an expanded definition of "rape"

    math means nothing if you can't read a sentence

  • ||

    My feeling, based strictly on my own experience, is that rape is simultaneously the most over-reported and most under-reported crime out there. It's over-reported for 2 reasons: 1. the ridiculously broad definition of rape in many jurisdictions, and 2. because one of the easiest ways for a vengeful ex to ruin a man's life is to publicly call him a rapist. Having lived through an absolute nightmare version of that one with my husband, I can tell you it works; while the charges were ultimately dismissed because the judge found them without merit, that fact got considerably less play in the local paper than the arrest did.

    On the other end of the scale, I think that real, forcible rape is somewhat under-reported for a few reasons. Male rape victims are extremely unlikely to report the crime out of shame and fear of being branded gay and/or weak; children often are too scared, isolated, ignorant, or affection-starved to make a complaint; women are often terrified at the prospect of retribution by the rapist against themselves or family members, and retribution against themselves by abusive boyfriends/husbands.

    I don't think it's possible to get a clear picture of the actual prevalence of rape.

  • ||

    your feeling is a direct quote from dershowitz i might add. those were his exact words

  • rather||

    ask ten of your friends

  • ||

    Don't assume shit about me. I don't really need to ask anyone. I'm speaking as someone who has, in fact, been raped at knife point by a stranger. That fact does not dictate how I perceive reality.

  • ||

    what;s your point? who made that allegation?

  • ||

    Sorry, that was directed at rather's comment

  • ||

    ok, i appreciate that. the way these things are threaded, it's nigh impossible at times to figure out who is referencing whom

    and stuff

  • ||

    We're fucking libertarians, why can't the comment threads keep moving to the right indefinitely?

    Also, my reply to rather may have been somewhat intemperate. My point is that asking 10 of my friends proves nothing, since each woman may very well have her own idea of what constitutes rape. Hypothetically speaking, Ms. A may define the experience of finally just going ahead and giving a blow job, strictly in order to shut some jerk up because he won't stop pleading, as a rape, saying she was pressured into it, while Ms. B may feel that a casual date taking advantage of her near-comatose drunken stupor as not a rape, since it wasn't scary or painful, so no harm no foul. As long as rape is defined subjectively by the victim-- or "victim"-- polling and self-reporting are meaningless.

  • ||

    rather doesn't know what it is talking about.

    polling isn't meaningless, but it has to be taken with the understanding that it's polling, not gospel and MOST importantly, the methodology of the poll must be looked at ...

    we all know the logical fallacy type questions such as "have you stopped beating your wife? yes or no"

    the "poll" that hyperfeminists quote to "establish" their "rape" statistics were DESIGNED to expand the definition of rape, such that stuff that is NOT rape (under any legal definition at least, and certainly any common sense one) gets reported in the poll as rape.

    why? so the problem APPEARS bigger. ANY ideologue in any industry (and this IS an industry) tries to do this.

    i've seen DV pamphlets that define "insults, controlling behavior"
    etc. as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

    then, people can say "X many people are a victim of DV" based on this expanded definition.

    it's absurd.

    fwiw, even based on the legal definition, i have been a several time victim of domestic violence. ever been slapped (non-consensually) by a gf? there you go

  • ||

    Don't even get me started on the DV industry. My first husband beat the shit out of me, and also was able to socially and financially isolate me. When I took off with 3 kids between 2 and 8, I was broke and needed the help of DV shelters. While I will always be grateful for their generosity, unconditional support, and protection, I am less enthralled by their indoctrination. The majority of their clients are uneducated, unreflective, and entirely at home being told what to think, and the DV shelter culture encourages them to view themselves as permanent victims deserving a lifetime of support by taxpayers. My questioning of this mindset was an anomaly, to say the least. Needless to say I'm not involved in any "survivor support group." Fuck, it's been 17 years, I moved on long ago, but in DV land.that just spells denial.

  • rather||

    Then you must know women who won't admit it. I do, and they will never be in any statistic, and BTW, you don't know shit about me either.

  • ||

    we are talking an exceptionally biased poll here rather. REGARDLESS of the subject (politics, global warming, raw milk, star trek, whatever) do you understand that the way a poll frames questions and defines terms -... wait for it... affects the outcome?

    again, a simple analogy

    i have a poll that asks for the auto theft determinant (among other questions) - "has anybody ever repeatedly requested to borrow your car and even though you really didn't want to loan it to them, you did?" if you answer yes, you are a victim of auto theft.

    that is analogous to how this poll defines rape, thus INFLATING the #'s just as auto theft #'s would be inflated if we counted the above incidents as auto thefts.

    grok it?

  • GH||

    To argue otherwise is to say that every rape has been reported or that every drug crime has been reported.

    I got a photo ticket in the mail last week for doing a California stop at a right-on-red. Guilty I am. I probably did that 999 other times without being reported or fined. What's your point?

  • ||

    You've just made it.

  • GH||

    I raped 999 women and only got for 1?

  • ||

    If you see a neighbor raping someone on his balcony, you'd be hopeless misanthrope not to call the cops.

    Fine then, I'll make the call. Can I at least watch till the cops get here?

  • ||

    heck, you can video... as long as the victim isn't under 18... :l

  • ||

    Oooh.... now that's interesting. Let's posit a gang rape of a high school student. Officer on scene arrives with helmet-cam running. Gets footage of sex crime in the act and footage of underage victim in the buff and in sexual situation.

    Letter of the law, he's guilty of producing child porn, no? Does the DA bring charges against the police officer?

    Thought experiment: Same situation, only you are another student who happens on the assault and calls 911 and then proceeds to document the crime with your cell phone video until police arrive. Does the DA charge you?

    Next thought experiment: What if you are the same student and you send the video to a friend. Or you post the video to youtube? Now do you get charged? What about your friend?

    Next thought experiment: What if the crime is not witnessed by a person on the scene, but by one of these crowd-sourced security cameras we've read about. What if you watched it happen on the web and called 911? What if you didn't call 911?

    Several of these scenarios have more direct culpability than the "teen sends boy cell phone snap of her boobs, boy forwards to friends" scenario that garnered felony charges all around.

  • SFC B||

    Don't most CP laws have explicit exemptions for Law Enforcement in the course of their duties. The police's helmet cam would probably be covered by that. And I'd imagine that the "bystander recording" would be exempt as long as the bystander wasn't actually involved in the attack, and turned over the recording to the PD/DA. I'd imagine that you could be charged with any number of crimes if you posted it to Youtube.

    As for the crowd-sourced camera, I don't think you're under any obligation to report what you've witnessed, so any observer watching it and not calling 911/trying to intervene in the victim's defense is safe from prosecution for the same reasons I don't have to help someone who is drowning.

  • ||

    i was being sarcastic. yes, recording a crime in process would not be prosecuted as child porn however *if* you disseminated it, you very likely would be.

  • rather||

    it is because they don't report it to the police but it is recorded in the doctor's office, and or hospital.

    They keep stats but identifying info private

  • ||

    Jesus fucking Christ on a goddamn pike!!!!!

    ...i.e. a difference between self reporting in a poll and official stats...

    ...double fucking cunt post to boot...ARGHHHH SMASH!

  • Bar Student||

    I'm betting that is how they get their statistics too but we all know the problems with people self reporting in polls. I imagine that there would be both women who wouldn't even admit it in a poll as well as women who would lie the opposite direction. Plus it is almost a sure thing that they used polling questions loaded to get the statistics they want.

    In all honestly I just don't know what to believe.

  • ||

    it's quite simple. if a poll asks about being verbally coerced (iow persuaded) to have sex and counts THOSE incidents as RAPE, it's a bogus poll

    that's what the poll they are relying on for their "stats" did.

    it's not QUITE as bad as the other hyperfeminist canard, the superbowl sunday DV myth, but it's pretty fucking bad

  • Hidden Bek||

    The other totally unreported fact about that poll or set of studies indicating the 1 out of 4 number (by the way, that could include an unwanted boob or butt grab---not desirable by any stretch but not a rape either) ALSO indicated that males were frequent 'victims' of sexual assault because many of us can answer questions similarly (pressured, gave in, sex was begun before consent actually offered, regret due to beer goggles the next morning, etc)

    That 1 out of 4 nonsense is up there with the Super Bowl Domestic Violence propaganda.

  • PantsFan||

    clearly what America needs is more german shelf-toilets

  • ||

    what's ironic is that the exact same type of leftist that gets all up in arms and claims "mumia" didn't get a fair trial, or even mumia didn't do it (which is laughably absurd) are the same type that runs complete kangaroo courts when it comes to campus rape, etc.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well dunphy, when the power is in the "right" hands, it can be abused to their hearts' content. After all, they are properly credentialled, and therefore wiser and more pure than the Great Unwashed.

    Which is why they can divine that a person is guilty of sexual assault merely on the say-so of the accuser.

    Because evidence is misogynists and rapists.

  • ||

    yes. empirical evidence is a construct of the whiteheterosexistimperialistfascisthegemony

  • ||

    You forgot to mention that an insistence on objective fact is hostile to women's "other ways of knowing."

  • ||

    yes, that is an awesome term.

  • ||

    I can't help but marvel at the mind-set of academic feminists who claim to believe not just that the unique make-up of the female brain should exempt women from the need for scientific rigor, but that this is somehow empowering and progressive. Um, thanks but no thanks you fucking morons.

    What is needed, what I consider a properly feminist cure for this ill, is for them to dust off their Jane Austen and reread Sense and Sensibility. Perhaps they've forgotten that in the eminently sensible mind of this 18th century spinster novelist (double feminist street cred there), sense-- that is, rational thought-- is far superior as a guide to life in the real world than is sensibility, which in context means being ruled by emotion and passion. Maybe she was onto something there, ladies?

  • ||

    these people are ideologues in the simone de beauvoir sense. it's NEVER been about choice or equality of opportunity.

    they are defined by simone's (infamous) quote about women should not be allowed to stay at home and raise children, because IF women are allowed to , too many women will make that choice.

    that pretty much defines their mentality

    i had a good friend drop out of women's studies (excuse me wymmin's studies) at Penn. because she said it was 99% ideology and 1% academic.

    many of these people are as dismissive of science as the most ardent creationist when it affects their ideology.

  • ||

    rape is a serious offense and should be punished by death or bannishment, a false accusation of rape should be punnished the same way. Either the accused or accuser must be permanently removed from society

  • Almanian||

    But where's the troll to tell us that "the student was suspended. Nothing else happened?"

  • Sean Mack||

    I highly recommend an image search for Russlynn Ali - i.e. the prosecutress who runs this kangaroo court. She looks like a central casting candidate for "enemy of human freedom".

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Oh look! A Faceypage!

  • Balko Protect and Spoof||

    Since Balko is gone, here is your weekly kick in the nuts. Really sickening....
    http://ohioccw.org/201107214955/cantonpd.html

  • ||

    Just another isolated incident...nothing to see here...

  • ||

    actually, it's AN ACTUAL verifiable incidence of police misconduct, unlike many unverified and/or not even misconduct cases presented here as otherwise.

    this is a great example of police misconduct. no question

    and a great example of how videotape helps bring people to justice who need to be, and to protect the innocent from false allegations

  • ||

    Actually, although I do not condone the cop's behavior in any way, I understand it. He and his partner completely screwed the pooch on this traffic stop. I don't need to tell you how many procedural mistakes were made. And if he hadn't been so focused on being intimidating, he would have been more tuned in, and would have realized that the driver was trying to give him a head's up.

    But that's neither here nor there in explaining his reaction. His first inkling that the driver was packing was when he was standing 2 feet away, and saw the driver's piece.

    This caused a jolt of adrenalin that would have killed an older man. Then, once the initial jolt wore off, he began to replay the situation, and to think about how casually he had just committed suicide if the driver would have had bad intentions.

    This cause an overwhelming sick fear, which he tried in vain to subdue by raging. That's why he went off repeatedly. The feeling kept overwhelming him. And he kept taking it out on the poor dumb schmuck.

    Now, as I said, he gets no pass from me. He's supposed to be able to maintain his professionality and judgement under stress. If he can't, he has no business being in a position of authority and having lethal force at his disposal. And he didn't. In fact, he totally lost his shit.

  • ||

    You didn't watch the video very carefully. Although the officer claims the first indication he had that the driver was carrying was when he saw the bulge in his shirt, this is not true. The driver clearly told him he was carrying and the officer responded to this statement. About 1 minute later, the officer claims that the driver never told him about the gun and he saw the bulge. He manufactured "facts" in his head to match his emotions.

    His reactions and conversational flow reminded me very much of an argument with the wife when she's PMS-ing. Time becomes non-linear, facts become mutable, cause and effect can be reversed. Without the dash-cam this guy would have been down for a felony. Heck, by the time they reached the station, who knows what additional stories he might have concocted.

    As it is, the legal machine followed the officer's false report until the dash video was released. It wasn't until after this was exposed that the chain of command changed their tune.

    Although this is a big win for the police and the public, it hardly shows that the system works. Absent the camera, this officer would not only have gotten away with his criminal behavior, but he would have laid a criminal conviction on an innocent man.

  • ||

    But "weak" isn't necessarily = to "evil".

    Go ahead now, and heap the abuse on me. I'm feeling a tad masochistic tonight. ;^)

  • ||

    i generally agree. i'm not saying this cop is evil or even had malice aforethought. i am just saying his behavior is unacceptable for a police officer, and whether mal or misfeasance, he needs punishment for this incident and "retraining" (in a non-orwellian sense).

  • ||

    Oh, I wasn't expecting the abuse from you.

  • ||

    abuse is down the hall. this is disagreement :)

  • anarch||

    dunphy, I wish I shared your confidence in that cop's retraining.

    Would you be willing to depict in what that effective retraining would consist?

    Do you find KfP's analysis credible?

    And waht, if any, compensation do you think the victim deserves for having been deliberately, systematically terrorized under color of law?

  • ||

    I gotta agree with Anarch. There's no way this guy should ever carry a gun again after that. You don't get to have that kind of bad day when you wield his level of responsibility. If they want to keep him around, he shouldn't be interacting with the public (or prisoners).

    He made criminal threats against at least two individuals, including what was probably a felony death threat. He also promised to use his power as a police officer to harass and illegally arrest the individual in question. The officer in need of additional training is the second officer on the scene who did nothing to take control of the scene and stop the obvious out-of-control officer from going further beyond the bounds of legality. He also apparently did not report any of this illegal behavior to superiors, nor did he put any of this in his police report. He is arguably salvageable, but the roid-rage guy should never carry a weapon in public again. I didn't see any indication that the higher-ups in the chain saw any problem with officer 2. This is not a good thing at all.

  • anarch||

    higher-ups in the chain saw

    Just so: in the chainsaw.

  • ||

    Heh. It's funny because it's funny!

  • ||

    i'm not a retrainer. my point is that IF he has a continued pattern of misconduct, i think this incident could justify firing. if not, retraining.

  • ahem||

    The issue here is that this is a publicly funded university engaging in this. Some of the more religiously-oriented private universities have fairly strict student codes of conduct and suspend/expel willie-nillie.

  • ||

    that's true, but there are two seperate issues

    1) standards of conduct (obviously a private university can be MUCH more restrictive than a public one on this front
    2) due process.

    a private university still has to use due process, since the student-school relationship is a contractual one, one the student paid for and sacrificed other opp's for

    a religious university very well could expel a student for premarital sex, for instance. if that was in their code of conduct

    they could not (generally speaking) expel because they heard a rumor he had premarital sex and nothing to substantiate it.

  • Number 2||

    Question-where is the ACLU on this? All you commentators out there who tell me that the ACLU is a true civil liberties organization and not a tool of the Left -- why has it apparently said nothing about the deprivation of due process to accused students based upon the federal government's absurd assertion that Title IX MANDATES kangaroo courts?

  • ||

    The ACLU tends to fiercely protect some civil liberties.

  • ||

    I think they've joined FIRE in a few cases. It seems that there are some ideologically consistent defenders of liberty and some ideological and partisan leftists in the ACLU. So different chapters/regions seem to treat these issues differently. They still get my support, despite the inconsistency. IJ more directly aligns with my priorities, so they get more support.

  • some guy||

    The moral of the story is, don't have pre-marital sex. The religious folks are finally winning this debate!

  • Bill||

    no, just don't be a alone with a member of the opposite sex when at college. You don't have to have sex to have someone make stuff up. You don't even have to be in the same room. Ask the kids at Duke. And when you look at some of these rules you can even be acquitted -- or found "guilty" and the accuser can still demand a pound of (bigger) flesh.

  • ||

    Three people are facing a felony charge following an investigation into several burglaries in Oswego.

    Estevan L. Gonzales, 17, of 23 E. VanBuren St., was charged Sunday with burglary, a felony, and petit larceny, a misdemeanor.

    Robert E. Kennedy, 32, of 92 Eisenhower Ave., Oswego, and Jason T. Evans, 32, of 16 Mitchell St., were both charged July 20 with burglary and petit larceny.

    No dogs were shot. Nothing else happened.

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/i.....nvest.html

  • Bill||

    University lawyers nationwide have to know that this requirement on them is an engraved invitation for them to be sued out of their endowments. More still administrators are expected to know better too. We have the case in Georgia where the president was personally sued for running a student out on a personal vendetta. The people who participate in these "academic exercises" should get a teachable moment that drains their 401Ks dry.

  • Ed Sievers||

    The University of North Dakota must turning out
    lawmakers for Washington.
    Any student with a propensity for common sense is kept to manage their balanced budget.

  • ||

    Hmph. If they don't want men to go to college why don't they just fucking say so? That will be the end result of making it too dangerous for a man to be there.

    It's getting to the point where going to college is a bad deal for many people anyway.

  • ||

    It already is that way, to some degree. I think college in general is nearly 60/40 female/male these days.

  • ||

    this makes a LOT of sesne dude. Wow.

    www.net-privacy.us.tc

  • Cheap Oakley Sunglasses||

    123

  • ZigTech sale||

    very good

  • ||

    Sounds like a case for Alan Shore.

  • Bill||

    "Denny Crane!"

  • ||

    This should be a lesson to all college males. Yes those hot liberal chicks will screw anything with an Obama bumper sticker on his car, and have absolutely no hangups about commitments and stuff. But it just ain't worth it. Their lack of morals goes beyond sexuality, and they see nothing wrong with using the government to destroy your life over the most trivial of matters.

  • Arnold Williams||

    The moral of the story is actually quite simple: if you're a guy, go to college in a place that has several educational institutions, and never date someone from the one you're going to. Problem solved.

  • ||

    Time to re-segregate education.

  • Mike S.||

    it's not a "legal" process or matter, just "educational"!
    this is the same deluded nonsense used by UC Berkeley to deny many students the opportunity to representation by council in conduct hearings.
    somehow they think they can hand down discipline while simultaneously declaring the process not "disciplinary" but "educational".
    pathetic

  • Dedicated_Dad||

    This actually makes PERFECT sense!

    See, in the Lefty mind, women are defenseless creatures, incapable of making a decision and accepting responsibility for it.

    Therefore, since he apparently did SOMETHING to upset her in the time since, and since all heterosexual sex is rape, he's a rapist.

    If it was a lesbian situation they'd BOTH be in jail!

  • ||

    I was recently suspended about a month ago at UND for making a pro-Germanic comment in a public forum. I couldn't believe how such a small comment led to a suspension of two years....

    All that I can say is FUCK UND. I spent tens of thousands there and all that I got in return was a big "GTFO" from them without second consideration.

    I pity Mr. Warner. If any one else plans on going to UND, I can only warn you now that your money will be wasted on better higher-educational establishments.

  • canada goose parka sale||

    Great post, thank you very much, please write more and more about this. Very interesting.d and understand.Fell in love with you

  • canada goose parka sale||

    Great post, thank you very much, please write more and more about this. Very interesting.d and understand.Fell in love with you

  • Sid||

    The Grand Forks County District Court formally charged Warner's accuser with "False information or report to law enforcement officers or security officials," a Class A misdemeanor, and issued a warrant for her arrest on May 17, 2010.

    Grand Forks County Sheriff's Dept Active Warrants 09-05-11
    http://www.grandforkscounty.ne.....rrants.pdf

    There are 3 entries for "FALSE REPORT TO LE AGENCY" in the document.

    One to a female, issued on 18 May 2010 to

    JESSICA DENISSE MURRAY. b. 1981

  • Sid||

    Typo:-

    Should read

    JESSICA DENISSE MURRAY. b. 1991

    Brown Hair & Eyes. 5" 1'

  • han||

    Three months later, state police lodged criminal charges against his accuser for filing a false police report. A warrant for her arrest remains outstanding.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement