Rape

Male Student Allegedly Banned from Campus Because His Resemblance to a Rapist Was Triggering?

Colleges are increasingly inclined to prevent all conceivable harm, not settle matters fairly.

|

Dennis
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

A male student at an unnamed college in Oregon was investigated for sexual assault. But even after he had cleared his name, he was still prohibited from having contact with a female student—denying him access to his classes, residence, and job—because he merely resembled the man who had committed rape.

That's according to an anecdote in a commentary piece for the Harvard Law Review written by Janet Halley, a professor of law at Harvard University. The piece provides an in-depth look at the trouble with campus sexual assault adjudication efforts, hitting on many subjects I've covered previously. It's an expert treatment of the subject, and is well-worth a read.

But the most interesting facet is the story Halley tells at the very end of her piece, which concerns a completely innocent student whose entire college life was interrupted by a rape investigation. After he was found innocent of any wrongdoing, a no-contact order against him remained in place—evidently because his presence would have triggered the other student's rape memories. Halley writes:

I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends' privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.

When the duty to prevent a "sexually hostile environment" is interpreted this expansively, it is affirmatively indifferent to the restrained person's complete and total innocence of any misconduct whatsoever.

National Review's Kat Timpf points out the obvious problem with such a policy:

It's devastating to think of a student being unable to walk around campus without having to risk being traumatized by reminders of her rape. But restricting a totally innocent student from walking around campus because he looks like the person who raped her is obviously unacceptable.

Thanks to the intervention of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, colleges are increasingly inclined to take steps to prevent all conceivable harm (emphasis on conceivable), not settle matters fairly.

I reached out to Halley to see what else she could tell me about the incident—she did not provide any identifying details, so the only proof of this having happened is her account—but have not yet heard back. I'll provide an update if I learn more.

NEXT: Steve Chapman: Baseball and the Spirit of Innovation

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.

  1. I demand a Trigger Warning for articles about retarded academics ruining people’s lives and eating all of grandma’s steak.

    /Napoleon Dynamite

  2. Get. A. Fucking. Therapist.

    God. Damn.

    1. Agreed. White males and their victim complexes sure do need help lol

      1. You spelled “derp” wrong

        1. Really? Wow just wow. I can’t even.

          1. Alissa,

            It seems to me that you need to tell “Almanian!” that you were being sarcastic, otherwise she or he will continue to think you were being serious.

          2. Then don’t.

          3. Are you saying the guy needs therapy or the woman who would break down at the sight of someone who is similar in appearance to someone else?

              1. Although I honestly want to know what Alissa meant, I am now wondering if this is a “drive by” situation.

                When did the 8600 model enter the market, Switzy? My 27B/6 is a nightmare to work with.

                1. Ah, it is a 2012 model…but they have had 2 recalls now and parts are a bitch to find. I am thinking of going with the SARCOMATIC 2100.

                  1. I am thinking of going with the SARCOMATIC 2100.

                    That is the Chinese model.

                    See if you can find a German one.

                    Srsly.

                  2. 2100 B, with the nuclear battery pack.

                    1. Just don’t get the one with a “vibrate” function, because this site will be impossible to read.

                      Or, you know, do, if you are into that.

            1. Perhaps she should gouge her own eyes out to avoid visual triggers.

              1. Oddly, my first thought. I have been labeled antisocial by ‘professionals,’ some refusing me baked goods due to it.

          4. Can any one else not tell whether this Alissa twat is joking or mentally retarded? It’s clearly one or the other.

            1. More than mentally retarded…

      2. So is it your position that no white male can ever be a victim of anything? If they had shot this guy, your response to anyone objecting would be “you white males sure have a victim complex”? Really?

        Do you think it is fair that this guy was thrown out of school for the crime of looking like someone else? If so, I would be curious to hear why it is you think that. If not, then what is your problem with people seeing it as an injustice and demanding it be fixed?

        You either think this was fair or you think by virtue of his being a white male he deserves whatever happens to him.

        Which of those two loathsome positions do you support?

        1. Ugh really? I’m not saying that he “deserves whatever happens to him” just that *maybe* he could use this opportunity to reflect on his whiteness and maleness to understand that -yes he’s been treated a bit unfairly- maybe he doesn’t *really* have things as bad as the girl (who was RAPED but I guess THAT’S O.K).

          1. Horrible trolling. Not nearly subtle enough in presentation. Try harder.

          2. I dunno, scruffy. This reads like pretty straight SJW stuff to me.

            The unexamined premises, the gross generalizations, the near-sociopathic lack of empathy for non-persons. Its all there.

            1. Too textbook.

              1. Its a tough call, since SJWs often seem to be reading from a poorly mimeographed sheet of talking points anyway.

              2. Needs more body armor.

                1. “Body” is a trigger word for some of us, Bobarian. Please refrain from using it until those of us who are hurt by your word leave the thread.

            2. “The unexamined premises, the gross generalizations, the near-sociopathic lack of empathy for non-persons. Its all there.”

              I agree with this in general Dean, yet here is what convinced me otherwise: “I’m not saying that he ‘deserves whatever happens to him’…”

              The phrase Alissa quotes is a line actual apologists for rapists have used in the past (and may still do). Read it again in the context of the whole post and perhaps you’ll see what I see.

              1. There’s only one thing to see:

                the girl (who was RAPED but I guess THAT’S O.K)

                Any opposition to anything done in regards to rape, however egregious, is rape apology. That is an SJW shibboleth

          3. D- Too obvious and cliched.

            We deserve a better class of troll.

            1. “You go with the trolls you have, not the trolls you want”

              /SecTroll Rumsfeld

              1. ‘Reason may not have the troll it wants, but it has the troll it needs. We will hate him for it. But he can take it.’

                -Bat Troll-

              2. @swiss servator-

                “You go with the trolls you have, not the trolls you want.”

                fucking classic ! ! !

                dude/dudette, that was the funniest thing i’ve read in quite a while, major kudos, and whatever other candy bars you like…

            2. I would say we need a better class of troll, we probably deserve this one.

              1. “I would say we need a better class of troll, we probably deserve this one.”

                We accept the trolls we think we deserve.

                [Repurposed quote from Perks of Being a Wallflower]

            3. We deserve a better class of troll.

              You and your troll privilege and entitlement.

          4. Failed to mention patriarchy, oppression, privilege, and shitlord

            7/10 good effort

            1. I disagree — this is a very accurate depiction of the tumblrina SJW monsters. 9/10

              1. I agree. I only docked points for failure to meet buzzword quota.

                1. It sounds like more feminist shaming tactics. We MRA’s turned their rants into fembot bingo. Everytime they would yell out such misandric phrases as:

                  “You’ve got a small dick”
                  “You can’t get laid”
                  “You’re uphappy because no woman wants you”
                  “You scare me”

                  We would yell out “Bingo”.

            2. If you don’t give a woman 10/10, you’re oppressing her, you shitlord!

              -jcr

          5. Okay, you outed yourself. You are a troll. You are not Mary, you are one of the regulars.

          6. Maybe you can reflect on why you’re such a pathetic unemployable loser that you’d consider blatant removing a man’s right to due process and common decency a “teachable moment.”

            Would you put those sentiments on a resume? ‘Cuz anyone who employs you in any capacity, knowing that sort of thinking, would themselves be exposed for liability.

          7. My troll radar (sorry, can’t think of a better amalgamation) is admittedly not very good. But I’m tempted to think Alissa is serious here, unfortunately. I can very easily see a SJW making these arguments. Then again, it’s also possible that half of the SJW comments I’ve seen have been trolls, because they are, of course, quite ridiculous.

            So assuming she’s serious, let me just say this – just because others have experienced worse things than you are experiencing, does not detract from how bad your experience is. When you tell someone your grandmother died, do you want to hear them say “maybe you should take this opportunity to reflect on how privileged you’ve been to have a grandmother in the first place, and *maybe* – even though it’s a shame your grandmother died – it’s not as bad as never having a grandmother in the first place?

            What kind of horrible, unempathetic society do you envision, where only those who have had it the worst have the right to complain about something, and where any experience that doesn’t qualify is shrugged off as the whinings of those with privilege?

            1. Apologies for the errors in syntax.

              1. Upon reflection, I’ve decided that your syntax errors are of little consequence to me when I know there are starving people in Africa.

            2. Two words: “Poe’s Law”.

          8. I get it, rape is horrible, and the girl has it worse – but should an innocent man, who they acknowledge is innocent, be punished for what someone else did to her.

            Just because her harm was greater doesn’t mean it’s ok to harm him.

            1. “Does he now or has he ever had a penis?”

              PUNSIH HIM!

          9. he could use this opportunity to reflect on his whiteness and maleness

            So you’re a bigot.

            maybe he doesn’t *really* have things as bad as the girl (who was RAPED but I guess THAT’S O.K).

            Maybe however bad the supposed rape victim has it, is entirely irrelevant to this guy who is now her own victim.

          10. I am deeply concerned for this young woman. There are so many possibilities of trigger events for her, and we have a responsibility to protect her.

            A young man who looks somewhat like her accused rapist may happen upon her at any time.

            A location that appears similar to where the alleged rape took place may trigger her unfortunate memories.

            A brand of beer she got drunk on before the alleged rape took place may trigger her.

            The horror of potential triggers is everywhere!

            We must protect her, so our key decision is can we find an isolated location we can keep her where all these triggers can be kept away, or must she be provided with assisted suicide to spare her future pain?

            What to do, what to do.

            1. Oh my, I had not considered that her pain might be so incapacitating that she is unable to choose between isolation and assisted suicide on her own.

              I guess we may have to assist her a great deal because the surrounding presence of potential triggers renders her unable to chose properly for herself.

            2. We can solve this problem for the unfortunate woman.

              1) Round up all men who look similar to her rapist and banish them from the land.
              2) Tear down all buildings and property that could remind her of the incident.
              3) Sue the beer manufacturer and make them change their name.

              Or we could just shoot the bitch in the back of the head and nothing will trigger her ever again. All of these solutions are wholly contrary to any rational standard of justice, but rational standards of justice are just so triggering so who gives a fuck.

          11. I have reflected on my whiteness and maleness and have found nothing wrong with it. Most American women and minorities have been far more privileged than I, so I guess you all should reflect on your privilege.

          12. He doesn’t need to reflect on anything. He is an innocent person. You weak and defenseless women offend me. And yes, I am a woman.

        2. “Do you think it is fair that this guy was thrown out of school for the crime of looking like someone else?”

          Consider yes great answer/possibility. I was beat up by a group of African-America youth, so in order to feel comfortable at my university, all of the black folk should be thrown out.

          1. I was beat up by a group of African-America youth, so in order to feel comfortable at my university, all of the black folk should be thrown out.

            If you were a proper journalist you would just call them “youths” and all non-progressives would know exactly what you mean.

        3. This whole story seems like a sham. Like the fraternity gang rape story, it’s all just so convenient.

          Professor Hailey doesn’t even name the school, and National Review doesn’t seem to have done any fact-checking or added any further details. They’re just passing along what Hailey wrote.

          Sure, it seems like something a liberal arts school would do since they are well beyond the point of caricature at this point, but I’m seeing lots of red flags on this one.

          1. I wonder about that, too.

          2. At least Reason here pointed this out, too. Unlike Rolling Stone.

      3. I’m sure Alissa also agrees that a man should be forced to pay child support for children that are not his. After all by simply being a man he must be oppressing women.

        Full retard does not begin to describe the Alissas of this world.

      4. It’s women who need to get off their BS victim complexes or do you just like being bullies that push men around.

      5. This is why I do not like almost all other women. You emotionally follow the pack instead of thinking about the big picture. I can only hope this boomerangs on you stupid bitches. You make women look weak and emotional rather than strong and intelligent. Protect us from the world is your mantra rather than get out of my way.

  3. “the only proof of this having happened is her account”

    and bear in mind the professor seems to have had some sort of lawyer/client relationship with the student, so technically it would be nice to get the other side, from someone who isn’t the student’s lawyer.

    1. “the only proof of this having happened is her account”

      Rico Suave – Rape Denier.

      /Did not graduate from Columbia Journalism with a masters.

  4. Well, punishing an innocent person sure puts the lie to any attempts to say that this rape obsession isn’t about a collectivist gender war. You are a man, and somewhat resemble an accused (but not convicted even) possible rapist? Fuck you, you’re essentially guilty too, because we’re going to treat you like that regardless. And it seems a large number of people have zero problem with that.

    1. you’re essentially guilty too

      I think the more relevant takeaway is that guilt is 100% beside the point for these people. They only care about upsetness.

      1. I actually think the upsetness is a bullshit excuse. It’s a simple, hard-to-argue-with emotional excuse that shields them from scrutiny from what are their real motivations, which is to be nasty gender partisans.

        1. Okay, sub upsetness for anger/hatred/whatever. But as John Titor says below, there’s no notion of justice anywhere in here. Concepts like “victims’ rights” have led people to believe that the justice system is meant to serve them up emotional gratification rather than restitution.

          1. *cough cough*death penalty*cough*

            1. Cough louder, Hugh, I’m not getting it.

              1. Some folks jus’ need killin’.

                Like Judge Judy.

              2. Well the doctor says its CRE, so you’ll get it eventually.

              3. Hey Nikki,

                Since the death penality hasn’t seemed to have prevented the crimes it was said it would prevent, it’s probably more useful for the emotional gratification of its adherents than for crime deterrence.

                1. That’s about what I figured.

                2. Death penalty is 100% on recidivism prevention, so it has that going for it …

                  1. You say this sarcastically, but my pro-death penalty family see this as a feature, and the feature it needs.

                    (On a side note, don’t abreviate Death Penalty as “DP.”)

          2. Again, I disagree that the ultimate goal is emotional gratification. It’s power. The power to shut people down if you don’t like them. Emotional gratification is the excuse. It’s the smokescreen. “It makes me feel bad” is just a sneaky backhanded route to getting power over others, because by the modern victimology theory, victims can’t be challenged. Their needs outweigh yours.

            In other words, they take precedence over non-victims. That’s power. And the worst possible people will gravitate to that power and will abuse the shit out of it.

            1. Epi, I think the real motivator is the emotional rush these scum get when they exercise power over someone. Anyone. Doesn’t matter, as long as they are an unperson.

              1. Epi, I think the real motivator is the emotional rush these scum get when they exercise power over someone.

                I think you’re absolutely right about this. AS I’ve said before, it’s wierd that people have never come up with a name for the sick thrill. If I were to write up a list of “seven deadly sins”, I’ve no doubt that it would be the worst. Sloth, gluttony and lust come off as relative virtues. Greed and pride are rank amateurs. Envy and wrath suck, but really don’t match up to this nameless sin.

                1. I thought the word was “sadism”.

                  1. Maybe. The thing is, I think there’s some difference between the phenomenon and sadism, at least as the latter is commonly understood. My understanding is that sadism is all about inflicting pain. Whatever this is can even manifest as pushing people around “for their own good”. But, yeah, sadism is about as close as I’ve ever seen.

                    1. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

                      It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
                      – C.S. Lewis

                    2. He’s a Catholic, so his words can be discarded by the SJW.

                    3. He’s a Catholic, so he’s just a SJW by another name.

                    4. Is there a word for someone who loves the applause and adoration of being seen as a public benefactor more than they love actually helping people? Someone who doesn’t give a shit whether they’re helping or hurting, as long as they get to go around bragging about how much they “helped” the poor and oppressed?

                    5. A Democrat? A progressive?

                    6. Is there a word for someone who loves the applause and adoration of being seen as a public benefactor more than they love actually helping people?

                      Democrat.

                    7. (must remember to refresh…)

              2. I think the real motivator is the emotional rush these scum get when they exercise power over someone.

                They like to hold them down and have their way with them. When they’re done with them they tell them not to go to the police or tell anyone what happened. That they should be grateful someone paid attention to them.

            2. IOW using the state apparatus to bully whoever you don’t like, for whatever reason

              1. Well, they have a helluva long way to go before reaching the peaks hit by Nixon and W.

        2. Why don’t we all just cut the shit, rise up, and exterminate/expel all the progtards from America?

          1. Yeah, because the right would never stoop to bullying and arresting people because of a resemblance (profiling).

            Yawn. Call me when the progtards kidnap innocent men, take them out of the country, and torture them to death.

            1. Call me when the progtards kidnap innocent men, take them out of the country, and torture them to death.

              Do you think the CIA quit doing that shit when Obama got the big chair?

              Sucker.

              -jcr

      2. I agree with Episirach. The little snowflake who was upset was just the excuse they were looking for to fuck a man. Think of it this way, if some other person with more victim creed demanded they fuck the woman in this case, they would totally do it. These people only know collective guilt.

        1. But the victim creed is only the excuse. The interchangeability of “guilt” makes that abundantly clear.

          Like I say above, I think it’s the unnamed sin.

      3. Exactly, that’s the important part. ‘Guilt, innocence and justice’ are words that are only used to support the central problem with this, which is emotional gratification. The guy has clearly done nothing, but because the woman feels endangered by his appearance, he needs to be restricted for her needs. It’s the argument that her emotional gratification supersedes anything he should be allowed in university.

        I wonder what the response would be if someone tried to apply this to something like race, hm?

        1. ‘Guilt, innocence and justice’ are words that are only used to support the central problem with this, which is emotional gratification.

          Agree, John.

      4. I would say it may be about guilt, but the collective guilt outweighs indivisual innocence. SJWs/feminists view ‘oppressor classes’ especially men as like humans who are possessed by demons: the person may be innocent, but is nonetheless possessed and even controlled by a force that isn’t (patriarchy); and so in order to punish the ghost, maybe you have to “inadvertently” harm the person possessed by it.

        And much like the most sociopathic inquisitor, they believe the pain and suffering of members of perpetrator classes is good for them; they are purified by the pain, in the terms of medieval torturers. Even if it kills the cishet white male, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SJW didn’t somehow try to argue that it was for the good of his soul in some secular sense of the word.

        1. Is this parody, because of course this has already happened.

          http://content.time.com/time/m…..65,00.html

          It includes the infamous “[a false rape accusation is] is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them.”

    2. I don’t see how anyone could even rationalize this. There is no way the people who did this thought anything but “this is a man, fuck him”. There is no way to explain this other than the administrators hate men and were happy to punish one for any reason available.

      1. I think it’s worse than hate, really. To hate something implies a level of engagement that’s totally lacking here. This is contempt for basic personhood. It’s sociopathic.

  5. A male student at an unnamed college in Oregon

    So I’m guessing journalists in general haven’t learned anything about publishing outrageous claims involving unverifiable information.

    1. Fair point. I don’t want to sell the current crop of campus SJWs short on their idiot stock but this sounds so over the top retarded I’d like some confirmation of the case and details.

      1. It’s no more over the top than the weirdo chick at Columbia that’s hauling around her mattress because rape or something. There’s no legitimate evidence against the accused in that case either, but this chick and others want the guy tossed off campus with no proof whatsoever. It hasn’t helped her case that there are loads of messages from her to the supposed ‘rapist’ – all AFTER her alleged rape – messages asking him out and wanting to hang out, and silly lovey-dovey dating talk. The evidence more and more points to a disgruntled one-night-stand who wants to get back at the guy who ‘took her for granted.’

        So this story? This seems completely within the realm of possibility.

        1. So much bullshit just because chicks can’t accept their role as receptacles for male lust.

          1. receptacles for male lust.

            You misspelled “semen”.

        2. Especially when you consider that we live in a false rape accusation culture to the extent that a sitting US Senator can refer to the exonerated Columbia student as a “serial rapist.”

          1. Fucking congressional immunity. That bitch should should be paying seven figures for slander.

            -jcr

    2. Halley’s report is written as a feminist proponent asking other feminist to step back from their no due process stand. She emphasizes the difference in feminist activism using a megaphone (of the street) versus a feminist activism using gavel (of the law) which they now have. It is a credible report. Take a look.

      1. Well shucks if its an editorial in favor a position I support written by someone who is supposedly on the other side of the debate, then I guess I can overlook the little detail that it relies on an anecdote that can’t be verified to have ever actually happened.

        1. Just sayin’ read it yourself. Its credibility makes it understandable why Soave went ahead with this story here before he had everything nailed down.

    3. Right, which is why I noted it was merely an “alleged” instance (in the headline), explained who the source is (a highly credible named person in an important law journal), and detailed my ongoing efforts to verify it.

      1. See, and this was stuff you only learned through getting your degree in journalism right?

        1. A Masters, from Columbia no doubt!

          *sniffs, lifts chin*

      2. No you did that part right. But the lede here is that someone is making an incredible claim that can’t be verified, not the claim itself.

        Too often (especially in the recent Rolling Stone incident) credible persons and “important” institutions becloud peoples minds to the fundamental rules of journalism, one of which is to always back up your facts, and another of which is that anonymous sources are highly suspect.

        1. I agree, but the source isn’t anonymous. The source is Professor Halley, and we know from the piece that Professor Halley engaged the person to whom this happened. Now, I would still like to get more information and the contrary perspective, which is why I offered all those hedges in the mean time.

          1. We know from the piece that Halley claims to have engaged with the person to whom this happened.

            1. Sorry, to whom this allegedly happened.

            2. Wow, Hugh. You got this skepticism thing down hard. Imagine a tenured professor bald face lying in one of her profession’s major journals. Yea, it happens when a researcher for instance has a lot to gain, but here it seems pretty unlikely. Just don’t see Halley’s motivation to lie. She is actually going out on a limb with her peers.

              1. An article like this raises Halley’s media profile. That’s incentive enough to fudge the facts for some people.

                But regardless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

                1. Maybe, but most senior professors like her that I know are extremely reluctant to raise a public profile. That’s just not their deal or what matters to them in their careers.

                2. Raises her profile? In what sense? She just painted herself into the ‘rape apologist’ corner; I wouldn’t be surprised if Amanda Marcotte writes an article comparing her to Hitler.

                  Remember High, in academia, defending equality and rule of law don’t raise your profile, they get blacklisted. Now, that doesn’t mean the story is true, but careerism as a motive here makes no sense. Do you think she’s fishing for a job writing articles for men’s rights websites or something? Pretty sure that’s a step down on the career latter for her.

              2. What David Wall Said. And as I point out below, she can’t consistent with her duties to her client reveal his name here. So she has a valid reason not to do so and her failure to give his name is not any indication that she is lying.

                1. Nor is her professional credibility or the prestige of the forum reason to give her a pass on unverifiable claims.

                  1. Yes it is Hugh. It is exactly the reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. Law reviews check facts. There is no way they would have published this unless she had some way of verifying it.

                    The bottom line is that her ethical duties, reputation and the forum which it was published make her assertions credible and mean they should be taken as the truth until and unless someone provides evidence otherwise.

                    There are good reasons to take this woman at her word. There is no reason not to except that you just don’t want to believe her.

                    1. There are good reasons to take this woman at her word. There is no reason not to except that you just don’t want to believe her.

                      There is at least one good reason not to take her at her word, which is that she doesn’t use the name of the alleged victim nor of the institution at which the incident allegedly occurred, which makes it impossible to independently verify her claim.

                      I don’t care who she is or who is publishing her fish tale, if her story can’t be investigated by other people then I have no reason to believe it.

                    2. That is not a good reason Hugh. Her ethical duties as an attorney make it impossible for her to reveal that information.

                      which makes it impossible to independently verify her claim.

                      It makes it impossible for you to verify it. Harvard Law Review certainly could have and no doubt did. She may have shown them her files with the names redacted. More likely, they understand the need for confidentiality and talked the the client in this case on the condition that they never reveal his name.

                      Harvard Law Review is a reputable publication. Law Reviews check facts and check citations. There is no reason to believe they made an exception here. The fact that it is in the publication is proof that the Law Review at least verified this story’s veracity.

                    3. If you want to take the stars in your eyes as proof enough, that’s your prerogative.

                      I won’t believe it until I see names.

                    4. Yes Hugh, you just don’t want to believe this woman. That is your right but you having the right doesn’t make it any less irrational.

                    5. “Harvard Law Review is a reputable publication.”

                      Yes….wasn’t Obama the editor?

                    6. Also Hugh, see the point someone makes below about non disclosure clauses. If this guy got a settlement out of this the university no doubt included a nondisclosure clause. So neither he nor his attorney can go public about this without forfeiting his settlement.

                    7. Hugh, I think you should save your skepticism for the original rape claimant – that person may be 100% full of shit and that is the person that started the whole thing.

                    8. and that is the person that started the whole thing

                      …unless none of it ever happened.

          2. Robby,

            Halley can’t consistent with her duties of client confidentiality give anymore information than she did. She clearly had an attorney client relationship with the guy. At that point, she can’t even give you his name without his permission.

            My guess is that she wrote a letter to the University’s counsel and this matter was cleared up rather quickly before it resulted in a law suit. I doubt there is any public record of this and I would imagine the victim here doesn’t want to be outed in public and face the wrath of the various feminists rape crusaders. So, this is probably all we will ever know about this case.

            Even though we can’t check it. This case is from a Law Professor and is published in a reputable place. I see no reason not to believe it.

      3. I thought you handled this very well, Robby.

    4. journalists in general haven’t learned anything about publishing outrageous claims involving unverifiable information

      This isn’t a journalist. This is a law professor writing in a professional publication.

      Its routine, BTW, to anonymize cases used in these kinds of articles if they aren’t the subject of published legal opinions.

      1. And he was her client. If you called her up and asked her “hey was Joe Blow ever your client”, she couldn’t answer yes or no. Even the fact that this guy was her client at all is protected. And as I say above, I imagine this issue was worked out quietly and the her client doesn’t want any publicity. And I don’t blame him.

    5. It sounds believable but I’ll wait until there are actual names and places confirmed before investing any belief in it.

      1. On further review, it is quite possible a gag order was the quickest way to get him fully reinstated. Which still sucks major ass, but my UVA/Duke Lacrosse sense isn’t ticking quite as hard as it was 15 minutes ago.

        And, for the record, noted feminists becoming “conciliatory” and “more respective of due process” is the new jobs scheme. Even with gubmint money pouring on, there are way more professional victim/SJWs than jerbs at universities and nonprofits and agencies for the unemployable. Given that those funds will dry up shortly, and we ought to just scrap the whole thing, being the voice that preaches “due process” is as entrepreneurial as a professional rent-seeker is likely to get.

        1. That is a good point as well. It is a good guess that whatever settlement she obtained for this guy included a non-disclosure clause.

    6. What are you talking about? Unnamed College is a very prestigious institution in Oregon. Male is only Malcolm Student’s nickname, but I can understand the confusion.

  6. Ummmmm…so following this logical trainwreck down the tracks, if I had previously been mugged by a black guy…

    Sometimes it’s all I can do not to slam my head into my desk.

    1. I was thinking “Please..please..please let the ‘triggering resemblance be merely that of ethnicity!” The hypocrisy would just be sooooooo delicious!

    2. This is where judging people collectively leads to. The man in this case was a white, male. He is a member of the lowest group possible. So when someone from a higher group wanted him banished, he was. The same thing can be done to the woman if someone from a higher group demands it.

      If for example, her actual rapist had been on campus but had been a black Muslim, she would have been told to go fuck herself and get over it. The black Muslim is from a higher caste and thus their needs win out over her’s just like her needs win out over the evil white male.

      This is exactly how these people think. They are that fucked up and evil.

      1. Except if the rapist were Joe Biden.

        Biden gets a rape pass for some reason.

        1. There is only one way that a white male can escape his inborn sin; become a pro abortion politician. Do that and all is forgiven.

          1. It’s true. Democrat politicians are notorious rapists and murderers of women. Yet still have their unwavering support. Kennedy, Clinton, etc..

            1. “John Edwards to the white courtesy phone, please.”

        2. Grah! Need brain bleach for even imagining Slow Joe with a “rape pass”.

      2. John, where is it stated that the guy is white? Sure, chances are he is given that this was at a university in Oregon, but there’s a substantially greater than 0% chance that he isn’t.

        1. Fair point. It doesn’t say he was. I assumed he was. But you are right, he might not be.

      3. These people are pure fascists. It’s not about principles, it’s about groups, which group is better than other groups, etc. They all believe it’s summer of 1945 and they’re Jews freshly released from the concentration camps, and white males are Germans who had collaborated with the regime the whole time. Yeah, sure, in theory we have rights, but deep down, every misfortune that befalls is to them we really just had it coming. “Privilege” just a recycling of the old idea of the “perpetrator race.”

  7. This sounds like a false flag to throw the scent off of the fake rape reports from Rolling Stone et al.

  8. What about all those guys who walk on two legs? Don’t they reminder her of the rapist?

    1. Second thought, thanks to Eddie and Hugh; needs more confirmation before piling on.

    2. Well, whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.

      1. +1 Pig

    3. What about all those guys who walk on two legs?

      Rory Calhoun?

      1. Clap clap clap

      2. Rory Calhoun does frequently stand up on his hind legs.

    4. Couldn’t he have worn a fake mustache or something? Maybe some Groucho glasses?

  9. OT: The Free Shit Mafia achieved what the combined world powers in 1945 could not.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..4352358293

    1. I saw the Bundeswehr in “action” in 2004-2005 in Kabul Province, AF. They were worse than the French! Granted, it was the French Foreign Legion and SF we saw…

      1. Worse than …

        Classified Ad
        French infantry rifle, never fired, only dropped once.

        The classics never get old.

  10. Is there any solid psychology behind the concept of “triggering,” or was it just invented by campus hippies?

    1. Given that most ‘solid psychology’ concepts were also invented by campus hippies, it’s a distinction without a difference.

      1. I guess it’s meant to be related to PTSD, except it’s definitely not standard practice in PTSD treatment to encourage avoidance, which is what trigger warnings are about.

        I was in the liberal crowd in college but never quite went for the idea that everyone has a right never to encounter bad feelings. And I think psychologists would certainly not prescribe avoidance and adopting the narcissism and fragility that seems to be taken for granted by activists in this realm. It’s all very strange to me.

        1. There are serious problems with the scientific basis of many psychological concepts.

          Here’s some criticism from a Nobel Prize winning psychologist.

          Long and short of it: There are serious issues with the replicability of many psychological studies, particularly in the field of priming, so many claims made by psychologists on these subjects are based on flawed science and methodology.

          The Milgram electrocution experiment was re-run for the FIRST TIME about 2 years ago, despite being 40 years old.

          How can you possibly know if the results are valid when there’s been virtually no replication of the study for four decades?

          1. The field probably does have somewhat more of a problem with replication than more mature sciences. I wouldn’t go totally Scientology on it, but do think it won’t itself be a fully mature science until it is firmly married to biology.

            1. Hopefully that day is approaching, sooner rather than later.

            2. ‘Marrying it’ to biology may be untenable, but at the very least I think they should be experimental and quantitative; some economists do this; they recognize that their field can never be as solid as the natural sciences, but still apply the necessary statistics to know just how much (or more often little) they can actually extrapolate from what evidence there is.

              Psychologists rarely do this. They are usually pure social scientists with poor understanding of statistics, and yet enjoy much credibility in public consciousness, so hunches, rules of thumb, almost ad hoc conclusions end up becoming ‘laws’ of psychology.

              And it’s worth noting that a significant portion of the field is as bad as Scientology. Anyone influenced by Jacques Lacan, for example, is pretty much a bona fide cultist.

        2. Completely agree.

        3. I was in the liberal crowd in college but never quite went for the idea that everyone has a right never to encounter bad feelings.

          This is self-evident, if you supported ‘avoidance’, you’d stop posting here.

          1. Sadly it’s a lost bit of wisdom on today’s youths: it’s more fun to be among enemies than among friends.

    2. There is….

      The first time I read about it was in a popular science mag article on PTSD; in the article the doctor described a patient who had been a nurse in Vietnam who would wake up if she heard a helicopter flying low overhead and try to run outside (her job had included receiving helicopters carrying wounded).

      The “trigger” was a sensory input – a sound, image, smell etc – that would trigger a reflexive response that in extreme cases would overwhelm a person’s rational self-control.

      The appropriate therapy for someone battling their unwanted reactions to these triggers is to help them build alternate reflexes or desensetize them to the inputs. Sometime nothing can be done, and one has to find a place without any helicopters.

      The modern approach seems to assume that once a person develops a sensitivity to some trigger that everyone else should accommodate them by shielding them from ever experiencing the sensory input.

      Personally I think this is unhelpful and even makes their suffering worse.

      1. Exactly, and that’s my only point–the trigger warning concept seems to be not only unscientific but counter to established therapies for PTSD.

        1. In my opinion, a lot of the people who kick up a fuss about being triggered want the cachet of being a victim in the eyes of their social group.

          That nurse I described above didn’t want to be a victim – she wanted to stop scaring her kids when a police helicopter flew overhead at night – the Korean War vet who kept attacking his wife at night if she made a noise while he was sleeping wanted to be able to hold her in his arms while they slept – he didn’t want people saying “oh you poor damaged man.”

          For some people being a victim is the goal, not a transitory phase they want to exit.

          1. Agreed. For some, victimhood gives credibility and authority. For many it’s a way for their otherwise poorly-considered opinions to gain traction it wouldn’t otherwise gain. “I know what I’m talking about because I was a victim”. And of course anyone who disputes that is an inhuman monster because they’ll immediately conflate attacking the argument with attacking the person.

          2. For some people being a victim is the goal, not a transitory phase they want to exit.

            The reason being that when you subsidize the existence of a victim class with entitlements, victimhood becomes profitable and desirable. This is statism’s perverse incentive #2,067,397 .

      2. “Triggering” as it is used in these contexts (not the Vietnam helicopter thing, but the modern campus usage) is just an excuse to demand that others behave how you want them too. It’s another passive aggressive bullying technique that’s been developed to guilt people into doing things they don’t want to do. Don’t like what someone is saying? Instead of actually attempting to debate, just say it triggers you! Guess what, you win!

        1. That is all it is. I could see where a woman who had been raped would have real trouble being in class with or working with a man who bore a close resemblance to her rapist. The solution to that used to be “go to a different school or get a new job”. Now it is just another excuse to screw someone over. As little as ten years ago it would never have occurred to anyone that the solution to this was to screw the innocent person. Now, it is on college campuses the default position.

          These people are insane.

          1. I have experienced “triggering”.

            Let me share my tale of woe. When a reached my ship, and after I was sufficiently advanced in my watchstanding quals, I was assigned a division of men to lead (ie. I did what my CPO told me to do 🙂 ).

            My immediate boss was a vile man who ruled by terror. Over the next year and a half, he sent almost my entire division to non-judicial punishment in groups of one or two (article 15 for you infantry types). A dyspeptic sort, he would write out angry, threatening notes in the margins of memoranda he would send to us.

            I grew to hate that handwriting.

            Then my boss got transferred. Much rejoicing!!!! It was an even bigger party than the time we found out he was passing a kidney stone!

            My ship changed homeports and I got a new apartment.

            Christmas rolls around – and one day I opened my mailbox and I saw an envelope nestled by a few bills. I looked on the back and saw that familiar loopy handwriting written with a felt tip marker.

            And my hands began to shake and I though “Oh Shit! He knows where I live!”

            It was a lovely Christmas Card – full of felicitations and good wishes. And it made my hands shake and I wanted to move.

            1. “Dear Mr. Christian,

              Felicitous greetings and compliments of the Season to you and yours!

              Sincerely,

              Senior Chief Petty Officer William Bligh”

            2. I have experienced it as well. For eight straight years after high school I was some kind of a student facing finals every early December and May. For at least five years after I left school, I would get an constant feeling of anxiety for the first two weeks in December and the first two weeks in May. I just couldn’t help it.

              1. It’s a Pavlovian response mechanism. Speaking of Pavlov, I’m surprised these feminists haven’s suggested we solve world hunger by giving everyone bells to ring.

        2. I want to know what would happen to him if he just said, “fuck you” and went about his business on campus.

          I can see getting fired from his job (which would suck, I imagine), but the rest? Send the cops, baby; lets make this a proper federal case. Lawyer up and leave none standing.

          1. If this happened to me when I attended university, I would have brought the school to it’s knees and seen the university president resign. I also would have gotten a big settlement to boot.

    3. Leaving Irish’s wry comments aside, yes. Much of it falls under the rubric of psychological resilience. In short, researchers have found that when people experience trauma, the brain becomes hyper-sensitized to certain sensory stimuli. Of course, this research was done on people who have PTSD from actual horrific events, such as combat veterans, survivors of genocide campaigns, torture, and war rape, etc..

      In the height of selfish narcissism, the term was appropriated by privileged White, progressive, upper-middle class women and their acolytes, to refer to anything that has the potential to offend their aesthetic sensibilities and/or cause cognitive dissonance.

      1. I don’t think you’re the first to refer to the concept as basically narcissistic, and I wouldn’t disagree. I think we should accept that rape can be highly traumatic–but is avoidance the appropriate therapy? Surely it’s only appropriate for the very worst cases, people who can’t be rehabbed.

        1. but is avoidance the appropriate therapy?

          I can’t answer that with any great confidence. What I do know, that if it were true, on campus, we only seem to be interested in accommodating those privileged White women, as opposed to say, veterans.

          1. I would go so far as to say that there’s an ironic paradox here: that it is precisely because privileged white women are the most fortunate, protected class of people on the planet that they are so afraid of things, and insist on being coddled.

            For most people, the exact opposite of ‘triggering’ happens. Take a black male from a poor neighborhood who’s been beaten, abused, and brutalized on the regular since early childhood. Does he get ‘triggered’ easily? Is he always quaking about the threat of violence? No, quite the opposite, he’s grown so used to it that he’s numbed to it. It is, in fact, the suburban white person who has never experienced violence in their life that quakes as they walk through the dangerous neighborhood.

            Males experience far more physical violence in life by age 15 (just from schoolyard fights and such) than most women will in their whole lives. So men generally accept violence as more normal, something one can shrug off that women do.

            It’s no coincidence that the idea of ‘triggering’ has reached it’s zenith not in the aftermath of WW2 or some horrible disaster in some poor war-stricken country, but in a time of unprecedented safety and security in one of the safest countries in the world.

        2. e. I think we should accept that rape can be highly traumatic–but is avoidance the appropriate therapy?

          I think a good clinical psychologist or psychiatrist would answer “it depends on the case.”

          Also it depends on what’s going on in the patient’s life. As an immediate palliative thing, avoidance might be just the thing. You don’t just drag an acrophobe up to the top of the Dubai tower and say “stop with the avoidance already!”

          But, in the long term, unless it is unacheivable resilience and the ability to cope with the stimuli should be the goal. And the only way to know that the goal is unacheivable is to actually try to reach it and fail.

        3. I have a triggering problem right now.

          There’s this regular poster named Tony and the post with that name isn’t being obtuse and moronic. I’m having a hard time getting past this. Anyone else?

          1. Same here. Either it’s a different Tony posting insightful intelligent commentary or it’s the regular Tony who for once has decided to stop being a distasteful, horrible human being.

            In either case, I think it’s something to be encouraged so I’m trying not to ruin it by looking at it too closely. I hope everyone else does the same.

          2. I’m still shaking.

            1. Is Tony one of your triggers?

          3. I was wondering that myself

      2. There’s a problem with PTSD though, which is that British soldiers in the same theater of war as American soldiers displayed far lower symptoms of PTSD.

        That kind of implies that PTSD, to a very large extent, isn’t based on the actual trauma experienced, but is based on secondary issues – possibly the culture in which someone was raised, possibly the way they’re treated after the event, whatever.

        Therefore, the level of trauma someone experiences doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with how much they suffer from the alleged trauma. It’s very possible that these kids have been raised to be such delicate little flowers that in their minds they really are suffering horrendously when confronted with even the most minor ‘trauma.’

        We could very well be creating trauma by teaching kids to regard any setback or mean comment as innately traumatic.

        1. PTSD could very well be a culture-bound syndrome. Korean fan death, anyone?

          1. That…that is…quite odd, HM. I learned something today.

        2. That kind of implies that PTSD, to a very large extent, isn’t based on the actual trauma experienced, but is based on secondary issues – possibly the culture in which someone was raised, possibly the way they’re treated after the event, whatever.

          Never been to an VA clinic/hospital, have you?

          There’s big money in PTSD. If you don’t have actual service-connected disabilities, claiming PTSD is a sure fire way to collect VA payments. It has the double-plus of allowing the VA to claim more patients to get their budget expanded, while doing it with people who aren’t going to demand much in the way of resources.

          Incentives, perverse, something, something.

          1. I should add that when in the facility for literally anything you are positively bombarded with PTSD shit. Pamphlets, brochures, booklets, and just about every medical person will ask you questions or give you suggestions pushing a PTSD diagnoses.

            1. Red,

              Would you agree that PTSD is an actual condition even if in some cases it is claimed for cynical purposes?

              1. It is (I had a mild case, but I got better) – but the VA very aggressively pushes toward such a conclusion.

                1. Can confirm. Though they’ve eased up a bit at my local VA, it used to be that at every appointment, no matter what for, I would be mercilessly grilled about whether or not I could possibly maybe have PTSD “wink, wink, nudge.” It felt like they really wanted me to have PTSD.

              2. Would you agree that PTSD is an actual condition even if in some most cases it is claimed for cynical purposes?

                Yes.

                1. I’m glad to read your response, especially the correction.

                  Have a great day.

          2. You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

            I suspect PTSD is like ADD: a small number “legit” cases provide cover for a large number of people who find it convenient or lucrative to tag along.

            1. Many are led to such a conclusion too.

        3. And of course, that point about ‘minor trauma’ doesn’t apply in this case since she claims she was raped, which actually would be traumatic.

          In this instance, it’s just idiotic avoidance taken to such an extreme that an innocent person is victimized.

        4. That’s interesting, and I continue to think that encouraging maximum sensitivity in young people is the totally wrong approach, and that seems to be getting conflated with the social goal of encouraging empathy and tolerance. I don’t see how it does anyone any good to make adversity harder for people to deal with rather than easier.

          1. If you want to encourage empathy and tolerance, then you probably don’t want to browbeat students and faculty with draconian speech codes that make them fearful that they could lose their enrollment/job if they say something that one person arbitrarily deems offensive. Let’s not even get into the chilling effects upon intellectual freedom.

            1. I’m kind of split on this. On the one hand, I think speech codes are ridiculous and offensive to the concept of free expression. On the other hand, I am persuaded somewhat by Eric Posner’s paternalistic argument. Part of getting a well-rounded education is learning how to identify and discard bigotries. I don’t think we need to entertain the possibility that outright bigotry is an acceptable alternative in the marketplace of ideas. I’d prefer social pressure deal with it, but unfortunately we’re still a society that treats bigotry as something to be argued in favor of. There’s a whole cable news network devoted to the idea.

              1. …. and the grownup conversation sadly winds to a close.

                1. He took his meds.

                2. Shit. It was nice while it lasted.

                3. tarran|2.19.15 @ 1:46PM|#
                  “…. and the grownup conversation sadly winds to a close.”

                  This is Tony; there was never a grownup conversation.
                  You caught the clock one of the two times it was correct; don’t presume the clock works.

              2. Part of getting a well-rounded education is learning how to identify and discard bigotries

                At one time,this was called critical thinking. Rather than professors and universities having the hubris of thinking that they possess the One True Way of viewing the world,they would impart the skills needed to apply premises to circumstances and come to logical conclusions. This exposed the premises for inspection, and gave students the skills to expose and ecompose the logical weaknesses of a worldview’s conclusions.

                Now,no such skills are taught. Humanities students are indoctrinated with what to think,not anymore taught the skill of how to think.

                1. Not really. I don’t recall a professor ever once imposing a political view on me. The closest it came to that was when a noted neocon who I took for honors classics invited Victor Davis Hanson around and had various chest-thumping panels in the wake of 9/11. The liberal stuff all came from outside groups, which you were free to join or not.

                  Not being a bigot is part of basic decency one should learn as a child, and it only needs to be reinforced because bigotry has been regaining legitimacy in mainstream politics after a couple decades of going underground.

                  1. Tony|2.19.15 @ 4:36PM|#
                    …”I don’t recall a professor ever once imposing a political view on me.”…

                    Not surprising; fish don’t recognize “water”, either.

              3. No, there is a whole cable news network dedicated to the idea that freedom of speech and freedom of thought are good things. Which has to include shit you don’t like or those ideals are meaningless.

        5. They reported lower symptoms. Stiff upper lip, and all that.

          1. difference between being told that they are expected to feel bad vs being expected to persevere?

        6. We could very well be creating trauma by teaching kids to regard any setback or mean comment as innately traumatic.

          Like that got-damn psyche-wrecking Twitter. Anything short of virtual analingus is traumatic there, apparently.

        7. Very true. In fact, think of the ‘recovered memory’ syndrome fiasco. People who were not abused as children but were convinced that they were actually recapitulated psychological symptoms of having been abused.

          In short, the experience itself didn’t cause the trauma, because they never had the experiences; the belief that they had caused the trauma, or the training induced the trauma.

          Not to say there’s no such thing as a genuinely traumatic experience, merely that is is entirely possible to recreate trauma without the experience itself. In other words, just because someone purports to be triggered or whatever does not actually mean they have suffered any traumatic experience; they may well have simple been convinced that they have suffered some such experience by someone.

  11. It’s because of the implication.

    1. Good to see someone addressed this. Otherwise I was gonna have to step in! My faith in the commentariot sense of humor is well placed.

  12. But restricting a totally innocent student from walking around campus because he looks like the person who raped her is obviously unacceptable.

    Let’s just see what government facial-recognition software says before we pass judgment on this.

    /sarc

  13. Oh BOOHOO, I’m a WHITE MALE and I couldn’t go to class for a bit.

      1. She jokes, but there are people who think this way. The hecklers at the Hitchens lecture on due process for example.

        1. “People who think this way” LOL I believe we’re called “educated people” Wow just wow

          1. Do all ‘educated people’ write like teenagers?

            1. Do all butthurt white men try to mansplain that my writing is bad?

              1. Given your writing habits, I’m going to assume you’re within the fourteen-to-fifteen age range, so I’ll try to explain this in simple, educational terms:

                You have repeatedly engaged in what are called ‘logical fallacies’ with zero self awareness. You have not presented any arguments, only insults spiced with buzzwords. I highly doubt you are an ‘educated person’ given that you fail to understand the very basic concepts of argumentation.

                I’m inclined to believe that you are merely a parody or troll, but that may be giving you too much credit.

              2. “Do all butthurt white men try to mansplain that my writing is bad?”

                Now I’m even more convinced. You wanted someone to point out that you used the word “bad” instead of “poor” – am I correct?

                Alternately, I’m wrong and more gramatically challenged than I think.

                Excercise caution in your response, Alissa; the coloration of my skin, my sexual preferences (if any), and other personal information are unknown here.

              3. butthurt white men

                RAPE APOLOGIST!!!

                For somebody so concerned about rape victims, you use derogatory rape terms so loosely.

              4. Do all butthurt white men try to mansplain that my writing is bad?

                Just the ones who haven’t written you off as a hopelessly stupid bimbo.

                1. “Just the ones who haven’t written you off as a hopelessly stupid bimbo.”

                  Or an ignorant whiny cunt.
                  I mean, let’s call a gardening implement and gardening implement!

              5. Do all butthurt white men try to mansplain that my writing is bad?

                Tonette, is that you?

            2. like totally

          2. “I believe we’re called “educated people””

            You might believe that, but it takes a heap of stupidity to do so.

            1. Well, I suspect she is conflating “educated” with “intelligent”, “competent”, “capable”, and other desirable traits.

              1. I’m thinking troll. An actual retard would probably avoid using the term mansplaining to an audience that already finds the concept of mansplaining to be insipid. Yeah, I’m guessing it’s a troll, not a real ‘serious person.’

                1. MarkLastname|2.19.15 @ 10:25PM|#
                  “I’m thinking troll. An actual retard would probably avoid using the term mansplaining to an audience that already finds the concept of mansplaining to be insipid.”

                  That set off bells, too. It’s the only time I’ve seen the term used that wasn’t clearly ironic.

          3. People who think an innocent person should have to suffer for something he didn’t do are morons.

            Full stop.

          4. Your vocabulary and carefully crafted arguments convince me that you are very well educated. Tell us more.

              1. And the secret handshake…. Or would it be secret wink?

        2. There was a Washington Post piece a few months ago that demanded weautomatically believe all rape accusers because the consequences for not believing them were worse than an innocent man’s reputation and livlihood being ruined.

          And that’s not an exaggeration, she explictly said it wasn’t a big deal if a false accusation cost you your job or got you kicked out of school and made a pariah.

          1. Translation: it’s totes okay for women to continue to face an epidemic of sexual violence because poor wittle white frat boys might have to graduate late. Try facing years of sexual violence and oppression then we’ll talk about “big deals”

            1. So you think it is okay to punish innocent people as long as they are from a class of people you hate? Is that your final answer?

            2. C-. Come on buddy, I can do a better imitation of how a Jezzie types and argues. Up your game.

              1. It used “totes”, which makes me angry.

                Surely that ups it to a “C”.

            3. You do realize that white women caused any number of innocent black men to be lynched or imprisoned due to false rape allegations in the old South? Are you down with that?

              Are women immune from racism now or do you think black men need to be shown their place again?

              1. God damn it you guys, it’s an insanely obvious sockpuppet trying to rile you up. Just mock it or ignore it.

            4. I remember you…you’re that fatty from Tinder. STOP MESSAGING ME.

            5. Is every female forced to walk on the same campus as ‘poor wittle white frat boys’ ‘facing years of sexual violence and oppression’?

              Never mind, troll.

            6. So your argument is that in order to deal with your perceived oppression, you must oppress other people based purely on their appearance and gender. What ‘sexual violence’ is this man engaging in? None, he’s an innocent, but apparently he should be punished to gratify your emotional response.

              Congratulations on supporting a moral contradiction. Would you like to play again?

            7. Translation: it’s totes okay for women to continue to face an epidemic of sexual violence because poor wittle white frat boys might have to graduate late.

              YEA! Down with due-process! Ends justify the means because ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS! Something Something RAPE KULTURE!

              #SJW

            8. Is it…sentient?

            9. Ugh I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by all the hate judging by the venue. Wow just wow I can’t even. Yep no online violence towards women to see here.

              “I’m a white male reason commenter and I like to gang up on someone when they point out my privilege ?\_(?)_/? “

              1. You tried too hard. If you’d scaled it back a bit I’d think you were a real person, but you made a point of hitting ever SJW buzzword so it’s obvious you’re a sockpuppet.

              2. Next, can you please link to an animated gif of Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga rolling her eyes?

              3. Definitely a parody. Constant appeals to authority and associations of violence with disagreeing and asking you to present basic arguments, but there’s simply not enough blatant emotional pandering without the use of buzzwords.

                Admittedly you have got the extremely poor writing ability pinned down, so I’m going to go with a C+.

              4. I can’t even.

                The only true thing you’ve written.

                online violence

                Now that is a fascinating concept, virtual violence. Please, tell us more.

            10. Alissa, it might help if you could explain how punishing innocent people (and by implication NOT punishing the guilty party) is going to reduce rape.

              1. She said it already:

                Wow just wow I can’t even.

            11. Ugh. Reason comment section has me
              all

                1. Don’t encourage him ‘Alissa’.

            12. it’s totes okay for women to continue to face an epidemic of sexual violence because poor wittle white frat boys might have to graduate late.

              Claim made from facts not in evidence.

              Yup, pretty much another bitter man-hater SJW, trying to pretend that her prejudices are about something other than her own mental illnesses and bigotries.

            13. In other words, you want privileged American women to try living like poor and imprisoned men so they can appreciate what real hardship and oppression is like? How enlightened of you!

            14. ‘Totes’ was a nice touch, like the valley girl bimbo in high school went to community college and like, her eyes were like, totally open, to like, oppression and whiteness and stuff. Top notch trolling!

    1. You continue to spell “derp” wrong

    2. Hi Mary!!

      1. You think so? I am beginning to suspect such.

        1. It has the obsessiveness of Mary, but the parody strikes me as out of Mary’s depth.

    3. Do you have a point?

      1. The point is its a sockpuppet troll parodying idiotic leftists in order to get people to respond to it.

          1. Or it could be the anti-circumcision troll from yesterday.

            1. Oh? You might be on to something, now that I recall that.

    4. Obvious troll is obvious.

      D-

      1. I ALREADY GRADED HER ABOVE.

    5. I thought you were a broad. So are you a broad or not?

      1. It does not subscribe to oppressive binary gender identification. It is a squirrel-kin, and the pronoun to use when referring to it is ‘vak.’

  14. That’s funny, because recently uber-feminist Jessica Valenti of The Guardian wrote a column lambasting people who obsessively worry about the “imaginary” problem of innocent men being harmed by crack downs on campus rape.

    I’m sure when she reads Robby’s work she’ll change her tune, right?

    1. Well, considering that this was published about an unnamed guy at an unnamed college and is therefore unverifiable and could easily be made up for the sole purpose of someone like Valenti coming back later and saying “SEE? THIS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENS!” I don’t know how smug we should be about this debunking her claim.

      1. Fair point. And Robby deserves credit for trying to verify it and informing us that it’s hearsay.

      2. I don’t need to be smug about this debunking her claim since I’m aware of several dozen other verified instances of the same sort of thing happening.

        1. By “same sort of thing” are you referring to an innocent person falling victim to false rape accusations on campus, or a situation specifically analogous to this one, where the person is punished for merely looking like someone’s rapist? Both refute Valenti’s argument, but I’m curious because I’ve never read about a situation like this one before.

          1. I meant specifically false accusations, particularly ridiculous false accusations that result in people getting screwed over through guilty by association.

            1. Well yeah, UVA was exactly that, but this specific situation is worse in that the actual victim is not even accused of a crime, merely of looking like a guy who is accused of a crime, and is a much more extreme reaction.

              1. I find this story very unlikely as well. When I first heard it, it immediately set off alarm bells as being a little too ridiculous.

                To start with, I think this story would have made it into the news before this law review article.

                1. I don’t know about making it into the same news that so breathlessly reported the UVA shit, but I would think there would be some kind of corroboration.

  15. A girl who claims she her memories of rape are triggered by someone who resembles her rapist and insists on having him sanctioned for it is someone who is probably making up the rape claim in the first place.

    Also, as stated above, I would like to have more confirmation that this event actually took place. It isn’t too crazy for them, nothing is. The feminist SJW are that mentally/emotionally unbalanced. I just want proof positive.

  16. colleges are increasingly inclined to take steps to prevent all conceivable harm (emphasis on conceivable)

    Like the government, they’re just making shit up as they go along.

  17. Whoever’s doing Alissa is trying too hard to sound how he thinks The Kids These Days talk. Yo dawg! #socialjustice! I can’t even! Because reasons!

    1. I am not sure. It could be a regular trolling us, but it could be real. I can’t tell the difference anymore. Maybe someone like Sugar Free who regularly reads those boards could, but I can’t.

      1. I thought troll as well. I’m going with Tulpa.

        1. Nah Tulpa just trolls the NSA and the cop threads. Tulpa is not this crazy stupid. He just will defend anything law enforcement or the intelligence community does.

          If this guy had been screwed because the FBI put him on a terrorist list, Tulpa would be on here trolling but not over this.

      2. It’s too over the top to be real. Not that I haven’t seen people express those sentiments, but they don’t sound like that. They’re trying too hard to hit every buzzword or phrase. It reeks of troll.

        1. Yeah. It is a total sock puppet.

        2. Wait, what if… they have bots now! Or what if the old spam bots have been infected with SJW virus and converted!

          Alissa? Are you forgetting to tell us we can make $516 a month marketing ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts on this really cool website?

  18. How bout a trigger warning on the perfume that smells the same as that worn by the ***** who broke your heart?

  19. Let’s hope this anecdote is just that, but it seems so unbelievable that you have to believe it.

    If the story is true, the onus is on the triggered not the innocent triggerer. You’re not cut out for college. Go home.

  20. Not sure how seriously we can take this without some kind of verifiable evidence that it actually happened. Right now I’m willing to give Janet Halley as much credence as Mattress Girl; Maybe it actually happened, but you’re not really acting like it did. If it’s real, why not name the college and give some corroboration?

    1. We can take it as truth for two reasons. First, the woman has a real reason for not giving the guy’s name. She is prohibited by the ethical rules of being an attorney from giving her clients’ name or revealing any information without his permission.

      Second, it is published in a reputable law review. This isn’t someone talking out of their ass on a blog. Law reviews have fact checkers. Certainly, this woman could not have told the law review staff this guy’s name anymore than she could tell you are I. But she could have and no doubt was expected to provide some verification that this is true. My guess is that she showed them some of her file on this case with the names and identifying information redacted.

      I see no reason not to believe this. I can’t believe a law prof would throw their reputation away lying about something like this or that the Harvard Law Review would do the same by taking her word without checking it.

      Yeah, it is possible she is lying. But I see no reason not to give her the benefit of the doubt here and believe this until and unless someone provides some reason to think otherwise.

      1. But if he was an actual victim in a case this straightforward, why wouldn’t he give permission for her to use his name? Going through public rumor mongering and hearsay anecdotes like this makes him seem like Mattress Girl or the UVA chick rather than an actual victim. Why wouldn’t a tenured professor go with something this salacious and reprehensible if it gets her attention? Rolling Stone did, and they actually had more to lose than the professor. And maybe the professor isn’t lying, maybe she’s just being credulous in the face of a sympathetic story. But I’m not willing to believe this just because I want to.

        1. But if he was an actual victim in a case this straightforward, why wouldn’t he give permission for her to use his name?

          Because he would like to get on with his life and not become a public figure. Imagine if his name was printed. This story would immediately be scrutinized by campus rape activists. His entire life and past would become an open book. And since this story is so damaging, they would no doubt look for any dirt possible on this guy to use as ad hominem and try and discredit him. Would you want your entire life put under public scrutiny that way? I wouldn’t.

          If I were this guy, no way would I want my name published. Doing that would just create a ton of enemies and run the risk of becoming a public pariah. This case was clearly settled to his sanctification and he no doubt wants to move on with his life.

          And again, while it is possible she is lying here, it is not likely. Just because the story is outrageous is not evidence that it is false. Sometimes outrageous claims are true.

          To think this is a lie you have to believe that a tenured law prof would risk her reputation to fabricate a story and that Harvard Law review would publish it without any verification. That is just very unlikely.

          1. This is true, but I am skeptical because this could be such a “gotcha” for the SJW brigade.

        2. Here is the other thing Patriarch. This guy probably got a settlement from the University that included a non-disclosure clause. No way would the University have settled without him agreeing to keep this thing quiet and save them from being embarrassed. So, he likely can’t go public without violating his agreement and forfeiting whatever compensation he received for this.

          1. That’s a fair point. I didn’t consider that it could even be that far along.

          2. The questionable part is the unnamed college. That might be part of the settlement, but then the attorney should just keep her anecdote for cocktail parties.

        3. I assume this guy will get doxxed in a few days if this story gains any MSM coverage. But it won’t so I retract my first statement.

        4. He has every reason not to give his real name! He’s a rapist, remember?

          If nothing else, the fact that he knowingly contributed to the cause of ‘rape apology’ by sharing his story would make him a target for the Stalinists.

          I’m not saying the story is necessarily true; it’s just an anecdote. But it is plausible.

  21. I will await the followup Robby is able to get. He is correct to be cautious.

  22. Robby, if you get in touch with Professor Halley, I’d love to read more details.

    When she says “reminded her”, I’m not sure if Halley means that the woman mistakenly thought the guy was actually the person who raped her on the other side of the country, that she thought some of his behaviors indicated he was likely to be a threat, or if she just couldn’t bear looking at him.

    1. He looked like a guy from a UVA frat who had thrown her through a glass table?

      1. … in the dark.

        Fortunately, the rape-gang let her keep on her night-vision goggles.

  23. because he merely resembled the man who had committed rape.

    While you’re checking the facts here, Robby, was the guy he resembled actually convicted of (or even charged with) rape?

    What I mean is, don’t forget to establish that there actually was a rape in this lady’s history, and/or that the rapist even exists.

  24. In this thread, a Wild Mary appeared and Made the Puppets Dance.

    1. Hey, I only responded once before I caught myself!

      1. Perhaps Mary Stack went to college in Oregon.

      2. Eh, it’s like it gets money every time someone responds to it or anything. So why not be an altruist and respond and give the poor feller with no life a little excitement? Good deed for the day.

        1. It’s *not* like it gets money…

  25. subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university

    You can major in derp or you can have derp happen to you. Anything that keeps people out of liberal arts colleges is a good thing.

  26. Dude should rape her.

    1. Has jeopardy attached?

  27. a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them

    “Tell us what you’ve been up to, and we’ll let you know what we’ve decided to charge you with.”

    If true, this is truly Orwellian.

    1. Seems more like Kafka.

      1. Exactly. If it was Orwellian, they would already know. Unless they want to add a lying charge.

  28. Imagine if this girl had been assaulted by a black man and wanted a “keep away” order against all black men who looked like her attacker. We’d be calling her a crazy racist, right?

    I’m sorry this woman was raped by some creep. The perpetrator should be brought to justice. If she needs some counseling or therapy, I’m sure the university would be more than happy to help her out.

    But Innocent People are Innocent and MUST be treated as such. I don’t care if he’s the identical twin of the rapist. He’s still an innocent man and does not deserve to be treated like a criminal. If this woman can’t handle being near someone who looks like someone who did her wrong, she should go to school somewhere else.

  29. One of these young men needs to bring a lawsuit against the Department of Education.

    1. Unfortunately the men the feminist sociopaths victimize generally have more integrity that the sociopaths themselves, and so have qualms about suing.

      Me, I’d sue every last person involved even tangentially. Even if I was guaranteed to lose more from legal fees than I’d stand to win, I’d do it, just on principle.

      That shitstain Ezra Klein was sort of right, but wrong targets: these totalitarians need to be made to be made to feel fear, perpetually would be best.

  30. Thanks to the intervention of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, colleges are increasingly inclined to take steps to prevent all conceivable harm (emphasis on conceivable)

    And of course to refund the money of those adversely affected by those steps.

  31. I’m sorry this woman was allegedly raped

    What matress girl, UVA girl and apparently trigger girl all have in common is that they were all allegedly raped, but their alleged rapists were never arrested and tried in court. And they all now have the priviliges bestowed upon “rape” victims.

    1. This was to TJC, btw.

  32. Demonstrate value
    Engage physically
    Nurture dependence
    Neglect emotionally
    Inspire hope
    Separate entirely

  33. Mr. Orwell would be so proud of this event! I hope I did not write any “trigger” statements here! Perish the thought(this may be a trigger word-oops!).

  34. This is an appalling story and, if true, the student would seem to have grounds for an interesting lawsuit. On the other hand, I think Reason should have waited until there was corroboration and the “liberal arts college” was named. Without any identifying details and the effort to double check sources, this piece lacks credibility.

  35. College campuses are the single most hostile environment in America for straight males. Just one of those categories is enough to arouse suspicion. Both, and the limitations on what you can say and do become seriously limited. And if you happen to be white in addition to straight and male, you are now subject to reprisals based upon historical grievances. This is America in 2015.

  36. Colleges are increasingly inclined to prevent all conceivable harm

    …to specific classes of individuals.

    FIFY

  37. National Review’s Kat Timpf

    Did anybody else read that as National Review’s Mein Kampf ?

    1. Actually my first scan got “Tit Kampf”.

  38. Get ready for the revolutionary program that will change the making money online industry forever.
    How Can I EArn Money With Automatic Mobile Cash ?

    Move to a better life…… http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  39. Colleges purport to be against male violence. But — and I truly hate to say this — are they instead laying the groundwork for it, for the next mass killer on campus?

    At best, colleges are setting themselves up for lawsuits of the mega-million-dollar kind.

    I sincerely believe it all could have been so very different — so much better — between men and women. There’s still hope. See:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    It’s a detailed look at what I think is the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference, which is responsible for much of what is called sexual assault of women.

  40. That is if she was raped. All we have is word for it. For all we know she can be some bully on a powertrip.

    The false accusation rate for rape is 60%. The reasons given for this false accusation rate: spite,revenge,even boredom. These are the cases where the accuser deliberately lied. This is from a U.S. Air Force study by Dr. Charles McDowwell. From the book The Myth Of Male Power by Warren Farrell.

  41. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……
    http://www.wixjob.com

  42. If the sordid tale is true I would not be surprised. The cult of political correctness is increasingly permeating all aspects of society and especially the immense bureaucracy the is academia from pre-school all the way to its apex of amassed idiocy.

    It behooves the self-aware USA male to either depart the sinking ship that is the USA or to enact self-preservation methods that includes isolating one’s self from general USA society as possible.

    Perhaps those Amish folks have the right idea. I expect an emergence of self-sufficient communities akin to the Amish but not as restrictive religion-wise.

  43. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    == .. http://WWW.JOBSBLAZE.COM

  44. “Higher learning”? ROTHFLMFAO!!

  45. “small liberal arts university in Oregon”

    live by the sword, die by the sword

  46. With so little information on this event/non-event, I have to wonder why the fuck you’re publishing a story about it. Why not wait until there’s a little more detail?

    WHY?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.