Rape

DC Legislators Want to Brand Accused Students as Rapists—Even if They're Never Convicted

The "Scarlet Letter" approach

|

Shame
Dreamstime

Is there anything more terrifying than an outraged government official who wants to do something about a moral issue? Some members of the D.C. city council would like to force universities to take a "Scarlet Letter" (WaPost's phrasing) approach with students accused of sexual assault, permanently branding them as rapists—even if they are never convicted by adjudicators.

This is the brilliant idea of Councilwoman Anita Bonds, a Democrat:

Newly proposed D.C. legislation would require colleges to put a permanent and prominent notation on the academic transcripts of students who are convicted of sexual assault or who try to withdraw from school while under investigation for sexual misconduct — a "Scarlet Letter" that would follow them to new schools and graduate programs or into the workforce.

Council member Anita Bonds's proposal Tuesday — which comes as the nation is paying more attention to the widespread problem of college sexual assault — immediately drew praise from several colleagues for its bold approach to attacking the issue. But it also caught officials at the city's colleges and universities off guard, proposing what is certain to be a controversial way of permanently punishing those accused of assaults.

The "Scarlet Letter" plan isn't exactly new; lawmakers in other jurisdictions have proposed similar policies. But the idea that this should apply to students who are never found guilty—because they withdrew before the investigation was completed—is less common, and much more disturbing.

I can understand the desire to protect students at other universities from rapists. But the best way to do that is put the rapists in jail, not mark their transcripts.

After all, the campus judiciary hearing is often farcical. When an accused student is denied his due process rights, access to a lawyer, and is convicted under a preponderance of the evidence standard, is it really fair to mark him forever? If he withdraws from the college to avoid such a miscarriage of justice, should legislatures really make that public knowledge for future employers?

Undergirding Bonds' desire to pass this legislation is a reliance on scary statistics about campus sexual assault:

Bonds (D-At Large), who is also head of the Democratic Party in the District, cited a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found that 20?percent of women who attended college within the past four years had an unwanted sexual experience while in school there.

 "I hear these statistics, and I am outraged as many in the community are," she said. Three council members joined Bonds in introducing the measure.

Outrage—some, though not all of it, misplaced—is what comes of surveying students about their sexual activities and making the assumption that they are all victims, even when they don't see themselves that way.

NEXT: HealthCare.gov Re-enrolled Fraudulent Obamacare Accounts—and Gave Some of Them Bigger Subsidies

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 hear these statistics, and I am outraged as many in the community are,” she said. Three council members joined Bonds in introducing the measure.

    And how many women have had an unwanted state experience? Are you outraged, bitch?

    1. CAT FIGHT!

      (swills beer)

      I see in my mind a victorian woman waving a handkerchief, eyelids fluttering, breathlessly moaning, “Oh, Bartlesby….STATISTICS!! My heart… it weakens….” and all of the city-councilfolk rushing to slide her fainting couch into place.

        1. Yes, I said “city-councilfolk”

          Do you mean that in the, “Chinatown, Jake” sense? I know how retarded city-councils are.

    2. A more pointed question might be how many women have unwanted sexual experiences at colleges within the DC Council’s jurisdiction. I mean if 0% of those experiences happen at Georgetown, and 100% of them happen at ASU, then will this bill actually help/harm anyone?

      1. Actually, the question that needs to e asked is how many people have had unwanted sexual experiences at the DC Council.

        I’d be shocked if there weren’t quite a few gropers and harassers in that group.

  2. “which comes as the nation is paying more attention to the widespread problem of college sexual assault ”

    except, you know, sexual assault is less common on college campuses than off campus, but still! its widespread, I say, widespread!

    /sarc

    1. Council member Anita Bond is to be commended for her bold effort to reduce some of the sex-triggering activities that pose a danger on our college campuses. The technique she has proposed could usefully be expanded to become a weapon in the ongoing fight against academic trolls, and in particular against certain forms of excessively deadpan parody or satire that have the potential of harming academic reputations, including the many outrageous “tweets” that have been issued in the “names” of honorable university presidents around the country. See the list of inappropriate activities, all of which should certainly be recorded on the academic transcripts of graduating suspects, at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpr…..rsonation/

  3. 1. I continue not to understand why there should be any university policy at all aside from one dealing with students convicted of a crime (and possibly for those currently under criminal investigation by the state). Rape is a fucking crime (no pun intended). Let the cops and courts deal with it at a criminal level.

    2. The progressives must be pissing themselves with glee, as we come closer and closer to being able to cage and/or kill Bad People who Make Us Feel Bad.

    1. ” I continue not to understand why there should be any university policy at all”

      1 – Title IX,
      2 – plus Clery Act,
      3 – plus DoE’s Office of Civil Rights re-defining what constitutes appropriate measures addressing sexual assault
      4 – and then subsequently investigating 100+ schools for alleged failures to meet these new cockamamie standards.

      1. Time and money better spent going after bad cops.

        1. “Time and money better spent going after bad cops.”

          Which by accounts would end up saving money in the long run.

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/co…..1437013834

    2. “The progressives must be pissing themselves with glee, as we come closer and closer to being able to cage and/or kill Bad People who Make Us Feel Bad.”

      Thereby turning them into hardened criminals who need to sign up with, e.g., the Aryan brotherhood to survive in the pokey, and who already have a reason to despise the progressive establishment, and who will eventually be let out unless the left suddenly decides to become draconian in sentencing too.

      I’m still convinced the end result of all this idiocy is going to be fascism, not marxism. The people doing this shit are aggressively nasty, but also stupid, petty, and cowardly. They’ll make themselves an existential threat to half the country, without actually taking effective measures to prevent their victims from forming a very strident sense of class identity and shared purpose in removing that threat by any means necessary.

      1. The outcome you’re positing is what I think will happen as well. It’s a damn shame you literally cannot get the left, even in one on one situations, to understand that inevitably a right winger will come to power, and when the whole system has been set up to make totalitarianism an achievable objective, that right winger might just turn the law round on them, and create a fascist state from the socialist utopia the left has attempted to birth.

  4. lawmakers in other jurisdictions have proposed similar policies

    Day late, Robbie. Two states (NY & VA) have already passed it.

    That doesn’t count other schools that are going ahead with this on their own.

    1. Oh and fuck the squirrels with their 50 word limit, the popup ads when clicking anywhere on reason’s web page, and most of all the new code that now brings the reason page to the foreground when loading (hilarious when several reason tabs are open and all reload, it’s like nest full of squirrels fighting over who gets to be on top).

      Tree rats need to be fed into a food grade woodchipper.

      1. I’d say I’m looking forward to the Supremes slapping them down… but Roberts has killed my faith in that body

    2. Well that’s only if the student was suspended or dismissed. In those cases presumably the college’s kangaroo court had found them guilty, which is a bit more than there being an open accusation against them.

  5. The bandwagon just ain’t big enough for them all.

  6. Finally some common sense in DC. But I don’t think they go far enough. EVERYONE has a propensity for violence, especially after reading news reports like this one, and so I think EVERY transcript should come with a mark/label/trigger-warning that the human about which it reports has the potential to be dangerous. That should do it.

    1. You joke, but that is essentially what they want in the end. They are attempting to criminalize everyday normal human behavior, to criminalize all of us. That way they can pick off anyone they want at any time and keep the rest of the herd silent and compliant.

      They really do want an Orwellian dystopia.

      1. “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

        1. Ayn Rand wasn’t much of a novelist but the news every day proves she was a prophet. Her heroes seem a bit unrealistic but her villains are spot on.

          1. Well, she grew up around villains, and imagined heroes.

            1. Good point, concisely made.

  7. Posted this on the wrong thread:

    I think it was on here that I saw someone propose we give the progs a parellel legislature.

    It would have elections. Their offices would get budgets for staff and so on. It would have all the pomp and circumstance of a legislature. They could hold press conferences.

    The only difference between it and a real legislature is that nothing they passed would go into effect. So they could raise taxes on the rich, but taxes wouldn’t go up. They could pass gun control, but no guns would be controlled.

    It would, however, let progs do something. And, when it didn’t work, they could blame it on the unenlightened people who work in the other legislature.

    This seems like the best way to contain the progs

    1. Isn’t that why we have a bicameral legislature? So that nothing will change most of the time?

      1. Well, yeah… until the Progs fucked up the Senate by making it popular vote.

        1. Yeah. Those progs who got the 17th amendment passed 112 years ago and ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Damn them, their corpses, their infinite persistence and knowledge of arcane parliamentary procedure!

          1. Wait. Are you saying 1903 wasn’t smack-dab in the middle of what historians refer to as the Progressive Era?

            1. I messed up. I should have typed 102 years ago, which is still the “Progressive Era”. But, I think there are real differences between the progressives of 1913 and the progressives of 2015. While there are LOTS of points of similarity, the early 20th century progressives’ fight against government corruption strikes me as a big point of departure. Also, the notion of a scientific approach to law and government administration.

              The Democrats of 1864 and 1966 are very different, even though they share the same name.

              1. Also, the notion of a scientific approach to law and government administration.

                They fucking loved science!

              2. The Democrats of 1864 and 1966 are very different, even though they share the same name.

                True, the Democrats of 1864 didn’t have a Klansman among them.

            2. Political labels change meaning. Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau would have called themselves “liberals” during their lifetimes.

              While the early 20th century “progressives” do have some overlap with the leftists of today, they’re not really the same thing.

        2. Well, yeah… until the Progs fucked up the Senate by making it popular vote.

          Note that 3/4 of the state legislatures voted to take away their own power to choose the Senator. I repeat, politicians voted against themselves having power. That should tell you right there that the arguments weren’t that simple.

          One reason the legislatures wanted to get out of the Senate selecting business was that their own elections were dominated by the issue of which senator they would select, as opposed to state and local issues.

          1. One reason the legislatures wanted to get out of the Senate selecting business was that their own elections were dominated by the issue of which senator they would select, as opposed to state and local issues.

            Feature, not bug.

    2. I’d say a gulag is the best way to contain them.

      1. With apologies to John Wayne: “Out here, due process is a woodchipper.”

    3. A holodeck gubmint. I like it.

    4. To make them even more agreeable to serving in a pointless legislature, we could give each progressive an honorary title as part of their position.

      Then we could call the new parallel legislature, oh, let’s say, “House of Lords”?

  8. “…immediately drew praise from several colleagues for its bold approach to attacking the issue.”

    Branding every male student’s balls with a red-hot iron would also be bold. In fact, I can think of lots of “approaches” that would be “bold.”

  9. After all, the campus judiciary hearing is often farcical. When an accused student is denied his due process rights, access to a lawyer, and is convicted under a preponderance of the evidence standard, is it really fair to mark him forever?

    Why hasn’t one of these cases gone to the Supreme Court? It’s an end run around the 5th Amendment!

    If he withdraws from the college to avoid such a miscarriage of justice, should legislatures really make that public knowledge for future employers?

    Sounds like grounds for defamation to me.

    1. Just had a judge spank a college for just that. Not to mention increasing the punishment every time the student appealed.

  10. Let me speak up in defense of the Puritan government in *The Scarlet Letter* – Hester Prynne only had to wear the titular letter after being convicted in a court of law.

    Having the government to publicly shame someone is a criminal punishment, requiring the safeguards of a trial. How on earth can the government delegate this task to some kangaroo court?

    I said before that the progs want to use the standards of campus “justice” as a template for administering justice in the real world – it seems I was being prophetic. Yay me.

    1. Progressives, if they’ve even read the book, will only remember the sewn letter… and not the judicial process. Certainly not the irony that Prynne was punished for her sexual proclivities, and how that might apply to young men caught in a similarly unfair environment.

      1. I had the book crammed down my throat in school, so my main memory of it is being bored, but IIRC they established her guilt fairly clearly – she had a baby, but it had been much more than nine months since she’d been with her husband.

        Oh, and another point is that the judges wanted to know who her accomplice was, so that they could nail him, too. In short, the Puritans did something the campus “courts” rarely do – punish both partners.

        1. “And it’s just that sort of sexual oppression we worked so hard to away from!” says Anita Bonds, incredibly.

        2. It was a pretty boring book come to think of it.

          Anne of Green Gables had more action.

  11. So, due process isn’t a thing any longer, huh?

    1. They’re just throwing dirt on the grave, at this point.

      Its been dead a long time.

      1. Kind of a cornerstone of a free society, wouldn’t you say? I mean having due process, not this other thing we have now, the absence of it.

        1. Pretty soon due process will merely determine the RPM of the motor powering the woodchipper.

  12. Why don’t we add a permanent, prominent notation to Anita’s file identifying her as the retarded slaver that she is? A huge “S” with a picture of a dog taking a shit works.

  13. And they wonder why they are called fascists. These Trials have as much integrity as Stalin’s public show trials. It’s where they want us to go.

    The reason they don’t go to the cops is because there you actually need evidence and a fair trial. Since to many people are found not guilty (bad thing to progs, since we all know they are really guilty), the solution is to make it easier to find them guilty! No perfect victim, yadda yadda yadda

    1. “Lots of victims are strippers with criminal records who are covered with DNA from just about everyone except the rapists! Happens all the time!”

      “Lots of victims text their rapists asking them to do them up the ass, then go and make pornos based on the alleged rape. It’s quite a common phenomenon, actually.”

  14. OT: Ted Cruz’s book to appear on NYT Bestseller list #7 this week. No explanation for why he was left off this week.

    1. Well, their original explanation was that his sales were all bulk corporate sales or something like that.

      A complete lie, which they got called on. So they backed down.

    2. Salon has one.

      There has been a controversy for many, many years over the conservative movement’s manipulation of the New York Times’ bestseller list to create the impression of massive popularity of their wingnutty ideas among the public… Paul Krugman gave the best definition for this phenomenon:

      [T]he lavishly-funded ecosystem of billionaire-financed think tanks, media outlets, and so on provides a comfortable cushion for politicians and pundits who tell [right wing] people what they want to hear. Lose an election, make economic forecasts that turn out laughably wrong, whatever ? no matter, there’s always a fallback job available.

      Obviously this reality has important incentive effects. It encourages conservatives to espouse ever-cruder positions, because they don’t need to be taken seriously outside their closed universe. But it also, I’ve been noticing, makes them remarkably lazy.

      1. make economic forecasts that turn out laughably wrong, whatever ? no matter, there’s always a fallback job available

        Krugman knows from experience on this one.

      2. It’s so cute how in their alternate universe, there are no liberal billionaire-financed think tanks.

        1. Are there? I mean, I know there are think tanks financed by billionaire former-Nazis, but that hardly seems like it should count as “liberal”. Unless you meant the Kochs.

          1. George Soros?

  15. Anita Bonds should wear a scarlet C.

    1. People probably already know she’s a Councilmember.

      1. slow clap…….

    2. And a yellow U.
      A green N.
      And a blue T.

      1. “And now you know!” (Rainbow and color letters streak at top of screen)

  16. “Councilwoman Anita Bonds,”

    It appears the preferred nomenclature is “D.C. Councilmember At-Large

    Lord Chief Muckety muck, Big Kahuna, Mucho Grande Honcho, El Primo Banana, etc. also acceptable

      1. Doesn’t look Victorian to me.

        1. You got me there. She looks more Middle-Earth-ish

          1. Knock, Knock.
            Who’s There?
            Anita Bonds.
            Anita Bonds who?
            I need a bonds bailsman.

      2. the punchable face of evil

        /just sayin’

      3. Good news, I think she is single.

        1. I wouldn’t fuck her with YOUR dick…

          1. I wouldn’t fuck her with YOUR dick…

            Pics? Wait…

      4. Did she get affirmative consent from those two kids in that picture on her home page?

        From the looks on the kids’ mugs it sure doesn’t seem likely.

    1. “At-Large”?

      Seems size-ist, to me.

      1. Although, checking her pix, completely appropriate.

    1. Good, but i laughed harder at the title of Harper Lee’s surprising *third new novel*

      My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune

      “NEW YORK?Shocking the literary world once again, acclaimed author Harper Lee announced through her publisher Tuesday the surprise release of her third novel, My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune. “On behalf of Ms. Lee, we’re delighted to bring the public this moving new story, which follows the heartwarming relationship between a deaf and nearly blind author in the small-town South and the extremely kind and attentive caretaker to whom she wills every penny of her $45 million estate,” said HarperCollins president Michael Morrison, adding that the 185-page tale vividly brings to life the setting of a present-day assisted living facility in Monroeville, AL, where an 89-year-old protagonist named Harper comes to the life-changing decision to hand over all the money in her bank account, her property, and all future proceeds from the books she has published to her extremely upstanding and unselfish friend and lawyer, Tonja.”

  17. Remember folks.

    The losers being protected by these fucken assholes will be in positions of power soon.

    Already we’ve gotten a sniff and whiff of what’s that like with some who have already attained such positions.

    BURN THIS SHIT DOWN, BITCHES!

  18. I think everyone should be branded according to the different tribes they are part of. If you love the confederate flag, wear the flag pin! If you are gay, wear the gay pin! If a woman says you hugged her uncomfortably while at a party, where the R for rape pin. If you are religious wear an external crucifix. If you are a drunk where the drunk pin. If you support Trump, wear the yellow hair pin, and if you are a cosmotarian wear the cocktail pin. It just makes things easier.

    1. Where?

    2. Something something…yellow star…something something … You know who else?…

      1. It was originally a yellow triangle. The jews took two and made a Star Of David.

        1. You know what other color triangle was employed?

    3. Which is it? Do you want people do be branded, or do you want them to wear a pin?

      1. Branded with the pin.

    4. ” If you are religious wear an external crucifix.”

      wood?

      1. Disgusting.

      1. I give you gay guys credit; that is a lot to remember.

  19. This is the brilliant idea of Councilwoman Anita Bonds, a Democrat:

    lol!

    DC City Council. I’m sure if they had any Republicans “they’d do it too”.

  20. OT I’m trying to find ways to be more productive in my day so I’ve decided, instead of reading the comments after the articles, to get the same experience in a fraction of the time I’m just going to watch this 20 second clip from Brass Eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBclkgUA88g

    1. This may be a shot at me.

      1. I would…never do such a thing!

      1. His reactions are priceless, but much funnier than HnR I’m sorry to say

        1. I dunno…there are plenty on here who bring the comedy.

          CJ should definitely change his handle’s link to that vid, though.

          YOU SEE THAT, CRUSTY?!? Make the change!

        2. You just think that because you are not sufficiently gay affirming and thus don’t get the jokes.

          1. *dons rainbow colored glasses*

  21. Someone remind me again of why democracy is SO FUCKING AWESOME.

    I have a counter proposal. Every time one our betters puts forth such a heinously stupid idea as a law, like here, especially one that stinks of malice *and* incompetence, we take a finger. Even if you leave office before a decision is made, we still get a finger.

    You have 10 “opportunities.” We’ll have a lottery to see who gets to be the judge, jury and snipper.

    1. I propose using a woodwhipper to take the fingers*.

      *Neither I nor my family have any financial or other interest in any woodchipper design, engineering, manufacturing or sales entity.

      1. *Neither I nor my family have any financial or other interest in any woodchipper design, engineering, manufacturing or sales entity.

        Sorry about your look poor mammal

    2. So, like a woodchipper but in really slow motion.

      I am liking this idea.

      1. There was a great old “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” where a guy makes a bet with a millionaire for a ton of money if his lighter lights ten times in a row. If it fails to strike just once, the millionaire gets to chop off the guy’s finger. The whole episode is really tense, with the guys hand strapped to a table, finger exposed, and the millionaire wielding a meat cleaver over him as he flicks his Zippo one more time…….

        1. Great Roald Dahl story. “The Man from the South”

          That guy wrote some weird adult fiction

    3. Lose a finger over bad decisions?

      I like the idea, but I fear that it would lead to rampant Title IX abuse….

      1. Followed by Title VIII, Title VI abuse as they show themselves unable to learn from past mistakes.

  22. What voters is this woman pandering to?

    If these evil pieces of shit ever do fully get their way the woodchippers are sure to come out. I can’t imagine how many people will be adversely effected by this if applied society wide.

    1. I imagine the people most adversely affected will be women.

      If it stays in universities, men will just move to online courses, and the existing social networks that help men find work will migrate to places not controlled by #psychobitches. Since women will still be on campus (the slower ones still exulting over how they totally showed men), they’ll be excluded from those networks and have a harder time finding jobs.

      If it migrates outward into the criminal justice system, the men who can leave will leave rather than be treated as second class citizens, and the capital will leave with them. Women will still be boned, except that now they won’t actually get boned either.

      1. *raises hand*

        Homosexual male here. Can I be excused from all this shit?

        1. Nope. When all the other men leave, you’d better leave too, or you’re going to be conscripted for snu snu.

          1. The spirit is not exactly willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised anyway.

  23. I wonder how quickly they will back pedal on this if there is a “disparate impact” of the undesirable sort caused by these scarlet letters.

    1. Not at all? Progs talk a good game about helping black people, but they actually do shit for mentally unbalanced white ladies. Horrible shit, mind you, but there is action to back up the words. It’s a case of revealed preference.

  24. If we have to destroy a thousand lives to save even just one, wouldn’t that be worth it?

    Freedom is not free, sometimes we have to give up a bit of it, in order to secure our liberty.

  25. Convicted of rape? Then send them to jail! Otherwise they are innocent. Period.

  26. Let’s play spot the economic fallacy. I will give you a head start. The article assumes money not invested in energy disappears and is not invested in other sectors of the economy. Go ahead and gawk at the derp.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..071515_BIZ

    1. If only it would go to $1000/barrel, just think how rich we’d all (have to) be.

    2. Well I know that I flouted my city’s burning regulations and just went ahead and torched all the extra money I saved from reduced gas costs. Didn’t even pull a permit from city hall.

      What else was I going to do? If I didn’t burn it, it would just sit around in my house taking up space.

  27. Obama to use his magic wand to bring Free Hi-Speed Internet to the Poor.

    because apparently its too ‘expensive’?

    even though its cheaper than cable TV, and most teh poors got that

    also, Children, or something. Because Learning. If they can’t do it with books, surely they’ll do it with an endless supply of video games and porn.

    1. Imagine the hand-wringing articles to be written 30 years from now, once sociologists have had sufficient time to worry about the effects of multiple generations being brought up on broadband. We’ll surely need a new bureaucracy to set a recommended daily dose of smartphone & tablet time. And states will try to sue technology companies for knowingly & recklessly getting us into the mess, and skewing the healthcare (meaning, the health insurance) market in the process.

    2. Oh boy! First he gave everyone affordable health insurance through Obamacare, and now he’s going to do the same thing to Internet! I can’t wait.

      /sarc

  28. I was working in a remote location and my sat phone doesn’t have data so forgive me if this has been posted:

    Heros Dispatch Meth-Crazed Bicycle Theft-Accomplice Suspect

    1. WTF were the cops doing just standing there, anyway? Waiting for an excuse to shoot? Jesus, what a bunch of worthless thugs.

  29. Well you know, Mr.Soave, collections of proper humans collegiate, churchified, gay organized, Baptismed, Save the World kleptomania tax collectors, and Pam Anderson PETA butthole divers, and human rights fucking super clever fucking punkass bitches creating muslim churches on this marble lot…

    male is rape. bro, Soave.

    Never be born with a dick around lesbians or free girls who graduated Harvard and the dumbest fucking shit pits in American that have been over-rated for goddamn masses of decades…

    If that horrible place between the human thighs is stricken with a penis…. you need a real woman bro NOT that nasty ass educated horrid fucking pussy malaise raised on the plantations of brain killing motherfucking advanced education…

    I can only hope that penis is born on a motherfucking goddamn VIKING bitchass viking ship filled with motherfucking vikings who have never ever seen a single goddamn motherfucking sorry ass American because Americans SUCK like dead lions with their balls being sucked on by old cobras.

    FUCK American balls…. American balls have been popped like little fucking dinky bulpop wama lama slinky bops discos…being FUCKED up the ass by goddamn simpleminded shit-eating old school feminists who suck sidewalk eggs like a desperate cobra crawled outta a rich plane….

  30. American males have been served with a million ninja stars to the balls.

    American males have been FUCKING by educated communism that has jammed its motherfucking tiny pickle into American collegiate education….

    Tiny pickles are fine…. and, bro, your tiny pickle I respek. Your tiny pickle in the suave rich basements can spill like rivers, bro.

    This ain’t about peace-out tiny pickle. THIS is about the fact that communism has infiltrated across the board all higher ed like the power of a tiny pickle.

    It’s all over, man. I see it everywhere. Soave and a few commentators here give me a smidgeon of peace but millenials are being infested and infected.

    … and Libertarian culture needs an require the young great beat minds for the cause of liberty….

  31. The path forward is a love outlined with sharpies.
    The bitch loves you? outline that fucking love with sharpies.
    The bitch wants to massage your butt cheekls? outline that fucking shit with Sharpies.

    Meet a fucking hot blonde in an Obama bar… make her sign a napkin contract with a sharpie….
    Meet Michelle Obama when your dumbass blackass just graduated from the CIA… make her sign a napkin contract with a sharpie.. which I have to admit means you are NOT a dumbass… perhaps strangemuffin’ nigga…. that is all…

  32. American feminist: FUCK balls and cock and sperm
    American Harvard, Ive-league, Cali gorl; FUCK those goddamn MALE hot ass cheeks I want to lick with my tongue and his balls but i can’t cuz I want to be proper motherfucking lesbian.

    American female in ANY Ohio place of education witchcraft the bitch paid at least fuck tons of thousands for: Males? bitches are stones. Dead humans with nuclear bomb dicks. Avoid that shit because my super empty vagina wants a lonely distracted lesbian pinky probing it over a calculus book I need to return next week.

    Fuck American lesbians, gays, and straight sex. FUCK sex.

    This is comedy is so hot, fuck knuckles…. none of these dumbasses can figure out to hook up without Obama and his shit0eating American law institute smash fucks and Harvard plunging their cameras and lawyers on their thigh cum.

  33. I simply want a motherfucking cold rainbow of booze raped my holes, niggas.
    I want to get fucked up with knowing outlaws and my holes and skin will please
    a pulsating sex violoin of lovers…cunts smashing my eyes and lips and dicks raping
    my asshole and throat and my hard cock stripped of its babies by leather clad muscle
    with beards breathing deep on my chest… man

    Mothercranks laid on my body and fucked my ass with biker dicks, man
    big ass niggas laid dada rainbows on my musckle when my big boy tripped his calculus
    sperm into my ass and mama and her brunette and her boy came on top op my body, baby..

    this shit is rainbow ranges
    where lights snap flowers and shops
    search echos
    underneath the alleys
    of confushions and

    I want to punch a fucking star , girl.
    i want to punch a motheRFUCKING STAR YOU MOTHRFUCING tangoes
    I wish to eat light and atoms and

    why are atoms so special
    FUCK ATOMS. ATOMS SUCK… ATOM can eat my cok

    beneath atoms are there rivers of little points and are atoms picnics of dimensions and portals to my dead gfandma i never met but i did meet a ghostley epparition of a grandfather in 1983 and he gave me a 7-up

  34. If by convicted they mean in a court of law I’m all for it.

  35. This idea is ridiculous, we seem to have gone from innocent till proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent to lets let the universities decide without due process, to let the universities get repeatedly sued when the mess it up and act in a sexist and biased way against (so far) the guy when he is proven to be innocent and having not been given fair due process.

    This is what happens when you stick a feminist harpy in the white office. Completely skewed perspective on justice and fairness.

    If this silly change was implemented there should also be a letter that is permanently attacked to the accusers record that follows them around for the rest of their career when they have been proven to falsely accuse someone but they have been proven to be innocent.

    Equality works both ways.

  36. I think it a great idea. All those good little Democrats with a nice red R on thier forehead. To bad thier Grandparents didn’t have KKK put on thiers. I realize not a democrats are bad but generally they been the party exclusion, racism and bigotry. Today most democrats are just as racist and bigoted as thier forbearers. One might say that the Democrats have become inclusive but if they were they would treat gays, blacks and latinos as they treat themselves instead of some subset that needs to be protected. All people should have the same right and that is to succeed or fail on thier own merits.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.