Sex

Instapundit: There's a War on College Men

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis believes it's better for eight innocent men to be condemned than for two guilty ones to go unpunished.

|

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit writes in USA Today about "the war on college men":

Last week, Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, suggested that even innocent students should be booted from campus if they were accused of sexual assault. According to Polis: "If there are 10 peoplewho have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."

So one of the longstanding traditions of American law — that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent — has now been turned on its head. Under the Polis standard, it's basically the other way around….

Reynolds teaches law at University of Tennessee, so his legal chops are pretty tight. He continues:

If even a false accusation of sexual assault is grounds for expulsion, the result is to burden student sex lives with fear. That's doubly so when the enforcers are so heavily non-male. Men who fear that they may be so targeted — and remember, you don't even have to have dated a woman to be falsely accused — cannot possibly enjoy college in a normal fashion.

The funny thing is that the law under which all of this is transpiring, the federal Title IX antidiscrimination law, is supposed to prevent the creation of just such a hostile educational environment based on sex. ("No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.") Yet — seemingly with all calculation — Jared Polis and his congressional colleagues seem eager to do just that.

Read the whole thing here.

There's no question that there's a witch hunt mentality going on in higher ed these days. Whether that constitutes a "war on men" is a different matter, but you gotta hope that some semblance of normalcy returns.

Reason's Robby Soave talked with Polis about his controversial—and frankly ridiculous—suggestion. Read that here.

And read Soave and Linda LeFauve on how researcher David Lisak's utterly flawed and non-representative work blaming campus rapes on a small, irredeemable number of serial predators helped to fuel the idea that colleges need to aggressively remove students even suspected of sexual crimes. That's the pseudo-science undergirding much of today's toxic climate on campuses when it comes to providing due process for suspects.

Watch Soave discuss "3 of the Most F*cked-up College Campus Stories of the 2014-2015 School Year":

NEXT: Corbyn Envy on the British Right

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. If ten congressman have been accused of corruption, it stands to reason that nine out of those ten are guilty, so we should just put all of them in jail, just to be safe.

    1. They’re all guilty of being slavers, so what difference, at this point, does it make?

    2. It would be interesting to hear Polis’ take on this suggestion.

      1. After all, it’s not like they have a right to be Congresscritters

        1. How do you know their corrupt practices aren’t just their own special manifestation of civil disobedience?

          1. MIND BLOWN

            *hugs autographed Kim Davis sweater/t-shirt thingie*

            1. If you have Official Kim Davis Memorabilia, it is in the form of a longsleeved/shortsleeved-backwards-layered-shirt.

              If you have something else, I’m sorry to inform you that you seem to have paid for a counterfeit item.

              1. snookered again!

        2. Yeah, they can find a different congress to run for.

  2. It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.
    J.A.

    1. Ooh, John Adams!

      That’s a good one.

      “Well, they’re going to call me a rapist anyway, so…”

  3. Can anyone with specialized knowledge of the Buckley Amendment/FERPA tell us if there’s any conflict with Polis’ suggested policy?

    I know that the Buckley Amendment allows students to challenge records they claim to be inaccurate or misleading in violation of their rights.

    So if their record says they were expelled as sex predators, can they correct the record of they can show by a preponderance of the evidence that they’re *not* in fact sex predators?

    Or is the record accurate so long as it records the fact of the student’s expulsion and the reason (“20% likelihood of being a sex fiend”), regardless of the student’s guilt or innocence?

    This is of practical significance because (contra Polis) a student will have a very had time transferring to another college if his transcript says “expelled as a possible sex offender.”

  4. According to Polis: “If there are 10 peoplewho have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people.”

    Ah, yes, the “Dwight K. Schrute” philosophy of justice. A bold stance.

    1. The Donald Trump philosophy of immigration policy.

    2. Collectivizing guilt is very popular with a lot of people.

      1. Even liberty minded people like me can fall prey to it. But now I live in California and don’t wish to be punished by the will of the majority.

          1. The place that is DC but with better weather. Close enough to spit on SF and get to the mountains for a day trip. I like it and not all the people suck.

            1. Ah. The land of drunk river rafting.

              1. Indeed I do own more than one river raft and live less than a mile from a drop-in.

            2. OMG!! Did you get Jerry Brown’s autograph?! He’s my hero! (Barf)

      2. *hides white guilt behind poster of Ta Nehisi Coates*

  5. Obviously the solution at colleges is to film every encounter on your phone to prove consent and to email the vids to me for cataloging and archival.

    1. Probably best to get a second set of eyes on those. Just to be sure.

      1. Agreed. I plan to operate as a non-profit however so don’t expect to get paid.

        1. You might consider renting some videos, just to cover overhead and wages, though, hmmm?

          1. Streaming video to cover the server farms costs. All labor will be unpaid interns.

            1. With a “rigorous” interview process.

    2. It would be like watching a couple of pigs fighting over a carrot.

    3. At FSU, Jameis Winston’s roommate was hauled up on charges of making a recording without all parties’ consent for filming what was later described as a rape. Curiously, no rape accusations were pushed seriously until after it was determined that that footage had been permanently erased. So yeah. You can determine for which charge you would preder to be expelled.

      1. Two forms of consent required:

        1. consent to be filmed
        2. the good kind of consent

  6. The alt text of the photo should have been =

    “This is the least goofy photo we could find of him”

    1. The Polo shirt/bow-tie look is the pinnacle of sartorial elegance.

  7. Jared Polis: cool on weed, ludicrous on everything else.

    1. In his defense, this is a severe break from the Democratic party platform, which insists that the mere accusation of rape should lead to immediate expulsion without any investigation whatsoever.

      1. Re: “the Democratic party platform, which insists that the mere accusation of rape should lead to immediate expulsion without any investigation whatsoever.”

        By chance do you have a source for this?

  8. So on the one hand, Polis assures us that it isn’t really punishment because they’re just being expelled.

    And on the other….um, the school is letting a presumed rapist walk and possibly take their raping ways to another school.

    So by anyway you look at it shouldn’t their be a wide consensus that university hearings are an entirely inappropriate way to investigate rape claims? It’s a system that virtually guarantees that either an innocent man is going to get screwed or an actual rapist is going to get off with a slap on the wrist relative to their crime.

    1. you’re mansplaining again

    2. Don’t all rapists get off with a slap on the wrist?

      1. “Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!”

    3. This system has nothing to do with the aims you listed. It is political and is therefore about power.

  9. Didn’t we have this discussion last week?

    1. Last week, we had a discussion about Polis’s comments. Today, it’s a discussion about someone else’s reporting on Polis’s comments.

      Look, Bobarian, if the subtleties of Gillespie’s writing are too much for you to keep up***bwahaha***sorry, I couldn’t even finish that…

      1. Well, we did only have 388 comments on it, so that horse might have only been sleeping.

        Whack it again!

        1. Tie it in with Kim Davis and abortion. BOOM

    2. So what you’re saying is you want another Trump article?

  10. Let’s just make a law that puts 8 of 10 guys who have been accused of sexual assault, in prison, no trial, no hearings, nothing. Just make it a repeating cycle, if you’re numbers 1-8, off to the dungeon with you. If you’re 9-10, lucky you. Then start the count again.

    Isn’t that ultimately what this dimwit is suggesting?

    BTW, the old bag in the double wide pantsuit has now jumped on the rape epidemic wagon:

    Clueless people with cankles

    1. increased focus on disciplinary proceedings for both accusers and the accused

      Because we don’t have that already

      1. Hillary is rapidly losing support from women, so she jumps on this old worn out and miserable failure of an idea. She really has no idea what’s going on in this country, does she?

    2. the old bag sumptuous woman in the double wide pantsuit flattering power suit.

      1. Keep your sick fantasies to yourself… even the internet has some modicum of decorum.

        *shudder*

    3. Hyperion, you don’t go far enough.

      We simply need to put 8 out of ten *men* in prison. Including ‘trans-men’ – you sign up for this team, you go down with this team.

      Ideally one with a gym, cable, internet access, and a well-equipped workshop.

      Once we’ve isolated ourselves from the victimization-feminists, they can go ahead and run the rest of the world (into the ground) while we get on with making top-quality home furnishings and metalwork.

  11. Reynolds teaches law at University of Tennessee, so his legal chops are pretty tight. He continues:

    You know who else taught Constitutional law but whose legal chops aren’t particularly tight?

    1. Plato?

    2. Is it Hitler? It’s Hitler, isn’t it? It’s gotta be Hitler!

  12. When will people ever learn that moral panics are always fucking fake.

    The day care crisis, violent videogames, stranger danger, and now the campus rape epidemic? History is littered with self righteous pieces of shit jailing innocent victims and they still fall for it.

    1. And politicians love it.

  13. Did I ever tell you about the time Jared Polis allegedly molested me?

    1. Shut it down guys, threadwinner right here.

      1. Wait, no, I’m only 19% convinced. I need more info.

        1. He’s a congressman for chrissakes! That should put him over the top right there.

          I’m sure someone could come up with dick-pics, though, if you needed the extra 1%.

          1. I think she needs another inch, I mean PERCENT.

        2. Drake carries a mattress around as an art project.

          1. Yeah, it’s not at all for the convinience.

  14. Colorado Rep. Jared Polis believes it’s better for eight innocent men to be condemned than for two guilty ones to go unpunished.

    Look, the Blackstone Formulation is quite specific about it being no more than *one* guilty in *ten*. Once you get above that number, all bets are off.

  15. The math is really simple. 20% of all women are raped in college.

    Therefore 20% of all college men are confirmed rapists.

    80% should be condemned for what the 20% do.

    Therefore every man who applies for college should automatically be sent to prison for rape upon his application being accepted.

    As a corrolary – Once that man is raped in prison, he can then be allowed to proceed to college, with a better understanding of his crimes.

    JUSTICE, SERVED!

    1. We’ll call it the 80/20 rule

  16. It strikes me that Rep. Polis, and just about everybody else, assumes that the accused must be men. If a number of guys wanted to really fuck the system, they’d accuse college women of “sexual assault” under the bullshit standards being offered up. The college could blow off the accusations. Of course, the administrators would have made themselves a prime target for a class action Title IX lawsuit.

    1. Literally had an argument with my roommate because he was saying that it’s impossible for a woman to rape a man.

      I don’t even….

      1. That’s the beauty of the Title IX suit against the college. The guys don’t have to prove they were raped, just that the college blew them off and, for a double whammy, applied a more favorable standard for women.

        Well, that and the fact that the colleges have deep pockets.

  17. Just curious.

    What if a woman were to accuse a black man of raping her with no evidence other than her allegation? If the black man’s only defense was that accuser gave consent to carnal relations, that would be a 50:50 “he-said, she-said” situation. In what sense would the presumption of guilt be any different from the lynchings of the last century or so?

    1. Oh, but you see it would be completely different. Back then, they would have done gone after him because he was black, which is, like, totally unacceptable. Because black people are the victims of ongoing white supremacy. Now, they would be going after him because he’s a man, which is, like, total social justice. Because men represent the patriarchy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.