Sex

USC's Mandatory Title IX Quiz Teaches Students That Accuser's Feelings Always Valid

University says students will 'enjoy the assignment.'

|

Dreamstime

The University of Southern California requires all incoming freshmen to complete an online Title IX course that asks students uncomfortable questions about their sex lives and requires them to agree with some troubling statements about rape and consent.

The existence of the course was first reported by Campus Reform's Anthony Gockowski:

"It was just full of super personal questions," Jacob Ellenhorn, a student at USC, told Campus Reform.

Despite some students being uncomfortable with the content of the course, the campus-wide email assured students they would "enjoy the assignment."

"We believe you'll enjoy the assignment, and that this training is in line with our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans. It is an innovative, engaging, and informative online course, created with students for students," the email stated.

Clearly, not all students "enjoy" sharing the details of their sex lives with the university. The questionnaire asks students to list the number of people they have slept with in the past three months, how many times they have had sex, and whether they used condoms. I have a difficult time accepting that a university has any right to such information.

It gets worse. The online course includes a section on rape, titled "What to do if you are accused of sexual assault." The advice it gives is quite bad:

1. Admit to yourself that even if you don't remember the event, or don't believe yourself capable of hurting someone, that it's possible that you may have crossed a boundary.

2. Recognize that the other person's feelings about the event are valid.

These points seem built around the idea that everyone accused of sexual assault must be guilty of something, and that all such accusations are made by people who are always telling the truth. While this may indeed represent the majority of campus rape disputes, it's not fair to condition all students to believe they are automatically in the wrong if they find themselves in such a situation.

And students will commonly find themselves in such situations if the course's muddled consent guidelines are followed:

After completing the questionnaire, students were then walked through a two-hour interactive lesson on sexual assault, consent, and substance abuse. In one case, students were told that a sexual partner who has had too much to drink cannot give consent. However, in a different scenario, the course shows a video of a man and a woman who are both drunk and engaging in sexual activity. …

Another portion of the course teaches students "how to ask for consent" and lists possible verbal and physical indicators their sexual partners may provide. Students are told to look for physical signs such as "crossing arms" or "lack of eye contact" as an indication a partner does not want to have sex. Only verbal signs, however, indicate a partner does want to have sex.

The ultimate purpose of Title IX, it seems, is simply to produce more Title IX cases.

*Update: I incorrectly stated that USC is a public university. It is, in fact, a private university.

NEXT: Sen. Sanders Remains a Backer in Auditing the Federal Reserve (UPDATE: Effort Fails)

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. Just relax, lie back, and enjoy your assignment.

      1. 14 cabbie rapes vs 1 uber rape (and that was in new jersey). Good thing real cab companies screen their drivers so well.

  2. 1. Admit to yourself that even if you don’t remember the event, or don’t believe yourself capable of hurting someone, that it’s possible that you may have crossed a boundary.

    Repent, sinner!

    2. Recognize that the other person’s feelings about the event are valid.

    Rationality and evidence are impositions from the patriarchy, anyway.

    1. 3. Call a lawyer who specializes in raking colleges over the coals for violating students rights.

    2. I suppose the idea is that even if you’ve done #1 and #2, and even then you still decide #3 “But I’m Innocent”, they can accuse you of having failed to adequately satisfy #1 and #2.

      Because #1 and #2 are basically preconditions that preclude any possible claim of ‘total innocence’

      How can you be innocent if *its possible* you might have ‘crossed a boundary’?
      If other people’s feelings are valid, then how can you deny your responsibility for CAUSING those feelings?’

      Its a bizarre formula because of how it pretends to be so sensitive to ‘possibility’, yet still assumes a completely one-sided narrative of “victim / perpetrator” rather than 2 parties who might share equal culpability for producing bad-outcomes.

    3. Lessons in progspeak:

      “Valid” can have two meanings: that the feelings are real, and that they are justified. The first meaning is unexceptional, while the second is a giant stolen base, hell, a stolen home run.

      By suckering you into accepting the first, they are putting you on a teflon slope to the second.

      1. Yeah, basically the same point i was trying to make.

        They’re making the “confession” a precondition to any “hearing”

        You can’t get a fair hearing unless you confess!
        Why bother with your defense now? = you confessed already!
        Catch-22

      2. Yep. Feelings are both real and irrelevant.

        1. If you have a penis, then you have no feelings.

          Just urges and sensations.

          /what this really means.

          1. Penis with no feelings? Shit! Another circumcision blood bath.

      3. The left equivocates like that all the time. Let a progtard explain to you what “feminism” means sometime.

        1. Let a libertarian explain to you what “libertarianism” means sometime.

          1. It means you are a penis and have no feelings.

            1. …and lack a proper appreciation for the beautiful ROADZ.

      4. “Valid” can have two meanings: that the feelings are real, and that they are justified. The first meaning is unexceptional, while the second is a giant stolen base, hell, a stolen home run.

        Feelings (as opposed to sensations) are always ‘stolen bases’ in both contexts of valid, which is why, outside the absurdity of Title IX, we rely on evidence. The validity of the feeling, in either context is up to observers and is not intrinsic to the feeling or process of feeling itself.

  3. “We believe you’ll enjoy the assignment, and that this training is in line with our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans. It is an innovative, engaging, and informative online course, created with students for students,” the email stated.

    C’mon, you know you’ll enjoy it. You came to this school to learn, right? Well that’s what this is. Just try it and we know you’ll get into it. Don’t be so uptight. Don’t you care about Trojans? Because Trojans care about you.

    1. Trojans care for Trojans.

      I thought condoms were being discussed in the other thread?

    2. “We believe you’ll enjoy the assignment, and that this training is in line with our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans. It is an innovative, engaging, and informative online course, created with students for students,” the email stated.

      Sounds like someone trying to talk someone else into a little buttsecks. I’ll use a Trojan!

  4. All my guilt for never contributing a penny as an alumni is now alleviated. Thank you.

    1. I contributed in bullshit parking tickets.

      1. I always parked at the Shrine.

  5. The underlying agenda is to institutionalize everyone either as a criminal or victim of mental illness. Getting people sucked into the AA/12 Step cults is a big part of it. If you wonder how Steve Sarkisian madness was possible – look no further.

  6. “…requires them to agree…”

    Stop right there and go fuck yourself USC.

    Also, ‘valid’ is a word that means logically consistent. I think the phrase they are looking for is ‘means something’, just probably not the something they have in mind.

    1. ‘Valid’ means logically consistent within the academic jargon of Philosophy. Outside of that it means that your parking is partially paid for.

      1. And a complete misuse of the word. Just because a word is in common usage doesnt make it right.
        The way I define words and use them is the only proper way.

        *ducks*

  7. Students are told to look for physical signs such as … “lack of eye contact” as an indication a partner does not want to have sex.

    Why does USC hate blind people? WHY?!

    1. Right. If a couple signs in using the names John and Mary Smith and won’t make eye contact it means they don’t want to have sex.

      That’s what it means.

      1. That’s funny…in the other thread, those are signs they’re engaging in human trafficking.

    2. Or,… She’s on all fours facing the other way. I think there’s a name for it I think, and from what I hear some women even like it that way. Shrug.

  8. Them’s races look off. They miscegenatin’ or something!

    1. Vampire-human relations are a no-no.

    2. They ain’t even old timey!

  9. I’ve been on a bit of a philosophical /theological bent for a while.

    When are we going to repudiate the postmodernism that undergirds all this bullshit? We’ve experimented with rejecting positivism and rationality, and it turns out that relativistic communal morality is a pile of shit. Can we go back to sanity?

    1. “Sanity” is a cis-hetero patriarchal construct, you monster.

      1. you monster

        Ahem, he specifically identifies as a trash monster. Stop othering him.

        1. Are sure xe’s not a trash ‘minister’?

          Ministers can be terrors as well.

          1. By the power vested in me by the waste engineering union local 546, I hereby demand that whatever trash demon you Harbor in your heart be gone!

            1. The Power of Compactor Compels You!

    2. So you’d chuck out people like Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein? Not to mention the Romantics and Transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau?

      1. There’s obviously some wisdom in parts of the postmodern movement. The baby need not be chucked with the bathwater. However, I think that the current permutation is such a visceral reaction to fundamentalism that it ignores the existence of truth and reality. Yes, we all wear the lens of our respective experience, but I have a hard time accepting that this requires a full repudiation of the quest for objective truth.

        1. A visceral reaction to fundamentalism that ignores the existence of truth and reality; a full repudiation of the quest for objective truth.

          Very well said Trshmnstr. That is the best summation of the philosophy of the left’s intellectual darling Mr. George Lakoff. See: ‘The little blue book for democrats’.

          Also known as ‘demoralization’.

        2. It’s not just the relativism problem that makes objectivism impossible. There’s also the language problem, and that the tools of science and logic are somewhat unreliable and closed off to fairly significant portions of the human experience.

          1. Forgive my clumsiness in describing this (I have no formal philosophy background, and am a neophyte) but I think this is where a little infusion of postmodern “check your biases” can help. Rote rationalism, especially in its objectivist form, seems to in some ways dismiss the very individualism that it is accused of overemphasizing.

            To toss in some theology, the God of the Bible, being the supposed arbiter of absolute truth, says “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways” (Isaiah 55:8). It seems that your insight about us not having the proper tools is reflected in that statement. It would seem from a theological lens that the biggest flaw of Cartesian fundamentalism is the hubristic assertion that we can simply use our human rationality to understand a “higher” form of morality.

      2. Chuck out Hume, Kant, Hegel and Wittgenstein?” I’d woodchipper ’em (Kant and Hegel feet first). Schopenhauer too.

    3. I’m sure the philosophers are still working on discovering objective reality for you.

      1. It’s out there somewhere nicole, you’re just not logicing hard enough.

            1. Dead white men!

        1. He wants to believe.

          1. Speaking of… I read an article that said that X-Files is going off the conspiracy theory deep end… Fema camps and all that stuff.

            1. The question is how they’re going to come up with stuff worse that what we already know is happening.

      2. Maybe it fell down in the couch or something.

    4. Since we’re on the topic, I’ll throw in a recommendation for you to look at Roy Bhaskar’s work on critical realism for a philosophical perspective that does an excellent job of avoiding the errors of both modernism/rationalism and postmodernity, while retaining their strengths. Certainly unmodified rationalism has been abused and successfully refuted far too often in the last century to have any real credibility as an alternative to postmodernity.

      1. Guess I should also point out that Bhaskar’s writing is notoriously difficult to read, so that if you want to avoid that just try to get ahold of a popular explanation of critical realism (a reasonably accessible primer can be found in the second chapter of N T Wright’s “New Testament and the People of God; it’s a relatively popular approach in much modern social sciences work).

        1. Thanks for the recommendation! NT Wright is on my reading list, so I’ll make sure that one is the first I read when I get to him.

  10. “I have a difficult time accepting that a public university has any right to such information.”

    USC is not a public university.

    1. Spoiler: Given all the public monies universities receive, they’re all public.

      1. Flimshaw! Next you’ll be saying the distinction between non-profit and for-profit companies is meaningless.

    2. Argh, thanks for this correction.

  11. The questionnaire asks students to list the number of people they have slept with in the past three months

    Well, I don’t want to brag, but…. Ok!

    students were then walked through a two-hour interactive lesson on sexual assault, consent, and substance abuse.

    “Press ‘A’ if you want to ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Press ‘B’ if you want to vociferously condemn her behavior as the whore that she is and return to your dorm.”
    “You have pressed ‘B’. You have made the correct choice but you will still receive a citation for micro-aggression and for being part of the privileged patriarchy!”

    1. None of it matters. Any woman can change her mind about sex at any time, including years later. Fuck, she can simply make shit up years after the fact and ruin any guys life. This isn’t about sex or rape, its about transference of power from men to women. See Ezra Klein.

      1. But as Ezra Klein will Voxplain, stopping imaginary post-hoc rape is much much more important than due process. Sure, many innocent men will be punished but that’s okay because patriarchy

        1. Well… I doubt Ezra Klien ever had sex in college, so he probably feels safe from any repercussions.

          1. I always assumed these weedy weirdos reproduced by binary fission. Like the original suddenly realized that it was oppressing womynhood through its horrible maleness, so it split into two younger halves.

  12. Some commentarians, that shall not be named, will be along shortly to call you all rape deniers and hypocrites.

  13. The guy in the picture is practicing his Biden shoulder-hold.

    1. And the girl is not giving continuous, emphatic, notarized consent either.

    2. She has kind of a vacant, glassy expression. I’m thinking he roofied her.

      1. He’s a sparkly vampire and he just hypnotized her so she’ll be helpless while he sucks her blood.

        1. You know, it’s only a matter of time before they classify “being attractive” as a mind-altering effect that renders others incapable of consent.

          1. I don’t think that guy has to worry about *that.*

            But what would I know?

  14. …the campus-wide email assured students they would “enjoy the assignment.”

    You’ll also love the crushing debt you’re taking on for the privilege of this kind of nonsense.

  15. Robby, please recognize that I find your articles to be overly sexual and triggering.

    1. And that’s not okay.

    2. It’s OK. Robby will give you a soothing shoulder rub and you will feel fine.

  16. 1. Admit to yourself that even if you don’t remember the event, or don’t believe yourself capable of hurting someone, that it’s possible that you may have crossed a boundary.

    2. Recognize that the other person’s feelings about the event are valid.

    3. Recognize that if you have a penis you’re totally evil unless you’re gay, trans, or otherwise part of the LGBTQWERTY.

    1. #1 is admitting to yourself that you *may* have done something which is possible to have been perceived as wrong by someone else, which means you are admitting to yourself that you are *capable* of doing something which is possible to have been perceived as wrong by someone else.

      #2 is simply pointing out that “wrong” is a wholly subjective matter of opinion, that just because you don’t think you did something wrong doesn’t mean that it was not in fact wrong.

      Put these two together and all they’re asking you to do is admit to yourself that you are capable of doing bad things. A little critical self-reflection, an admission to yourself that you are far from perfect, that there are things about yourself you might want to improve – what’s the problem with that?

      1. Ah, but that’s where the cults get you, that’s how they suck you in. Once you have confessed your sins and your short-comings, admitted that you are open to a little self-improvement, once you have “opened your heart to the Lord” as it were – guess who’s waiting right there to fill that opening?

        It’s really a pretty basic brainwashing technique – the military does it all the time. Charlie Manson, the Chicom, Jim Jones – you gotta tear a man down to build him back up the right way. You get him to admit that he’s not perfect, get him to question whether or not he even knows what perfection is, get him to doubt his own beliefs and opinions, let him turn to you as a trusted font of knowledge of the nature of good and evil and, bingo, you got yourself a dutiful little brainless little cult member.

  17. “Trojans care for Trojans”

    Is this a gay thing?

    1. Its not gay when its in a phalanx!

      1. “Trojan Man!”

  18. “our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans”

    It took me a few seconds to figure that one out.

    1. I thought it was product placement, which seemed inappropes.

  19. “Any action that is perceived as harassment by the victim is harassment whether it was intended to be or not” was about the phrasing that we got at one of these teach-ins. After that, I had a scheduling conflict when there was a repeat performance of said festival of victimhood.

    1. I consider putting Title IX courses on my calendar harassment.

  20. You will enjoy the assignment. You will also please address me as Cardinal Grand Inquisitor.

    1. And when I say please, I want you to feel like you have some choice in the matter…

      Even though you most definitely do not.

  21. Students are told to look for physical signs such as “crossing arms” or “lack of eye contact” as an indication a partner does not want to have sex. Only verbal signs, however, indicate a partner does want to have sex.

    While there is a strong whiff of just general hostility to male heterosexuality here, there’s also the problem of trying to handle shit like ill-advised, regrettable sex through legal process. This is what happens when you load a bunch of nerdy social cripples into your legal department and administration and try to have it handle sex issues. Lawyers can be awful at this shit. Detecting normal human body language is far too subtle to detect through Asperger’s-tinted goggles, so they are left demanding that you either do an explicit verbal agreement or a written contract. “She stroked my crotch and grinned at me” just isn’t CLEAR enough for someone like an OCR lawyer. They are incapable of processing that level of silent communication. They want it in writing so they have a fact pattern they can understand. That way they can Follow The Process, Apply The Rule, and File The Correct Form.

  22. Is that a picture of Robby giving unwanted attention to Elizabeth Nolan Brown?

    1. Do you think the skipper would let a hipster get anywhere near me? I do not think so.

    2. No, the dude’s hair is nowhere near glorious enough.

  23. If you are ever accused of sexual assault (or any other crime, for that matter):

    1) Get an attorney before talking to anyone, especially college administrators
    2) Do not take legal advice from college administrators. They do not represent you and they are not acting in your interest.

  24. So we finally found an actual example of teaching men not to rape.

    I bet this reduces the sexual assault rate dramatically, much better than punishing rapists.

    /sarc

    1. STEVE SMITH HAVE WOMAN IN BASEMENT. WOMAN TIED TO WORKBENCH. STEVE SMITH WANT KNOW, IS CONSENT IF STEVE SMITH THREATENS WOMAN WITH BASEBALL BAT?!?

      1. WHO LABEL OF BAT FACE?

  25. Sex? Yes please!

    I’ll see myself out.

  26. 1. Admit to yourself that even if you don’t remember the event, or don’t believe yourself capable of hurting someone, that it’s possible that you may have crossed a boundary.

    Do you know who else may have crossed a boundary?

      1. Privately funded… Basically a really gaudy pink flamingo.

        Lived there until 13 (before they built that eye-sore).

    1. 1. Dan “Get In The Van” Schneider?
      2. “Small & Tan” Dan?
      3. Dan “The Daycare Spider” Schneider?
      4. Dan “Make Em’ Tighter, She’s a Fighter” Schneider?
      5. Beer Can Dan?
      6. Dan “The Defiler” Schneider?
      7. Dan “But I Poop From There, Mister” Schneider?
      8. Family Man Dan?
      9. Dan “The Collector” Schneider?
      10. Dan “Demolition Man” Schneider?

    2. The North Koreans in 1950?

    3. Julius Caesar?

    4. Napoleon Bonaparte?

    5. Tourists amusing themselves by walking around the Four Corners Monument?

    6. Everyone Trump wants to deport?

      1. No… I think Trump wants to deport a lot of people who were born here as well.

  27. “OK, I just watched the 90-minute instructional video for the course.”

    “We don’t *have* a 90-minute instructional video in the course.”

    “No wonder the actors weren’t talking very much.”

    (apologies to Scott Adams)

  28. Glad I got out before this happened.

    Robby, FYI, USC is not a public university.

  29. “While this may indeed represent the majority of campus rape disputes…”

    Well, that’s probably bullshit.

  30. The ultimate purpose of Title IX, it seems, is simply to produce more Title IX cases.

    Women’s Studies majors need a career path now that Starbucks isn’t growing.

  31. I assume muslim students are exempt from this course as rape of infidels is part of their culture

    1. That’s a question for the Dean of Intersectionality. You have to be a highly trained professional to sort out these issues.

  32. Much of that mandatory questionaire is itself a violation of Title IX standards. These questions are obviously based on sex, (have some sort of disparate impact,) and are (potentially) offensive, invasive, and severe enough to constitute “harassment”.

  33. Just respond ‘no’ or ‘zero’ to every question.

    1. I believe the correct answer to intrusive questions about your sexual interests and experiences should be ‘Bowie that!’.

  34. What the bleep did you expect from a college that names its football team after a condom?

    1. what a bunch of dicks

  35. …and requires them to agree with…

    That right there was enough to make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.