Title IX

This Stanford Alum Says She Was Raped 8 Years Ago, Demands a Title IX Investigation

"Time is an issue, and I feel like they were just very much dragging their feet."

|

Stanford
King of Hearts / Wikimedia Commons

A woman is furious that Stanford University won't investigate the sexual assault allegation she filed in January. Administrators have a pretty good reason not to look into the matter, though: the incident happened eight years ago, and both the accuser and the accused have long since graduated.

Nevertheless, the woman, Ellery Dake—now an independent researcher at Harvard University—believes Stanford's Title IX office, which handles sexual misconduct cases, is "disorganized" and "impotent" because it will not investigate her accusation. When I say that activists are constantly trying to expand the scope of Title IX—the federal statute at the heart of so many due process and free speech violations on campuses—this is the sort of thing to which I refer.

At least one legal mind at Stanford has taken Dake's side against the university. Law Professor Michelle Dauber, best known for spearheading the effort to recall Judge Aaron Persky for not imposing a harsher sentence on Brock Turner, told The Stanford Daily that she believes the university's sexual misconduct policy claims jurisdiction over alumni as well as students, faculty, and current employees.

According to The Daily's interview with Dake, she was inspired by the #MeToo movement to write letters to several former members of Stanford's football team, "six of whom she said verbally degraded her and one of whom allegedly raped her":

Dake says that the Stanford football player who raped her did so in the spring of 2010, on a night when she was too drunk to consent to sex.

"I woke up naked in my roommate's bed in a puddle of my own urine, vaginally sore and confused after a night of drinking," Dake told The Daily. "The soreness in my vagina persisted for almost a week. I was devastated."

After realizing that she had had sex and could not remember any of it, Dake said, she told several of her friends, as well as a friend of her alleged rapist, that she'd been raped. She also told the man himself.

"He had clear recollections of the evening's events and kept asking if I 'remembered' that night," Dake said. "I told him, unequivocally, that I did not, each time he asked."

The alleged assault, combined with sexual humiliation she says she had been subjected to by other football players, motivated her to send the letters.

"I was really struggling with a lot of issues related to how the football team treated me," Dake said.

In addition to the letters, Dake tried to submit a sexual assault report on Callisto, Stanford's online platform for handling such things. But lacking a valid Stanford email address, she couldn't complete the report. Stanford's Title IX office didn't respond to emails, so she visited in person:

After two days of attempting unsuccessfully to get in touch with the Title IX Office through their publicly-listed email address and phone number, Dake decided to make a visit in person. She said that Title IX's delayed response to her reports had left her feeling concerned and frustrated.

"Imagine, for example, if there was evidence that needed to be collected or people that needed to be spoken to promptly in an investigation like this," Dake said. "Time is an issue, and I feel like they were just very much dragging their feet."

That's a pretty bold thing to say, given that Dake had waited eight years to speak up about what allegedly happened to her. If there's any evidence that needed to be collected promptly, another two days isn't going to matter at this point. But Dake was now ready to pursue her case with zealous urgency, no matter what the university said. Finally, Miranda Tuttle, Stanford's Title IX Outreach and Student Resources Manager, told her they might be able to ban her rapist from alumni events. Dake came away from the meeting convinced that she should begin investigating her own case, compiling witness statements from people who might have recalled what happened to her, even though Stanford's Title IX policy specifically discourages sexual assault victims from doing so.

A month later, Title IX officials informed Dake that they would not continue the investigation because "neither you nor [he] are current Stanford students, and [he] has no ongoing connection to Stanford other than being an alumnus." Dake, who had apparently expected based on her initial conversation with the Title IX office that her alleged rapist would indeed be banned from alumni events, felt betrayed.

"They assured me my case had concrete potential disciplinary outcomes," Dake told The Daily. "What in the world suddenly took place that negated this jurisdiction they spoke of?"

Here's an idea: perhaps administrators greeted Dake's story with automatic belief—indeed, an administrator reportedly told her she "respects her courage"—but then realized there was simply no way to bring a Title IX case eight years after the fact, when neither party was remotely involved with the university. There is good reason to exercise restraint here, after all. Relevant witnesses' recollections of the events might no longer be accurate—including Dake's.

Many Title IX offices do a bad enough job investigating misconduct when relatively little time has passed. The idea that a bunch of university bureaucrats should investigate an eight-year-old assault that no one reported at the time is simply absurd. Dake has the right to pursue justice, but she should follow the procedures available to all people: contact the police. She still has time—the statute of limitations for rape in California was 10 years at the time of alleged crime.

NEXT: Live Debate in NYC 4/16: Does Fractional-Reserve Banking Undermine Free Markets?

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. What is a good way to handle these cases? I have no idea. Though I’m interested in what the harassment from the Football team consisted of.

    1. There is no case, the “woman” should be lynched. Even if you assume the facts as 100% solid-gold and infer guilt without question, she’s allowed her rapist to go, unaccused for 10 yrs.

      A quick Google search clearly shows here to have been on the wrong side of the crazy/hot spectrum and since jumped onto the SJW bandwagon. A vociferous women’s rights advocate seeking more and better rent.

      1. So do you believe that no discussion at all or no investigation should happen after a certain amount of time? If so, what’s the statute of limitations you believe is valid on rape?

        1. Legal statute of limitations?

          Or University ‘statute’ of limitations?

          Because only one of those is actually, you know, statutory.

          1. Legal. I don’t think Universities should be the one’s responsible for criminal charges.

            1. Then it sounds like you think she should do what Robby suggests at the end of the article: go to the police. That’s the only correct answer regardless of when and where the alleged incident happened.

              1. And how do you think police should handle such cases? They are very hard when it becomes he said/she said.

                1. I think they should investigate but be realistic about the chances of obtaining an indictment or conviction based on the limitations of evidence (physical and testimonial) after a long period of time has passed.

                  1. I should also note that it’s not just police involved here. The police collect evidence and help to create a narrative (it me be true or false or somewhere in between) of what happened. That’s the extent of their involvement, other than testifying as necessary at a trial. There is a whole system of prosecutors, defense attorneys, plea bargains, juries, and trials that assist in ascribing guilt or lack of guilt to a crime. We should involve them to the same extent that we do with other crimes. This includes judgment calls on the parts of prosecutors as to whether or not to indict, offer a bargain, etc.

                    1. Now, you’re right in that he said she said disputes are harder to adjudicate. That’s an unfortunate reality of the nature of sexual assault. It’s no more unfortunate than the reality that dead men tell no tales and are incapable of having their testimony heard in a murder investigation or trial. The solution in the two cases is the same – have physical evidence witness testimony.

                    2. *or witness testimony

                    3. “have physical evidence witness testimony.”

                      Hard to do 8 years after the fact.

                    4. Physical evidence is difficult, but not impossible. Witness testimony is far more likely but still not easy. This is exactly why an alleged rape should be reported as soon as possible.

                  2. At this point, actually some years ago and possibly even at the time, this is a “he said she said” situation and the police and or DA will likely do nothing about it. They knew each other, are of age, and consent or lack thereof is not at all clear. Unless she can wrangle someone else to come forward as a credible witness to corroborate her claims she has zilch to go on.

                2. Which is why we have statutes of limitation: time erodes and destroys physical evidence, weakens memories and changes perceptions, witnesses move, etc. Her best chance at a case was the morning immediately after the event (whatever it was), getting the police to the place, preserving the physical evidence, taking witness statements, getting her to an ER to have a rape kit taken, etc. No competent investigation is possible now, so no prosecution is possible either.

                3. How is that a question? If it’s outside the statute of limitations nothing is exactly what should be done about it.

                4. And how do you think police should handle such cases? They are very hard when it becomes he said/she said.

                  A rape conviction should usually require physical evidence, including actual evidence of coercion. If there is no evidence, there is no rape case.

                  And if the victim says “I drank too much and can’t remember exactly what happened”, the legal system should toss out the case entirely.

              2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

              3. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

                Go this web and start your work.. Good luck… http://www.jobs63.com

              4. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

                Go this web and start your work.. Good luck… http://www.jobs63.com

            2. “…and both the accuser and the accused have long since graduated.”

              An appropriate college-dispensed punishment is?!?! Take away the guy’s degree?

              If he’s a fuckin’-rapin’ parasitical LAWYER… Ya know, they’re ALL fuckin’-rapin’ parasitical lawyers… Whenever I need some work or yard work around the house, or I need to find someone to help me scratch my ass when both of my arms are broken… I can NEVER find any lawyers!!! When they smell MONEY, they all come around!!!

              So if the man has a law degree, then take it away from him!!! Then do the same to ALL of the fuckin’-rapin’ parasitical lawyers!!!! I’m on board with it!

        2. Do you believe the police should investigate every case equally and/or to the utmost even if there’s nothing moving the case forward except pure allegation? The former football player can completely corroborate an assault, but not rape, and then Title IX doesn’t (arguably) apply and the statute of limitations expired 3 yrs. ago.

          Here’s 5 min. of internet investigation, prove this isn’t Ellery Dake:
          Patriarchy, in other words, has been considered innate to the human condition for thousands of years. Although occasional references to matriarchies exist in history, anthropologist Margaret Mead has observed that “?all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed? Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home.”

          1. Title IX is bullshit and should not be a part of this anyway. This should not be jurisdiction of the University. It’s a criminal accusation.

            The question I am trying to ask is in general, how does one investigate crimes like this? Is the answer that any old case is to be ignored? I have nothing in particular to say about this person’s case, particularly as her idea of rape seems questionable. You can see my comment below on my belief that rape is a currently poorly defined.

            How do we as a society handle cold cases though?

            1. How do we as a society handle cold cases though?

              Ah, more of an, “Is there a statute of limitations on the Non-Aggression principle?” Or maybe not at that specific philosophical level but getting there.

              IMO, ‘demonstrable harm’ comes into play significantly over time and ‘The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.’ if you show up 10 yrs. after the crime with a 9.25 yr. old bastard kid, you get your day in court. If you show up empty-handed or with foggy, post-dated testimony, at best you’re welcome to try again.

              1. A rape victim can report a crime without pressing charges. It’s wise to report right away while the physical evidence can be easily examined or at the very lease go to a doctor with it.

                1. Uh, “pressing charges” is a metaphorical activity at best, at least in the US. You can file a criminal complaint with the police but that document neither guarantees an investigation by its presence or precludes it by its absence.

            2. The same way we do with other cold cases – investigate them (as long as we’re still within the statute of limitations, which is a separate question). But also realize that, like with other cold cases, it’s going to be very difficult to obtain a conviction unless there’s some smoking gun (e.g. DNA evidence collected years ago suddenly hits a match in a database).

            3. There’s a big difference between how schools handle “criminal” cases and how the police handle criminal cases and it has to do with the mens rea aspect of the case. When Little Billy pulls Little Suzy’s pigtails we don’t treat that as assault and battery or when Jimbo pushes Neville down and takes his pencil we don’t treat that as strong-arm robbery, and when the football team sticks its little pee-pee in Ellery’s little hoo-hah we don’t treat that as rape because these are little children with unformed intellects and they just don’t know any better about how grown-up, responsible adults are supposed to behave. They need a system of discipline and training – i.e., an education – to teach them these things. It’s the same reason we give them safe spaces with naptime comfies and snugglie-wugglies and don’t expose them to adult subjects like reason and logic and dealing with controversial, real-world problems using our inside voices to engage in rational debate.

              1. Okay…. How is that relevant here? In nearly every state, one can be tried as an adult for an infamous offense at age 16. In some states, it’s earlier. We also have criminal court systems for children who are not old enough to be tried as adults. Most states put no limits on the minimum age at which a child can be held responsible for criminal actions. Of those that do, the oldest minimum is 10 years old. We recognize that mens rea is possible pretty young in life. So what does any of this have to do with college students?

              2. College kids tend to be too old for juvenile court. They have access to the same court system as everyone else. Parents need to step up their game and prepare them to be full citizens in 18 years.

            4. If you notice, the cold cases that are prosecuted are always murders, for which there is no statute of limitations.

              Statutes of limitations historically were also referred to as “statutes of repose”, meaning that they reflected a general social interest in deciding there comes a point when the past is the past, and moving on.

              “IMO, ‘demonstrable harm’ comes into play significantly over time and ‘The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.’ if you show up 10 yrs. after the crime with a 9.25 yr. old bastard kid, you get your day in court. If you show up empty-handed or with foggy, post-dated testimony, at best you’re welcome to try again.”

              You would get your day in court in a paternity action, but still probably not in criminal court unless you take the presence of a child as proof of rape (9 out of 10 doctors agree it is not). The expanded statutory time in sex abuse cases stems from such empowering notions as repressed memory and an assumption that abused women are unable to speak up for themselves in a timely fashion. But clearly Dake does not fall into either of these categories.

              1. I have no problem at all with extending the statute of limitations in rape cases. There are certainly situations in which a rape can be proven many years after the event. But it’s going to be a lot harder to do so than a case in which a woman knows her alleged rapist and comes forward immediately after the alleged rape.

                1. And there definitely are cold case rapes that get prosecuted. Do a quick Google search. They’re likely less common than cold case murder prosecutions for a number of reasons. But they certainly do happen.

                  1. My impression is that in these cold case rapes, the assailant was unknown but DNA was preserved. The circumstances of these cases are generally such that there is no question that it was rape – it’s only the identity of the rapist that’s in question, and a DNA match is proof.

                    That’s a whole lot different from a case where it is undisputed that two known people had sex, but the only issue is whether there was consent. It’s usually difficult enough to prove these cases even when the investigation starts an hour after the event, and the case gets weaker every hour that the investigation is delayed. Blood samples from the alleged victim could prove intoxication or drugging, but that is gone in hours. Other relevant physical evidence is injuries or the room torn up in a struggle, but that will be gone within days. Witnesses may or may not be able to confirm the circumstances, but the longer the case waits, the foggier their memories will be.

                    If I were a juror, I would be quite unimpressed with a complainant who waited 8 years to report a date rape. Did she consent to sex, and change her mind after the fact? Or did she know that a guy is a rapist, but left him free to prey on others for 8 years?

              2. You would get your day in court in a paternity action, but still probably not in criminal court unless you take the presence of a child as proof of rape (9 out of 10 doctors agree it is not). The expanded statutory time in sex abuse cases stems from such empowering notions as repressed memory and an assumption that abused women are unable to speak up for themselves in a timely fashion. But clearly Dake does not fall into either of these categories.

                Agreed.

            5. The question I am trying to ask is in general, how does one investigate crimes like this? Is the answer that any old case is to be ignored?

              The legal standard for criminal convictions is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s pretty safe to say you aren’t going to reach that in this case. So, there is no case.

        3. Well, the state of CA says 10 years.

          That’s weeeeeeelll past the time when any useful investigation could be conducted – there will be no evidence other than hearsay.

          But the way forward for her is the same whether it happened yesterday or 8 years ago – she should go to the police and the University shouldn’t be involved.

      2. the wrong side of the crazy/hot spectrum

        Do reduced estrogen levels cause mood swings after menopause, or do sagging breasts cause people to complain about a woman’s mood swings after menopause?

      3. I can’t agree. The college is a private organization, and well within its rights to, if it so chooses, look into the matter, discuss it with witnesses, etc. I remember specific instances of malfeasance, of others and my own, going back more than 20 years. Coming to a decision like dis-inviting the alleged perpetrator from alumni functions would be a competent decision, if the college decided to do so.

        I certainly do agree the amount of time that has past makes it a problem, and so the school can reasonably decide to not take any action.

        Women have and continue to be treated unfairly when alone in a man’s company and he get’s “fresh.” He can commit a crime, but because of the burden of proof, it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, now I say the corollary exists for young men: if you have sex with a really drunk woman, with whom there is no established sexual relationship, what on earth do you think is going to happen if it turn’s out she was acting within a black out and can’t remember? You think she should just take your word for it that it was consensual? Those days are over.

        1. Thanks for clarifying whether the the current state of affairs is about justice or just a misplaced sense of revenge.

    2. The University shouldn’t be involved at this point; they should advise her to report it to the police and then the police can treat it how they normally do.

      1. The university should almost never be particularly involved with cases such as this. If it’s an actual crime then their role is to aid the judicial system in their work.

    3. I don’t know; there really isn’t anything the school can do other than ban the accused from campus and/or make public the accusation. I should hope that even Title IX administrators realize the abuse potential of rape accusations against alumni.

      Perhaps they could help her navigate the case with the police department, but I think we can safely assume that it’s going to go nowhere and be disheartening.

      Suggest PTSD counseling? I mean it’s patronizing, but it might be the best option for the victim to just look forward.

      1. The school should have limited involvement anyway, as this is an accusation of a real crime, and thus it’s a bit outside their jurisdiction.

        But I just wonder in general, how rape cases are to be handled. There needs to be more discussion over what is rape. Because there is a sharp, sharp divide on it’s definition among different people, and this is a core reason for so much of the squabbling.

        For instance, her example that she swears she can’t remember, to me at least, does not guarantee it’s rape either way. But do they have other evidence? For instance, if she was straight unconscious and he fucked her, that’s pretty shady as well.

        But a huge portion of the problems we are seeing these days are from keeping these definitions purposely vague. And that’s done so that the accusation can be kept as a cudgel to be used in as many cases as prosecutors wish. Rather than in actually helping fight a crime.

        1. You’ve fallen victim to the patriarchy. Everyone knows that false accusations of rape are vanishingly rare, so one must always believe the victim.

          Stop engaging in victim blaming. Stop supporting rape culture.

          It is as if we are all being raped all over again, just reading your hateful words.

          1. Damn it, you got me. I am the patriarchy.

          2. And that is, sadly, exactly what Title IX has become; a means to address perceived and historical WRONGS. And how about that glass ceiling, shit lord?

          3. Meh, the last time I drank wine and a guy told me, “Sorry, it slipped inside,” I was very happy with the results. Then there was the time I told a guy to stop and he didn’t. That was a bit traumatic. Long story short, keep your pants on unless you know, like, and trust the guy.

            1. Yeah, if you are playing “rub your bits right against mine, but go no further” you are flirting with disaster.

              I know… I’ve had it happen to me. I have had a couple of girls/women (one was in high school) try to physically force themselves onto me in that scenario. Being a dude and not being drunk meant being able to deflect the situation (literally) without too much trouble. But even being up front about it*, going right up to the line and stopping is a dangerous game.

              *I literally had the “we are not having intercourse” conversation before going anywhere with it – just so everyone was clear. Just like men, there are a lot of women out there who view those words as a challenge.

            2. Meh, the last time I drank wine and a guy told me, “Sorry, it slipped inside,” I was very happy with the results. Then there was the time I told a guy to stop and he didn’t. That was a bit traumatic.

              Broodling #2 wasn’t planned. I/we knew what we were getting into and certainly don’t regret the outcome (we were planning on more kids, just not then, and he’s got younger siblings) but I was, affirmative consent-style assured the eventual outcome wasn’t possible. I could certainly see how, in other contexts, this outcome would be traumatic for either (or both) parties.

              Considering something like 40+% of the population is considered ‘unplanned’ and well less than 100% of sexual encounters are considered rape, I can only imagine a number of men significantly different from zero are completely surprised to discover they’re fathers.

    4. You explain that evidence degrades over time (including memories) and tell her that she waited too long.

      1. Do you believe this with all crimes?

        1. It’s true of an awful lot of crimes. Witnesses move, die, or their memories fade, physical evidence gets washed away, deleted, or misplaced, finite investigative resources get devoted to other investigations, etc. It is always best to report a crime as soon as possible after it happens.

        2. It’s one thing, to prosecute a cold case if a crime was reported when it happened, physical evidence was collected and preserved, but no suspect was identified at the time, if a suspect is identified years later.

          If the crime wasn’t reported at all and police are starting from scratch 8 years later, it doesn’t matter if the crime was murder, burglary or rape, reliable physical evidence and/or witness testimony will almost (if not completely) impossible to obtain.

          1. There are certainly circumstances under which the second scenario (your second paragraph) can result in a conviction. They’re definitely few and far between.

        3. re: “Do you believe this with all crimes?”

          Yes. That’s why we have statutes of limitations.

          And even for the very few crimes without a statute of limitations (murder), those practical realities make prosecutions or even investigations of very old murders a distant and very rare exception, not the rule.

        4. Yes. That’s one half the purpose of statutes of limitation.

        5. Do you believe this with all crimes?

          The legal standard for criminal convictions is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

          We codify this for specific crimes under statutes of limitation.

    5. What is a good way to handle these cases?

      Ummm…through the criminal justice system?

      1. I agree. I say as much in my follow ups.

      2. And right after they occur.

    6. What is a good way to handle these cases?

      Refer them to the police.

    7. Everyone can procure 350$+ day by day… You can gain from 4000-8000 a month or significantly more on the off chance that you fill in as an all day job…It’s simple, simply take after guidelines on this page, read it precisely through and through… It’s an adaptable activity however a decent eaning opportunity.

      For more informatiovn visit site.. http://www.profit70.com

  2. “… they might be able to ban her rapist from alumni events.” Oh the inhumanity! From a couple of readings, that is about all she seems to expect to actually come out of this, other than a moral victory, her personal vindications, and shaming the accused, of course. All without a trial or any semblance of due process.

    1. “I deserve to be absolved of responsibility for my bad decisions!”

  3. Ellery Dake … believes Stanford’s Title IX office [is] “impotent”

    That’s sexual harassment, isn’t it?

  4. Well, they’d better hurry up and collect all the physical evidence of the deed.

    1. +1 carbon dating

      1. “Cum-on dating”?

  5. I’m sure the university’s officials will get back to her. They just will wait 8 years to respond. She should be cool with that, it seems.

  6. If logic must always defer to the female, then the law definitely must, ex post facto or not.

  7. I wonder if the football team actually harassed her or just said mean things to her whenever they saw her. I certainly wouldn’t be happy to see somebody accusing my friend of rape and telling everyone that my friend raped them.

    1. Yeah. I think this increased idea that mean words, or even sexual words, are equivalent to rape do a tremendous disservice by increasingly defining downwards and lessening just how horrible on an act rape is.

      1. There is rape, and there is “basically” rape. Basically rape covers all of those other rapey things.

        1. Like when upper management of an organization grabbed my arm without permission just to prove that she could.

  8. If you want to blame someone else for things you do when you’re blacked-out drunk, you might as well go with your parents.

    1. There are times I actually agree with you.

    2. but surely things made of sugar, spice and all things nice shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions?
      Where is your humanity Tony!

    3. Besides the claim of someone who said she has *no recollection* of the event, what evidence is there that she was blacked out at the time of sex?

  9. I’m not getting what she thinks the school can do to the guy. Rescind his degree or something?

    -jcr

    1. How about a Class Note in the next issue of Stanford’s magazine?

      1. “In other alumni news, Bruiser McGlothlin has been id’d as a rapist when his long since former drunken slut of a girl friend decided to retroactively withdraw consent eight years later, citing an ethanol induced black out as the reason. While any possible evidence is long gone and there are no witnesses to corroborate her claim, we stand with her and recognize the sheer courage it has taken her to somehow find the courage in this patriarchal shit bag of a world to stand up for the rights of women every where.”

  10. The idea that a bunch of university bureaucrats should investigate an eight-year-old assault that no one reported at the time is simply absurd

    Wrong.

    Just look at how Graham Spanier and company handled those scandalous accusations against Jerry Sandusky.

    They are smart men. Who was that grand jury to second-guess them?

  11. Aside from the eight year delay, she does not know if she was raped or consented in an inebriated state. How is Stanford supposed to decide in her favor unless they take what she thinks happened at face value?

    1. Uh… you haven’t been keeping up. The victim must always be believed. ipso-facto they are supposed to take what she thinks happened at face value. Anything less simply perpetuates rape culture.

      Stop being a tool of the patriarchy.

    2. An inebriated woman cannot consent, a man can.
      Even if you have a consent form signed in triplicate and a video of her yelling “fuck me with your huge cock big boy!” while you rail her poop shoot, if she regrets it the next morning, in the depths of her hangover induced depression, it’s rape.

      Welcome to the new world of male and female relationships.
      Pussy, good. Cock, bad.

  12. Unless she’s aware that this guy is a current danger to society and likely out hunting rape targets, she’s acting out of some pretty fucked up vindictiveness at best, an attempt to jump on the MeToo bandwagon at worst. That’s the bandwagon where you get cool points for being raped, I guess.

    1. I’m disappointed in you, Tony. I thought you were more progressive than that on gender issues. What you’ve just done is a textbook example of what is known as “mansplaining.” Your cis-male privilege prevents you from truly understanding the lived experiences of a woman in a misogynistic rape culture.

      1. Is it also mansplaining if I suggest steel chastity belts and tasers?

        1. No, but there is a website for that….

        2. Although your intentions might be honorable, teaching women how to avoid getting raped puts the responsibility on them ? which is exactly the wrong approach. Instead, we should be teaching men how not to become rapists in the first place.

          1. I don’t get how you’re supposed to surprise someone with oral sex if you have to ask permission first.

  13. She claims she was raped, and she refuses to go to the police? Bleep her – I have no sympathy.

    1. As libertarians we should not have an expectation anyone avail themselves of the law.

      But, we should also recognize extra-judicial acts for what they are.

    2. One of the most fucked up things about this Title IX stuff is that it actually prevents improvements in the justice system.

      I don’t know if the Justice system is unfair towards alleged rape victims, but this is a claim commonly made. And by them completely circumventing everything to get easy jabs in under the guise of Title IX actually prevents improvement from occurring.

      Beyond the fact that I increasingly feel like we are teaching men and women to not stand up for themselves. That they should not ever assert themselves, and that it’s other people’s problem to interpret them.

      1. I guess progressives aren’t that concerned about the rape of women who never get into college.

  14. “…she believes the university’s sexual misconduct policy claims jurisdiction..”

    Does she believe the policy claims it is Isadora Duncan as well?

  15. Do we have any numbers going with regard to this “woman’s” age? Independent researcher at Harvard makes me think she was getting an advanced degree at Stanford. An 18-22 yr. old girl getting passed out drunk and deciding she was raped at 26-30 is a very different story than a 28 yr. old woman getting passed out drunk and deciding she was raped at 36 (and still having no idea how the justice system works).

    I mean, it doesn’t really change the fundamentals of the case that much, but it is both sadder and a more fundamental indicator that this sort of juvenile nonsense isn’t just spreading off campus but outside any fervent concept of adolescence as well.

  16. IT’S A RAPE! GO TO THE POLICE! WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK A COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR IS WHO YOU REPORT THIS TO?!??!?

    1. Because we’ve managed to infantilize an entire generation.

    2. Once you go to the police, they are in charge of deciding what happens, and some of them are not 100% welcoming to people reporting crimes. The victim can walk away from a Title IX proceeding without having to worry about being subjected to subpeona.

      There are a couple of other possible justifications, too, such as what happens if you report somebody to the cops, and the cops decide not to arrest, and OOPS you share classes, programs, or even housing with that person.

      There’s counterarguments, too. (Does staying silent implicate the victim in any future victimization?)

      In short, it’s complicated.

    3. Because the police will occasionally abide by some rules of evidence, while a University Kangeroo Court can do what’s Right!

  17. ‘I got drunk and might have done something stupid. Somebody has got to pay!!!1!’

    1. That will be $50.00. Please pay at the window.

  18. Clearly this illustrates the need for Penis control. Has he demonstrated some need for a penis? And don’t give me that procreation bullshit either, there plenty of brown children he can adopt.

  19. Nevertheless, the woman, Ellery Dake?now an independent researcher at Harvard University…

    This should be a red flag for Harvard.

  20. According to The Daily‘s interview with Dake, she was inspired by the #MeToo movement…

    It totally sucks when you miss out on the cultural movement of an activiist’s lifetime.

  21. “When I say that activists are constantly trying to expand the scope of Title IX?the federal statute at the heart of so many due process and free speech violations on campuses?this is the sort of thing to which I refer.”

    Does Title IX have a statute of limitations built into it?
    If not, then Stanford’s Title IX compliance office should conduct an investigation… does this woman’s allegation of events in the past reveal a PRESENT danger to current Stanford students? If so, then the university should take steps to remove, reduce, or mitigate it. If not, there’s nothing for them to do.

    But jumping right to the conclusion that there’s nothing for them to do? That’s literally jumping to a conclusion.

    1. Except there’s a threshold jurisdictional problem — can Stanford’s compliance office even take complaints that are facially from former students about former students?

      1. Why wouldn’t they be able to take a complaint from anyone?

        They’re limited in what they can do about it, but they can listen to anyone.

  22. I’m not sure what the law is in California, but the statute of limitations for crimes like the one she alleges is often seven years. And she waited eight. So that going to the police instead of the university would not be an option?

    1. 10 years in CA.

  23. There’s no statute of limitations on crazy. The woman clearly has mental issues. Truth is if rape is in the cards for you, better one that you can’t remember. She might better assume she said yes.

  24. The conspiracy theorist in me says she knew there was no way she could prevail in court, so she decided to take her fight to an avenue less restricted by due process.

  25. The conspiracy theorist in me says she knew there was no way she could prevail in court, so she decided to take her fight to an avenue less restricted by due process.

  26. “I woke up naked in my roommate’s bed in a puddle of my own urine, vaginally sore and confused after a night of drinking,” Dake told The Daily. “The soreness in my vagina persisted for almost a week. I was devastated.”

    After realizing that she had had sex and could not remember any of it, Dake said, she told several of her friends, as well as a friend of her alleged rapist, that she’d been raped. She also told the man himself.

    Based on that testimony, it is possible she went to bed alone after grabbing an empty flower vase instead of her usual dildo.

    1. That, or suddenly this guys dance card is full with all of the size queens actively trying to start their own #metoo movement.

  27. If you can’t consent to sex while drunk, why can you consent to drive or be disorderly?

    1. You make a very valid point. I think it’s because someone enjoys having sex with a drunk person and Westerners cringe at the thought of someone benefiting from someone else’s drunkenness. Then again, financial contracts can also be voided if one party was intoxicated, so there is consistency there. Lawmakers did not want allow an incentive to spike the punch. On the other hand, if you inject someone with haldol before he agrees to purchase $30,000 worth of your company’s services … that’s proof that the haldol cured him.

      1. #NotAllWesterners

    2. Good point. If you’re car isn’t also drunk, the car should be arrested for taking advantage of you.

  28. “After realizing that she had had sex and could not remember any of it, Dake said, she told several of her friends, as well as a friend of her alleged rapist, that she’d been raped. She also told the man himself.”

    So let me see if I understand this?She was black out drunk, has absolutely no recollection of what occurred, there were no other witnesses to tell her what happened when she was black out drunk, but she is absolutely certain that this specific individual committed the rape of which she has no recollection whatsoever.

    Sounds like proof beyond a reasonable doubt to me!

    1. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard in civil matters like this, nor should it be. If you accuse somebody of slapping you in the face, or any other type of battery, you don’t have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to lawfully have sex with somebody, you need consent. Consent can be inferred, but it has to be present. This is one reason why it is a good idea to sleep with people within long term relationships (where there is established course of sexual conduct), or while fairly sober. So far as I know there is no presumption that consent is present every time people sleep with one another. Two people, both acting in a black out, could have sex, and each sue each other for sexual assault. If both testified they were too drunk to remember, then literally a correct ruling on that evidence could be neither obtained valid consent, and both assaulted the other, as it would be pure speculation that either got the valid consent of the other, and all evidence would suggest neither was in a state to give valid consent.

  29. You might want to take a moment and read her account. If you didn’t believe her before, this should convinece you she is Bat-Schitt crazy:

    http://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/…..-failures/

    This, ahm. . Young lady professes to have been raped not one, not TWO, NOT THREE, but FOUR TIMES”

    “There were four rapes committed by three men: a rape in a Stanford dorm room in 2010, a rape in a University of San Francisco dorm room in 2013, a rape in a hotel room in Mountain View in 2013 and a rape in an apartment in Daly City in 2014. That’s it. You’re caught up. Now, let’s talk about Stanford and how they’ve failed us miserably.

    I am a Stanford alumna from the class of 2014. After submitting these four sexual assault reports to the Stanford Title IX Office on Jan. 26, 2018, I was told the office could pursue a formal investigation into only one of the sexual assaults: a rape committed by a former member of the Stanford football team that took place in my dorm room on campus during the Stanford spring quarter of 2010.”

    Geez, how pathetic.

  30. “He had clear recollections of the evening’s events and kept asking if I ‘remembered’ that night,” Dake said. “I told him, unequivocally, that I did not, each time he asked.”

    If she has no recollection, how does she know she did not consent?

    “on a night when she was too drunk to consent to sex.”

    If she has no recollection, how does she know she was too drunk to consent?

  31. Crimes should be investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted by the criminal justice system.

  32. “Administrators have a pretty good reason not to look into the matter, though: the incident happened eight years ago, and both the accuser and the accused have long since graduated.”

    The incident is alleged to have happened eight years ago. You’re giving her too much credence.

  33. Perhaps if she had filed a timely report with the Palo Alto PD, we wouldn’t be having this conversation?
    Dumb as a Box of Rocks.

  34. I would pay money to see the DA if she files charges – – – – –
    Let me get this straight; you were so drunk you don’t remember having sex, but you are sure you were raped, and that you somehow magically remember who raped you while you were so drunk you don’t remember? Sure, let’s run that right to the grand jury.

  35. The biggest problem is summed up by the last sentence: ” Dake has the right to pursue justice, but she should follow the procedures available to all people: contact the police. She still has time?the statute of limitations for rape in California was 10 years at the time of alleged crime.”

    Why didn’t she go to the police? The people who can truly punished the guilty. What did she expect the school to do to this guy? He no longer attends, just as she no longer attends. If she wanted true justice, use the justice system!

  36. It makes much more sense to go to the police. Even if it doesn’t result in a conviction, the perpetrator will be dragged through the court of public opinion. The consequences of that are at the very least, acutely embarrassing and humiliating. The whole system at the University is ill equipped to handle an 8 yr. old case in a meaningful way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.