Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

U. of Colorado Says No Thanks to Betsy DeVos and Her Tougher Sexual Assault Investigation Standards

This whole miscarriage of justice on campus is overblown, one CU professor says.

It looks like the University of Colorado has no intention of following U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' lead on changing the way it investigates allegations of sexual assault.

DeVos rescinded Obama-era Title IX guidelines on September 22, encouraging schools to return to a higher, "clear and convincing," standard for weighing evidence in such cases, rather than a "preponderance of the evidence."

When she announced her plans to review and replace those guidelines two weeks earlier, the university declared it would stick with the recommendations set forth in the so-called "Dear Colleague" letter issued in 2011 by the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education of the Obama administration.

The university doesn't appear convinced by stories of Title IX investigators throwing due process to the wind in campus kangaroo courts.

"One of the priorities has already been a prompt, equitable and fair process for those accused of sexual violence and the victims," said Valerie Simons, the college's Title IX coordinator and executive director of the Boulder campus' Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance. "There will be no immediate changes to either our sexual misconduct policy or our OIEC policy."

While some Title IX administrators, including those at Colorado, saw the relaxed evidentiary standard as a welcome tool to defend the rights of sexual assault victims, representatives for the accused pointed to case after case of universities trampling on students' rights to due process. Accused students were often denied counsel, unable to cross-examine their accusers, and faced Title IX investigators who were not required to remain impartial during investigations.

Joanne Belknap, a University of Colorado-Boulder professor of ethnic studies, told The Daily Camera that the concerns of those critics are overblown. "I'm sure we can all find examples where certain people were treated unfairly," Belknap said. "But this whole idea that somehow all these men on campus are at risk of being charged with something they didn't do is such a gross exaggeration of what the reality is."

In 2016, the university reported data from a survey showing that 28 percent of female students said they were sexually assaulted. The university, however, combined rape and inappropriate touching to reach the 28 percent figure it reported. Roughly 6,000 students, or 41 percent, of the more than 13,000 students who were sent the survey, responded.

"The reality is that most victims don't report at universities because we still stigmatize the victims over it, which is what DeVos is doing as if there are all these women just running around wanting to say they're rape survivors and victims," Belknap told the Daily Camera.

Belknap misses DeVos' point, which is to end the era of weaponized Title IX investigations and return due process to campus disciplinary hearings. DeVos is not trying to tip the balance in favor of the accused, and she is not trying to stigmatize sexual assault victims.

"The 2011 and 2014 guidance documents may have been well-intentioned, but those documents have led to the deprivation of rights for many students—both accused students denied fair process and victims denied an adequate resolution of their complaints," reads a letter signed by Acting Assistant Secretary of Education Candice Jackson and approved by DeVos.

Reprioritizing due process in Title IX investigations does not jeopardize sexual assault victims. Rather, it ensures a more balanced approach to investigating serious offenses like rape without violating anyone's civil liberties.

The University of Colorado's decision to keep using the lower standard of evidence should not stand as an example for other universities to follow.

Photo Credit: Max and Dee/Foter.com

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.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I guess I'll stay away from University of Colorado. For now.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Eh. I'm leaning too hard on the "I'm a weird sex guy" thing too much lately. Need to calm it down.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Maybe go full circle? Dig your way to China, if you will.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's hard to say. I need something. If I refrain entirely from gimmicks then people will realize that I'm an idiot.

  • MarkLastname||

    I thought being a weird sex guy was basically a sine qua non for reason commenters?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Feel like it's become basically my whole shtick lately. It's an easy role for me to play since I am actually super familiar with weird online stuff, but I'm iffy on it lately. Feel like I'm leaning too hard on it.

    Hmm.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Boulder wasn't so bad when their psychotic brand of upper-class liberalism was confined to the city limits; now it's spread through the rest of Boulder County and into Broomfield as well.

  • Brandybuck||

    Smart people figured that out during the whole Ward Churchill mess...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Whatever happened to that fag? It's Friday night and I'm too burnt out and unmotivated to look myself.

  • Bra Ket||

    as I recall he got outed as a fake indian and fired.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why can't that happen to Elizabeth Warren?

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    Because the patriarchy?

  • Robbzilla||

    It sounds like they're opening themselves up to a nasty lawsuit.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    "But this whole idea that somehow all these men on campus are at risk of being charged with something they didn't do is such a gross exaggeration of what the reality is."

    In case we had any doubt that Title IX is nothing short of weaponized feminism; not just words about anti-discrimination policy.

  • Paloma||

    What's a gross exaggeration is that 1 in 5 women on campus are sexually assaulted.

  • MarkLastname||

    Up to almost 1 in 3 they claim. I guess title ix isn't working so well

  • Paloma||

    If this was, say, Chicago. Let's say 2 million women live in Chicago. That's 1 in 5 would be 400,000 women. One in three would be 700,000 women over the course of what, 40 years? Even 70 years would bring us up to 10,000 women a year raped? I have to call bullshit.

  • MSimon||

    4 years is normal for campus.

  • Robbzilla||

    Sexually assaulted. Not raped. The devil's in the details.

    Some dude made a sexually charged joke in your hearing? That's assault.

  • vcx||

    Title IX was never meant to be weaponized. It was to push for women to have an athletic opportunity. The Congress did not fund it. They let the states do the job. The upshot is so many administrators because of all the red tape.
    Start sex and social etiquette education in kindergarten. That Would be a better use of the time and money.

  • True Scottsman||

    It was made law... therefore weaponized.

  • True Scottsman||

    Indoctrination at an earlier by the government is not a good solution.

  • Geralt der Witcher||

    The fact that they claim it is 1 in 5 is an exaggeration. Criminal statistics don't support it. Even the people responsible for the number stated it is incorrect and cannot be used as an accurate means of quantifying women getting raped. The fact is you are actually safer on a college campus then in a city or town.
    Now if you include being cat called or being looked at as sexual assault then well...can't help you there.

  • ||

    What certainly is true is that one in five women (and probably as many men) go through a sexual experience that they did not want or regretted afterwards. That is perhaps not sexual assault, at least not from a mens rea perspective, but, to me, it makes up the pool of potential accusers - from justified over wrongful to false ones. That is a pretty big pool, and if you compare that to the total number of reports that women have made, perhaps we should be astonished that there are not more of them. Especially given a culture and system programmed to pick up on anything that smacks of sexual assault and push through a process.

    So I can understand feminists reacting against what appears to be the claim that women cry rape. They do not. In fact, very, very few do - even if you assume that they all come from a pool of people who have had hurtful encounters. Just like probably very few men rape in the sense of violently ignoring the lack of consent. But the problem is: for one group their is universal condemnation. For another, support and martyrdom. That is the inequality we should address.

  • ||

    To me, the underlying problem is that we do have some kind of rape culture: there is a lot of sex going on, and being a minority on campus, straight men, average looking and up, can, I presume, have their pick. That will lead to heart ache, as women and men approach casual sex differently. And while that is far from sexual assault, perhaps young men should learn to be more mindful of what it means for women when they don't call the next day, and take some, but of course not all, responsibility for it. Perhaps there is a middle way that we should encourage men to take. While, of course, educating women about how vulnerable men can be even when they bend over backwards not to show it.

    So, at risk of alienating people here (who I think may disagree more out of instinct than reflection), I think that somewhere beneath all the misandry and penalism there is a kernel of truth to all the talk about toxic masculinity and rape culture. Growing up as a gay man in a time when expressing utter disgust for homosexuality was socially acceptable (only a few decades ago!), I, if anyone, can attest to this toxicity and its harmful effect not only on non-conforming men, but on ostensibly conforming ones. My problem with feminism is not as much about these basic assumptions as about the lack of empathy for half the population that comes with it. But that, we should be able to fix once we overcome the McCarthyesque polarisation that plagues any rational debate about these issues today...

  • barfman2017||

    *barf*

  • ||

    How about go fuck yourself? Would that, perhaps, be an assault?

  • damikesc||

    And while that is far from sexual assault, perhaps young men should learn to be more mindful of what it means for women when they don't call the next day, and take some, but of course not all, responsibility for it.

    I'll bite...why?

    Why is it my job to manage her feelings? Casual sex doesn't imply anything more than just a physical act. If the woman cannot handle it, perhaps she should desist from engaging in it. It'd be a like a company that prices its goods to low to be profitable bitching that their customers are taking advantage of them.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So basically U of C wants to write an even bigger check to the next kid they railroad. His lawyer is going to have lots of fun asking them why they decided to stick with kangaroo courts when the Dept of Ed told them to cool it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    My thoughts too. The Dear Colleague letter put federal muscle behind the kangaroo courts. Now the federal muscle is on the other side, and universities which insist on behaving like the olden days will find themselves on the wrong side of the court system. Their brave talk won't be backed up by government money any longer.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No surprise that the Daily Communist shut down the comments section on that article.

  • Episteme||

    Comment sections are merely tools of false consciousness.

  • esteve7||

    These are all lunatics. Insisting people are innocent and must be brought through a fair process before punished is hearsay among these types. What the hell is wrong with people?

  • DJF||

    'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.' Queen of Hearts

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "I'll be judge, I'll be jury, said cunning old Fury. I'll hear the whole cause and condemn you to death"

    University of Colorado follows Alice down the rabbit hole

  • Episteme||

    Nick Fury, telling Tony Stark of the Campus Rape Initiative?

  • Arcxjo||

    Heresy. Hearsay they actually like.

  • DJF||

    How are they suppose to have warlock trials if they don't have warlock hunts?

    (Warlocks not witches, witches would be sexist)

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    This guy never read the Witcher books.

  • MSimon||

    Whater?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Marchello, you set a high alt text standard, one every Reason writer and intern should look up to, and yet you did not provide any alt text to this story.

    I haven't been this disappointed in a Reason writer since I found out KMW once worked for Bill Kristol.

    Pour a little out for my soul tonight, team, I'll need it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'll pour a whole bottle of Mickey's for you son.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > KMW once worked for Bill Kristol.

    So THAT'S why I always was creeped out by her.

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm somewhat confused. Universities get to pick and choose what legal standards they have to follow? I already find it stupid that the Department of Education gets to define how rape is treated in courts, but now universities get to choose how the judges rule in the courts?

    Did I stumble into an Kafka novel?

    Why isn't rape a criminal offense handled by the criminal courts? Why is rape being administered by the Department of Education and universities and colleges? Yes, I know the answer is "Title IX", still makes not sense.

  • Geralt der Witcher||

    DoE doesn't dictate how rape is treated in courts. They define the guidelines for schools, in this case Universities, under threat of funding being pulled if they don't comply. The Universities and DoE have no criminal prosecutorial authority. All they can do is kick you out, write on your permanent record "rapist" and good luck getting an education or job when they investigate why you got kicked out.
    Title IX forced Uni's to follow kanagroo court (or sudo civil) style system under threat of removing federal funding. Title IX allows one to bypassed the legal system when it comes to sexual assault, which has opened it up to whole sale abuse.
    There are many instances of this happening if you google them. It has also cost Uni's millions because they wrongfully have tarnished many guys reputations and opened themselves up for law suits for violation of civil rights and defamation of character.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    No shit, Sherlock? Nobody around here has heard a peep about this outrage.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Not just how the "legal" system deals with rape, but what constitutes rape or sexual assault.

  • ||

    Most rape happens in private and do not leave physical evidence other than traces of intercourse - which the accused typically agrees took place. So it is mostly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that many victims see their nemeses go free - AND that many are falsely or wrongfully convicted or at least railroaded.

    So the reaction of the anti-rape crusaders is fully understandable: IF you add another assumption. Namely, that we live in a patriarchy that systematically privileges men over women and, by logical extension, the male accused over the female accusers. If you are fighting against an entrenched system like that, you are relieved of the moral obligation to worry about false accusations: just like the allied forces in the war knew German civilians were suffering, but ignored it on the assumption that the powerful, evil Germany already had that covered.

    Of course, the analogy does not hold. There is no culture of approving of rape or disbelieving survivors. Even pundits speaking out against false accusations are quick to condemn rape and pick cases where they are pretty damn sure that they are on the right side of things. MRAs were among the most vocal voices to condemn the 6 month sentence that Brock Turner received: although few legal scholars familiar with the details would agree.

  • ||

    There are no good solutions here, and the current left-right divide seems to me opportunistic more than anything else: just two decades ago, the rape culture rhetoric could have come from the right of family values and right to life. Similarly, the free speech rhetoric used to belong squarely on the left, with the right clinging to, say, ideas such as disciplining school children for cursing or labelling rock cds sexually explicit. As for me personally, I used to see family value rhetoric as thinly veiled bigotry, spoke out against date rape, and thought poverty unconscionable in a developed country: and I have gone from a position far left of Bill Clinton to one where even the alt right, shorn of its racist and survivalist fringes (which are anyway incompatible with libertarianism) and provocateur antics, seems like a more reasonable choice than the weird left of Warren and company. In fact, my attachment to the left came from a deep belief that we should not allow poverty in a civilised society: a thought that, over the past 30 years, have slipped into the background in favour of identity politics that benefit those who, by any other metric than race, are privileged already.

  • masculistman||

    It's socialism that is incompatible with libertarianism,comrade.

  • masculistman||

    I am a MRA and I getting tired of your misandry. Women don't have power? Bullshit. If a man ran up to men he doesn't know and tell them someone is bothering him he would told to handle his own business. If a woman ran up to men she doesn't know and tells them someone is bothering her there would be a lot of white knights that would go after the threat. Don't tell me women are powerless.

  • damikesc||

    Of course, the analogy does not hold. There is no culture of approving of rape or disbelieving survivors. Even pundits speaking out against false accusations are quick to condemn rape and pick cases where they are pretty damn sure that they are on the right side of things. MRAs were among the most vocal voices to condemn the 6 month sentence that Brock Turner received: although few legal scholars familiar with the details would agree.

    I'd also argue the outrage over Brock is proof that rape is exceedingly rare. If it was common, you'd hear about it all of the time. Similarly to how you don't hear about every single shooting in Chicago. They're not rare enough to mention.

  • vcx||

    Add that the definitions are insane. Political pressure is now facing a backlash as women at least in England are experiencing prosecution for false reports. The US has to repeal the "shield laws" that prevent past behavior from being discussed. The idea and the reality were not in sync. The media is in part responsible due to greed. Some stories sell advertising and garner a larger audience which relates tohigher profit.

  • vcx||

    Another very good reason for statutes of limitation. What happened then (before many were born) and hear about it in history and the laws were in many cases more realistic.

  • vcx||

    Check your laws Brock got a life sentence. Because the public is not educated in how sex offender functions it is reasonable that they do not know what will happen. The truth is he can be prevented from education, employment, housing, licensing forever in some states. The problem is also both participants needed counseling for misuse of alcohol. When one says they drink until they "black out" that is a dangerous state of being.
    The judge saved the State Of California $50,000 per year in costs. I wish law was taught so peopl would be better educated.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I WISH I COULD SAY 'NO THANKS' TO THE GOOBERS IN GOOBERMENT!

  • Devastator||

    get that all caps key look at, bud.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE YELLING ABOUT!

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE YELLING ABOUT!

  • masculistman||

    I RUN A SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF WHERE I HAVE TO YELL.

  • ||

    'Listen. We know the evidence shows the chick with the mattress was a willing participant in the fornication romp you engaged in.'

    'Great! Can I go now?'

    'Not so fast buddy. We still have to suspend you.'

    'What?!'

    'Oh come now. Don't be so dramatic. We can't ever be lax on rape accusations.'

    Basically, the UofC said, 'don't be so dramatic. So what if the odd man is roughed up. White privilege will make sure he gets back up on his feet in no time. Just let us railroad people whenever we see fit'.

    Progressives. The anti-humanists.

  • Richard Grieco||

    But it's not white privilege. While the "party of science" hasn't mandated data collection on this, the early signs are showing that black men are being impacted by the new campus rape rules at rates far in excess of their representation on campus (see recent Atlantic article on this).

    And it kind of makes sense - in a world where white people have all these advantages over blacks in the real world justice system, how do you think blacks are going to fare in the kangaroo court justice system? They're going to be even worse off than normal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There's a different battle underlying here. As you note it's not affecting white men only. When something happens involving a white man people will, of course, invoke that it is white privilege that they demand even treatment. This is just the growing trend of creating an ever larger list of grievances against all people, then when you have someone you want to hate you can pick and choose whichever grievances you want to justify it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Uh-oh, a Progressive dilemma: BLM vs. the campus rape crisis.

    Where's the popcorn?

  • Vernon Depner||

    The conflict between privileged feminists and Black men has been slowly coming to a boil for years. I see it playing out around me all the time, and I'm surprised by how little coverage and commentary about it there's been.

  • masculistman||

    Before you start tar and feathering white people why don't you learn the facts. There are white people that championed Brian Banks' innocence and his release from prison for a rape he had nothing to do with: http://mensrightsboard.blogspo.....rian+banks

    And Bill Cosby: http://mensrightsboard.blogspo.....bill+cosby Don't forget there are a lot of black people that would love to see Cosby go down,guilty or not.

    So think about those things.

  • LeGaston||

    It's actually got even more sinister implications than that. I mean what happened during the last era that institutionalized this sort of paranoid sexual hysteria? When Extra-judicial bodies presumed the guilt of the accused, lumped things like whistling in with rape as "sexual aggression", and took it upon themselves to punish them the same way? The last times victims were "always believed"? Black men got lynched by the thousands.

    Hopefully this time the lynchings will remain metaphorical, but black males always seem bear the brunt of all the nation's violent crime hysterias.

  • esteve7||

    I'm brought back to Shapiro's rules when debating leftists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q79yQquKq7M

    Similar to how the real leftists can't say they want to ban guns, so they say lefts ban assault weapons (which makes no sense, since the overwhelming majority of murders are with handguns).

    With this issue, they try to get the high ground and say we hate women, etc. But they are the morally bankrupt people. Ask them, why a rapist should not be in jail? Why should a violent criminal only be kicked out of school?

    Then you get to the real issue, which they never want to talk about. What they really mean, is there's not enough evidence to convict someone of an actual crime, but we want to punish them anyway, so we will use this show-trials to do it.

    They want to let rapists escape jail time, and they want to punish others unjustly. That makes them a garbage person, not us.

  • Bra Ket||

    "Joanne Belknap, a University of Colorado-Boulder professor of ethnic studies...."

    Do not need to hear anything she has to say beyond this point to know what her position will be. In other news, foxes think they make great chicken-coop guards.

  • Mudhen||

    If I were a legislator I'd work to defund any department that end in "studies" I don't believe a single one of them do anything to provide any real value to society. Has anyone from any of these departments actually gone on to a productive career outside academia? They're just self-perpetuating bullshit machines.

  • Episteme||

    I always felt that the Celtic Studies program that I was in at Berkeley should have had a different name. Somehow, studying Welsh & Gaelic languages and reading medieval Irish literature in the original script didn't feel like a grievance program to me. It was more akin to a Classics program for the Celtic World instead of the Classical Mediterranean (Classics was another minor of mine).

    Not that it served to provide necessary job skills, beyond helping creatively curse out English bosses behind their backs, but the same can be said of many humanities programs in today's economy.

  • MarkLastname||

    You didn't learn about Celtic oppression and Anglo-Saxon privilege?

  • MSimon||

    Boston.

  • masculistman||

    Has anyone from any of these departments actually gone on to a productive career outside academia?

    Does cleaning the toilet at Stucky's count?

  • LeGaston||

    Hey! Religious Studies major over here.

  • Ecoli||

    This is AWESOME. This will make the Kangaroo-court-inspired lawsuits against UC pay more and be even easier to win.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    The sex bureaucracy refuses to give up its power. Not surprising

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Doesn't sound like she's a professor. But it does sound like Betsy is taking away her rice bowl. That's how universities work.

  • ||

    The university, however, combined rape and inappropriate touching

    And left out the dreaded male gaze?

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Because PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!!

  • Episteme||

    OPTIC BLAST!

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    Get ready baby, because I'm about to.... Let me get some toilet paper for you

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who would willingly give up the power afforded them by Title IX? We'll find out.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Title IX gives the SJW fanatics leverage in internal college politics - "we must have kangaroo courts or the Education Department will go after us!"

    But the SJW fanatics can always use their influence independent of Title IX. For example, the preponderance standard wouldn't, IMHO, violate due process if a university uses it for its own "courts." It's just that the colleges no longer *have* to use the preponderance standard, they can choose to be more demanding as to how much proof they need before expelling someone.

    Again, I would hope that a college could simply leave sex offenses to the real-world justice system without the Education Department going after them.

  • OGREtheTroll||

    If it involves any federal law, such as Title IX, then due process is indeed a component of that, and theres no escaping that fact. If we're talking about a private university operating its disciplinary proceedings completely independent of federal--and any applicable state--laws, then they can set any standards they choose. (Although there are contractual issues that could be implicated.)

  • Lily Bulero||

    As I understand it, the feds have Title IX on the one hand and the due process clause on the other - the latter applies to state schools like UC but not to private schools.

    DeVos is saying that giving protection to defendants in university courts isn't sexist just because it leads to fewer sex-offense convictions. Thus no Title IX violation - unless, I suppose, the university deliberately winks at rape, like in a prog stereotype world ("boys will be boys, and really, rape is a useful initiation to show women their place"). Barring such stereotypical misogyny, or an actual university employee committing the rape, then I would hope they wouldn't bring down the "sex discrimination" hammer on a college.

    Not only that, I would hope that even if a college insists that sex offenses be handled in the real-world justice system, that wouldn't be considered sexist either, unless the college actually discourages rape victims from going to the cops.

    In short, I hope they go back to focusing on sexist intent, not on some theory of "well, never mind your intent, we'll just call you sexist anyway."

  • Lily Bulero||

    And let's get even wilder - to the extent that women *on average* are weaker than men, then *on average* they're more vulnerable to rape, but since you can't blame that on colleges, I wouldn't use that disparity to call colleges sexist.

    And if a sex offense is based on taking advantage of someone drunk or stoned, then unless the college encourages women to get drunker and stoned-er than men, I don't see how that makes the college sexist, either.

    There may be common-law theories of liability, I don't really know, but as far as calling colleges sexist is concerned, I hope we're seeing a focus on the actual intent not on "I don't like the result therefore sexist" or "this student at the college misbehaved, so it's the college's fault."

  • Episteme||

    Imagine how widespread cybernetics will change sexual dynamics, when any woman in the street might have robot arms capable of lifting a thousand pounds and firing metal spikes?

  • Devastator||

    So the Kangaroo Kourts Kontinue in Kolorado?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    So they a couple million burning a hole in the bursars' pocket they want to give to some poor railroaded schmuck?

  • Longtobefree||

    So they are losing access to federal funds, right?

    (crickets)

  • Brother Kyfho||

    In my private, perverted fantasies, I imagine that in a couple of years DeVos sends another letter advising that federal funds "may be dependent upon compliance with" her current "Dear Colleague" letter.

  • Longtobefree||

    Your private, perverted fantasies will get you busted in a college town.
    Fair warning.

  • damikesc||

    Perhaps they should also be forced to say "no thank you" to any federal monies.

    I oppose any federal monies going to any institution that will not guarantee the civil rights of their students. If they want to keep their kangaroo courts, fine. They shouldn't also be able to keep my money.

  • vcx||

    It would be better in the legislatures had advice from anthropologists and others who study what people actually do not what they say. It would be better if laws were written on solid evidence, not political blindness. Colorado will have to pay a multimillion-dollar settlement to get attention.

  • zx741258||

    Boy, am I glad " "But this whole idea that somehow all these men on campus are at risk of being charged with something they didn't do is such a gross exaggeration of what the reality is." I am sure the XYs who got caught up in XXs bad date silliness, are very happy to hear the academic who clearly supports misandry, views.

    And why does an Ethics prof have an opinion on this since it is not directly part of her job. With her comments, it does beg the question about her gender identity politics, almost misandry, but lets call her what she is, a sexist gender bigot.

    As an alumni, I saw this article and I am now very concerned about what CU is or has become.

    I am also very supportive of Devos's work to roll back the open hatred of XYs pushed by the former First Lady and her billionaire TV star buddy's gender politics. Obama's legacy has been brought completely into question. Gender Feminist politics should never have been. Michelle's recent racist speech on white america just removed any doubt to the fact, the the former President is weak and dominated by his wife. The First Lady was NEVER elected, pls remember that Michelle, pls tell your buddy Oprah as well. Would love to see Oprah run for nomination and debate Trumpland, without her heavy handed censoring of contrarian views, she may just get held accountable for her sexism.

    What has happened to CU?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online