MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Central Allegation in The Hunting Ground Collapses Under Scrutiny

Undermines entire documentary

WillinghamThe Hunting Ground / YoutubeThe Hunting Ground, a documentary about campus sexual assault that features interviews with alleged survivors of rape, has been criticized ever since its February debut. The film was as polarizing as any other high-profile piece about the purported college rape crisis—victims’ rights groups praised it, civil libertarians expressed skepticism.

Today, that skepticism seems vindicated. Slate’s Emily Yoffe just published a comprehensive review of the alleged sexual assault of Harvard University law student Kamilah Willingham, one of documentary’s central purported victims. Yoffe found significant discrepancies between what The Hunting Ground claimed happened to Willingham and what actually happened; these differences are so stark that they call into serious question whether the accused student, Brandon Winston, did anything remotely criminal. Yoffe’s report deals a serious blow to The Hunting Ground’s credibility, undermining the film’s message that college is a place where innocent girls are preyed upon by sociopathic rapists.

From Slate:

I looked into the case of Kamilah Willingham, whose allegations generated a voluminous record. What the evidence (including Willingham’s own testimony) shows is often dramatically at odds with the account presented in the film.

Willingham’s story is not an illustration of a sexual predator allowed to run loose by self-interested administrators. The record shows that what happened that night was precisely the kind of spontaneous, drunken encounter that administrators who deal with campus sexual assault accusations say is typical. (The filmmakers, who favor David Lisak’s poorly substantiated position that our college campuses are rife with serial rapists, reject the suggestion that such encounters are the source of many sexual assault allegations.) Nor is Willingham’s story an example of official indifference. Harvard did not ignore her complaints; the school thoroughly investigated them. And because of her allegations, the law school education of her alleged assailant has been halted for the past four years.

The filmmakers present what happened between Kamilah Willingham and Brandon Winston as a terrifying warning to female college students and their parents, and a call to arms to government officials and college administrators. They offer the case as prima facie evidence that draconian regulations, laws, and punishments are required to end what they say is a scourge of sexual violence. But there is another story, which the filmmakers do not tell. It’s a story in which Willingham’s accusations are taken seriously and Winston’s actions are thoroughly investigated, first by Harvard University and later by the Middlesex County district attorney’s office. It’s a story in which neither the school nor the legal system finds that a rape occurred, and in which Willingham’s credibility is called seriously into question. It’s a story of an ambiguous sexual encounter among young adults that almost destroyed the life of the accused, a young black man with no previous record of criminal behavior. It’s a story that demonstrates how deeply the filmmakers’ politics colored their presentation of the facts—and how deeply flawed their influential film is as a result.

Read Yoffe’s full article here.

Of the details Yoffe reported, I was must struck by the fact that Willingham had offered Winston—an old acquaintance who had come to Willingham’s apartment to rekindle their friendship—cocaine, which they both consumed. The night eventually included a trip to a bar in the company of a female friend of Willingham’s. All three drank copious amounts of alcohol, and Winston and the friend (“KF”) made out on the dance floor. If there was an initiator in this encounter, it seems to have been KF.

The trio returned to Willingham’s apartment at 2 a.m. And guess what? Their recollections of what happened aren’t that great (alcohol and cocaine tend to have that effect). All collapsed on a bed at various points; there was some kissing and sexual contact, but no intercourse. There’s not a shred of evidence that Winston did anything criminal to either of the girls, aside from Willingham’s error-riddled assertions that he did. Some of her claims border on parody: she insisted that Winston had raped KF and a bloody condom in her wastebasket was the proof. But according to a lab test, it was Willingham’s blood on the condom, not KF’s, and no traces of Winston’s DNA were found.

Yoffe wrote that Winston “was hardly a perfect gentleman” on the night in question, and perhaps that’s true. But only if one assumes that all men, by nature of their physiology (or perhaps because of rape culture), are always the instigators in sexual encounters, and that women have no sexual agency whatsoever, could it be said that he was a rapist.

For his non-criminal ungentlemanly conduct, Winston’s academic future was put on hold for years. He was prosecuted, and eventually acquitted of felony charges but convicted of a misdemeanor, “touching of a non-sexual nature.” The Hunting Grounds holds this up as a travesty of justice, and it is. But, as Yoffe persuasively argues, that victim in this case was the accused, not the accuser.

What does it say about the accuracy of the rest of the film, if it got this important story so wrong?

Photo Credit: Youtube

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.

  • ||

    "'Is the Hunting Ground Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?' Asks Idiot"

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    EMILY YOFFE DIDN'T EVEN GRADUATE FROM COLUMBIA

  • Russell||

    This sordid affair is the consequence of admitting those whose parents did not attend Harvard, thus reducing the damping effect of incest .

  • tarran||

    Did you just accuse a significant portion of your students as being the product of incest, Dr Sietz?!?

    Does Harvard know of your mendaciousness and just turn a blind eye to it? Or are they just ignorant of how you're actually spending the time they pay you to teach and do research?

  • Russell||

    Poor fellow must have flunked his debutante brassiere exam.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    What does it say about the accuracy of the rest of the film, if it got this important story so wrong?

    Fake but accurate?

  • WTF||

    Since all men are rapists, it's really just a matter of when the sisterhood decides to denounce someone. Actual facts don't enter into it.

  • JW||

    He could have at least gotten a happy ending out of all that.

  • R C Dean||

    What does it say about the accuracy of the rest of the film, if it got this important story so wrong?

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That's Latin for "don't stick it in crazy."

  • ||

    Is this slut shaming? You better not be slut shaming!

  • hpearce||

    Sounds like that other case Fox News reported on

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm beginning to suspect some sort of vast conspiracy to discredit the entire notion of university student sexual assault from the inside.

  • ||

    Whose law is that? "The surest way to predict the actions of a bureaucracy is to imagine it is run by a secret cabal of its enemies"

  • Dweebston||

    Wasn't that Friedman? It's Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics, which I should have bloody recognized without googling since it came up in discussion here just a few weeks ago.

    1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
    2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
    3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
  • R C Dean||

    In case you're wondering what Mx. Willingham is up to:

    Kamilah Willingham is a survivor, advocate, and activist living in Los Angeles. She works for Just Detention International, the only organization in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to ending sexual abuse in detention. She holds a B.A. in English from Pomona College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Before joining JDI, she worked as an advocate and as a student attorney for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault through Harvard Law School’s Family Law and Gender Violence clinics. She has also worked as a teaching fellow at Harvard University’s Department of Sociology, and has conducted research on human rights, social justice, and gender equality.

    http://la.bindercon.com/speake.....illingham/

    She's actually (supposed to be) working against prison rape, which is a good cause.

  • Rich||

    Willingham is a survivor, advocate, and activist

    IOW, unemployed?

  • ||

    What, you couldn't make it to the second sentence?

  • WTF||

    Enough with this "survivor" bullshit. She claims, falsely it appears, to be a victim.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    When did "survivor" become a resume bullet point?

  • Paul.||

    When it started getting you jobs.

  • Haven Monahan||

    Well, no employer is going to hire someone who is "deceased".

    So, "survivor" is kind of a minimal qualification for just about any job.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Actually working against any kind of rape is a good cause.

    I just question that any of these campus rape activists actually have stopping rapes as their primary concern. They seem awfully obsessed with punishing men regardless of guilt, which doesn't seem like something you'd do if your primary goal was the reduction of sexual assault.

  • thom||

    You see these attitudes throughout our culture: people are no longer seeking justice, they're seeking something else. You saw this in the George Zimmerman trial. I had Facebook acquaintances who claimed they actually stopped what they were doing and cried when they heard the verdict. It didn't matter that he was actually guilty because to them the trial had nothing to do with Zimmerman. Similarly, since college rape exists, if somebody is accused of it and then cleared of the charge, it isn't a sign that justice was served, but that institutions aren't serious about doing anything about college rape. It's weird logic, but inside a lot of minds it seems to make sense...

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    A lot of them seem to come from the position of "All heterosexual intercourse is rape". Now one could, I suppose, make that argument. But doing so means reducing the status of all women to that of children, incapable of making decisions for themselves and living with the consequences. At which point one is inclined to ask "Why are they allowed to vote? Why are they not, necessarily, the property of some man?"

    Or, one would be if one were a wisenheimer, like myself.

  • ||

    A lot of them seem to come from the position of "All heterosexual intercourse is rape".

    No, they don't. There are women who think that, but they don't date men and hook up with them at parties and nightclubs. These are not radfems.

  • perlhaqr||

    I don't think he's referring to Willingham or KF, but rather to (potentially) the producers of the film.

  • Mark Neil||

    "No, they don't."

    Actually, when you boil many of the arguments down to the inevitable conclusion... yes, they do. Take for example, the advocacy to reverse the presumption of innocence until proven guilty...that if it can be shown that sex had occured, the accused must then prove the sex was justified. If one accepts this premise, one MUST accept that sex is a criminal act by default, and that one must prove otherwise, in the same manner as killing under stand your ground laws, where you acknowledge you killed someone (IE, broke the law), and then must prove you were justified in doing so (this is one of the few scenarios I can think of that reverses the presumption, and it only does so by the accused acknowledging (or having proven against them) they committed the act in question. Which is the same as those advocating the reversal for rape say).

    And so, if sex is, by default, is a criminal act, sex necessary equals rape. Most people advocating for the presumption reversal won't agree with the idea that sex equals rape, but that is the inevitable conclusion of what they advocate for. it would become the legal precedent set in order to fulfil their advocacy. They just establish a level of cognitive dissonance to divorce the two ideas from each other.

  • Marshal||

    A lot of them seem to come from the position of "All heterosexual intercourse is rape"

    I don't think many of them believe this. It seems closer to "the rules should favor women because women never lie about rape", and therefore accusation = guilt.

    Those supporting affirmative consent laws defended them against the fact that it makes virtually all sex illegal by saying that only applies when there's a complaint. This position seems to accept accusation = guilt pretty clearly.

  • Cyto||

    Particularly since obtaining consent is pretty much irrelevant to their process. Even if explicit verbal consent is obtained at each step, exactly how is one to document this later? Additionally, it is often their contention that any form of intoxication on the part of the woman renders her incapable of giving consent. And any form of pressure, including "I don't want to date you if we don't have sex" or even asking a second time is grounds for rape - despite any outward signs of consent.

    When stripped of their made-up language of sexual relationships the goal becomes clear: A huge weapon that can be wielded by any woman at any time to completely destroy a man's life.

  • Marshal||

    Also consider the "ongoing" requirement. Unless she's literally screaming "yeeesss" the entire time you fail the standard. Any reasonable law would state that once consent is given rescission of consent has to be explicit. But Affirmative Consent rejects that position.

    There's no rational explanation for this other than activists believe and desire accusation = guilt.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "A huge weapon that can be wielded by any woman at any time to completely destroy a man's life."

    Exactly!

    The point is to disempower your enemies and empower your allies. Men oppose the Progressive Theocracy more than Women, therefore Men are to be under arbitrary threat from Women, who can set the State enforces on them at will.

  • Mark Neil||

    Pretty much. The irony of the whole "yes means yes" affirmative consent advocacy is that the point of it rarely centers around yes means yes, or fighting the idea that no could mean yes, but rather, of defining how frequently yes doesn't actually mean yes. The confusion it creates around consent is incredibly damaging. And in doing so, they are effectively making sex a crime, with the only reason for not being jailed is not getting caught. You're not guilty if they don't catch you is the only defense left to men, and not getting "caught" is entirely in the hands of women. hat's not an incredibly dangerous power dynamic in relationships... nope nope nope. But that's what feminists are after... power.

  • SimonJester||

    Schofield. That isnt the only way to solve the problem. One can also assume that all males who have not undergone reeducation are rapists, by dfn. Women can consent to sex, but that doesn't make it rape any more than a woman climbing into a hungry tiger's cage would make the tiger less of a killer.

    Start with assumptions
    A) All intercourse between a male and at least one other party is rape, and
    B) women are NOT children and ARE capable of making decisions for themselves

    One potential conclusion is that men are to sex like tigers are to eating. It is something that, when presented the opportunity, they (we) cannot help but do without significant negative, and immediately apparent, consequences. Men still commit rape, flat out, in each sexual interaction.

    Women who know better don't get into the cages with tigers, but not all women DO know better, because of social constraints and patriarchy and so on.

    or ... something like this. You see where I am going...

  • SimonJester||

    Schofield. That isnt the only way to solve the problem. One can also assume that all males who have not undergone reeducation are rapists, by dfn. Women can consent to sex, but that doesn't make it rape any more than a woman climbing into a hungry tiger's cage would make the tiger less of a killer.

    Start with assumptions
    A) All intercourse between a male and at least one other party is rape, and
    B) women are NOT children and ARE capable of making decisions for themselves

    One potential conclusion is that men are to sex like tigers are to eating. It is something that, when presented the opportunity, they (we) cannot help but do without significant negative, and immediately apparent, consequences. Men still commit rape, flat out, in each sexual interaction.

    Women who know better don't get into the cages with tigers, but not all women DO know better, because of social constraints and patriarchy and so on.

    or ... something like this. You see where I am going...

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Actual rape happens, but mostly it happens to poor women in poor neighborhoods. What's most infuriating about these 'celebrated survivors' - most of them middle or affluent class - is they claim to speak on behalf of all rape victims when they clearly do not. The hysteria surrounding college rape is another example of a middle class (mostly) white woman moral panic.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Maybe my activist bullshit detector is on the fritz. It sounds like a good cause, but is it really just a way to get more money for prison guards?

    The surest way to reduce prison rape would be to stop sending so many people there for victimless crimes.

  • ||

    The data is pretty clear that any rape epidemic in prison is primarily perpetrated by the guards. Turns out that raping people of the same sex as a prisoner is usually a much higher threat to reward ratio than most people are willing to undertake.

  • Loki||

    She's actually (supposed to be) working against prison rape, which is a good cause.

    Kind of ironic that she tried to get some poor schmuck sent to prison on a false rape claim. Where he could be raped for real.

  • MarkLastname||

    Ha, I think you misunderstand. I'm going to guess "ending sexual abuse in detention" means "sexual abuse *of women*." Because what other kind is there.

  • Dietz||

    Her conduct while in school gives reason to doubt her ethics in whatever she does afterwards. I don't care what she is doing now, she is a proven liar, and not trustworthy.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's hoping Mr. Winston files a phat defamation suit against all and sundry, post haste.

  • JW||

    This. Leave none standing.

  • grrizzly||

    The society doesn't punish women who falsely accuse men of rape. Not legally, not by ostracizing them. Those who disagree with my proposal, and there were many who strongly disagreed, what do you think we should do?

  • ||

    Oh, I agreed with your proposal. I just think you should call her a lying bitch.

  • Rich||

    I'm not sure what your proposal is, but how about having them wear a scarlet FA?

  • R C Dean||

    Not sure what your proposal is, but how about this:

    (1) Prosecuted for filing a false police report (or whatever), with some perjury and whatnot thrown in.

    (2) Placed on a publicly accessible and web-searchable sexual accusation offender list, just like the sex offender list, so that potential future victims can avoid her.

    (3) Naturally, being convicted or pleading to a false report charge is admissible in the civil defamation lawsuit by her victim, and pretty much means we skip to the fun bit, about damages.

  • Agammamon||

    The reason you're not going to see any of that is because a ruling of 'not-guilty' does not mean innocent.

    A man can be acquitted of a rape he actually committed.

    So to determine if there's been a false accusation you would need a whole 'nother trial - which would likely end in another acquittal because you most times would not be able to find enough evidence of guilt.

    The only practical recourse is the one we have now - civil suit.

  • Ballz||

    Make her carry a mattress around wherever she goes and add it to her resume.

  • Paul.||

    Give her a job in a social justice organization, and a regular slot on NPR.

  • ||

    This is why people believe in God. Because if nothing bad happens to these false accusers...ugh. Just ugh.

  • Rich||

    Yoffe wrote that Winston “was hardly a perfect gentleman” on the night in question

    "The horror."

  • MarkLastname||

    “was hardly a perfect gentleman”

    Good, that means he's not subscribing to archaic patriarchal gender norms then. Fight the power, maaan!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But only if one assumes that all men, by nature of their physiology (or perhaps because of rape culture), are always the instigators in sexual encounters, and that women have no sexual agency whatsoever, could it be said that he was a rapist.

    Breaking news: Reason contributor admits that all men are inherent rapists.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    "Yoffe wrote that Winston “was hardly a perfect gentleman” on the night in question, and perhaps that’s true. But only if one assumes that all men, by nature of their physiology (or perhaps because of rape culture), are always the instigators in sexual encounters, and that women have no sexual agency whatsoever, could it be said that he was a rapist."

    Well, I don't think Willingham was a "perfect lady" either, given that perfect ladies don't usually gambol about plying their potential sexual partners with gobs of cocaine.

    Also:

    "For his non-criminal ungentlemanly conduct, Winston’s academic future was put on hold for years. He was prosecuted, and eventually acquitted of felony charges but convicted of a misdemeanor, “touching of a sexual nature.”"

    I assume this is "unwanted" touching of a sexual nature, because otherwise I'm very concerned that this is a crime.

  • Robby Soave||

    Sorry, I meant to write "touching of a non-sexual nature," and corrected that like two minutes after I hit publish.

  • ||

    Damn refresh.

  • Paul.||

    Being convicted of 'touching of a non-sexual nature' must be the lowest fucking bar on the criminal docket.

    accuser: He touched me!

    investigator: Sexually?

    accuser: Well, no.

    investigator: Did he hurt you?

    Accuser: N... no.

    investigator: So what's the problem.

    Accuser: I didn't like that he touched me.

    Investigator: *sighs* Well, I guess we have this... *digs through papers* yeah, here it is... 'touching of a non-sexual nature' charge. If we prosecute him for that, will you leave me alone and quit leaving messages on my voicemail?

  • ClassicLib-NeverProg||

    Pretty much how it works

  • ||

    The storied, "She turned me into a newt", charge.

  • NidhoggRocketman||

    Look again, Irish. The misdemeanor was "touching of a non-sexual nature.

  • NidhoggRocketman||

    *shakes fist* refresh!

  • ||

    given that perfect ladies don't usually gambol about plying their potential sexual partners with gobs of cocaine.

    Um...that sounds pretty perfect to me, kiddo.

  • JW||

    Yeah, is there a number we can call? Some app to summon these wominz?

  • ||

    We refer to women like that as "keepers."

  • R C Dean||

    You misspelled "fuckbuddy", OMWC.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Yes, it's all fun and games until you wake up with your wiener superglued to your belly and your stuff stolen.

  • ||

    I can't tell you how many times that's happened to me. The acetone doesn't sting so much anymore.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So you're an expert at doing a handstand while taking a piss?

  • ||

    Sadly, this is a skill I have had to cultivate.

  • perlhaqr||

    Nah. I keep cath supplies around.

  • MarkLastname||

    Could be worse: it could be glued to somebody else's belly, and that somebody else is in a different state.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    "Um...that sounds pretty perfect to me, kiddo."

    I'm talking about how most people define a lady, not how 12 eyed, eldritch abominations like yourself define a lady.

  • ||

    12 eyed, eldritch abominations

    That's a surprisingly polite way to describe his multi-pronged doom cock.

  • ||

    Actually, heads up to Robby, that is incorrect. From Slate:

    To break the impasse, the jury acquitted Winston of touching KF’s breast but found him guilty of a single lesser included charge within that count: misdemeanor touching of a nonsexual nature.
  • WTF||

    touching of a nonsexual nature.

    What in the fucking hell does that actually mean, and how is it a crime?

  • Swiss Servator, Kaffee bitte!||

    Battery, I assume - "harmful or offensive contact".

  • Paul.||

    For battery, doesn't battery have to occur?

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    So is Emily Yoffe both a) the most honest writer about campus sexual assault at Slate.com and b) the most honest thinker about sexual assault to ever graduate from Wellesley University?

  • ||

    Once I wrote her an email of appreciation regarding some other article of hers, essentially on the same subject (i.e. college sexual assaults). She's cool, collected and stays away from hyperbole.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are we sure she writes at Slate? Or is it Slate.net, or Szlate, or some imitation site? Can't be THE Slate. Can't be. They wouldn't hire such a person.

  • Raston Bot||

    WTF is misdemeanor non-sexual touching? Did he poke them in the eye?

  • JW||

    STOP TOUCHING ME! STOP TOUCHING ME!

  • ||

    And, while other's tastes may differ, I think 'acquitted of touching KF's breast' shouldn't have the sexual overtones scrubbed as well.

    Not to impugn sex or sexual advances, but there's a difference between fondling someone, brushing up against someone's junk in a public setting, and performing an unlicensed and ad hoc medical exam of their naughty bits.

    It's beginning to have the hyper-passive 'Police' tone.

  • Dweebston||

    My medical exams are unlicensed, ad hoc, and pro bono.

    Heh. Pro boner.

  • SugarFree||

    I'm interested in the bloody condom in the trash that wasn't Winston's and had Willingham DNA, but she had no knowledge of where it came from.

    I mean, I've never been a single girl living on her own, but does that happen often?

  • ||

    I'm torn between thinking she was unbelievably full of shit, and thinking maybe she had really forgotten it was hers. I mean, why would she submit it as evidence initially if she remembered? Too stupid.

  • SugarFree||

    She might have thought that it didn't contain any male DNA since I didn't see any mention of semen. And the prosecutors didn't check to see if there was a male contributor. Only the defense did that.

  • JW||

    I'm torn between thinking she was unbelievably full of shit, and thinking maybe she had really forgotten it was hers. I mean, why would she submit it as evidence initially if she remembered? Too stupid.

    I'll cop to many stupid and goofy mistakes that I won't mention here, and a couple lapses of memory that I can't explain, but she's full of shit. Which seems to be the common thread with all of these "celebrated" cases.

    Why? Beats me. Did these women get caught up in the storm of the events that they created through their lies, thinking that they'd have their revenge and be done with it, and can't back down now, or do they really not care about the damage that they're causing?

    I'm not ruling out fucking nuts.

  • Dweebston||

    It's a venal, spiteful act of revenge, followed up with the relatively intelligent decision to not admit of any liability lest they're put on the stand next.

    These cases are useful deterrence, I think. Think about the ordeal this girl has gone through living with her lie, watching the prosecution fall apart, realizing how bad this looks for her, and having to live under the suspicion of falsely accusing an innocent man. Yeah, she gets brainless plaudits from equally brainless outfits, but the shame is still hers. I think women will look at that outcome and decide against throwing around accusations.

  • tarran||

    I've known a couple people caught making false accusations. It didn't stop them from making more of them....

    The word shameless is a quite appropriate adjective to describe such people.

  • Dweebston||

    Oh, for sure, they're sociopaths. That's evident in having filed and then followed up on a false allegation. But the specific trajectory (finding themselves in the midst of an actual full-blown investigation and court case, and wisely deciding against coming clean) seems like a predictable ass-covering routine.

    Any lawyers want to speculate what might happen if one of these girls did cop to it?

  • ClassicLib-NeverProg||

    Maybe a misdemeanor at most, just because no prosecutor would want to touch it. The facts could fit some felonies but I doubt it would actually be pursued.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, me too.

    Condom with your blood on it in the trash: how can you not know where that came from?

    I mean, I think Mx. Willingham and Mx. F honestly couldn't remember which of them banged somebody rough/during her period/in the ass, since they could have told the same lie only it was Mx. Willingham who was raped. They seem to have had a very active social life, what with booze, coke, and, apparently, parade of bloody condoms.

  • Ted S.||

    Maybe she was wasted enough to put a vibrator in a condom? And too wasted to remember?

  • ||

    There was male DNA on it as well, they just don't know whose.

  • SugarFree||

    There was DNA from an unknown male in the condom. And while the other girl was on the rag, it was Willingham's DNA in the blood on the exterior of the discarded condom.

  • R C Dean||

    They didn't know what male's DNA was in a condom with Mx. Willingham's blood on it?

    Yeah, these were some hard-partying girlfriends. If you can't even remember what guy rode you so hard, or during your period, that you bled on him, well, dang.

    Where were these party-hearty chicks when I was in law school, anyway?

  • Paul.||

    Where were these party-hearty chicks when I was in law school, anyway?

    You were ignoring them. You graduated, no?

  • ||

    "Collapses under scrutiny."

    That describes every premise, assertion, and argument of the left. All of 'em.

  • Sevo||

    Robby, you got the desk that's not gonna win you a lot of friends outside of those who hope that facts and reality matter.
    Keep it up and all the best of luck to you; this one is a good 'un.

  • GILMORE||

    " this one is a good 'un."

    you seem to be giving robby specific personal credit... for covering *Yoffe's* Bold Takedown of the politically-correct 'Rape Culture' propaganda...

  • Sevo||

    GILMORE|6.1.15 @ 3:20PM|#
    "you seem to be giving robby specific personal credit... for covering *Yoffe's* Bold Takedown of the politically-correct 'Rape Culture' propaganda..."

    Yep; spreading the word is as good as finding it. Am I missing something?

  • GILMORE||

    "spreading the word is as good as finding it"

    well, as long as Slate keeps providing the Avante Garde, bold-criticism of the Campus Rape Culture myth, we should be thrilled that we've got people here brave enough to... pass that on.

  • Dweebston||

    I wonder who else outside of Reason covered this and didn't simply let the original story stand uncorrected.

  • Dweebston||

    Not to say it wasn't covered, but it does take some fortitude to publish an inflammatory denunciation of victim-pimping, even secondhand, with your own biases fully on display. To the sort of sophisticate who unironically uses the term "rape culture," that looks an awful lot like rape apology.

  • Sevo||

    Bad day, G?

  • GILMORE||

    No. I'm just noting that its Slate, not Reason, doing the hard-work 'debunking' rape-culture myths here.

    Just like Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic was the one doing the "brave stand for the first amendment" while Reason was passively bemoaning the unfortunate lack of Gay-Affirmative pizza parlors.

    sure, cheer-leading other people's braver efforts is to be commended.

  • Sevo||

    I'll run my approvals by you in the future to make sure they are of an appropriate level; care to give me a hint on the scale involved? 1-5? 1-10?
    If it looks like I'm making fun of you, well, I am.

  • Steve G||

    If Rape were Putin, he'd be dead by now...

  • GILMORE||

    "convicted of a misdemeanor, “touching of a non-sexual nature.”

    I was once given a stern, hysterical lecture about how "touching is a crime"

    By a female train conductor. I tapped her on the arm to ask whether there was a problem with an old ticket i had. She freaked the fuck out.

    I apologized. there are signs all over MTA trains basically saying, "DO NOT FUCK WITH THE STAFF, THE UNIONS HAVE GOTTEN NYS LEGISLATURE TO MAKE FUCKING WITH THE STAFF A FELONY"....so i clammed up.

    The passenger next to me did later chirp in, "Maybe she's in the wrong line of work"

  • R C Dean||

    I tapped her on the arm to ask whether there was a problem with an old ticket i had. She freaked the fuck out.

    "OK, OK, I get it. Next time I'll just scream profanities at you to get your attention. Geez."

  • ||

    "touching is a crime"

    If you make touching a illegal, only criminals will touch.

  • Paul.||

    You know who else was pms-ing?

  • Inigo M.||

    Countess Elizabeth Bathory.

  • Loki||

    men, by nature of their physiology (or perhaps because of rape culture), are always the instigators in sexual encounters, and that women have no sexual agency whatsoever, could it be said that he was a rapist.

    This seems to be the SJW's entire argument in all of these cases. It's pathetic how much double think these ass clowns engage in. They claim womyn are simultaneously empowered independent womyn while also being helpless victims of TEH PATRIARCHY and RAPE KULTURE!!!!!!111!!!!

  • SimonD||

    Hey!!

    As the paid spokesman of the Consolidated Ass-Clowns of America (CACA) I strongly resent being compared to these SJW nutburgers.

    This case seems to be more proof that crazy chicks always eventually become CRAZY chicks.

  • ||

    Back in my college days - when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and there were still good punk bands - there was only one case of "campus rape that was big enough to make the school paper.

    The woman in question claimed to have been raped at a Frat party - while being outside. And her attacker, who she knew, also used a condom at her request. This was before admin kangaroo courts so the matter was put to the campus police - who were actually real cops. Long story short, they found no evidence of rape since it was a he-said, she-said scenario. No physical evidence either. The proto-SJWs of the time raised some hell for a week or two but nothing else happened.

  • Russell||

    Given the more pressing demands of debutate brassiere removal at Harvard, Miss Willingham is doomed to a life of perpetual disappointment.

  • Brando||

    The troubling thing here is that accusers like Willingham (and Mattress Girl, and UVA's Jackie) are most angry that they were "railroaded" by the system and the authorities (whether their respective schools or the civil authorities) did not take their cases seriously. But then you take a look and realize that in every one of those cases, a fairly comprehensive investigation was done, and the evidence weighed against the accusers (even with the lower standard required in campus investigations) and so you have to ask--what are they really demanding?

    They're demanding that the accuser's word always be taken at face value, the accused get no rights, that evidence only be considered if it weighs in favor of the accuser, and due process be damned.

    These are dangerous attitudes, and the most frightening aspect of this is the fact that people in power feel this way too.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They're demanding unquestioned and unbridled power to abuse their enemies.

    In other words, they're Progressives.

  • MJGreen||

    Where'd I leave my shocked face?

  • The Grinch||

    Hasn't Yoffe got the memo that it's the narrative, not individual cases, that's important here? If a few eggs have to be broken, eggs in this case being the accuseds' life, so be it.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Apparently, the only way to protect yourself on campus is to video the entire sexual encounter every time. "Do you want me to fuck you, baby?" "Yes! Yes!" "Say it into the camera, baby! Tell the camera you want me to fuck you...."

    Huge supply of amateur porn incoming (not that there's any shortage).

  • MarkLastname||

    "But, he made me say all those things on camera; I swear, he wrote a whole script for me, and made me memorize it, and during the whole video, six of his friends were standing behind the camera jerking off with their left hands and pointing guns at me with their right. I know it looks genuine, but that's just because I'm a really good actress. Do you know anyone in the business I can send headshots to?"

  • TimothyLane||

    The femocrats pushing the fictitious rape epidemic thesis don't care if their clams are disproven as long as those they wish to deceive continue to believe them.

  • Tionico||

    reminds me of a verse from an old bob Dylan song... screaming she moaned I've just been laid, she called for the doctor who pulled down the shade. You will not die, its not poison, m advice is to not let the boys in". Stuipd female. Stupid 'ungentleman". Stupid kids. What, did they learn all about sexual expression in the government schools, where no urge should ever be denied, where no thing should ever be left untried? Grow up, all of them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "undermining the film’s message that college is a place where innocent girls are preyed upon by sociopathic rapists."

    Of course that happens.

    Equally obvious is that college is a place where innocent boys are preyed upon by sociopathic rape accusers.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yeah, seems like college has a real problem with Lying-About-Rape Culture.

  • Galane||

    She proffered the illegal cocaine? So why the hell is she not serving time for possession and distribution of a controlled substance?

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.jobnet20.com

  • KellyMoore||

    The bare fact that Ms. Willingham and her friend both insisted that the police test the condom to see if Winston used it and left it behind is strong evidence that both women were so intoxicated that they could not remember the night's events and that they thus were not capable of giving consent to ANY sexual activity.

    `
    Winston digitally raped both women, which (as reported in Yoffe's biased piece) he admitted multiple times in text messages. He evidently had a clear memory of events.

    `
    So, exactly how was he falsely accused? When he condemned himself with his own words?

    `
    What the hell is the matter with all of you rape apologists? Why shouldn't we be doing more -- doing something, ANYthing -- to reduce the number of rapes in this country?

  • John Worthington||

    There's just too many insecure men in this country who can't get laid, who hate women, who want to punish women for not sleeping with them, who feel entitled to women's bodies, and who feel the need to prove their manhood by sleeping with as many women as they can. Rape wraps all of these things into one powerful blow. And they are so terrified of losing their privilege to rape with impunity that they actively try to discredit every single mainstream rape case. And this propagandistic article's clear agenda is to discredit the entire film and is going after the central victim to do so.

    On a side note, it's interesting how the rape apologists emerge from their caves only when the rapist is white.

  • John Worthington||

    Here we go again. In every single mainstream rape case, without fail, people actively try to discredit the victim. And they feverishly dig up everything they can to use against the victim. But it always comes down to, "Well, she said she was raped, but we don't know for sure." Maybe because most people can't exactly reach for their cameras when they're being held down and forcibly penetrated against their will. Even if they did, you'd still try to argue that the person was consenting. And like clockwork, this article pivots to the tired "drug/alcohol" excuse in order to discredit her. You can't give consent while under the influence. Moreover, I'm pretty sure most women know the difference between having consensual sex and being penetrated against their will, especially since the trauma of being raped causes long-term mental, emotional and psychological damage. And only a total psychopath would so extensively try to imprison someone for something they never did. But I guess that's what most people (specifically men) see when they look at a woman who says she was raped. And by blatantly expressing the same melodramatic tone and aggressive language used by those men, it's pretty clear that this article's agenda is to discredit the entire film and is just going after the central victim to do so. But the writer should know that "false accusations" work both ways, and falsely accusing someone of lying about rape is exactly what this article is doing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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