MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rep. Jared Polis Thinks Colleges Should Be Able to Expel Students When They're Only 20% Sure a Rape Happened

In a follow-up interview with Reason, Polis explains why he wants to let colleges expel innocent men.

Jared PolisYoutubeForget preponderance of evidence—Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado) wonders why campus rape adjudicators don’t use an even lower standard of proof and expel students in cases where there is only a 20 percent chance that they are guilty.

Polis made this shocking remark during a House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training hearing on campus sexual assault prevention Thursday morning. The hearing featured a Q and A session between lawmakers and campus rape experts—most of whom were dismissive of concerns that the campus adjudication process was unfriendly to the due process rights of accused students (the exception being Foundation for Individual Rights lawyer Joseph Cohn).

Toward the end of the hearing, several panelists noted that they preferred the “preponderance of evidence” standard, which holds that a student should be found guilty of sexual assault if adjudicators decide it is more likely than not he committed the crime. This standard is “the most equitable” one, they said: it establishes identical burdens for accusers and the accused.

I could go into all the ways this idea is wrong and flies in the face of liberal Western notions about justice and fairness—whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Not equitable, alas—but it’s actually a downright reasonable position, considering what Polis advocated moments later. He said:

“It certainly seems reasonable that a school for its own purposes might want to use a preponderance of evidence standard, or even a lower standard. Perhaps a likelihood standard…. If I was running a (private college) I might say, well, even if there is only a 20 or 30 percent chance that it happened, I would want to remove this individual.

Cohn responded that a burden of proof standard even lower than the preponderance of evidence standard would unquestionably violate students’ due process rights. The preponderance of evidence standard is itself an abridgment of due process unless it is accompanied by balancing factors such as cross-examination, subpoena power, and competent judges and juries, according to Cohn.

Astonishingly, Polis continued down this line of thought:

It seems like we ought to provide more of a legal framework, then, that allows a reasonable likelihood standard or a preponderance of evidence standard. If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud.”

(Emphasis mine.) That last line drew applause from the crowd.

I emailed Polis some follow-up questions, and he graciously answered them.

“We aren't talking about depriving someone of their liberty here, we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses,” he wrote in an email to Reason. “I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty; what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me? They deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.”

But what if Polis’s own son was among a pool of students accused of sexual assault? Would Polis really want his student expelled under such a jarringly low standard?

“If my son had a baseless accusation made against him at a university and it was making his life there miserable, I would suggest he transfer or take courses online,” wrote Polis. “It can be a living hell to go through endless campus investigations. I've seen this go down, and there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication. Someone who is wrongfully accused needs to do their best to put it behind them and move on. Trying to re-enroll in the same institution would be a constant reminder of the traumatic experience of being the subject of a baseless accusation.

If a university were to implement a ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard, it is important that they give the student the ability to withdraw so that their record isn't tainted, nor should a mere reasonable likelihood standard hurt their prospects elsewhere.”

I then asserted that this arrangement cedes way, way, way too much power to accusers (yes, I wrote way three times):

“I think these matters should be up to Universities to decide,” he replied. “University of Colorado (CU) has an elected board of Regents. They should decide if they want to have a reasonable likelihood or preponderance of the evidence standard. If a University errs too far on the side of giving ‘way, way, way too much power to accusers’ then that will hurt their competitive standing in the marketplace. There is room for all sorts of standards in the marketplace and prospective students will choose the right balance based on their preferences and the reputations of the various universities.”

Watch Polis's comments at the hearing, beginning 1 hour and 56 minutes in, below.

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.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    In the weather report, 20% chance of rain means it's not going to rain.

  • John Galt||

    In rape forecasting nonsense, "20% Sure" means the prospective "victim" hasn't been adequately coached enough to realize she's been "raped" yet.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Wasn't Reason slobbering over how great this guy was recently. I seem to recall articles including video games or something.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Yes. The so-called "libertarian-leaning" Democrat got what he REALLY wanted - same-sex marriage. He knew we libertarians were advocates for marriage equality.

    So he pretended to be libertarian -long enough to get what he wanted. Now that POTUS has made marriage equality "law of the land", Polis can be his true self.

    A statist pig.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Sorry - SCOTUS, not POTUS.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    He is anti-foreign-intervention, anti-Patriot Act, anti-net-neutrality, pro-bitcoin, anti-prohibition and inspires unreasoning hatred in SIV, so he can't be all bad.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    No, just 80% bad.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    Still in the top 1% for democrats, and the top 5% for republicans.

  • Christophe||

    That's a low bar. An amoeba qualifies as a top tier freedom-loving politician.

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    The most fundamental job of government is to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, in order to protect us from the latter. A politician cannot redeem failure here by sounding nice on some other issue.

    Polis's "avoid conflict" argument might carry some weight if the accused got a "lateral transfer" to an equally desirable program in another equally desirable college, but that is not how campus witch hunts work.

  • SIV||

    inspires unreasoning hatred in SIV

    Incorrect. Polis, until now, falls into the "he could be worse for a Dem" category. My issue is with Reason, especially Matt Welch, holding him out as "the libertarian-Democrat we've been waiting for" when they all end up like this. Same thing happens with some of the "libertarian-Republicans" too ( ex.Jeff Flake) but less often and they usually don't fall so hard (ex. Mike Lee). The liberaltarian-jackalope is often sighted ("there has to be one out there somewhere"!) but he is more fantastical than a skunk-ape or a unicorn. The closest we've had to one in my lifetime was killed when the Soviets shot down KAL 007 back in the '80s. Around the same time as the last halfway decent record by the late Lou Reed.

  • Chevy the Mulched||

    There's a 20% chance he's bad. Anyone else hear the woodchipper?

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Wasn't Reason slobbering over how great this guy was recently. I seem to recall articles including video games or something.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Here we go.

    https://goo.gl/1N6epp

  • kbolino||

    So? Are they supposed to read his mind and predict the future?

  • Lee G||

    A conventional Democrat in some respects

    Seems they did.

  • Loki||

    No, but they're not allowed to change their minds about someone either, even if the person later proceeds to go full retard on a separate issue from the one reason originally "slobbered" over them for. Once a good/ bad decision has been made about a person, they are not allowed to take into account additional information at a later time and change their minds about them. EVER.

  • SimonJester||

    Or else it is flip flopping. HOwever, if this were Mother Jones, that would just be evolving.

  • Suicidy||

    He has a D after his name. I see very few situations anymore where that bodes well. Unfortunately more and more republicans have turned into quasi shitbags or worse anymore as well.

    Congress needs an enema.

  • SIV||

    The Great Libertarian-Democrat Hope crashes and burns. Reason has pea-protein egg substitute all over its face, again. When will you cosmos ever learn?

  • kbolino||

    Jesus Christ, can this get any more overwrought?

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    And POOF! the Libertarian Moment died before it even got started

  • Antilles||

    It's easy to support Draconian measures when you know that they will never affect you or anyone you know. Despicable piece of shit.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's just the problem with politics in general. A politician can put forth a moronic idea that solves nothing and ruins people's lives. And when they do, the consequences to them are minimal. The very worst that can theoretically happen (and it rarely does in practice) is they get voted out over it. But, that's hardly a meaningful "punishment". It hasn't cost them anything. They still have their lives and liberties. Hell, in most cases, they can move on to a lucrative career as a lobbyist. As a result you get nonsense like politicians and bureaucrats "experimenting" with people's lives to "see what works". Think about that for a second. It's treating people like chaff.

    Personally, I'm wondering if there should be some recourse. Maybe get rid of immunity. Something's got to change to give these bastards some sense of modesty.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Polis seems to think that if the accused rapist simply withdraws and goes to another school that would be the end of the story, and no one would every hear about it.

    In real life, by withdrawing or being expelled, the young man, for the rest of his life, would be known as a rapist. Good luck with that.

  • Suicidy||

    That kind of bullshit are what lawsuits with jackpot settlements are for. If that shit happened to me, the college would be BEGGING for the opportunity to exonerate and reinstate me before it was over.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yeah, the school. But what about Polis? What about Obama? What about Arne Duncan and his OCR? The college is just the face of it. There's a million little apparatchiks behind it all on every little step.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Exactly.

    And when that was the consequence. And an innocent man that it happened to confronted him about it, do you think Polis would acknowledge his culpability? Do you think he'd be able to recognize, even to himself that he'd ruined someone's life just as a matter of course?

    My guess is probably no. My guess is that he'd find a way to rationalize it away. Doing anything else would risk coming to terms with all the misery and suffering his career had inflicted.

  • Ron||

    "as long as it save just one" is their usual justification for ruining everyone elses life.

  • Antilles||

    "Personally, I'm wondering if there should be some recourse."

    I would just like to see the politicians, their family, and friends held to the same standard that's imposed on the rest of us.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It's a start, I guess.

    But, I'm just not sure its enough. There's too many laws that are targeted at just some people. A million and one little cuts and there's no "rest" of us to compare to.

  • SimonD||

    Hmm..

    I wonder how many Congress Critters would have issues if they were held to the standards they seem to demand of 18-year old hormone-addled young men.

  • Eman||

    yeah i see absolutely no reason any government official should have immunity for anything. if you have to break the law in order to enforce it, someone is doing something wrong

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    Doesn't he have kids?

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    His son is only 4.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Let's see if 20% of voters want Polis recalled. That's enough, right?

  • Zeb||

    Well, being removed from office doesn't deprive him of life or liberty, so I think he must agree that it is enough.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    He can transfer to the local school board.

  • grrizzly||

    Absolutely, he can transfer to another school run in another district.

  • dbw1977||

    I'm sure 20% of the people in his district would be willing to believe that he violated some law worthy of impeachment from Congress and jail time.

    Perhaps 20% of the people in his district will believe he is a pedophile.

    If 20% is good enough for rape, surely it's good enough for anything else we can accuse people of, right?

  • dbw1977||

    I'm sure 20% of the people in his district would be willing to believe that he violated some law worthy of impeachment from Congress and jail time.

    Perhaps 20% of the people in his district will believe he is a pedophile.

    If 20% is good enough for rape, surely it's good enough for anything else we can accuse people of, right?

  • Eman||

    well rape is SO serious we have to sacrifice the rights of the accused on the alter of... something. miurder, on the other hand...

  • Zeb||

    And given that the last election was "midterm", 20% of (registered) voters is probably more than voted for him.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Is 20% of a rape "just the tip, just this once, just to see what it's like"?

    Asking for a friend...

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    It's when your girlfriend is only 80% satisfied. Later, when she retroactively withdraws consent, she can claim she was 20% raped.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    This make complete sense. Thanks, Playa.

  • Adam330||

    "We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud."

    If you think this person is actually a rapist, why in the heck would you want him to just transfer to another university?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Best not to think too deeply on it.

  • ||

    Because the other Uni is San Diego State?

  • ||

    Any school in OHIO would also be an appropriate response.

  • Zeb||

    And would another university want to enroll someone who was just expelled for rape? He seems to be ignoring the tremendous damage such a thing can do to one's reputation.

  • SFC B||

    Don't forget the liability the next university will have when it's found they enrolled someone who was kicked out of a previous university for the 20% rape.

  • SimonJester||

    Polis probably figures it will only hurt 20% of the expelled individual's (ok, LBH, the guy's) life.

  • Cloudbuster||

    If you're kicked out of five schools for 20% rape, does that equal 100% rape?

  • Suicidy||

    Whoops Goldberg wanted me to ask if it actually amounts to 'rape-rape'.

  • Hooha||

    No, that's stupid.

    It's 67.232% rape. Learn to math, idiot.

  • ||

    Because he doesn't think anything. He's saying this to mollify special interests who are loud, in his face, and watching this proceeding. It's pandering without logic or care.

    After all, that is what politicians do. And he's doing it.

  • Zeb||

    If you think this person is actually a rapist, why in the heck would you want him to just transfer to another university?

    I think the answer to that is similar to the answer to the question of why anyone would attend college if they had a 20% chance of being raped while there.

  • ||

    do the universities provide a written disclosure to the female applicants that they have a 20% chance of being raped? maybe a Truth in Raping disclosure? seems to leave them wide open for a suit if they know this and don't.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Actually, we're talking about them ATTEMPTING TO TRANSFER, with an expulsion on their transcript. But the implications of that seem to be lost on the distinguished gentleman from Colorado.

  • DenverJ||

  • Robert||

    Because then it's their problem, not yours.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me?"

    I know! It's not like it's a bakery. But what if it's a culinary school?

  • ||

    then it's mandatory rape cakes

  • SimonJester||

    Please let someone have a link for rape cakes.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    He really didn't think through his statement very clearly, did he?

  • Contrarian P||

    You could say this about 95% of everything that comes out of politicians' mouths.

  • Cloudbuster||

    And if only 20% of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is B.S., that's enough to kick him out of office, right?

  • Contrarian P||

    Actually that'd mean he was seriously lagging behind the rest of them.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    No, he actually DID think it though - as far as his emotions would allow him.

  • Suicidy||

    It is just a progtard democrat anyway. Best to out it down. Euthanization is always best for their kind.

  • Arcxjo||

    Or barbers' college?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    “If my son had a baseless accusation made against him at a university and it was making his life there miserable, I would suggest he transfer or take courses online,” wrote Polis.

    So really Polis is looking out for the comfort level of the wrongly accused, God bless him.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    If my son had a baseless accusation made against him at a university, I'd suggest that he fight to expose the truth.

    In all fairness to Polis, I'm not raising my sons to be fucking pussies, though

  • Florida Man||

    If I had a baseless accusation thrown at me, somebody is getting a surprise visit on a moonless night.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    That was you? Sorry, man, I thought you were a bear.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "YOU NOT BE CONFUSED WHEN STEVE SMITH GIVE YOU SURPRISE VISIT!"

  • Florida Man||

    If you stop putting uneaten pizza in the trash, I'll stop knocking over your trash cans!

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    It was deep dish. Like I was gonna eat it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Those bear-proof trashcans do nothing. Florida Bear drives a pickup truck.

  • SimonJester||

    Florida bear drives a pick up truck!
    Florida bear gonna fuck you up!
    Florida bear no he don't suck!
    Florida bear ... had relations with a duck?

    .....this had more potential. That last bit got away from me, I think...

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    *Applauds*

    /looks around and slows down applause

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    That's some funny shit right there.

  • SimonJester||

    You're not? I'm raising my sons to fuck pussies.

    Oh, nevermind, I guess I misread that.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    There are three kinds of people in the world....

  • Suicidy||

    Pollis clearly is. But he's a democrat. They're pretty much all pussies.

  • Zeb||

    What does "20%" even mean in this case? How do you numerically determine likelihood of guilt in a consistent and objective way? And why 20% and not 23% or 19%?

  • Brian||

    Yeah, it's kind of silly, isn't it?

    Let's pretend that regents and student/faculty councils are pulling out their guilt-o-meters and measuring the estimated guilt as a probability or likelihood.

    Rather then, say, pulling a guess out of their ass and going with it.

    Then, let's proceed with our numerically quantified options for standards of guilt. Because, yes, we're that awesome. It's science, man.

  • Princess Trigger||

    To take the over and mis-used example - a black person's accusation would be 60% of a white person's accusation. On the otherside of the table - a white male's denial would be equal to a black male athlete's but less than a gay black dancer. This would all be modified by your hit points and armored resistance.

    I'll start fleshing out an app for all this.
    Justice (of a sort) Shall Be Done!

  • Suicidy||

    Is 20% a modifier when you make your saving throw with a D20?

  • Hooha||

    JamaalSchool Board:
    What do you think AbduhlPanel of Womyn's Studies undergrads? Can you give me a number crunch real quick?

    AbduhlPanel of Womyn's Studies undergrads:
    Uhhh.. yeah, gimme a sec… I’m coming up with thirty-twotwenty point three three uh, repeating of course, percentage, of survivalrape.

    JamaalSchool Board:
    Uh…that’s a lot better than we usually do. Uhh, alright, you think we’re ready guys? [interrupted]

    LeeroyPolis:
    Alright chums, (I’m back)! Let’s do this… LEEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOY JEEEEEENKIIIIIIIIIIINS! REPRESENTATIIIIIIIIIIIIVE POLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSS! [runs into Rookery] [ruins countless futures]

  • R C Dean||

    Traditionally, "preponderance of the evidence" is 51%.

    What he's saying is that the accused has to prove their defense almost to the level of "no reasonable doubt". That proving up the defense to 51% of the evidence won't get it done.

  • Zeb||

    Even when talking about preponderance of the evidence, using a percentage is kind of silly. It's a bit more meaningful in that case because 51%+ probability is the threshold for "more likely than not". But even so, if you can't show how you derived a number, you shouldn't go throwing numbers around. I don't think that your typical juror sitting on a jury in a civil case is sitting there calculating percentages.

  • Christophe||

    If you put a Bayesian on the jury you might get numbers out. That'd be fun.

  • SimonJester||

    Maybe they are going for weighted votes. Each administrator counts for 3, the victim counts for 10, the defendant counts for -32, each friend gets 4 votes, etc. Then they add up the total, and if the votes for guilt is 20% of available votes, the dude is tossed out.

  • Adam330||

    "I think these matters should be up to Universities to decide,"

    Can we take this as a criticism of the Obama administration policy of imposing these standards on universities with threats to pull federal funding?

  • B.P.||

    My thought exactly. Maybe he should take this up with the Dept. of Education.

  • prolefeed||

    It's almost like Robby Soave is surprised that an allegedly libertarian-leaning Democrat is kind of a statist fuck.

  • Idle Hands||

    He plays video games tho.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    And eats unapproved steak. What's a college transfer between friends when stacked up against such a love of Freedom Steaks?

  • grrizzly||

    "dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe"

    Maybe this time.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Nope, while you lot are trying to figure out how to spell "fuck off, SJWs", Europe is lining up for a proper return to cultural fascism in about 5-8 years (EU is all about economic fascism anyway). Now EU will force countries to start taking "refugees" by mandate, and that is bound to trigger some old-fashioned minority stomping. Combine it with said minority's ridiculous superiority complex and militant culture, and pogroms will be back.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    That is in fact why I think it's going to blow up. Because for decades, anyone not wanting unlimited Muslim immigration was labelled as a racist and a fascist. My favorite example - Eritrean murders two people in Sweden, government reacts by doubling police protection of refugee centre he was located in, because of backlash. Which didn't happen because it's FUCKING SWEDEN AND THEY ARE NOT VIOLENT RACISTS! At some point, people are going to say "fuck it, I'm a racist then" and start acting that way.

    Hungary is a good starting point, since they are still butthurt about losing WWI and half what they considered their territory.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    At some point, people are going to say "fuck it, I'm a racist then" and start acting that way.

    That might take a little while longer in Sweden. People underestimate how much they hate themselves.

    Hungary is a good starting point, since they are still butthurt about losing WWI and half what they considered their territory.

    Not to mention the fact that they have a collective memory of being invaded and occupied by Muslims before.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Not to mention the fact that they have a collective memory of being invaded and occupied by Muslims before.

    Pfft, pikers. They barely spent two centuries under Muslim rule. Various parts of the Balkans were occupied between 450 and 550 years.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Serbians still wrap their cultural identity around the Battle of Kosovo, which happened over 600 years ago.

    People in Eastern Europe have long memories.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Yes, we do. One of the weirdest things if you stop to think for a second. When I finally read Black Lamb, Grey Falcon, I found that Rebecca West was as flabbergasted by it as I was growing up. It takes a specific mindset to make a defeat that led to centuries of enslavement foundational myth of your nation.
    Ironically it seems that it wasn't a victory at Kosovo in 1912 that put the myth to rest, but the second defeat in 1999. From what little I still get from the Old Country, the idea of poking stronger nations in the eye till they slap you down is finally losing strength.

  • Cloudbuster||

    At some point, people are going to say "fuck it, I'm a racist then" and start acting that way.

    I did that years ago. It just got tiring trying to reason with people.

  • Suicidy||

    The world better deal with it's Muslim problem soon. Or there will be too many of them and it will probably escalate to a world war to stop their aggression

  • John Galt||

    The "Teal Deer" has been analyzing the recent rape culture hysteria in a series of very well researched videos posted to his YouTube channel: TL;DR. Videos like this one on: Laura Bates & Hay Levels "Don't Understand Rape."

  • *GILMORE*||

    That photo and his "pile of papers" make him look like a stoner Teaching Assistant at a community college.

    which is probably what he *should be*.

    Also, shirt darker than jacket rule...and .....brown? Christ, they'd kick him out of a comedy club for bad-taste.

  • ||

    "If a University errs too far on the side of giving ‘way, way, way too much power to accusers’ then that will hurt their competitive standing in the marketplace."

    Not when you use a state financed school as an example, you idiot. Especially one with a false rape accusation history.

    Rest assured, the progs in northern Colorado will keep this guy in office.

    *Sigh*

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    Market forces do not apply to universities, which are heavily subsidized and legally favored by the state and Federal governments.

  • Brian||

    Hey, they appeal to markets when convenient.

    Otherwise, markets are wrong, always and everywhere.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Democrats actually think that ObamaCare has created state "marketplaces" for insurance.

    It should be no surprise that they would think that the state creates a marketplace for higher education.

    A state-created marketplace is not even a category error; it is simply a nonsense expression like "social justice" or a "moral stone".

  • Suicidy||

    This is a good time for me to promote my 'Euthanize the Progtards' plan. Each progtard euthanized will help reduce mankind's collective 'carbon footprint'. Or some such bullshit. Whatever gets those faggoty pieces of shit to sign on and reduce the surplus population of village idiots.

  • Illocust||

    And of course such a college would be on the hook for refunding the student the entire sticker value of the college education they received so far, right? Private schools can make any action expulsion worthy, but if they give a reason, you have to have actually committed the actions they are expelling you for. At a 20 percent level they are admitting by their own policy that they are almost certain you didn't do it.

  • ||

    Well sure, minus the restocking fee, of course.

  • John Galt||

    Does anyone know if TL;DR is also Zogg from Betelgeuse? There seems a similarity, between the two, past mere coincidence.

  • *GILMORE*||

  • *GILMORE*||

    "Ok, but now ket me tell you about the parts of scientology that make a lot of sense..."

  • Zeb||

    I'm far from the most stylish guy in the world. But holy crap. It's not that hard to dress so you don't look like you just grabbed random clothing from a Salvation Army bin.

  • *GILMORE*||

    I'm sure there's a political consultant who could explain this...

    ....but politicians - particularly representatives rather than senators, who follow slightly different rules - tend to have a high degree of awareness of how their 'style' (or lack thereof) is interpreted in the minds of voters.

    Meaning, they know exactly what they're doing when they 'dress badly'. its intentional

    One, it shows that they're "Regular Guys".

    If he was rolling in a Burberry suit (noted: Obama's preferred cut) and had french cuffs and Pat Riley's tailor... it would be saying, "I get paid, bitches". Which is NOT what you want to show as a politician.

    You want to look like you're so busy doing "the people's work" that you couldn't find a clean shirt. and that you wear a tie your 4 year old picked out. And nothing fits, and nothing matches.

    two = its a kind of Branding. Everyone will forget his dumb 'campus rape' comments. but everyone will remember the Bow Tie.

    I'm dead serious about this. The only representatives politicians who dress "well" (and then... not even) are the black ones. Because its a different calculus. Black voters want to see their people flossing it.

  • Florida Man||

    Also I think black men look better is suits. I don't know why but I could put on the exact same outfit as a black guy and just not wear it as well.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, for some reasons black men can pull off wearing an outfit that would look ridiculous on a white guy.

    #BlackClothingPrivilege

  • *GILMORE*||

    "For some reasons"

    Bright colors look better against a dark background. light backgrounds favor muted, neutral colors. It aint rocket science.

  • Derpetologist||

    What about werewolf shirts? What message does that send?

    /asking for a friend

  • *GILMORE*||

    Do mean shirts that turn you into a Werewolf?

    The "three wolf moon" shirt is not a 'werewolf' shirt

    The only think i can think of fitting that term would be the costume thing that has hair coming out of the collar and cuffs. which i think would be really comfortable during winter.

  • ||

    I'm all for making em wear Burberry suits

  • *GILMORE*||

    No business like show business.

  • Suicidy||

    Bow ties are cool. Or at least they were until Christmas 2013.........

  • SIV||

    The key to thrift store dressing is don't do it randomly. Go in regularly, find the best or least know stores. Imagine you're going to score a Videosphere or a Dürer copper plate engraving. Then, before you leave casually check out the men's wear racks and see if there is anything decent in your size. Repeat often.

  • Suicidy||

    Ross used to get a ,it. Of Ralp Lauren and Nautica clothing in my size. Then their stuff all turned to hip hop garbage. Or shit. It fluctuates between shit and garbage.

  • grrizzly||

    At the very least he's breaking the stereotype that gay men are well-dressed.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    He is such a fucking idiot. Here:

    “We aren't talking about depriving someone of their liberty here, we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses,” he wrote in an email to Reason. “I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty; what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me? They deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.”

    The fact that colleges have the RIGHT to expel doesn't mean they SHOULD. He's conflating the two because he's a moron. Polis isn't saying 'colleges shouldn't expel people who didn't do anything, but they have the right to do so,' he's actively advocating that they expel the innocent. He's also an idiot because if you can just 'transfer to another college' then what the fuck was the point of expelling the supposed rapist if he's just going to go rape elsewhere?

    It imposes an unnecessary burden on the innocent, and could very well destroy their academic careers, while doing nothing to prevent sexual assault because the rapist is still at large. So it hurts innocent people while doing virtually nothing to prevent what Polis the Dipshit claims he's trying to prevent.

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    “We aren't talking about depriving someone of their liberty here, we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses,” he wrote in an email to Reason. “I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty; what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me? They deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.”

    Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court and most Americans disagree with him on this.

    (Also, he notably omitted "property" form his list of things protected by due process of law.)

  • SimonJester||

    Coincidence? Doubtful.

  • ||

    if it's just a contractual matter they should refund the student's tuition (for the full semester) and furthermore the matter should remain private.

    In practice, when a student is expelled, the school keeps thousands of dollars in tuition, saddling the student with thousands in debt, and his transcript is marked with a scarlet letter. They're basically talking about robbing and defaming a young adult because he probably didn't rape someone.

  • Win Bear||

    In practice, when a student is expelled, the school keeps thousands of dollars in tuition, saddling the student with thousands in debt, and his transcript is marked with a scarlet letter.

    Students should be able to sue for libel. The school may consider 20% enough to expel, but it wouldn't get them out of a libel case.

  • KerryW||

    I was thinking this exact same thing.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses

    Like bakers, pizza places and photographers?

  • Suicidy||

    Of course not! Those people aren't important intellectual progressives.

  • R C Dean||

    I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty;

    So he thinks the "due process" under pubsec union contracts, and in many university faculties, is a load of bullshit?

    Interesting.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    He's also not advocating for truth - if it was his child who wrongly accused someone else's child, what kind of parent does that make him?

    His child can't tell the difference between right and wrong?

    I tell you, the guy sounds like Cotton Mather.

  • Idle Hands||

  • Idle Hands||

    Sure, no party or candidate will be perfect; you probably disagree with other Libertarians on many issues, but of the major political parties, the Democrats have become the party of individual freedoms. This election season, I urge you to take a real hard look at the candidates. Look at the track record of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Who is actually trying to reduce the impact of government on our daily lives? Who will prevent government censorship of the internet? Which candidate will let you marry who you love? Who will let you have control of your reproductive health choices? Who will spend our hard earned tax dollars increasing military spending, even on projects the military has said they don't want!

    lol.

  • Idle Hands||

    you probably disagree with other Libertarians on many issues,

    Not me I'm a real Libertarian, all the rest of you libertarians are just imitating, so I'll stand up.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    +2 Trailer Park Girls Go 'Round the Outside...

  • Suicidy||

    Look Idle Hands' libertarianism comes right off! He's a phony!

  • Antilles||

    I wish the Democrats would apply their pro-choice, hands-off approach to abortion to every other aspect of our lives. It's the only Libertarian component of their insipid party.

  • Zeb||

    Pretty much. Even on drug policy, where I think they are still slightly better, the only reforms they really want are on pot because it's not so bad and to force everyone into treatment instead of prison for anything else. Not exactly a strong personal liberty or pro-choice position.
    Of course where they really fail is in their utter disregard for economic personal liberty,.

  • Antilles||

    I hate both parties. But when I vote I consider who is more likely to leave me alone and allow me to keep more of my money. Unfortunately, for most of my life that's been the Republicans. Sigh...

  • Contrarian P||

    Unfortunately, for most of my life that's been neither. Sigh.

  • Robert||

    But when you look at polls of the rank & file, or look at how their representatives vote, Republicans are way, way better. Is nobody here but me familiar w Don Ernsberger's findings? He expected to find them equally bad, but it turned out that applied only to "personal" liberty, while on "economic" liberty, Republicans in Congress & as governors voted overwhelmingly better than Democrats. More recently polls of the rank & file show Republicans to have more libertarian opinions than Democrats do, by quite a bit.

  • SimonD||

    I don't know if I'd say Republican are way way better.

    The way I basically see it is: Republicans suck, but Democrats SUCK!!!!

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Except the part about terminating the life of the innocent third party, so inconvenient that little one was.

  • Suicidy||

    Don't you get it? 'Pro-choice' 'gay rights', etc.......it's all like a retail chain advertising their loss leaders or limited quantity door busters to get you in the door. Where the REAL plan is to up sell you on a full blown Marxist statism.

  • Zeb||

    Deciding which of the two major parties is "the party of individual freedoms" is really a pointless exercise. More absurd than tallest midget or smartest retard.

  • Idle Hands||

    pretty much.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Except that the tallest midget and the smartest retard do exist.

  • SimonD||

    There is a quote about that. I can't remember it, but it's approximately:

    The line between bad and worse is always more obvious than the line between good and better.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Who is actually trying to reduce the impact of government on our daily lives?

    Definitely not Democrats.

    Who will prevent government censorship of the internet?

    Certainly not the party that lauds the FCC and promotes neutering the first amendment to empower corrupt politicians allegedly hand-picked by billionaires to inexplicably pass laws that will somehow expel themselves from politics.

    Which candidate will let you marry who you love?

    All of them, now that the Supreme Court has removed any power they have to interfere in that decision. Some of them might dislike that restriction more than others, of course.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Who will let you have control of your reproductive health choices?

    Probably not the people who panicked at making birth control OTC once they realized it might dampen the outrage machine. Democrats don't believe in reproductive rights (certainly they don't believe that no government official should get between a woman and her doctor regarding her body, or they would have gotten behind medical MJ much earlier, would fight all medical regulations instead of just the ones that affect babattoirs, and would demote the FDA to an advisory body), they believe in population control, and only support the former so long as they feel it tends to equate to the latter.

    Who will spend our hard earned tax dollars increasing military spending, even on projects the military has said they don't want!

    Both parties, so long as war is the health of the state. Democrats aren't ever going to cut the military and leave you with a slightly bigger piece of your paycheck. They might cut the military and redirect the money to some bullshit government programs they prefer, with some additional bonus funds as a reward for being so thrifty regarding defense -- politicians, especially Democrats, treat budgets like the morbidly obese treat diets, after all.

  • JWatts||

    So, the same idiot wrote the article: "Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values"

    Not to surprising.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    I think we should expel anyone who we think might have falsely accused another person of rape even if we have no evidence it was a false accusation. After all, they can just transfer anyway and they don't have an affirmative right to make them deliver courses to me. Plus, they deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.

    Plus, if I had a college I just wouldn't let Jews in because they control our banking systems and inundate us with kike propaganda through their ownership of Hollywood production companies. They don't have the right to make me provide them with courses, so you can't even criticize me for this behavior and I fully expect Polis to argue that what I'm doing is not only legally okay, but morally acceptable as well.

    (All of the above is sarcastic, in case anyone didn't notice)

  • Jerryskids||

    No need to be sarcastic, the flip side of expelling students who are only 20% likely to have committed a rape is that you are retaining a student who has a 80% chance of having made a false rape accusation. But this guy has no problem with people who lie, does he?

  • ||

    But this guy has no problem with people who lie, does he?

    HELLO! He does work in congress. waddauthink?

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Thanks for following up on this one Robby.

    This is seriously insane.

  • *GILMORE*||

    " there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication."

    The process is the punishment.... *and there's nothing wrong with that, because uh... female voters... or something....*

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    “It can be a living hell to go through endless campus investigations. I've seen this go down, and there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication."

    Because?.......

    It's like he's not even listening to the things coming out of his own mouth.

  • ||

    This explains 90% of Congressional hearings: Cocktail Party Syndrome - A descriptor for the behaviour of children with arrested hydrocephalus, who may be sociable, talkative, pseudointelligent, and speaking in a seemingly erudite fashion on subjects about which they have no true understanding.

  • ||

    what's the preponderance of evidence in a he said she said with no physical evidence? that he's a rapist and she's a lying whore?

  • Brian||

    Well, we can measure that likelihood.

    Let's see... In most cases, rape is a criminal issue, with criminal courts, in which case guilt is determined by a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

    This implies that most rape accusations in criminal court feature a prosecutor who thinks they can prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If they're any good at their job and making that estimation, then this implies that most rape accusations in criminal court are judged guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Let's generalize that to all rape allegations, assume that correlation is causation, and claim assume that practically all rape accusers are honest, and the accused is almost always guilty.

    Done: if someone is accused of rape, then they are most likely guilty. QED. That's science.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Done: if someone is accused of rape, then they are most likely guilty. QED. That's science.

    And the corollaries:

    If the police are investigating you, you most likely did something wrong.

    If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Clearly the best way to deal with rapists is to keep them in society and just kind of pass them off to another college because somehow sending rapists from one college to another will totally prevent rape. Herpedy derpity durrrrr.

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    I think he's getting his advice from the Catholic Church...

  • SugarFree||

    The Kiddie-Toucher Shuffle worked for the Catholic Church for centuries.

  • Antilles||

    Why not? It's what the Catholic church as always done with their rapists.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    It's works for bad cops...

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    It's works for bad copsCatholic priests...

    Conform, damn it!

  • Ivan Pike||

    Clearly the best way to deal with rapists is to keep them in society and just kind of pass them off to another college because somehow sending rapists from one college to another will totally prevent rape.

    This sounds familiar.

    Clearly the best way to deal with rapists pedophile priests is to keep them in society and just kind of pass them off to another college parish because somehow sending rapists pedophile priests from one college parish to another will totally prevent rape molesting boys.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Don't forget the sex scandals in the Catholic Church!

    Seriously, there seem to be parallels between the policy advocated by Polis and the behavior of the corrupt, worldly bishops who shuffled abusive priests around.

  • kbolino||

    the corrupt, worldly bishops

    I'm not sure this is an accurate characterization. There seem to have been quite a few Church officials who enabled these abuses due to a lack of worldly experience. At the very least, that you should not place an individual with a propensity toward a particular sin in a temptation-rich environment seems to have eluded many of them. Whether that reflects a sincere naivete on their part, or they were knowingly complicit, is a question whose answer is likely known only to God.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    OK, some of them may have thought the priests could be "cured" and then sent back into ministry.

    But adopting that viewpoint required adopting an exaggerated version of the nonChristian therapeutic philosophy, ignoring longstanding teachings about the balance between justice and mercy.

    It also means ignoring the element of *sacrilege* of an ordained priest who abuses his body to commit this sort of crime. A priest doing it is worse than a gym teacher or Uncle Bob doing it, because the gym teacher and Uncle Bob didn't have their bodies specifically consecrated to the service of the altar.

  • kbolino||

    Under the rules of the Church at the time, what would have been the proper way to have dealt with the priests?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Prosecution in the Church's tribunals.

    "A cleric who in another way [besides concubinage or related offenses] has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants."

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P56.HTM

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The sixth commandment, in the Catholic numbering, is the one against adultery.

  • kbolino||

    There's a reason why I asked "under the rules of the Church at the time", as the modern Code of Canon Law dates to 1983. I can't find an English translation of the 1917 Code, but from what little Latin I can understand/translate, it looks like the procedures were quite different.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Absolutely - I don't know what's in the 1917 version on this subject.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    My guess would be it also provided for penalties against priests in this situation.

  • kbolino||

    Which is not to say that all the abuse magically stopped in 1983...

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Ah, here we go, p. 387:

    "If [clerics] have committed acts of impurity with persons under sixteen years of age, adultery, attack on women, bestiality, bawdry, incest with blood relations or relations by marriage in the first degree, they are to be suspended, punished with infamy of law, and deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, and in more serious cases they are to be deposed."

    http://www.archive.org/stream/.....3/mode/2up

  • Notorious UGCC||

    (this is the 1917 version)

  • kbolino||

    I suppose then it boils down to: a law is only as good as the people willing to enforce it.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Yup.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Hmmm...no, I haven't seen it.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    On the other hand, adult men who like young boys may have been drawn to the priesthood because of 1) target rich environment and 2) blend in with the non-married males

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Alas, this is a risk in many contexts (church, Boy Scouts, etc.)

    And there have been priests who molested girls (see also teachers)

    Mark 9:42

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Hey guys, did any of you know that the Catholic Church did something similar?

    Just wanted to make sure you were all aware of that story as there are quite a number of parallels.

  • Antilles||

    I spent too long writing my message. By the time I hit 'Submit' there were already a bunch of posts saying the same thing. Great minds think alike, huh?

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    I WAS FIRST EVERYONE STOLE MY IDEA!!!!!

  • ||

    First to be buggered by a priest?

    Not much of an idea.

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    But they copied me nonetheless

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Or, due process be damned. You drew the short straw and SOMEONE HAS TO BE PUNISHED.

    It's not the Polis doesn't think - it's that Matt and Nick thought he was libertarian-left.

    hahaha - you Reason editors are effing stupid.

  • Fooseven||

    This is really a concept that would further weaponize the rape allegation, which in practice belongs only to women. Remember that video of a few dopes putting on ski masks and vandalizing some student writer's apt because they didn't like his satire column? Be much easier to eliminate his voice by accusing him of rape without any real proof that, you know, police would bug you about.

  • JWatts||

    Yes, and after the second or third time he had to change schools, he'd learn to keep his mouth shut.

    And honestly, that's the direction Jared Polis is coming from. He doesn't think of this as passing a rapist off to another school. Because not even he believes these are actually rapes. He probably figures that any real rapes were handled by the police.

    This is all about enforcing the liberal orthodoxy (and it's feminist variant) on Campus culture. If a female has any kind of problem with a male student, then clearly it's up to the male student to leave and go somewhere else. The end goal being that male student will be properly feminist or risk of being expelled.

  • Antilles||

    Oh, c'mon! Women are just as vulnerable to unfounded allegations that can get them kicked out of school and possibly ruin their lives. For instance...give me a minute...

  • ||

    Who needs male students? They are just annoying nuisances. Like fleas, or corns on your heel. If there's a small chance they might be causing a problem, they should be removed.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Who needs male students?

    All the whiny journalists complaining how they can't get dates?

  • Paul.||

    Leaving this here without comment:

    "...my successful, gorgeous and amazing friends remain kiss-less on New Year's Eve. And on Valentine's day. And on the 4th of July... The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay or in 'it's complicated' situations."

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Yup, welcome to the wonderful world of male privilege, ladies. Now put in the work and start outcompeting your friends, or start dating below your social/education/income level.

  • ||

    Why feminist women can't find dateable men?

    Er.

    Because, if Jezebel and the like are any indication, they're - I don't know - fricken insane?

    Who would want to listen to Marcotte bitch and moan all day over stupidities?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    It's even more than that. Successful women are now coming up against the fact that there are fewer men who are more successful they are, but they can't accept dating men who are not as successful, something men learned to do ages ago (because real Patriarchy ensures only queens can qualify as successful women).

  • Mazakon||

    “We aren't talking about depriving someone of their liberty here, we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses,” he wrote in an email to Reason. “I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty; what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me? They deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.”

    But this alleged person is already enrolled, and you want to force them to go through the inconvenience of searching for another college, paying even more for tuition and pray that what happened at that college doesn't get picked up by some newspaper. All on prediction that he is 20% likely to be someone's rapist. I thought I heard that this guy was one of the more fair Democrats?

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    He is. The official party position is that the mere accusation is sufficient.

  • ||

    I thought I heard that this guy was one of the more fair Democrats?

    he might be.

  • JWW||

    Heh, I think all representatives should be forced to resign if they're hideously wrong on 20% of the issues.

  • R C Dean||

    Sounds to me like it should be a 20% chance that they are wrong on any issue.

  • Alec Leamas||

    If it's a minor inconvenience for the accused to transfer colleges - if, in fact, it is an acceptable way for the accused (falsely or justifiably so) to escape the unwanted attention and disturbing environment of the college, isn't it an equally acceptable minor inconvenience for the alleged victim to transfer to another college in the interests of avoiding the trauma of the place of the alleged rape and interacting with the alleged rapist? Or is there some magical reasoning that makes the same sauce a minor beneficial inconvenience into a major detrimental inconvenience when applied to the gander and goose respectively?

  • kinnath||

    Segregated campuses. It's the only solution.

  • SimonJester||

    I vote for this. I have sons, and I want to protect them from this crazy shit, and I seriously think the only way to do that is to keep them out of the femnist system. There is no safety.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Another solution is for men to start charging women with rape. Based on the current standards, I was raped (drunken sex) and sexually assaulted at university. But in no way do I think I'm a victim.

    The sad thing is victim culture drags everyone down.

  • Derpetologist||

    "Can anyone be proved innocent, if it be enough to have accused him?"

    Julian the Apostate, Roman Emperor, circa 360 AD.

    But he was just another old white guy, so who cares.

  • LynchPin1477||

    It's sad to see how far we've come in so many ways, and have much we've regressed in others.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I think Polis is a tad optimistic about the feasibility of transferring to another college.

    "So, Mr. Bollard, why did you leave your previous college in the middle of the semester?"

    "Well, they thought I was a rapist, but it's total BS, I'm innocent."

    "OK, Mr. Bollard, don't call us, we'll call you. Security, escort this gentleman out of my office."

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Alternative scenario:

    LAWYER: So, Dean Martin, you admitted Mr. Bollard to your college even though he had left an earlier college in the face of rape accusations.

    DEAN: Yes.

    LAWYER: And then, Mr. Bollard raped my client, a student at your college.

    DEAN: Unfortunately, yes.

    LAWYER: Shouldn't you, as a precaution, have refused to admit Mr. Bollard? Then my client wouldn't have been raped.

    DEAN: OK, maybe in hindsight...

    JURY: One. Million. Dollars.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Another scenario:

    DEAN MARTIN RESIGNS IN RAPE SCANDAL

    HE ALLOWED THE RAPIST TO ENROLL EVEN THOUGH HE HAD BEEN CREDIBLY ACCUSED OF RAPE AT ANOTHER UNIVERSITY

    THE COALITION FOR WOMEN, WHICH PRESSED FOR THE DEAN'S RESIGNATION, SAYS MARTIN "GOT WHAT WAS COMING TO HIM, THE RAPE-ENABLING BASTARD"

  • SimonJester||

    Why the hell is Dean Martin in this scenario, and who put him in charge of college admition? Does anybody think that a Rat Pack-run college would be a good idea?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The dean in that Rodney Dangerfield movie was named Martin.

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • buybuydandavis||

    That is hilarious. Good old Rodney.

  • kbolino||

    At the very least, the expelled student whose guilt was unproven should have the ability to sue the school for defamation and to have the fact of and reason for his expulsion expunged from their records. That is how unproven allegations of criminal misconduct are handled in other contexts.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Come to think of it, I think the Buckley Amendment gives students the right to correct inaccurate or misleading records.

    Meaning that they can *force* the college to decide if he's a rapist or not, yes or no, and correct the record accordingly.

    I don't think that a 20% probability rule would satisfy the Buckley amendment.

  • kbolino||

    I think you're reading FERPA a little too broadly. If the school's judicial process or whatever makes a finding, regardless of the reasoning (or lack thereof), the law only requires that they accurately document what that finding was. In other words, if the record says something like

    The Student Judicial Committee of Miskatonic University found student John Smith to have committed a judicial offense defined by Section 27b/6 of the University's code of conduct and ordered his expulsion in accordance with the policies of the University

    Then I don't know that you can claim there is any inaccuracy to correct.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I don't know for sure. If they adopted Polis' ideas, the matter would certainly be litigated.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    ...Miskatonic University found student John Smith to have committed a judicial offense defined by Section 27b/6 of the University's code of conduct...

    It's a damned shame when you can be run out of town and have your medical career ruined for only 20% "exhuming and re-animating a corpse"

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Well, you need to get the corpse's consent *somehow.*

  • Lee G||

    If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people.

    What in the fuckity fucked up fuckery?

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    Kill'em all and let God sort it out.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Speakings of campus rapey things, did anyone read the Vanity Fair piece on the U.Va rape case? http://www.vanityfair.com/news.....rible-year

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Thx. About 2/3rds of the way through.

    Interesting perspective. The UVA administration wasn't stonewalling Erderly at all. They had an actual fucking student go missing (who later turned up dead) that night, and they were to busy to deal with other shit at the time to return her calls.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    *too

  • Paul.||

    I'd say there's a 20% chance Polis touched my daughter in an inappropriate place. I call for his removal.

  • Alec Leamas||

    No chance of that, pal.

  • Paul.||

    We're not depriving him of life and liberty, we're just transferring him to the private sector, for crying out loud.

  • Spartacus||

    “If my son had a baseless accusation made against him daughter were raped at a university and it was making his her life there miserable, I would suggest she transfer or take courses online,” wrote Polis. “It can be a living hell to go through endless campus investigations. I've seen this go down, and there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication results in a conviction. Someone who is wrongfully accused raped needs to do their best to put it behind them and move on. Trying to re-enroll in the same institution would be a constant reminder of the traumatic experience of being the subject of a baseless accusation. raped.

  • 0x90||

    About exactly what I came here to say.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    You should send your edits to Polis.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Nice.

  • Paul.||

    (Emphasis mine.) That last line drew applause from the crowd.

    It's good to know Jon Stewart's audience found a new home.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Someone who is wrongfully accused needs to do their best to put it behind them and move on

    So victims of injustice need to just put it behind them and move on? Something tells me he wouldn't like that statement if it was applied to one of the other parties in the dispute....

  • ||

    "It seems like we ought to provide more of a legal framework, then, that allows a reasonable likelihood standard or a preponderance of evidence standard. If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud.”

    /Jaw drops. Regains composure.

    Get a load of this asshole.

    He seems to have no moral or intellectual compass as to what his incredibly shallow, to say nothing of dangerous, moronic musings of a madman can do to innocent people.

    INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Mean anything to you, Jared? Of course not, because pukes like you let yourself get caught up in irrational hysteria and lash out with moronic and insidious notions posing as compassionate governance. I wonder how YOU WOULD feel if you were treated so heinously.

    /turns woodchipper on.

  • LynchPin1477||

    He seems to have no moral or intellectual compass as to what his incredibly shallow, to say nothing of dangerous, moronic musings of a madman can do to innocent people.

    That is the most comforting interpretation.

    The much worse, and more likely, scenario is that he knows full well what it can do to innocent people and just doesn't care.

  • Paul.||

    what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me? They deny students the ability to enroll for all sorts of reasons.”

    Except many of those reasons don't come with a legal framework, enshrining those decisions in law. Those universities are also targets of potential lawsuits if they deprive a student of services after tuition has been paid.

  • Jerryskids||

    I missed the "Someone who is wrongfully accused needs to do their best to put it behind them and move on." line. Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot simpler and cheaper and easier to say someone who is wrongfully raped should just do their best to put it behind them and move on? Is this guy really that stupid?

  • Jerryskids||

    What lynchpin said.

  • LynchPin1477||

    “I think these matters should be up to Universities to decide,” he replied. “University of Colorado (CU) has an elected board of Regents. They should decide if they want to have a reasonable likelihood or preponderance of the evidence standard. If a University errs too far on the side of giving ‘way, way, way too much power to accusers’ then that will hurt their competitive standing in the marketplace. There is room for all sorts of standards in the marketplace and prospective students will choose the right balance based on their preferences and the reputations of the various universities.”

    I actually agree with him here.

    But sorry, asshat, when you partly control the purse strings and the police, you don't get to call a Congressional hearing about this, formally suggest it, and then say "oh, but it should totally be up to the market do decide."

  • Derpetologist||

    Rape is a felony, so shouldn't a case like that go to the courts?

    This bullshit is like the enemy combatant thing. Either they're POWs or criminals. You don't get to make a third category where you can do whatever you want.

  • Paul.||

    That's rape-rape. This is civil-rape, totally different.

    Civil rape is when you have a drunk with crazy eyes, and then three weeks later she tweets that you raped her.

  • Paul.||

    A drunk night...

  • Florida Man||

    Don't mind if I do!

  • LynchPin1477||

    “We aren't talking about depriving someone of their liberty here, we're talking about the ability of an institution to decide who can pay them to enroll in their courses."

    Oh, but you are talking about depriving them of the pursuit of happiness and the fruits of their labor. Or does he think transferring colleges is free and a happy-go-lucky walk in the park, and that the original university will reimburse the student for any credits the new university doesn't expect?

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    Nevermind that they would have to completely relocate their entire lives, disrupt their studies, and explain to all of their friends and family that, no, it's 80% likely that I'm not a rapist!

  • Paul.||

    This whole subject hits kind of close to home for me as the son of a good friend was accused of an incredibly dodgy rape claim, never proven, police dropped it like a hot potato because there was zero evidence, but the kid still got kicked out of school-- tuition lost, disruption to his entire school career, mother ended up quitting her job to deal with the fallout.

    No disruption there. Nope, he just moved on.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's what I mean. Even in some gaga fantasyland where you get your tuition back and end up really liking your new school, you still have to pay application fees, take the time to fill out new applications, go through the expense of moving, and probably take a semester off, which translates into less time to earn a salary post-graduation. Oh, and you have to find a school that will accept an accused rapist. Good luck with that.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    How do you get to be valedictorian at your university?

    Accuse your competition of rape and get them expelled.

  • Kurt||

    I can't wait to see this in practice:

    Student: Someone jumped out from behind the bushes and raped me. I didn't get a good look, but he was black.

    Adminstrator: Well, we better expel all the black guys just to be safe.

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Maybe just expel 20 or 30% of the black guys.

  • ||

    Just randomly pick 5 black guys for expulsion; and actually try one of them for rape, because 20% of them are guilty.

    /That's how statistics work.(according to the NYT)

  • spqr2008||

    Can you imagine how this will apply to college football? Instead of using bagmen to pay the players on the side, boosters need only hire coeds from a rival school to be at a party with players, then accuse them of rape after sleeping on their couch. Boom! Vanderbilt wins their first SEC Title, then the national championship.

  • ||

    We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud.”

    At a delay to becoming a part of the educated workforce by roughly 1 year.

    $20-$30k

    At the out-of-pocket cost of the student.

    $1k to $5k

    Well, I guess the moral of the story is, don't fuck at college.

  • Antilles||

    "Well, I guess the moral of the story is, don't fuck at college."

    Guys can still be accused even if they never touched a girl. College has become a truly hostile place for guys, and I don't understand why they'd even want to go.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Yep. You disappeared into room with someone for a study session. No, I mean an actual study session. After 2 hours of studying you left, and nothing sexual happened.

    But then 2 months later she says she raped you. Witnesses put you in her room, she is deemed more likely than not to be credible, and you have no evidence to counter her story. So there is a scenario that does not rely upon space aliens in which you may have raped her, and that is all an adjudication panel will need to reach "20 or 30%" certainty.

  • ant1sthenes||

    But then 2 months later she says she raped you.

    And yet you'd probably still be punished.

  • Paul.||

    and I don't understand why they'd even want to go.

    Apparently they don't.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    College has become a truly hostile place for guys, and I don't understand why they'd even want to go.

    Because college is still the gatekeeper to the professions and management. Honestly, the beginning of reform would be to start destroying that role. But, I'm still not clear on how to do it.

  • ||

    Honestly, the beginning of reform would be to start destroying that role. But, I'm still not clear on how to do it.

    Colleges and the US Government seem to be working hard on this are making some real progress in the field, it seems.

    See the above article for evidence.

  • ||

    "Well, I guess the moral of the story is, don't fuck at college."

    Why go then? I thought that was the point.

    In all seriousness Ian, I am afraid you are correct.

  • vetuwuj||

    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.online-jobs9.com

  • LynchPin1477||

    Also, totally ignored in this discussion is the absolute meaningless of precisely quantified probabilities of guilt. We aren't running 10,000 Monte Carlo trials to reliably measure the probability density function of guilt. When someone says they are "99%" certain of something, it only means they think they are pretty damn sure. If they say they are 90% sure, it means pretty much the same damn thing.

    In practice "20 or 30%" chance would only mean that there is some realistic possibility that the accused is guilty. Like, someone saw the guy enter the girl's room and then leave an hour later, and there is no definitive evidence showing that everything that may have happened in that 1 hour was absolutely consensual.

    If something like this passed you'd have to be crazy, as a male, to be in any private situation whatsoever with a girl that you do not really, really trust.

  • WTF||

    If something like this passed you'd have to be crazy, as a male, to be in any private situation whatsoever with a girl that you do not really, really trust.

    Since you can never really be 100% sure.

  • Rich||

    "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."

    Exactly. Vote out every incumbent.

  • Lee G||

    I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Rich||

    H&R is my newsletter.

  • 0x90||

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I mean, gay or not, this picture alone is enough to meet a 20% standard.

  • ||

    now comes the Name That Tune SJW purity portion of the program where the idiots start bidding how low the burden of proof should go. "I would convict that cis shitlord rapist on an 8% probability"

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I offer a 7% solution!

  • Chipwooder||

    Shriek would approve!

  • ||

    "I've seen this go down, and there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication."

    No shit. What does he think the whole point of taking this out of the hands of the criminal justice system was? We are deep down the rabbit hole now and this dunce, instead of advocating climbing out, is trying to come up with logical, reasonable arguments on how to navigate the rabbit hole.

    I say woodchippers all around. Yeah, you Polis. Go dive in a woodchipper.

  • Trump-o-Trump 5trumpthousand||

    +1 typical internet bluster and hyperbole

  • CatoTheChipper||

    If an institution has a policy of expelling an accused rapist with only 20-30% confidence, it should also have a policy of expelling a false accuser with only 20-30% confidence.

  • Rich||

    It's expulsions all the way down!

  • Rich||

    Prediction: This clown will be soon be backtracking, blaming his "inexcusable outburst" on some personal problem for which he will enter rehab in order to avoid being recalled.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Ah, the "Kennedy Gambit". Very effective.

  • widget||

    The wife is certain the boy will go to college. I do not argue with my wife. That's axiomatic. But I am against him attending college. There isn't a damn thing worth knowing that the boy couldn't read for himself in a book. I just plant tiny seeds in her head from time to time in hope that one will blossom. I'm hands off with boy on this for now. When he is older I will tell him that going college will be like, if not in fact, getting kicked in the nuts by a gang of lesbians.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Tundra spawn is only three years away. I have concerns, but not every school is retarded (yet). I won't be surprised if he ends up in nerd school, anyway.

  • widget||

    Instapundit posted a link to this a few months ago.

    http://www.sdsmt.edu/

    Modest tuition and a high ROI.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Thanks, widget. A good friend's kid just started there. Sounds like a great school.

  • ||

    Any male who attends college is 20% likely to be a rapist, because 20% of all women get raped in college.

    Therefore, your son sounds like a rapist.

    Maybe you should just cut out the middddle man and find a group of lesbians to kick him in the nuts now.

    /For proof, see Chapter 3 of the NYT statistics book.

  • ||

    "I do not argue with my wife."

    A man should never argue with his wife, he should only dicker.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I only have daughters for now, so my hope is that we delay the inevitable backlash and reversion to an honor society until they've gotten an education and a decent husband to protect them when that happens.

  • TheTaminator||

    It doesn't help that this guy looks like a wimpier version of Tony Soprano-- AND with less hair.

  • jmg09||

    I still do not understand why a rape victim goes to the university instead of the police? Can someone explain it? If I'm at college, and another student stole my car...I'm not reporting the theft to the university! It seems in this case, its even more important to go to the cops than some university official. I do not understand.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I still do not understand why a rape victim goes to the university instead of the police? Can someone explain it?

    College students aren't directed to law enforcement entities, they're directed to campus sexual assault response offices and resources. They're briefed by the local SARC bureaucrat, "If you think you're a victim, contact this list of people day or night. My phone line is always open." If the cops are listed as an option, it's almost always as an afterthought.

    Colleges prefer to resolve these issues at the local level because it justifies jobs, not because it's actually a means of preventing sexual assault. if the latter happens, it's a nice bonus and incidental.

  • ||

    "I still do not understand why a rape victim goes to the university instead of the police? Can someone explain it? "

    Most of the time things really are just what they appear to be. It is very simple. Going to the cops means great scrutiny to the accusation and the accuser. Going to the university means just what Dunce Polis said - "I've seen this go down, and there really is no winning once the accusation is made even if the process provides formal vindication.".

    Thus mentally and emotionally unbalanced people can make accusations that are certain to punish the hell out of people that displease them. It is cultural fascism, plain and simple. Dispose of the assumption that the people doing this are actual, real rape victims and it all makes perfect sense.

  • ||

    Also, as noted elsewhere in the comments this is a one way street. In fact, there was a case where two women actually did rape a man who was unconscious and later made an accusation of rape against him. He was punished and they were not even though the facts of the case were known.

    It is about SJWs justifying their jobs and misandrists punishing males for being male.

  • Loki||

    In a follow-up interview with Reason, Polis explains why he wants to let colleges expel innocent men.

    Because there's no such thing as an "innocent man," except for gay men, duh. Everyone knows that all cis-hetero men are just rapists in waiting. /SJW DERP

  • Calidissident||

    One of the dumbest and craziest things I've read this week (I would say ever, but Peak Derp is hard to achieve if you really think about it).

  • Dead and Loving It||

    Calling this fellow merely batsh!t crazy doesn't cover it. Doing something that could very well follow them and ruin their life when there's an 80% chance they did nothing illegal is.... yeah. Crackpottry at it's finest, ladies and gents.

  • esteve7||

    These people are pure evil. 10% chance you did something wrong = ruin your life. Seriously, what the fuck? And it drew applause.

    Fuck my generation.

    -Steve

  • Cecil de Lionchipper||

    No, Fuck Regressives and wanna be libs. And by wanna be libs I mean wanna be libertarians.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Paraphrasing Polis: We're not denying him liberty, we're just banishing him from whatever schools don't like his record of accusations.

    Now let's apply this line of thinking to police accused of brutality. After all, a fired cop isn't being denied life or the liberty to go be a police elsewhere. He just can't demand that a specific police force let him be a police officer.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    But what if Polis’s own son

    This is a goddamned STUPID follow-up question.

    The proper follow-up question is "What if the accused rapist is a university professor?"

  • ||

    The proper answer is "there is an 80% chance that that student is a lying whore"

  • John C. Randolph||

    Friend of a friend teaches English at a well-known California insane asylum, which was once a prestigious university before the SJWs fucked it up.

    Some years back, a girl showed up to see him during his office hours, and said "I'll do anything to get an A". He said "study". She closed the door, took off her shirt, and repeated herself. He handed her back her shirt, and repeated himself as well. She left in a huff. He spent the next couple of days sweating bullets, worried that she'd torpedo his career.

    The upshot is that he always keeps an audio recorder going during his office hours now.

    -jcr

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    I'd like Matt and Nick to follow-up. And then, threaten to boycott him for future Reason media for being such a dickhead.

  • SimonJester||

    Or a visiting political speaker?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    If there is justice in this world, one of these days Jared Polis (D) will need all of those libertarians he managed to piss off today.

    And we won't be there . . . .

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    I think the only sane thing to do is close the school permanently for enabling rapists and their accusers. If it prevents just one rape it will all be worth it.

  • See Double You||

    “I associate "due process" with a conviction of criminal penalty; what affirmative right do I have to pay a university and make them deliver courses to me?

    Um, your due process rights are triggered when the state is involved in taking your private property, and state universities are arms of the state.

    Civilly speaking, you also have a contractual right to those courses if you've paid for them. Courts frown on forfeiture, which seems to be what Polis is advocating here.

  • TicklishQuill||

    Twenty Percent? Twenty Percent? 1 in 5?

    That feminist universal constant crops up everywhere!

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    NOW do you get it, Matt Welch? Jared Polis should be on the ENEMIES of freedom. He hasn't changed - you just saw things about him that weren't true. Big deal that he likes to play video games, like the straight males do.

  • SIV||

  • Cecil de Lionchipper||

    is it deleted?

  • SIV||

    No, they don't do that. It is hard to bring up some stuff out of the archive like Weigel's quick take on Sarah Palin's 2008 GOP convention speech. I found it once but it was not easy to retrieve.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Matt, I am burning my copy of Reason - you know, the one with Polis glowingly mentioned.

    And I loved that copy.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Someone with a penis has to be punished. It's just that simple.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    So Says Zardoz!

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Hello, my name is Jared Cotton-Mather Polis and I will be judging your rapecraft trial today.

    You can either be hung for your crimes or you can be expelled as an aggressor.

    Go ahead - you chose.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    This reminds me of the parable of the scorpion and the frog. Apparently, Matt Welch has never heard that parable when they interviewed Polis for their Video game nation write-up.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Polis, just close the schools. No one can attend. EVER.

    Then, you'll never been faced with this problem.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    JARED POLIS (D) - YES, I am bringing back "spectral evidence" because, well, I am a Congressman.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Woodchippin' 4 Jesus...

    Ah ams truly sorry to do this to ya... Butt...

    My spectral witness says that YE and the lawyers, the POTUS and the SCOTUS...
    The possums and the scrotums...
    The yins and the yangs...
    The Hinhs and the Huns...
    The pin-heads and the pussies,
    The wussies and the puns...
    They are ALL in league with the Devil!
    As AH (Servant of Government Almighty)
    Do beseech thee,
    Ah sees Spectral Witnesses,
    All around and about MEEEEE...
    Beseeching me and beleaching me,
    Ye are a WITCH!!!!
    (BURN her!!!!)

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    Americans hung their witches (except for Giles Corey, who was "pressed" to death).

    Send the kindling to Germany.

  • SimonJester||

    Giles wasn't "pressed" for witch craft. He was pressed because he refused to answer the question, and they wanted to squeeze an answer out of him, so to speak. Probably woulda hung if he had said "yes" or "no."

  • SIV||

    I didn't RTFA, did Robby forget the obligatory "the right does it too" qualifier?

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    These are the people in charge. We are fucked.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Here's how you followup: if, due to structural racism, a majority of the most questionable accusations were lodged against persons of color, causing them to be deprived of educational opportunities and saddled with thousands of dollars of debt they would be rendered unable to repay through no fault of their own, would you consider changing your position, or accept disparate impact as the price of women's safety?

    Now, he'll probably just dodge, but if not, and he doesn't moderate or reconsider, then you can just title your next article "Jared Polis supports selectively denying education to minorities, more or less".

  • ant1sthenes||

    Also, is Polis a Catholic or something? How exactly is forcing a sex offender to move to a different school actually protecting anyone?

  • Lawman45||

    He is a Democrat. That explains every abborant thought in his head.

  • Ron||

    this is the same level of idea liberals want to use against the 2nd. If one gun is used in a crime then all gun owners are criminals

  • Cecil de Lionchipper||

    So I totally expect Reason to be A-OK with this.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    Of course. Because Polis is gay. And an entrepreneur. And plays video games. And is married. With a child.

    Just like the straight guys.

    And not at all like Barney Frank

  • Jayne||

    I suppose the best you can hope for is that in a few years, this guy's son is falsely accused of rape and all "dad" will be able to do is sit back and watch his child's life ruined as a result.

    Then and only then could someone as ignorant as Polis actually get it.

  • Wildbill2u||

    Wonder if he would agree to use this standard for accusations of solicitation of bribes by a Congressman. Since the accusers aren't even under oath, I bet I could find 10 patriots to work to get this moron out of office. He's dangerous.

  • SukieTawdry||

    Lucky is the son who has Jared Polis for a father.

  • ant1sthenes||

    True. Girl falsely accuses a random guy of rape, guy's life is ruined and girl learns a valuable life lesson about how the state treats sociopathic liars. Girl truthfully accuses a Democratic Senator's son (I'm assuming some career advancement over the next two decades here) of rape, and she probably ends up at the bottom of a lake somewhere.

  • rudehost||

    We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud.”

    Let's just ignore the fact that getting removed from school and having a rape finding follow you around for the rest of your life is a punishment. Even beyond that this is borderline retarded.

    So in effect what this rocket scientist thinks is that it is worth punishing 4 innocent people in order to send 1 rapist to a different school to rape different women. So the rapist keeps on raping and 4 innocent people have their life ruined and this jackass gets a standing ovation for his manifest fucking stupidity?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "they said: it establishes identical burdens for accusers and the accused."

    So if by a preponderance of the evidence a rape accusation is found to be false, then the accuser will be expelled?

    That sounds like symmetrical, "identical burdens for accusers and the accused" to me. Loser pays.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."

    Does this equally apply to people who falsely accuse others of rape?

  • Robert||

    There's 1 very important Q I never see asked in the discussion of this issue: Does the school get to keep their $? Seems they'd have every incentive to kick as many out as possible, lowering their costs while keeping their revenue, if that was the case.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yeah, I would expect to see them move to a model where they demand all four years of payment up front.

  • John C. Randolph||

    "And the winner of most punchable face since Chris Christie..."

    -jcr

  • Josh M.||

    Umm. There's no such thing as 20% guilt. Wow, that's dumb!

  • SamDod598||

    Well now that makes a lot of sense dude.

    www.Total-Privacy.tk

  • croaker||

    At this point I think drug testing all political office holders is a really good idea.

  • Win Bear||

    Private colleges should be able to expel students whenever they want to and for whatever reason they want to, subject to their voluntary contractual agreements and obligations with students.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The Face of Stupid!

  • J-||

    What about reputation? If you are kicked out of a school for suspected sexual assault, how many other schools will let you enroll? How will that change the likelihood of getting a job? How about obtaining a professional licence with an ethics clause, e.g. PE, Licence to Practice Medicine, Law Licence? This is a life and career destroying act, and to use the standard that "hey, those 8 or 9 guys probably didn't do anything but let's ruing their lives anyway" is deplorable.

  • JPyrate||

    I sexually identify as an attack helicopter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPMDCJrRpT8

    Ever since I was a boy. I have wanted to fly across the campuses, and drop hot sticky loads on all the faculty. and students.

  • dchang0||

    So if we've got 10 Congressmen, and there's a chance maybe one or two accepted bribes, we should get rid of all 10 Congressmen, right, Rep. Polis?

    You're one of the 10, Polis.

  • BambiB||

    Hey, the 20% standard isn't so bad - as long as there's a DEATH PENALTY provision for women who make a provably false rape claim.

    Research indicates that the percentage of FALSE rape complaints is 10%-90%, but most studies put the number in the 45% to 60% range.

    Women cry "rape" for all sorts of reasons. The obvious ones are things like post-coitus, the guy tells her, he "just isn't that into her".

    But sometimes it's just used as an excuse... "Why was I an hour late to the final exam? Uh. I was raped.

    Lest anyone think that's over-the-top, when the Naval Training Center was in Orlando, one of the instructors confided in me that they frequently had women who went out on liberty and, having had too good a time, arrived back on base after curfew. This normally results in demerits or other disciplinary action within the training framework. Unwilling to accept punishment, it wasn't unusual for these women to claim they'd been raped. What followed these unfounded complaints was a thorough investigation. When the woman's story broke down, when she admitted in the face of the evidence that she'd lied, the Navy (to their credit) processed them out with dishonorable discharges... which is a step in the right direction.

    I still think the death penalty is a better idea.

  • alaskan15||

    No one has a right to attend any private college, unless it was part of a contract they signed when they paid their tuition. Therefore the college should be free to expel them for any reason or for none.
    Colleges that use such a stupidly low standard will just have to see how the market reacts to their actions.

    It is different at a public college, but they really should be private anyway.

  • Mattnad||

    Remember folks, he's a politician and he was grandstanding. He knows his proposal would never happen so he's scoring points (he thinks).

    If he were better educated on the topic, he'd learn that rules often disproportionately impact minority groups including racial minority, gay, and transgender students. We see unequal complaints and enforcement of sexual assault laws against these groups in the courts due to bias - why would it be any different in a college setting, particularly with the low standards proposed by polis.

  • glenux||

    Why should it even be considered that colleges be allowed to have a different standard?
    We have our doctrine of Innocent until Proven Guilty for many reasons.

    Why should colleges have a different standard?

    What is 20% guilty?

    Who could measure that?
    I remember seeing the statue of Justice with a scale, but
    I don't remember seeing a dial with any increments.

    Why don't we just go back to the old fashion way and
    institute Sharia Law.
    SHE IS GUILTY until proven innocent.
    And if she does not sufficiently prove she is innocent, STONE HER.

  • Win Bear||

    Why should it even be considered that colleges be allowed to have a different standard?

    Why should the state set any standards for colleges at all? A college should be able to expel a student for any reason or no reason at all; they shouldn't be accountable to government over it.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    many or most colleges are state institutions...

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, and they shouldn't be. That's why libertarians shouldn't legitimize that kind of funding by pretending that there is a separate set of rules that applies to them.

  • Demosthenes||

    When I read the headline, I thought to myself "Not possible. That's absurd."

    After reading his response to Reason, i don't fully agree with him, but I see the logic of his position. I can respect it and I'm even sympathetic.

    Moreover, it's not even an un-libertarian view. If you want public universities privatized (and CU is all but) or at least their corporate status respected, then what business is it of the governments who they let in? Further, no one has a right to an education. Like doping in baseball, this is a private matter.

  • rudehost||

    Just because it is a private matter does not mean we have to applaud bad behavior. Does a private school have a right to set any standard they want? Yes. Does that mean when they set a standard that is ridiculous and damaging to innocent people we should rally behind it? Hell no. Part of the argument for libertarianism is that private individuals can sort things out and come to the right conclusions without our overlords deciding for us. That argument falls apart when you give an enthusiastic thumbs up to bad behavior. Even for a private school this is wrong and even though they have a right to do it we shouldn't be waving pom pom's.

  • Nosea||

    Campus sexual assault prevention...umm, and this is the only way he could think to prevent sexual assault? Sometimes stupid is profound. He seems to want to alleviate the emotional damage done to victims falsely accused, but his solution would further compound the ineptness of most schools to properly investigate these allegations. There should be strict penalties for all false accusers maybe, the same penalties applied to the rapists. Giving student a Free-transfer ride to another school opens litigation issues down the road if they rape someone at the schools they transfer to.

    And since both the rapist and false accuser have been given a free-ride for so long--all students should be informed of the strict penalties they face by the consequences of their actions.

    Most of these schools have enough administrative faculty to educate themselves on how to properly conduct an investigation. Sure, they might have to go back to school and take some extra courses, but what the frick, they are already there!

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    What's all this reactive, wait for an alleged victim bullshit? Why not be proactive and take his "thought" process to the logical conclusion by simply printing out a randomized list of all male students and simply expelling every 5th one? You're almost certain to rid the campus of a lot of those who qualify as "rapists" by the left's ridiculously expansive definitions of that term (they're all about being inclusive, after all). And the majority who are innocent by even the most loose standards? Unavoidable and acceptable collateral damage. It's for the children. (And by children I mean legal adults, of course.)

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    If it's a state school, it's a public resource and students who are admitted would seem to enjoy the right to these services. Perhaps 'right isn't the correct term, but it's certainly a public resource established for the use of its eligible citizens.

    As such, for the Representative to act like a student has no legitimate right to their education is a bit baffling.

    Also, the Representative could really only reach his conclusion that 'likelihood' is a reasonable threshold if he assumes there is a presumption of guilt while at the same time ignoring the very real potential for false accusations. Very scary that an elected representative would even think in that perspective.

    He ought to be deported, fired, impeached, brought up on charges, investigated, and accused of gross civic malpractice - in that order.

  • Chris Bray||

    The question to ask Polis is this: If a member of Congress is accused of an ethics violation or sexual misconduct with congressional staff, should a twenty percent standard of likelihood be sufficient to result in his expulsion? If two members of Congress did something wrong, but another eight are falsely accused, should the House just expel all ten of them to be safe? After all, we're not talking about putting any of them in jail.

  • ||

    This is insane on so many levels

    1) Aren't we being told how VITAL a university degree is? And this "there should be a provision to allow the accused to withdraw without taint on their record" will NEVER be allowed to happen by the feminists. Never.

    2) If you are accused you are REQUIRED to show up and give testimony, while being denied an attorney (either to speak for you or advise), which can later be used against you in a court of law in criminal proceedings.

    3) You cannot cross examine, nor are the hearing board members required to use all your questions, to try to catch the accuser in various lies.

    4) You may (or probably not) be presented all the evidence, especially exculpatory evidence, nor is the university required to turn over discovery prior to your hearing board. You are walking in blind.

    5) Even if, by some miracle, you are found not responsible, NOTHING will happen to the false accuser.

    6) If you decide to conduct your own investigation (and please Google this) you can be threatened with and "charged" under university policies, of witness intimidation or obstruction of process.

    7) Long before you even show up the investigator and the hearing board members are hand selected after they go through a ton of feminist indoctrination on rape culture, feminist "facts" about rape and false allegations, and they are deemed to be of the "proper mindset" to sit in judgement.

    In what freaking universe is this fair?!

  • Win Bear||

    Aren't we being told how VITAL a university degree is?

    Straight white males don't need university degrees, they have privilege. /prog

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    In one of these unprovable cases, one could modify Polis's "avoid conflict" approach: the party who refuses to let go should accept a lateral transfer to a comparable college. That would be easier to arrange for an alleged victim than for an alleged rapist.

  • ||

    Worth noting that false allegations of rape are problematic, arguably as problematic as rape. Title IX would apply to such accusations. When an accusation is made, it's either true or false. This means that there either was a rape or a false accusation. The same standard of proof holds, and governs one factual question.

    It gets interesting when one accepts a standard of less than 50% + X. In that case, there'd be Schroedinger's Punishment: there was a rape, and a false accusation of rape. Note the similarity to two intoxicated people having sex and therefore raping each other. In reality, there won't be consistency of that kind. Rather, the single victim is predetermined. Female.

  • pxfragonard||

    A man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "liberty." If he wants to go to a school and is deprived of that choice, his liberty is infringed. If his liberty is infringed without due process, those who have done so have arrogated a power not theirs and should be charged with perversion of justice and sent to prison.

  • ||

    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.online-jobs9.com

  • Jack Strawb||

    Given the sheer viciousness of a false rape accusation, and the apparent inability of so many college women in 2015 to understand what consent is, the safest course is probably to toss from college any woman accusing a man of rape. After all, in today's "false rape accusation culture," the chance of a false accusation probably exceeds Polis's 20% standard. We are thereby also spared the all too common false accusation repeater who wreaks so much havoc in closed communities, not too mention avoiding destroying a young man's reputation, as typically happens once an accusation is leveled and not immediately dismissed.

    Yes, expelling college women who cry "rape" is surely the most just course.

  • PavePusher||

    He's a fascist fuckless wonder.

  • georgeliberte||

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....M:POLITICS SO they are all "Victims" of Congressional corruptor. Because of the epidemic of Congressional corruption, we must place the burden on Congress to prove they have not taken either bribes or allowed lobbyist contributions to influence them. Obviously none could. They should all be expelled to ebon the safe side, we must error on the side of decency. I feel I am a victim of the corrupt Polis and Gillibrand. I can call them that without evidence until they can clear their names, right?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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