UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

What that has to do with what I posted is beyond me.

 

It isn't a hypothetical at all. Swarthmore kicked a kid out of school for an encounter that was reported 19 months after the fact (and after the two people had had consensual sex a week after the disputed matter). The tribunal had found in the man's favor after one hearing. Then the Title IX lawsuit hit, and they brought the same case before them again ... and this time found in favor of the woman and kicked the man out of school. What's abundantly clear based on evidence is that she had a jealous and perhaps abusive boyfriend and told him she was assaulted so it wouldn't look like she was cheating on him.

Michigan had the case in Slate. At Stanford there was a very awkward case that was investigated by local cops, who did not file charges, and the school's court system decided to suspend the guy ... after he got his degree.

These cases are happening, and they're going to happen more often, and it's because of the campus advocacy groups -- and that's why the 1-in-5 number is not so easy to dismiss. It's driving policy.

 

It's shorthand for the story of, "woman meets man, they have sex, she has a couple days to think about it, decides it was assault." There's certainly not an epidemic of that happening.

 

Again, what does that have to do with what I posted?

 

We're all in agreement that investigation and adjudication of criminal acts should be handled by law enforcement. I think where we disagree is that proper adjudication would result in exposure of more rapists, not fewer.

 

Dr. Q: First, I'm not about about to agree there is some profound "overstatement of the risk." Second, your paranoia about the "1-in-5 crowd" is revealing. How exactly do you think these hearing panels or their makeup or their rules will be subject to undue influence from the liberal elite feminist zealots who compose the "1-in-5 crowd" of which you are so leery?

I would venture a guess that we are about 200 years away from having to worry about having too much focus or too many resources being applied to sexual violence on campus. If we immediately and exponentially increase education and resources beginning in grade school level and begin to equip young men with healthier gender identities we can probably cut it to 100 years.

 

You're using a faulty hypothetical to illustrate your point about evidence.

 

I have argued no such thing. I have argued that adjudication grounded in an inaccurate (by roughly an order of magnitude) depiction of the rate of sexual assault will lead to more non-rapists being "exposed" as rapists.

If by "faulty" you mean "doesn't happen all the time," then guilty as charged. If by "faulty" you mean something else, then you're simply wrong.

Oh, it's only off by a factor of about 10. I guess in your book that's not profound.

 

No, it isn't. That some people, usually men, have a hard time understanding that things like groping and forced kissing are forms of sexual violence is a huge part of the problem; not a good argument that the preponderance of sexual violence on campuses is overstated.

 

I never heard the term "forced kissing" until about a week ago.

 

Yet the act itself has existed for about 6-7 million years.

 

We used to call it "misreading the situation."