California just added its own salvo to the war on men.
The state assembly just passed SB 967, already passed by the state Senate. This bill requires colleges and universities receiving public funds to enforce an “affirmative consent” standard on all campus sexual activity.
Among other things, the bill, by Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles requires investigations of sexual assaults to seek whether there was "affirmative consent". Silence or lack of resistance doesn't amount to consent under the new standards, nor is it consent if the party bringing the action, the victim claims she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated at the time.
Let's examine what those fine words mean, shall we?
If you're, say, a sophomore at UCLA dating a fine specimen of California co-ed you met in Owning White Privilege 101 and things progress romantically to the point where the two of you are apparently willing to make the Beast with Two Backs, S T O P R I G H T T H E R E.
You must first get the girl's full and explicit consent to any and all sexual activity the two of you might have had in mind....positions, who does what to whom, which orifices are involved, everything. And since if things go sour later (for example, if you start dating a different girl) it's your word against hers as to what happened, so you had better get it in writing..and notarized. Or video tape a detailed consent statement, at the very least. How romantic!
Even then, you're not really covered. The girl can say she initially consented but then changed her mind and you refused to stop. Or she can say she didn't say anything because she 'felt intimidated'. Or she can say she was drunk or high at the time. Can you prove she wasn't? Several days, weeks or even months after the fact?
I am not kidding.
The White House and The Department of Education pressured many colleges to change the burden of proof standard that they use in disciplinary proceedings over sexual harassment and sexual assault in 2011. And unfortunately, given the politics, many colleges didn't have to be pressured at all.
They now routinely restrict a male student's right to due process by using ‘preponderance of the evidence’ as the new, lower standard of proof instead of the higher ‘clear and convincing’ standard.
Among other things, the new guidelines demand that students “not be allowed to personally cross-examine each other.” Court rulings like Donohue v. Baker (1997), concluded that cross-examination must be allowed in campus disciplinary hearings, but that isn't being taken into consideration any more. Frequently, male students are not even allowed an attorney in these college inquisitions.
According to the the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), “Preponderance of the evidence” means that if a school thinks there's as little as a 51 per chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must still be disciplined.
Yes, ‘preponderance of the evidence’ essentially means that if a College disciplinary board thinks you just might be guilty or the girl's a half way decent actress, they will find against you. You will likely be asked to leave the college no matter what the actual facts are. Why take a chance and open themselves up to liability or risk being accused of political incorrectness just to protect your rights? And then, with that on your record, try to get into another college, let alone grad school. And even if you're not kicked out of college, the stigma remains, and it could even make the difference in where you are able to be hired.
You think I'm exaggerating? Here are just a a few examples that ought to change your mind.
The hellish thing about this totalitarian overreach is that it does absolutely nothing to protect college girls from rape. Does anyone in his or her right mind imagine that an actual rapist on campus would have any problem physically intimidating his victim to sign a consent form?
A sensible male going to college in California can only take one message from this. Just as dating someone you work with no longer makes any sense for pretty much the same reason, it no longer makes sense to date California co-eds, at least if you're in college. And that especially applies to a co-ed in your own school .Of course, that doesn't totally protect you, since the way things are now you can be accused of sexual assault even if you had no sexual contact with the girl in question and the odds are definitely not in your favor. But avoidance at least makes it less likely.
Since the two of the most common places for women meet their future spouses (or at least they used to be) is at work or in school, this new male bashing nonsense all but guarantees that there will be a lot of sad and lonely single California women in their late twenties to mid thirties wondering why they can't seem to meet a decent guy who might be a potential mate. And unfortunately, it's not just California.