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.
This is the kind of thing Putin
ReplyDeleteis heroically fighting to keep from spreading to Ukraine-and perhaps ultimately to free much of Western Europe from!
looking at this from the positive side of the prism, in a few years, as things continue to progress as they are, a college education won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
ReplyDeletethe only ones in college will be those who can't, or won't, get a job.
and another thing. this essay is about california, right? then why does ff leave out half the population when discussing this measure. the beast with two backs is a description above the waist, not below.
in conclusion, ff essay only explains why monkey boy never attended classes in college.
amspimational,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the situation in Ukraine has to do with the situation in CA that is being discussed in this article. In Ukraine, it seems part of Ukraine at least the western part of the country wishes to have closer ties to the EU whereas the eastern portion wishes to have closer ties to Russia as has been the tradition of the nation. Also, Putin and the Russians view maintenance of the port in Crimea as mission critical to their interests. In contrast in CA a war is being waged on men as Rob puts it. Essentially this would seem to have nothing at all to do with the situation in Ukraine.
Assuming this really is Putin's goal to stop the spread of this kind of thing, then there would seem to be much better ways to go about this than threatening Ukraine. Mr. Putin and his team have a very powerful and very loyal cadre of supporters within the media, academia, the government bureaucracies, and large corporations within the US and the "West." They could very easily use this support to undermine the actions of the government in CA or pretty much any where they wish. In short, the Russians are the very best in the world at getting the message they wish. Frankly, I'd like to see them take this issue up. It'd be allot more productive than the standard spiel we get of "Russia-good, America=bad."
As for Mr. Putin being some sort of "hero," very respectfully, no he isn't. He commands the most powerful, best armed, best led, best trained, most loyal, and the most motivated military forces on earth. He could easily crush Ukraine, ISIS, and just about anything else today if he wished to do so. He very likely does not for the following reasons. 1.)He enjoys watching America his mortal enemy flail about looking ridiculously stupid. As the saying goes, when the enemy is behaving stupidly there's no good reason to get in his way!! 2.)Chaos is good for keeping the price of oil high and for military sales all of which are good for Russia. As such, no need for them to get in a hurry to bring things to a close.
Russia has sought to destroy the US culturally for years. As such, might they behind the CA "war on men?" It is certainly possible they are using their supporters within the US government to accomplish this.
I think we will agree that it was an extremely foolish decision on the part of the American government to intricate us into the Ukrainian situation. In fact, it is very likely the stupidest made by a major power in the history of civilization. We should be working to extricate ourselves from this by any and all means necessary.
As Russia directly invades Ukraine, I'd suggest US military officials watch, listen, and learn!! If you want to be the best, study the best!!
amspimational,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the situation in Ukraine has to do with the situation in CA that is being discussed in this article. In Ukraine, it seems part of Ukraine at least the western part of the country wishes to have closer ties to the EU whereas the eastern portion wishes to have closer ties to Russia as has been the tradition of the nation. Also, Putin and the Russians view maintenance of the port in Crimea as mission critical to their interests. In contrast in CA a war is being waged on men as Rob puts it. Essentially this would seem to have nothing at all to do with the situation in Ukraine.
Assuming this really is Putin's goal to stop the spread of this kind of thing, then there would seem to be much better ways to go about this than threatening Ukraine. Mr. Putin and his team have a very powerful and very loyal cadre of supporters within the media, academia, the government bureaucracies, and large corporations within the US and the "West." They could very easily use this support to undermine the actions of the government in CA or pretty much any where they wish. In short, the Russians are the very best in the world at getting the message they wish. Frankly, I'd like to see them take this issue up. It'd be allot more productive than the standard spiel we get of "Russia-good, America=bad."
As for Mr. Putin being some sort of "hero," very respectfully, no he isn't. He commands the most powerful, best armed, best led, best trained, most loyal, and the most motivated military forces on earth. He could easily crush Ukraine, ISIS, and just about anything else today if he wished to do so. He very likely does not for the following reasons. 1.)He enjoys watching America his mortal enemy flail about looking ridiculously stupid. As the saying goes, when the enemy is behaving stupidly there's no good reason to get in his way!! 2.)Chaos is good for keeping the price of oil high and for military sales all of which are good for Russia. As such, no need for them to get in a hurry to bring things to a close.
Russia has sought to destroy the US culturally for years. As such, might they behind the CA "war on men?" It is certainly possible they are using their supporters within the US government to accomplish this.
I think we will agree that it was an extremely foolish decision on the part of the American government to intricate us into the Ukrainian situation. In fact, it is very likely the stupidest made by a major power in the history of civilization. We should be working to extricate ourselves from this by any and all means necessary.
As Russia directly invades Ukraine, I'd suggest US military officials watch, listen, and learn!! If you want to be the best, study the best!!
The way things are evolving in California, new couples might commence their dating by signing some sort of intimacy contract a la ' 50 Shades Of Grey ' ! cor, crikey, is that a headache arriving in my head ? No, it's a brainstorm, one which could produce a lot of tax revenue for California !, viz : a new profession titled ' notaries public specialising in California sex contracts ' . They would arrive at my office & would pay me ( & California, via taxes ) a lot of money. They would fill up a form & tick the appropriate boxes & sign. I should then interview them : ' Young lady, you have ticked the box for toys, but then ticked the "Some" sub-box : would you care to elaborate ? ' This could be a fun late-life career ! Tourists from places like Holland would visit California just to secure a special California sex licence as a souvenir. Additional revenue could be raised from televised California lesbian marriages &, better yet, who would be able to resist the commercially-televised ' California Lesbian Divorce Court ' ? If they made me dictator in California, I could wipe out the deficit easily & libertarianly !
ReplyDeleteCiao !
--dragon/dinosaur
PS : In this age of political correctness ( or political correctitude ? ) , a film like Laurence Olivier's ' Term Of Trial ' ( 1960s ) could never be filmed, dealing as it does with a false-rape accusation levelled in revenge by a teen girl whose advances to her teacher were civilly & politely spurnt. ( Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. ) Last saw the film ? 30 ? years ago, perhaps, maybe.
ReplyDelete