MARGARET WENTE: The New Campus Sex Puritans.That's from Instapundit. I'm curious, though, why we're regulating sex only amongst college students. Are they raping more than others? Not at UC Davis, they're not:
Sixty years ago, sexual behaviour among the young caused deep alarm among the puritanical religious right. Today, it causes deep alarm among the puritanical progressive left. Like their forebears, they are doing their best to restrict and regulate it.You don’t have a right not to feel bad, after sex or at any other time.
This weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes universities redefine consensual sex. From now on, students must effectively obtain the “affirmative consent” of their partners, which must be “ongoing” every step of the way. Those accused of violating the consent rule will be judged on the preponderance of the evidence. Perpetrators face suspension or expulsion, and universities face heavy penalties for failure to enforce.
The new measure is designed to stem a tidal wave of rape on campus that, in fact, does not exist. (Violent crime, including sexual assault, has been in decline for 20 years.) Even so, universities across North America have set up vast new administrative apparatuses to deal with the crisis. Many of them have also expanded the meaning of “sexual violence” to include anything that makes you feel bad.
Domestic violence, dating violence and stalking – three categories added to the annual Jeanne Clery Act crime disclosure list – show that UC Davis, like all campuses, is not immune to any of the crimes.UC Davis has over 34,000 students enrolled. Given the numbers above, it sounds like a relatively safe place. Doesn't it make you wonder where all this talk of "rape culture" comes from? A cynical person might conclude that such talk is designed to rile people up and get them to support a certain political party.
Starting this year, colleges and universities were required to compile reports on the three categories. The report indicates there were 11 cases of domestic violence, five instances of dating violence and 17 cases of stalking on property associated with UC Davis.
The report further indicates there were 24 cases of sex offenses in 2013, compared to 18 in 2012. There were seven cases of aggravated assault in 2013, compared with nine the year before.
Good thing I'm not that cynical, right?
Update, 10/2/14: Seven problems with the White House sexual assault checklist (and four good things about it)
2 comments:
From now on, students must effectively obtain the “affirmative consent” of their partners, which must be “ongoing” every step of the way. Those accused of violating the consent rule will be judged on the preponderance of the evidence. Perpetrators face suspension or expulsion, and universities face heavy penalties for failure to enforce
Darren, granted this is not criminal prosecution but from a legal standpoint this can face a challenge under the "equal protection" clause. If I'm the non-college boyfriend of a student and don't get a signed contract for every point of the sexual experience, I am hanlded very differently than her other boyfriend who is a student.
No matter what the legal angle, hopefully this gets shot down quick.
Besides what Mike said ... some other problems. 1) It doesn't change anything ... a he said she said is still just that ... except that now you have shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, rather than the accuser. I know it's not a criminal proceeding, but it might as well be. 2) You're on a date; you share a bottle of wine. You have sex. By this law, neither one of you can consent... so if my partner accuses me of sexual assault based on alcohol, I can counter-complain, and technically, we'd both be guilty of sexual assault. What then? You have to punish both or neither... but we all know how that would turn out. 3) There was nothing wrong with existing law. If you can prove that you were raped (and normally, there would be evidence of that ... physical evidence, testimony of victim, toxicology reports) then the guy, (or more unlikely) the girl gets convicted. The problem is with people who are raped and won't report the crime. 4) No one, and I mean no one, is going to document 'ongoing consent' in a sexual encounter. Do these doddering old idiots actually believe that sex is scripted and predictable? If so, I pity them. But that puts both parties in a pickle, so to speak. Since neither one is going to do that, either one can raise a complaint afterwards, and you can't prove a negative ... it also sets up prime opportunities for extortion or black mail: "I didn't say you could kiss my right inner thigh ... so I'm charging you ... unless... " 5) It completely removes any aspect of actual romance or spontaneity from the equation. Way to remove fun, government. Anyone who voted for this in the legislature ... I really hope youget voted out in November. And Jerry Brown? You should be ashamed for signing this pandering POS bill in to law.
Post a Comment