Category: Affirmative Consent

Categories
Affirmative Consent Sexual Assault

PR: Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 12, 2015 – A Tennessee judge has just ruled that the affirmative consent standard used by the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga was unfair because the rule “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant, robbing the student of his due process rights. Judge Carol McCoy noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.”

The decision can be read here: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf

The University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (UTC) sexual assault policy stated, “Consent is given by an affirmative verbal response or acts that are unmistakable in their meaning. Consent to one form of sexual activity does not mean consent is given to another type of sexual activity.

The ruling also highlighted undue interference in the adjudication process. The UTC Administrative Law Judge initially found Corey Mock, the defendant, to be innocent. Following a request by the UTC Chancellor, the Administrative Law Judge reversed her decision, but did not alter any of her original 49 specific findings

George Washington Law School professor John Banzhaf notes about the UTC case that “if the Constitution prohibits a ‘yes means yes’ standard of consent…that cannot be changed by legislation, by federal agencies, or even by the colleges themselves.

The UTC ruling follows two other recent judicial decisions which found university sexual assault proceedings violated the due process rights of the accused

In California, Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman ruled in July that the University of California-San Diego unfairly expelled a student for sexual activities that were allegedly non-consensual. And in Virginia, federal judge Norman Moon ruled last week that Washington and Lee University’s truncated adjudication process “plausibly support a Title IX claim” by the plaintiff

“Due process is a right afforded by the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Abridging this fundamental right, as many state universities are trying to do, has no justification in a nation that cherishes civil rights and the rule of law.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Affirmative Consent

PR: SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

 

SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 4, 2015 – SAVE, a national organization working to end campus sexual assault, is today calling on the University of Minnesota Board of Regents to reject the affirmative consent sexual assault policy proposed by President Eric Kaler. SAVE warns that the draft policy will do nothing to stop intentional sexual assault. Instead, the policy would serve to trample on students’ freedom, privacy, and due process protections.

The policy would require students to follow an “affirmative consent” standard or face disciplinary action: http://policy.umn.edu/review/sexualassault-appa The Board of Regents will reconsider the proposed policy at its upcoming September board meeting, after the Board earlier halted the policy from going into effect in mid-July.

SAVE’s letter to the Board of Regents cautions that the policy contains numerous vague and unworkable provisions, and does not even define the term “sexual activity.” Most importantly, the proposed policy never specifies how consent is to be communicated. Students would be left without practical guidance as to what indicators are sufficient to obtain consent.

Affirmative consent policies have become the focus of national criticism and satire: The Sexual Train Wreck Behind Yes Means Yes, Heather Wilhelm, Real Clear Politics, July 9, 2015, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/09/the_sexual_train_wreck_behind_yes_means_yes_127304.html Journalist Ashe Schow concludes that under the proposed U of M standard, “anything the accuser decides later they didn’t like can become grounds for an accusation.” The proposed policy was the subject of a satirical Reason.com contest where readers were invited to submit entries to mock the policy.

SAVE also warns the Board of Regents that the policy would shift the burden of proof to the accused in any campus adjudicatory procedure, and the mere accusation could suffice as proof of sexual assault. This new procedure would violate the basic right that students have to the presumption of innocence.

“The sexual assault policy is what the University of Minnesota will use to determine whether students have committed serious crimes,“ notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “It is important that the policy is carefully vetted so that students and the campus adjudicatory panel are not left more confused as to what the university mandates.”

The full letter to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents can be found here: http://www.saveservices.org/2015/07/save-letter-to-university-of-minnesota-board-of-regents/

 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — promotes evidence-based solutions to the problem of sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/

Categories
Affirmative Consent Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Bureaucrats in the Bedroom: Most Say ‘No’ to Government Mandates for Consent to Sex

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Bureaucrats in the Bedroom: Most Say ‘No’ to Government Mandates for Consent to Sex

WASHINGTON / November 12, 2014 – A national opinion poll has revealed the vast majority of persons are opposed to laws that seek to mandate how persons give consent to sexual relations. When asked whether the government should have the “authority to determine how partners give their consent to sex,” 85% of respondents answered ‘No.

In late September, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a controversial Affirmative Consent bill requiring that all California college students give their ongoing “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” consent during the course of having sex. Similar laws are being considered in other states.

The survey was conducted October 27 – 28. Over 600 persons participated in the telephone poll. The respondents consisted of 55.6% males and 44.4% females. Detailed findings can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/survey-overview/

Many respondents agreed that consent to sex should be conscious, voluntary, and ongoing. But 6 out of 7 respondents had not heard of the California Affirmative Consent law, so it is unlikely these persons held an opinion whether or not consent should be “affirmative.”

Affirmative Consent policies have proven to be contentious. Many have criticized the approach as being unlikely to deter a rapist intent on assaulting a woman, and for removing the presumption of innocence from the accused.

“Hopefully lawmakers will get the message that Americans don’t want ‘Big Sister’ government dictating the most intimate details of their private lives,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Instead, lawmakers should be considering proven approaches to the problem of sexual assault.”

SAVE has developed a bill that would require that campus sexual assault cases be handled by local law enforcement authorities, not untrained campus disciplinary panels: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-rape-courts/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Affirmative Consent Campus

PR: In Wake of Harvard Law Letter, Concerns Intensify About Campus Due Process

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: info@saveservices.org

In Wake of Harvard Law Letter, Concerns Intensify About Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / October 31, 2014 – Two weeks after 28 Harvard law professors signed a letter protesting the university’s new Sexual Harassment Policy, concerns about due process in campus sex cases have intensified across the country.

Signed by many pre-eminent members of the Harvard Law School faculty, the document expressed the professors’ “strong objections” to the university policy which they argued is “inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach” and which, they warned, “will do more harm than good.” The letter appeared in the October 15 edition of the Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

Since then, over 30 editorials have appeared in various news outlets expressing doubts about the procedures that colleges are following to handle criminal sexual assault offenses: www.accusingu.org.

While some editorials highlight the concerns of the Harvard faculty members, others warn of constitutional challenges such as the specter of possible federalization of sexual assault laws: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/221471-federalizing-sex

Many of the essays probe due process and other flaws in the so-called Affirmative Consent policy which was recently signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown, and is being considered elsewhere around the nation.

At Yale University, Amalia Halikias declared, “The partisan proponents of the California bill aren’t even trying to hide its preposterous implications…With this law, California legislators have effectively declared war on the presumption of innocence.” http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/10/28/no-to-yes-means-yes/

Kathleen A. Bogle, director of women’s studies at La Salle University, warned bluntly, “Rapists do not care whether the victim is consenting or not…The absence of the word ‘yes’ is not going to stop serial rapists.” http://chronicle.com/article/Yes-Means-Yes-Isnt-the/149639/

Students and lawyers are finding that Affirmative Consent policies muddy the water about the meaning of consent. A survey at Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that two-thirds of undergraduates agree it’s possible to “accidently” rape someone, especially if alcohol is involved. http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/28/1-in-6-mit-students-sexually-assaulted

SAVE has drafted a bill that would require campus sexual assault cases be handled by local law enforcement authorities, not untrained campus disciplinary panels: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-rape-courts/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Affirmative Consent

PR: Affirmative Consent Splits the Liberal Coalition

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: info@saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent Splits the Liberal Coalition

Critics Compare Controversial Sex Proposal to Repressive Political Regimes

WASHINGTON / October 28, 2014 – Signed into law less than a month ago by California Gov. Jerry Brown, Affirmative Consent is sparking controversy among liberals across the nation. The new law mandates ongoing “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” among California college students.

Commentators from all points on the political spectrum are decrying Affirmative Consent policies because they are unlikely to curb rape, and they remove the presumption of innocence from the accused.

In a controversial October 13 column, progressive Ezra Klein announced his support for Affirmative Consent, despite his admission that such policies are “terrible” and will likely engender “fear and confusion:” http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-terrible-bill-and-i-completely-support-it

Klein’s column drew rebukes from commentators comparing Affirmative Consent to policies enacted under repressive political regimes.

Liberal columnist Shikha Dalmia charged that Affirmative Consent embodies a “totalitarian” notion of justice and compared Ezra Klein’s views to former Chinese dictator Mao Tse-tung: http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/16/ezra-klein-meets-mao-zedong

On October 15, writer Cathy Young, who lived in Soviet Russia as a young girl, labeled Klein’s article as “repulsive” and likened his claims to Russian despot Joseph Stalin who once warned, “When you chop wood, chips must fly:” http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/15/the-argument-against-affirmative-consent

An editorial in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times framed the dispute as a “clash between those who believe the law is too intrusive and those who believe intrusiveness is the entire point:” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-10-27-what-they-are-saying-20141027-story.html

SAVE, a national victim-advocacy organization, believes it is deceptive to claim that Affirmative Consent policies will deter a rapist intent on assault, and will even lull women into a false sense of security. SAVE has launched a campaign to highlight the inadequacies of Affirmative Consent: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-confusion/
SAVE has also drafted a bill that would require campus sexual assault cases be handled by local law enforcement authorities, not untrained campus disciplinary panels: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-rape-courts/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Affirmative Consent

PR: California Affirmative Consent Policy Portends ‘Unraveling of the Democratic Coalition,’ Columnist Warns

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: info@saveservices.org

California Affirmative Consent Policy Portends ‘Unraveling of the Democratic Coalition,’ Columnist Warns

WASHINGTON / October 8, 2014 – SAVE, a national victim-advocacy organization, is today launching a campaign to highlight the controversies surrounding the so-called Affirmative Consent proposals which advocates claim will curb campus sexual assault. Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed bill SB-967 which will require California students to provide ongoing “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”

Affirmative Consent has been criticized by commentators from all points on the political spectrum.

Writing in Time magazine, Camille Paglia recently warned, “Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students’ dating lives, an authoritarian intrusion that borders on violation of civil liberties.” http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/#3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz observed, “Indeed the indifference to and sometimes outright disdain for due process among our faculty and administrators is transforming our universities into bastions of authoritarianism:” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/03/lawsuit_casts_harsh_light_on_due_process_at_colgate__124167.html#ixzz3FVWYVGsM

Earlier this week liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wrote the California bill represents a “massive broadening of the legal definition of rape” which will “likely reverberate in ways liberals have barely begun to contemplate.” Chait warned the policy portends the “future unraveling of the Democratic coalition.” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/californias-radical-college-sex-law-experiment.html

SAVE notes that Affirmative Consent policies classify 99% of consensual encounters as sexual assault, are likely to be ineffective in stopping rape, encourage false allegations, and are unworkable in real life: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-consent-2/

“Legislators who are considering Affirmative Consent legislation should ask how requiring a woman to say ‘Yes’ would in any way deter a rapist intent on committing a heinous crime,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Instead, legislators should be proposing legislation that mandates stronger involvement of the criminal justice system.”

Numerous editorials have criticized the notion of Affirmative Consent: www.accusingu.org .

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Campus Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Campus Anti-Rape Efforts Go Silly

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
October 7, 2014

Three percent of women are victims of rape during their college years. And that number appears to be declining. But that hasn’t stopped campus activists from declaring that a sexual assault “epidemic” is sweeping our campuses and advocating for rape prevention programs that are downright silly, if not absurd.

These are 5 recent examples around the country:

1. Crazy-Making at Michigan
The new University of Michigan policy provides several examples of sexual violence. One type of “violence” listed in its policy is “withholding sex and affection.”

That’s right, U of M no longer believes that “no means no.” Columnist Susan Kruth recently wrote: “This is utterly unconscionable, and, frankly, insane. It is the absolute last message we should be sending to college students.”

2. Taco Runs at ASU
Arizona State University has come up with a novel solution to rape: having by-standers suggest that intoxicated men go out and grab some tacos.

If that doesn’t work, an intoxicated male should be persuaded that the girl he is talking to is “ugly” and “not worth sleeping with,” according to the student group Always Get Consent.

3. Whistles for Rapists
At the University of Colorado, campus activists claim that encouraging women to take common-sense protective measures like carrying a rape whistle constitutes “blaming the victim.”

So the Student Health Center is now distributing flyers to men instructing them that the “only use for a rape whistle is: If you are about to rape someone, warn them. Blow the whistle.”

4. Big Sister at Clemson
At Clemson University in South Carolina, students were required to complete a survey asking detailed questions such as:
• “How many times have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?”
• “With how many different people have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?”

Failure to complete the questionnaire was deemed to be a violation of the Student Code of Conduct and subject to disciplinary action.

5. Sex Week in New Mexico
Last week the University of New Mexico Women’s Resource Center co-sponsored Sex Week. The week included lectures on topics such as “How to be a Gentleman AND Get Laid,” “Reid’s Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” and “O-Face Oral.”

According to the media account, “The events are designed to prevent sexual assault, but organizers have taken a new approach…Instead of teaching students how not to get hurt, they’re teaching them how to have safer and better sex.”
We’re hoping the event organizers will explain how escalating the already hyper-sexualized environment of college campuses will serve to deter sexual assault.

Time to Get Serious About Rape

Let’s state the obvious: Rape is a crime.

Stopping rape requires improved police reporting, professional investigations, and vigorous prosecutions.

Rape cases should be handled by the criminal justice system, not by ill-equipped campus Kangaroo Courts.

Categories
Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Campus False Allegations Sexual Assault

Feminist Says No to California’s Yes-Means-Yes Law … Here’s Why

Roz Galtz
October 10, 2014

GUEST WORDS-As a lifelong, hardcore feminist—not to mention the mom of a teenage girl—I know I’m supposed to be overjoyed by passage of California’s SB 967, the law that enshrines a “yes-means-yes” consent standard for sexual assault on college and university campuses. (You’ve got to confirm your partner’s active consent throughout a sexual encounter, or the facts will support a sexual assault claim.

I want to be happy. It feels like forever since feminists have had a win. Still, I can’t help but dislike this bill entirely.

How did we get to a place where we uncritically celebrate a law meant to enhance justice for survivors of sexual assault, but only if they’re enrolled in a college or university?

Let’s start by acknowledging: college women are at no greater risk of sexual assault than other women their age. Given the reporting, you’re probably tempted to dismiss that assertion out of hand, but check it out. Rely on nearly any set of measures you’d like. As tricky as sexual assault stats can be, the evidence is nearly uniform on this point. Campus women aren’t at greater risk than their non-academic sisters, they’re just more aggregated in space.

So how did we get here? There are a number of explanations, but ultimately the only reason we need to rethink campus policies on sexual assault in the first place is that campuses are permitted to adjudicate them.

For far too long, residential campuses have been permitted to act as little, make-believe municipalities, complete with their own quasi-judicial processes, staffed by faculty who just love the buzz of the solemnity of getting to play judge.

When I try to envision a campus sexual assault proceeding, I flash on the case of a kid at a “living learning” program where I used to teach. After an RA busted him for trouble in the dorms, he distributed hundreds of copies of a disordered, rambling tract targeting her. He promised to get stray dogs to urinate all over her. He declared “open f-cking season on dumb tw-ts now” (a threat with a little extra oomph, coming from a burly guy who dressed in full combat fatigues).

The RA was terrified and terrorized—forced to flee the dorm that was both her housing and her job site.

This wasn’t a sexual assault, but the program’s response was telling. Was the guy arrested? Put before a disciplinary board? Subject to a mandatory psych eval? Did the RA receive some form of protection? Was she given a say in how the problem was handled?

The answer, as far as I could ever learn, was no on every count.

Administrators seemed anxious to keep things in house. The program was under scrutiny for its high costs and persistent crises. A senior faculty member had recently racked up his second reprimand for sexual harassment. The last thing anyone wanted was another black eye.

Faculty sentiment also ran decidedly against formal discipline, which may have led to expulsion given the student’s “priors.” Rationales for were varied—one prof simply maintained there was no way this kid could be a threat because: “I’ve had him in several classes, and he’s always been very quiet.”

(No, seriously, that’s what he said.) Of course, “this kid” was white. Does anyone buy for a minute that a burly black dude who dressed like a sniper could plaster his college with vows to torture and kill a white female RA and walk away with no repercussions…because he was quiet in class?

Now consider: these are the same folks assembling with all sense of seriousness to judge sexual assault claims on campuses. Don’t get me wrong, people with PhDs are probably no less likely than the rest of the population to be thoughtful about gender, violence, and race when confronting real-life conflict; but let’s not kid ourselves—they’re not liable to be more.

Administrators are, meanwhile, directly, materially tethered to the reputations of their institutions. No one who understands this should be surprised to learn that sexual assault adjudications are often delayed till the aggressor graduates or the victim drops out.

The cosplay that is campus criminal justice was simply never about valuing women’s lives in the first place. It’s always been about protecting institutions.

So what to do?

Source: http://www.citywatchla.com/8br-hidden/7677-feminist-says-no-to-california-s-yes-means-yes-law-here-s-why