WEATHER »

Affirmative Consent’ U

Young Men’s Rights in Peril


Monday, August 11, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Rape and sexual assault are very serious crimes, and we applaud efforts to protect both male and female students on California campuses. However, SB 976 introduced by State Senators Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) would initiate harmful changes with disastrous consequences for California’s sons.

The bill adopts the “preponderance of evidence” standard. That is a lower bar than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard used in the criminal courts or the middle-ground “clear and convincing evidence” standard typically used in matters with serious consequences to the accused. In the college setting, the accused will be saddled with a lifetime “sex offender” stigma because of an ambiguous social interaction, not a forcible rape.

The U.S. Department of Justice data reveals that rape on college campuses has declined precipitously from 1995 to a historic low today. Rather than celebrate this achievement, SB 967 radically redefines “sexual assault” to include almost any touching of one person by another without prior “affirmative consent.”

To avoid being accused of sexual assault, consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time — including months later. Regardless of whether an existing dating relationship between the people involved existed, or past sexual encounters with each other happened, it can’t be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

SB 967 moved to the Assembly after a report, authored by the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, stated that one in five women are sexually assaulted while at college. This statistic is utterly false and scores of articles point this out.

False Allegations

Tragically, SB 967 would dramatically increase the number of he said/she said sexual assault allegations. When bill co-author Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) was asked how an innocent person is to prove he or she indeed received consent, Lowenthal said, “Your guess is as good as mine. I think it’s a legal issue. Like any legal issue, that goes to court.”

The problem is that under SB 967, allegations of sexual assault do not go to court but rather to a university administrative committee comprised of faculty, students, and administrators. Such committees deny California’s accused sons of the kinds of basic evidentiary, due process, and cross-examination rights found in criminal courts. Sexual assault charges should be handled by those trained to do so — the police and the criminal justice system.

While being a victim is devastating, so too is being falsely accused. In 2002, Wanetta Gibson falsely accused fellow California high school student Brian Banks of rape. Luckily, Brian was exonerated in 2012 after Wanetta was later caught on tape admitting that he was innocent.

Lawsuits

Critically, a growing number of the students who have been disciplined or expelled for false allegations of sexual assault are filing lawsuits against their schools. The number of publically reported lawsuits filed by sons whose lives have been ruined by campus tribunals now exceed 30 and are growing daily.

As Californians, do you want your educational tax dollars spent to pay off totally unnecessary lawsuits?

Reduced Male Attendance

Today’s educational gender gap is the opposite of what it was in the 1960s. Then, about 60 percent of advanced degrees were awarded to men. Today it is about 40 percent. California’s sons already are in the minority, and their number would be further reduced by the hostile and dangerous work environment SB 967 would create on campus.

Parents and sons will run a very high risk of losing their education dollars while the son would be permanently banned from further higher education because of his “conviction.” Why would any parent want to support SB 967 and expose their sons to the prospects of lifelong losses in finances, education, employment, marriage, family formation, and home buying?

Attenuating sexual misconduct on the part of both male and female perpetrators is without question a worthy cause. However, seeking that goal by denying due process, evidentiary, and cross-examination protections of the accused is unfair to the accused and fails to meet the U.S. Supreme Court standard of “Equal Justice Under Law.”

We urge the sons and the parents of sons in California to band together to defeat SB 967.

Dianna Thompson is director of Stop Abuse for Everyone. Gordon E. Finley is professor emeritus of psychology at Florida International University.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Assuming this is true, I'm not surprised.

Hannah-Beth Jackson hath protesteth way too much over the years.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 4:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to point out that some of our local "women's issues" politicians give true feminism a bad name.

Am I allowed to name names?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These writers are part of a misogynist organization called SAVE; referred to time and again in the "scores of articles" webref/hot text in their article. While false accusation and so on IS really bad and an issue, the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Center identifies SAVE as one of the extreme rightwing Misogynist sites:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed... . I don't respect the writers or this article.
It's a meaningless and un-related stat to state, as the authors do, that "about 60 percent of advanced degrees were awarded to men [the 1960s]. Today it is about 40 percent. California’s sons already are in the minority..."
This is an entirely separate problem, one I've written about and remain highly concerned about; it isn't about "affirmative consent" issues.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know what you mean, Bill, and I point out that women vote in higher percentages than men, so there IS a play to the female side...can't wait for Sealion to get going on this. Still, it's a bogus article, and way overdone.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This law IS over the top. A person will not be able to "consent" to sex if they are drunk. It is automatically rape. She we require breathalyzer tests before sex? Or maybe written consent. This will also open the door to blackmail opportunities.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan in the comments section above is drinking the political kool-aid. The SPLC is no longer a credible organization because it has been hijacked by partisan extremists. If he disagrees, he may feel free to point out a single article where the SPLC exposes radical Feminism. You won't find it, of course, because it doesn't exist.

The SPLC's only criticisms of SAVE were simply flat-out lies. SAVE seeks to reform (what SPLC calls "roll back") only discriminatory and unconstitutional laws, which is apparently what the SPLC supports.

The problems with boys' educational attainment are indeed related to the draconian policies regarding sexual assault because one of the primary reasons why both have gotten so bad is because the current conversation on gender equality (and educational equity in particular) is dominated by people who think these values are a one-way street that only apply to certain groups, and not to others.

We may disagree on particular issues, but if anyone categorically begrudges an entire group of people a seat at the table regarding equality, that person is on the wrong side of the conversation - and likely on the wrong side of history as well.

JonathanTaylor (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, Jonathan, I am listening. As a lifelong teacher I certainly HAVE spoken out strongly about the situation of boys in academic performance, etc. I am very aware of the horrifying statistics about male academic attainment (lack thereof); I have been laughed at in school settings when bringing this topic up. E.g., the infamous Atlantic Monthly article of 2 years ago: WHO NEEDS MEN. Since I have multiple degrees, as well as a son in education, I am attempting to balance these concerns. Still not sure the education imbalance and connection to this proposed law.
And yes, SAFE did make a good ref. to the rotten case of the Duke Lacrosse team and how they got reamed.
One way to put it is that there are a lot of "old style" feminists -- includes Sen. Jackson -- who push extremely hard on their important issues, but don't realize the "field" has leveled quite a bit, if not fully. Note: women still make just 80% of what men make in similar jobs.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First, there's some misunderstanding I'd like to clear up. The authors of this article are from SAFE, not SAVE. I read your comment and incorrectly assumed SAVE was mentioned in this article.

Thank you for bring up men's and boys' education issues. Unfortunately, people who do so will continue to be laughed at until those who laugh at them stand to lose something - money, reputation, influence, and so forth.

I'm aware of the wage gap arguments, but even assuming those arguments are correct, consider this. Think of how many times you've heard people cite the wage gap as a means to dismiss or trivialize boys' education issues. Now ask yourself: would those people find it acceptable if others cited men being the majority of the homeless as a means to dismiss women's issues?

No, of course not. This is why the conversation on equality/educational equity is flawed: it's framed as a zero-sum "winner take all" way. The same way that the conversation on sexual assault and false accusations is framed. The time has come to transition to the worldview that we all have issues that are important.

JonathanTaylor (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the "scores of articles" hot-text refs to SAVE, not SAFE. Anyway, appreciate your points Jonathan and will ponder.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Dan, I am one of the authors of this article and I am not with SAVE as you have suggested. I am with the organization Stop Abuse for Everyone www.stopabuseforeveryone.org. which is a completely different organization. Thanks! Dianna Thompson

DiannaThomp (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My apologies. Your hot-text "scores of articles" however does take one to SAVE [http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/accusing-u/] which then lists those many articles. Some by Ben Boychuk.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SAFE does appear to be a pretty cool organization with worthy goals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Abu...
Stop Abuse For Everyone advocates for what they term an "inclusive" model of domestic violence. They focus on groups that are "lacking in services", such as abused men, gay, lesbian, and transgendered victims, and the elderly
I can also understand Botany's comment. What the heck is "informal consent" and how can law enforcement precisely ascertain this??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While it is still he said, she said it can now also include she said, she said, he said he said and they all said. This ranks as one of the more stupid Nanny state pieces of legislation that I did not think even H-B Jackson could top, but she did.

Some issues require personal restraint, impulse control and awareness of surroundings and consequence, not micromanaged legislation. If this conduct is not happening actually inside the classroom or cafeteria or campus restrooms or dormatories, there is no business to put this demand on any institution of higher learning to create and carry such a hare-brained "affirmative consent" policy.

This has nothing to do with rape which remains a crime without this frivilous exercise of collegial semantics. Please votes do not give Das Williams or Hannah-Beth Jackson another shot at elected office to anything.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2) BC fires his cannon for the first time to help CA's sons. Nice shot too. But what, pray tell, is 'true feminism' anyway?

Sealion (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 1:44 p.m.

A good question from the KIng of the Aquatic Jungle. I would simply put it as the concept that a woman is free do make whatever decisions she wants with her life without any gender-based restrictions--a truly radical concept until a few decades ago--with the mitigating philosophy that all people are brothers and sisters, in other words, the gender version of Martin Luther King's fight for fair treatment.

Jackson, Susan Rose, and Cathy Murillo do not represent true feminism, but rather, drive people apart a la Al Sharpton.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as I can tell the proponents of SB 967 haven't even sought public or professional input on this bill, except for a few hand-picked zealots and brown nosers. The arrogance with which the bill's sponsors are rushing this through the process is appalling. At least the US Department of Education had the decency to conduct negotiated rule-making sessions which resulted in affirmative consent being dropped, for good reasons.

Attart (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Teaching and learning have to go hand-in-hand, thus why surprised, eh Sealion, as you write "Dr D, the most pickled of our Indoctrination U colleagues, allowed himself to be schooled." But NO anti-feminist here, and your brand of vicious misogyny continues to disgust; you'd get a lot more attention if you made thoughtful contributions like..well, like Thompson&Finley's contribution.
Good definition BC: "the concept that a woman is free do make whatever decisions she wants with her life without any gender-based restrictions--a truly radical concept until a few decades ago" -- yet with the historic oppression of women [e.g. no voting rights til 1920; horrible lack of financial rights til recently...] redress has been important, though our aquatic monster will never see it.
Likely this proposed legislation will never make it into law since "the “preponderance of evidence” standard[.]" seems impossible. H-B Jackson has done good things, but over-reaches horribly here.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In Oct. 2013 I noted Councilwoman "Murillo's unfortunate letter [which] is really divisive, female-arrogant, and borders on gender-baiting[.]," Sealion, so in your own blind female hatred you can't even see someone who agrees with you 20%! I like "being schooled" because I LEARN and can change: can you??
As a 40 year teacher, I've been pressing for equal academic education for BOYS for many years. Here's my Oct. '13 letter vs. the WAY Murillo supported Megan Alley's candidacy: [http://www.independent.com/news/2013/oct/14/cheers-megan-diaz-alley/ ]
“As posted above, I urge people to vote for Alley. And bonghit's probably correct that things would be much better in DC with the stupid shutdown 'if more women were in Congress or had more power in the White House.' It is still a shame that only 20% of the US Senate is female.
I was raised in a tight family surrounded by four powerful sisters, all of whom have been leaders in their lives and not afraid to lean in. However, BC and Botany make decent points, especially when the latter writes, 'Does it even matter what their views are?'
It really does matter what their views and experience are! I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton for Pres. because of her gender, or against her because of her gender. Murillo's unfortunate letter is really divisive, female-arrogant, and borders on gender-baiting. We need to end this era of picayune obsession with "identity politics" where a voter, for e.g., ONLY votes for a ___________ [fill-in the blank: woman/African-American male/older white male/younger person/older person/ ETC] or only votes for a single-issue [e.g. gun control or lower taxes].
I urge you to vote Alley because she combines good progressive values, lives in a real neighborhood, has some experience and has worked in our town, is younger, wants more recreation spaces and funds for our SB youth, is open and thoughtful.”

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is an important topic generally; and the rise of MRAs (men's rights associations) has been phenomenal in the last three years, and many MRA's now cite Elliott Rodgers's manifesto (sorry to say). Here is one angle to explain the rise of MRAs, and how some of them just HATE women and do fit under the FBI's term "hate" --
from the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC]: "It is not difficult to understand the rise of MRAs in the context of what sociologist Michael Kimmel, in his recently published book, ANGRY WHITE MEN: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, calls 'the era of unquestioned and unchallenged male entitlement.' Kimmel’s analysis resonates with the SPLC’s assessment of why hate groups have grown so quickly in the past decade, a surge they describe as 'fueled by anger and fear over the nation’s ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation’s first African-American president.' That women, as a class, would be targets of anger in this environment should surprise no one."
Obviously, Sealion and his ilk are terrified, this leads to hatred, and then his many stupid and vicious comments.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Jonathan Taylor, who writes "The SPLC is no longer a credible organization... " I completely disagree with you; it's a terrific organization, and of course they miss Morris Dees. Here is a senior fellow from the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] in a recent interview with Al Jazeera:
Mark Potok: “We have no beef with some men complaining about their treatment in family court and custody battles. Sometimes they are treated unfairly. We also don’t dispute that men are victims of rape. However, this is a world largely peopled not by seekers of justice for men but by people who despise and absolutely vilify women and not just particularly women but women in general. They fit very squarely within the purview of the work that we do. They are there just pushing out enormous amounts of untrammelled hatred.”
And note the authors of our discussion are not from SAVE, which you Jonathan have defended.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah...Another reason for Internet Porn, safest sex there is without violating women's rights, at least until they get to monitor all male internet interaction by Law. The other method that can't be stated due to the violation of the PC Codes of the Independent but is quite popular with Internet Porn by the male population...
I have heard that the more you strip a man of his masculinity, the more you destroy the Male Population and thus doom the existence of our species to test tube child...

dou4now (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The SPLC is just a propaganda arm, one who has been found to be totally unreliable by US intelligence resources because their list of hate groups is based more on political views that they don't like than actual hate crime statistics.

The FBI has recently dumped SPLC as a partner in public outreach, that is a step in the right direction.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governme...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The authors are parading as advocates for equality while they can't get their facts straight and haven't bothered to do their homework.
1- The preponderance of the evidence standard is already mandated by federal law under Title IX. This bill does nothing to change that.
2- Colleges/universities are required to address sexual violence under Title IX. This is an administrative process, not a criminal one. It is a privilege to attend college and university, not a right. You don't get to stay if you violate another student's right to an education free from violence.
3- School investigators are now required to be trained in conducting sexual assault investigations. They are not bumbling admin people who usually deal with plagarism and other such offenses.
4 - No one is going to be "saddled with a sex offender stigma." Again, this is not a criminal process. The offender is actually free to enroll in any other university/college.
5 - This authors engage in fear-mongering around false accusations. False accusations are EXTREMELY rare. The reporting process is emotionally taxing, arduous and disruptive, and officials talk to all of your friends about extremely intimate details. It's not something you do to get back at an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend.
I could go on but it's just so difficult to argue with misogynistic stupidity.

MarcA (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MarkA is a voice of reason .

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-se...

Due Process??? suppose to be a cornerstone of American law..Or so i thought.

Its a modern day witch hunt.. pure and simple.. why dont we just make it easier and hang any guy thats accused.. because thats never happened before.. right??

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once women stop dressing and acting like sluts and stay away from booze and drug fueled settings, the problem will cease to exist. There, the obvious has been stated. Have at it. Rights come with both dutied and consequences.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aww, Shelion and Jarvis need hugs.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MarcA: The issue is about having the protection of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Saying that false accusations are "extremely rare" misses the point. They DO happen, and people need protection against such things.

Remember the McMartin preschool hoax? The case of Gary Dotson who went away for 10 years for a rape that never happened? The case of the man in Florida who was released c. 2009 after serving 35 years for a rape that DNA proved was committed by another? (Oops, our bad, sorry about your 35 years being spent in jail) In addition to losing your freedom, you face the terror of the stigma sexual offenders face in prison from other inmates.

This is terrifying, and shame on you so-called "progressives" for defending this either actively or tacitly. Hannah-Beth Jackson in unfit to be in a position of power.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At least we know Das and Hannah-Beth are protecting the due process rights of teachers who just might be falsely accused of grotesque sex crimes right there in the classroom.

Wonder why they did not use the same due process standards for possible failed miscommunications between two adults who have engaged in a mutually compromising situation.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While a student, the now infamous DOE "Dear Colleague" letter stripped me of my fundamental rights to presumption of innocence if accused of sexual assault. Then I watched as the DOJ conducted its assault on the University of Montana's star football quarterback who was clearly innocent, clearing himself of the allegation even though his opposition consisted of 5 prosecuting attorneys, including the state assistant attorney general.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/star-montana...

Since, the draconian affirmative consent mandate has worked itself into U of M Student Code, as well as doing so at my alma mater, Montana State. Then the newly implemented Dean of Student at MSU punished hundreds of men for the alleged infractions of two men. Interestingly, over one year later, one charge has been dismissed in its entirety and the other remains pending.
http://www.montana.edu/news/12320/msu...

Subsequently, the U of M now reports an "enrollment problem"...
http://missoulian.com/news/local/um-h...

Oriondsgn (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SB 967 is a very bad bill.

Rape is not caused by misunderstandings. Most male college students would not, could not rape someone. Only 5% of the population would or could. And rapists don't take the time to have a conversation about it.

Another problem is that SB 967 makes female students think it's good enough to expel a rapist from campus. What about the rest of society? Rapists belong behind bars. Accusers should be encouraged to go to the police, not just given a list of resources with the police on the list.

Also, if a victim later decides to go to the police, any mistakes made by the confidential adviser or disciplinary panel can get a criminal case thrown out.

Leave sexual assault investigations to the trained people in law enforcement.

teriincali (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MarcA, you don't think it goes on the accused records? Guess again. There have been over 30 lawsuits filed against schools by innocent men whose lives have been ruined by wrongful guilty verdicts. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-conten...

teriincali (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let's recap:

- Women live longer than men even when normalized for war.

- In the U.S., funding on medical research for women's health is running at about 3x that of men's.

- Women now have higher high school graduation and college degree earning rates than men.

- Unemployment among men during the "Great Recession" was (and remains) much higher among men than women.

- Men are ridiculed ad idiots and buffoons constantly in popular media such as sitcoms and TV commercials. Terrific for boys and young mens' self-image.

- Women can legally kill a living human inside their bodies without any notification and over any objection from the man that co-created the pregnancy.

- According to the FBI rape and sexual assaults against women are at the lowest point since recording began. Same stat from California authorities.

- Income disparity between men and women who are in the same/similar job and have worked for the same amount of continuous years and the apprx the same hours/week at the lowest point it has ever been - huge progress during the past 40 years for women.

And there is a "War on Women" in America?

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lest anyone accuse me of being part of a vast male-based Right Wing conspiracy, the reason I oppose the death penalty is that so many people have gone down for crimes they did not commit.

With this bill, lots of innocent people are likely to take the rap when they are innocent. MarcA's allegation of false accusations being "EXTREMELY RARE" are not the words of "a voice of reason" (to quote Herschel_Greenspan) but a way of saying in effect "So what if some innocent people do down".

I've been aware of Hannah-Beth Jackson's agenda since 1990 when she used the abortion issue to justify her opposition to Proposition 115, which was on the voter's docket that year. I thought to myself then "What is she talking about?...who IS this person". Since then, she has shown that she has an agenda not based in truth or justice. (Her claim that school vouchers would give money to religious school, when in fact, the parents choose the school--but I guess with her obsession about the "right to choose" that right doesn't apply to parents, only abortion)

We have some bad stuff coming down the pike folks, this isn't tin-foil hat paranoia, and y'all better wake up to people such as Jackson, as well as (speaking of paranoid people) those politicians who support spying on us, The Patriot Act, and the NDAA. It happened in Germany, which was a very advanced civilization, and it can happen here. Do you see any irony in that, Herschel?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Earth to Hannah-Beth Jackson: solve the state's systemic budget imbalance, and leave society to micro-manage its own values and ethcis. Banning, shunning and ostracism still work.

Impulse control is an inside game and not a result of your foolhardy legislation on paper. Parents, the state does not raise your kids. You do. Know that before you choose to procreate.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Aww, Shelion and Jarvis need hugs.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 4:19 p.m.

SHElion??

Well ok there big guy, U wanna hug 'em, B my guest, I will be content to simply shake hands, or bang flippers with Sealion.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree MarcA: "it's just so difficult to argue with misogynistic stupidity."

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for this article. Despite what the misandrists are claiming, false accusations of rape are not rare. According to the FBI, "The 'unfounded' rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."

www.fbi.gov/.../ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/...

But that figure is very conservative. It does not include false claims made to non-police entities like universities, or false claims that were never proven false and only get classified as “unsubstantiated."

In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred. In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false. Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi. Kanin, EJ, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994.

According to an expert quoted in the CBS News story below, "for a four-year period from 2003-2007, 31 per cent of sexual assault claims that Ottawa Police investigated were dismissed as unfounded — that is, they never happened — as opposed to unsubstantiated, where there isn't enough evidence to follow the case." www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/barrhav...

The myth that only two percent of rape accusations are false, often falsely attributed to FBI data, is not credible and has been debunked. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947 http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3...

Falsely accused men are disproportionately African-American men. www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php

Many colleges are kicking men out on an accusation alone or using a weak standard of proof. The Duke Lacrosse players, who were kicked off the team and mobbed at their homes without any hearing, are the tip of the iceberg. Many college men are now suing their colleges for kicking them out without a proper hearing. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/...

marcetienne (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The John Doe case at Occidental College shows how scary it is to be accused without due process rights. This is not a theoretical discussion, but one where misguided girls can be convinced days later (in that case) or years later (several well-reported cases nationally) that their fully participatory consensual sexual activities were actually sexual assault.

SB967 takes away hundreds of years of legal precedent: no right to an attorney (in fact they are banned entirely at most schools), no right to see the evidence against them, no right to present evidence in their defense, no right to question their accuser, no rights of "reasonable doubt", no right to remain silent, and no right to an impartial jury. The process at Occidental was a travesty, as was reported locally and nationally. All the court documents are public, so you can judge for yourself.

The idea that we should subject college boys to medieval court procedures is a travesty, and will only lead to counter-suits against the schools and accusers, driving up costs.

If there is a problem on campuses, then it should be handled by professionals in the court system. If the police/court system is broken, then fix that problem for everyone. But if we must pass a horrific bill like this, at least provide our young men with minimal due process rights.

twostepsbackward (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'scapegoat all men as rapey monsters.' - the cowardly lion. Really, so much fear for a woman ? drama king o' the sea.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"why dont we just make it easier and hang any guy thats accused.. "

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2014 at 3:20 p.m.

Because this is Santa Barbara County, where you don't just go and do anything you want--and that includes hanging people--unless you pay for a permit to do so.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember how Gray Davis was removed from office? Just sayin'...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BC is wrong in saying of H-B Jackson that "(Her claim that school vouchers would give money to religious school, when in fact, the parents choose the school" -- varies a lot, but in many states that what would have happened. Check the facts.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: I specifically remember her stating this. I can't remember word for word, but I remember reading this. I stand by what I say.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 4:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Two funny thoughts:
Immediately after the Rodgers massacre progressives started making the point about pro male rights groups having so much in common with the Rodgers Manifesto. Therefore all male rights groups are nuts? Seriously? Do y'all remember that the great Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was also a firm believer in eugenics and selective human breeding? Do the caring progressives bring that up when addressing the anti abortion argument?
Academic institutions are replete with false charges and males being kicked out without due process in order to meet political correctness. There is no due process. Check into the lawsuits filed at some universities. Oregon has received a spate of these suits since students can be considered guilty without charges even being filed with the police. California is developing the same track record.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sealion, correct you are. Critical thinking in today's schools is to be taught to be critical of anything other than this one sided socialist-progressive propaganda now passing for educaiton in today's public schools. A generation of Americans are now lost forever which means the country as we knew it will be soon lost too.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis, you misspelled education.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sea-snot, learn what the term "fascist" means, then swim down into your sick sewer; get over your anal alliterative associations; some woman owns you so keep whining on these threads, it's all you've got.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

KV's right, JarvisFOOFIGHTERJarvis: it's EDUCATION, guess you failed to learn that in school, and much besides. You pseudo-tragic "A generation of Americans are now lost forever..." ooh, cry in your beer.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks more like a typo.

And I think DrDan and BillC were talking past each other a bit, DrDan what BillC meant was that even though more money goes towards religious schools his point was that it was their decision that the money went there whereas right now they are forced to pay their taxes to go toward educational institutions that promote leftist socialism which many people are against.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of Christianity or Socialism, but I do like the idea of increasing people's choices by simply allowing them to do so rather than providing their choices for them.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Sealion: "Where I you or ole Mista V, I'd pack it in already since you don't seem to even be able to offer anything of intelligence. Stupid faux liberal snark from left wing fascists has had its day already."

You really need to stop sleeping with your head atop a running microwave.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suggest we issue free breathalizers to all males, along with free classes about how females must be protected from themselves, and then have them check the alcohol level of all females, along with a public notary, and then sign a time at each interval as various articles of clothing are removed and increasing states of sexual conduct are reached card-males will be solely responsible for verifying state issued identifications are not faked or the males will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for being deceived by females.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So if women drink and drive we let them go now? Because they are special snowflakes incapable of understanding the implications of their own actions??

we call it "catch and release"

lol

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agree Audi. We should also forgive all of their debts because they are too incapable of understanding a contractual obligation to have any responsibility.

nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have something I would like to add to this...I just dont know what it is yet.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So let's recap:

- Women live longer than men even when normalized for war.

- In the U.S., funding on medical research for women's health is running at about 3x that of men's.

- Women now have higher high school graduation and college degree earning rates than men.

- Unemployment among men during the "Great Recession" was (and remains) much higher among men than women.

- Men are ridiculed as idiots and buffoons constantly in popular media such as sitcoms and TV commercials. Terrific for boys and young mens' self-image.

- Women can legally kill a living human inside their bodies without any notification and over any objection from the man that co-created the pregnancy.

- According to the FBI rape and sexual assaults against women are at the lowest point since recording began. Same stat from California authorities.

- Income disparity between men and women who are in the same/similar job and have worked for the same amount of continuous years and the apprx the same hours/week at the lowest point it has ever been - huge progress during the past 40 years for women.

And there is a "War on Women" in America?

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloom...

Dont forget these!!

We got to end this "war on women".. haha ... what a effin joke!!!

audidriver2010 (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB has used the preponderance of evidence standard for the last 70 years or so. Not sure how the authors of this piece missed that fact.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I encourage everyone (especially Ms. Jackson) to watch this recent presentation, especially the last third, by psychologist Carol Tavris

Who's Lying, Who's Self-Justifying? Origins of the He Said/She Said Gap in Sexual Allegations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SpVV...

It is one of the most brave, honest and accurate analysis of the treacherous ambiguity inherent in courtship and sexuality. The idea that we can legislate these ambiguities away, and criminalize sexuality due to post-coital regret and/or failure to document "affirmative consent" is naive and misguided. As Tavris, a long time feminist, herself said: "This is not the feminism I signed up for."

If Ms. Jackson's bill passes, this is literally what we will end up with (lawyers in the bedroom):
Video: Sexual Consent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_...

EllwoodBeach (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

reality, can you give a serious ref. for your next to last assertion (FBI stats)? I DO tend to agree with your point: "Men are ridiculed as idiots and buffoons constantly in popular media such as sitcoms and TV commercials. Terrific for boys and young mens' self-image." But be fair, I know examples where women are also ridiculed...
Pardall, interesting: give a ref.? And UCSB isn't the whole state of Calif.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is so much emphasis on "safe" sex, contraception, abortion, and women's freedom to enjoy casual sex that "consent" seems a bit old-fashioned - as if women are not implying consent by making themselves available for no-strings sex. This contradictory situation is confusing to young people of both sexes. It is unnatural for women to engage in sex without reciprocated love, but our society encourages them to do just that beginning in grade school. At some point most girls will feel the full force of that denaturing and look for a way to relieve themselves of the feeling that they have been misused. A bill like this won't give them back their self-respect.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2014 at 3:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/regulations/st...
D)1)d)2)d)v) & vii)

d)The Hearing Body

v)Shall deliberate in closed session with only appropriate University staff present and shall base its findings upon the preponderance of evidence.

vii)Shall submit its findings and recommendations within five working days following the conclusion of the hearing to the Dean of Students or Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, as appropriate, with a copy to the student. This report shall set forth its findings with regard to each of the charges separately as well as include its recommendation for disposition of the case. Findings of violations of University policies or campus regulations shall reflect a preponderance of the evidence produced at the hearing.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

great ref. pardall...UCSB ALREADY does the preponderance thing: "Findings of violations of University policies or campus regulations shall reflect a preponderance of the evidence produced at the hearing"
so why all the hullabaloo on this?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2014 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: