UVa: Can We All Calm Down Now?

What would T.J. say?

What would T.J. say?

So, the credibility of the Rolling Stone article about the gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity has been demolished. I’ll let others sort through the wreckage to determine how much, if any, of the rape story can be believed. The more interesting question now is, where does that leave the University of Virginia leadership? What’s the next move?

The first thing President Teresa Sullivan should do is reverse the shut-down of fraternity and sorority social functions until the spring semester. The crackdown on the Greek social organizations was a panicked reaction to horrifying allegations that the university administration and Board of Trustees appeared all too willing to accept at face value. The shut-down also was indiscriminate, punishing all fraternities and sororities, even though the rape was alleged to have occurred at only one. First the UVa leadership acted before the facts were known; then it punished the innocent.

The next thing Sullivan needs to do is get a handle on whether there is, in fact, an “epidemic of rape” at UVa and, if so, what the nature of that epidemic is. Is it a matter of predatory frat boys drugging or coercing young women into unwanted sex on a massive scale? Is a matter of rampant and promiscuous drunken couplings which the women later regret? Is it a jumble of the two or something else altogether?

It also would be worthwhile to know whether the epidemic of rape/regret sex is confined to the alcohol-soaked fraternity scene, or whether it also takes place in university dormitories or off-grounds housing. Is it fair to blame the fraternities or is the problem wider in scope?

A highly vocal feminist movement has been largely successful in imposing its epidemic-of-rape narrative upon the ongoing controversy. Perhaps predator males are unleashing an epidemic of rape — clearly there is a problem of some sort — but I’m not going to believe it just on the say-so of ideologically motivated activists. As an alumnus, I want to see a dispassionate presentation of the facts.

— JAB

There are currently no comments highlighted.

92 responses to “UVa: Can We All Calm Down Now?

  1. UVA has the means to provide dispassionate answers to these questions raised. The critical question is whether those who run UVA have the integrity to provide such dispassionate answers.

    How can be that no rape convictions have been obtained if ten years of rape culture has been in progress at UVA? That is the crux question.

    Great damage has been done by UVA’s failure to answer these questions and address problems based on answers grounded in reality, rather than the ideology of gender and culture wars.

    UVA stands at a crossroads.

  2. “So, the credibility of the Rolling Stone article about the gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity has been demolished”

    No it hasn’t.

    “I’ll let others sort through the wreckage…”

    Of course you will. You’re the type that makes sweeping declarations and then let’s other people carry your water. I’ve asked you several times on this very topic for your definition of rape, you’ve refused to give it.

    As much as Don and I go back and forth, he’s at least willing to stick a flag in the ground and defend it, which I respect.

    “Is it a matter of rampant and promiscuous drunken couplings which the women later regret?”

    Do you have anything even approaching evidence that this is happening, anything besides anecdata at all? You keep saying it, but you never support it with anything other than “Back in my day the kids didn’t sext!”

    • Regarding promiscuous drunken couplings… Read Heather MacDonald’s stuff. Reed Fawell has linked to it already in comments to a previous post. The question isn’t whether such activity occurs, the question is what percentage of “rapes” they comprise — a large percentage or a trivial one. Perhaps you’re willing to rule out the possibility, on ideological grounds, that such activity occurs but many others are not. We need someone to take an objective look.

      • I’ve read Heather MacDonald and she’s far more polemical than logical. As for objective, I’ve posted previously the DOJ study that supports the 20~25% number, and you’ve ignored it. But you site on the front page an informal survey done by one professor one 103 women from his classes that got a 7 percent number, and you site it with complete credulity. But I’m the one with an ideological bias.

        I’ve proven here time and again I’m not an absolutist. Most studies put the rate of false rape reports somewhere between 2 and 8 percent, and the percent of false rape accusations even lower. Are there women who get drunk, have regrettable sex and claim they were raped? Sure, but that amount is vanishingly small especially compared to the 54 percent of rapes go unreported in the first place (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/08/the_enliven_project_s_false_rape_accusations_infographic_great_intentions.html).

        • LOTFL, Here’s the problem. Nobody trusts the other side’s studies. I can quote conservative studies, and you’ll find reasons to say they’re B.S. You can quote studies from liberal sources, and I can dispute them too. I followed up on one of the punishments-in-schools sources you cited in a previous blog post and I found buried in the narrative a lot of data that supported my view of the issue. Needless to say, the authors put a different spin on the data than I would have. Nearly blogged about it but didn’t have time.

          In a hyper-polarized political environment, we need someone with credibility with the broader community to step in and study the situation. Perhaps we’re so divided as a society that such a person cannot be found. But that’s what we need.

          • LifeOnTheFallLine

            The DOJ lacks credibility?

          • Let’s put it this way. If the Bush-era DOJ came out with a report on, say, enhanced interrogation, would you accept it just because it came from the DOJ?

          • LifeOnTheFallLine

            “Here’s the problem. Nobody trusts the other side’s studies.”

            It’s a good thing I don’t have a side then.

            “I can quote conservative studies, and you’ll find reasons to say they’re B.S.”

            Then don’t quote conservative studies.

            “You can quote studies from liberal sources”

            I can’t think of a single study that I’ve cited that comes from a liberal source. I try as hard as possible to find studies from sources that either study an issue or come from a governmental or academic source.

          • re: ” …or come from a governmental or academic source.”

            well that’s the problem – from the right’s perspective these days – govt sources are .. “liberal”, “biased”, “wrong”, etc.. from anyone right of center these days.

            the only time they cite govt sources from the right is if they can twist them to suite their narrative -like them “quoting” CBO, that we have the biggest deficit and debt and govt spending under Obama than any prior POTUS.

            yup.. nevermind the POTUS cannot spend a dime without Congressional authorization… and God forbid we bring up the subject of Continuing Resolutions…

          • LifeOnTheFallLine

            There’s a substantive difference between the government investigating itself and investigating an external issue.

  3. ” A highly vocal feminist movement has been largely successful in imposing its epidemic-of-rape narrative upon the ongoing controversy. …..I want to see a dispassionate presentation of the facts.”

    so vocal feminists are the cause of no referrals to law enforcement?

    oh come on…

    let me ask – WHO do you think should develop a ” dispassionate presentation of the facts” when apparently virtually no referrals were made?

    Here’s what we should do – compile a list for each University/College in Virginia – with some simple data. How many reported incidents? How many referrals to police? and how many expulsions. Then let’s have the same folks who prosecuted McDonnell or Phil Hamilton do the actual inquiry for UVA with the force of law – to be able to subpoena, do discovery, and charge for perjury. Finally, let’s make it a felony for any college to not immediately refer ANY allegation as soon as it has been made – period.

    • Larry, did it ever occur to you that maybe one reason so few cases have been reported is that many of the incidents are ambiguous and impossible to prosecute? Unlike you, I don’t presume to know one way or the other.

      But you don’t need facts, do you? You’ve got your narrative and that’s all you need.

      • I’m highly skeptical not NO incidents have occurred. Yes.

        but even then – I’m willing to have a truly objective 3rd party take a look.

        Here’s the thing. Would you expect life on campus (or off) to be that much different in terms of incidents per 100,000 than non-college incidents?

        I truly don’t know but I’m incredulous.

        The reason why this fairly obvious bogus charge stuck is, in part, because, “officially” there are no incidents ….

        and as you may have noticed (or not), I was among the first group that smelled a rat on the RS article.

        I truly do seek the truth – but I also do not really buy the premise than nothing happened worth reporting.

        I just feel there is huge potential for conflict of interests when UVA (or any college) inserts itself in a way that can essentially supplant the legal process.

        If a town of 24,000 said they had no reported incidents of sexual law breaking, for years, would you be suspicious?

        I suspect a situation like we have with Mr. Cosby… but I’ll await a true – not a sham – investigation.

      • My suspicion is that the rampant hook-up culture at UVA does enormous psychological damage to many UVA students, whether male or female.

        And that such damage manifests itself in UVA students in a large and complex variety of ways, damaging both their physical and mental health. Hysteria over sex is one.

        I’m confident that UVA has failed to deal appropriately to fully protect its students against the damage done by the Hook-Up culture. Many protections likely are relatively simple, inexpensive, and effective.

        The question is do the leaders of UVA have the integrity to stand up against the Hook-up culture, the root cause of so much self inflicted and avoidable damage? Or will it continue to allow UVA to be a perfect storm breeding place for such damage?

        • for the record – I do not expect UVA to be substantially different from other campuses… I don’t think there is any more a ‘culture of rape’ there than any other campus but I seriously doubt the incidents are zero – at UVA or anywhere else.

  4. I would leave the fraternities and sororities shut down for the rest of the semester. This isn’t just a fraternity thing. This is a party thing. The fraternities host the raucous open house party scene that has been part of the UVA culture since I arrived on those hallowed grounds in 1977.

    Blaming fraternity brothers for the problem is pretty ridiculous. George Hugeley was not in a fraternity. Neither was Jesse Matthew as far as I know. However, the party scene is an issue and the fraternities host many of the open house parties that are emblematic of the out of control culture of the whole university. A couple of weeks off will give everybody a chance to reflect. Even if the Rolling Stine story is a total hoax there have been other issues that are not hoaxes. A couple of weeks to reflect on the matter seems like a good idea to me. And … who knows … a few weeks with fewer wild parties might even add a bit to the average GPA.

  5. Fewer wild parties? In the age of social media there can be a wild party formed in less than an hour. A Spring Break every weekend. Even something as simple as a classmate’s birthday party can become a drunken riot once the word gets out.

    Several years ago I quit having parties for my high school aged kids if friends were invited, because the ‘friends’ had friends who had friends… Now my kids are tapped in to their college aged friends, and could have a very active college social life without actually attending any of the traditional schools of higher learning. Just the parties. If only they could find a break in earning a living.

    • totally agree with Dave. we’re trying to make the Colleges the guardians of lifestyle choices when they start deciding the where/when/how/why of the social activities of the students – at the same time they have compromised their own objectivity in dealing with serious individual crimes involving violence.

    • Darrell:

      I have three sons in college at the moment and one who graduated a couple of years ago. Three of the four are fraternity members. While my sons have the good sense to behave when I am around I have seen some of the most eye popping, jaw dropping drunken behavior imaginable. At best the universities look the other way at the excessive drinking. At worst they encourage it. College football games seem particularly fertile grounds for excessive drunkenness. I suppose it’s because the boozing has to start by 9:00 am in order to be plastered by the 12:00 game. The colleges pander to the alumni by waiving the open alcohol rules on game day. The local police watch impassively as obviously drunk students stagger down the sidewalk. The idea that a student needs a VALID ID to get served is apparently a quaint nostalgic thought.

      Colleges could do a lot to keep a lid on the worst aspects of excessive drinking. The same behavior that’s seen in abundance on college game day would never be tolerated on a Saturday night in the bar area of M St.

      The point about criminal behavior being prosecuted is a fair one. However, the suspect story in Rolling Stone was an exception. In that story the rape was premeditated and forcible. A recent case at the US Naval Academy seems more like the norm:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judge-to-rule-in-naval-academy-sexual-assault-case-after-hearing-closing-arguments/2014/03/20/d9211394-b040-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html

      Binge drinking and an out-of-control house party off campus leads to willing sex. The accuser says she was too drunk to consent. The accused say she didn’t seem that drunk and they were drinking too. The accuser doesn’t initially want the case to move forward. The accused lie to investigators. Criminal charges are brought and dropped. The school expels the accused for lying.

      What should have happened in this case? Using the burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal proceedings means the charges would almost certainly fall short of that standard at trial. Therefore, reporting this charge of rape to the authorities is all but guaranteed to be a futile undertaking. What should have happened?

      The real tragedy of the Rolling Stone fabrication was to make rape on campus look like a black and white criminal matter. I suspect there are far more cases like the situation at the Naval Academy than there are cases like the one described in the Rolling Stone article.

      • ” Using the burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal proceedings means the charges would almost certainly fall short of that standard at trial. Therefore, reporting this charge of rape to the authorities is all but guaranteed to be a futile undertaking. What should have happened?”

        well BEFORE the trial – even if there are no charges filed – there is the report made – on the record – and a 2nd or third report on the same guy is going to have an impact and encourage the police to look a little further if the same guy is popping up on reports. UNLIKE what the schools do – which is to bury or wipe out the report “to protect privacy” .. and in reality – to protect the school from having to admit how many reports have actually been filed – and how many went forward or not.

        that’s the problem. The University has an essential conflict of interest in handling these reports.

        Beyond that, if a women is going to make a report – it should be SHE – not the University telling her that such a report “could harm” a matriculating guy’s future.

        The Police issue no such recommendations. They take the report and dialogue back to the complainant the status – but also advise her on what to do in the future in her own behavior and to know when someone done to her rises to the level of beyond something she did..

        You have the Universities in essence determining their version of justice.. and it’s not the same as the Va Code or the way that most police and legal authorities handle it – and it not only does a disservice to potential victims – it actually impugns the reputation of the University at some point when it is disclosed that NO incidents went forward.. I find that incredulous.

        don’t empower the ” drunken women get what they deserve” crowd.. take them out of the game.

      • I agree with everything you said right before you went off into the Naval Academy. In fact, I’m more of a stodgy old bastard than you are and would get rid of college athletics above an intramural level altogether. Also, if it was up to me, I’d raise the drinking age to 25.

        In any event…

        “Binge drinking and an out-of-control house party off campus leads to willing sex.”

        So, binge drinking = excessive drunkenness = inability to give consent (as you’ve conceded in the past) = no willing sex.

        “The accuser says she was too drunk to consent.”

        The defense didn’t do too much to dismantle that, in fact:

        “The defense argued that even though the woman did not remember what happened, she was in control of her faculties at the time.”

        So the defense admits she was too drunk to remember what happened, but that level of drunk doesn’t mean her ability to consent was impaired? That’s nonsense.

        “The accused say she didn’t seem that drunk…”

        Well, someone accused of rape said it wasn’t rape! Grey area!

        “…and they were drinking too.”

        Your honor, yes I was caught driving drunk, but you see I was drunk when I did it so I’m good, right?

        “The accuser doesn’t initially want the case to move forward.”

        Not because the rape didn’t happen, but because the burden of accusing someone of rape wreaks havoc on the accusers personal life. She knew she was going to become a social pariah, which according to the story you link actually happened. We make it so unpleasant to come forward with a rape accusation – a burden placed on the victim of no other crime – and then use the unwillingness of victims to be chewed up by the system as evidence that their claims are suspect.

        “The accused lie to investigators.”

        Grey area!

        “The school expels the accused for lying.”

        Well, that’s what happens when you violate the honor code.

        “The real tragedy of the Rolling Stone fabrication…”

        Nice. At this point we’re still a long point from it being a fabrication, especially since the victim has stood by her claims even when talking to the Washington Post.

        “I suspect there are far more cases like the situation at the Naval Academy …”

        You mean cases where:

        “The accuser testified that she drank heavily and remembers little of that night. She said she learned from friends and through social media that she had had sex with multiple men. The defense argued that even though the woman did not remember what happened, she was in control of her faculties at the time.”

        Yeah, it’s a real questionable case when the victim has her body used against her will and has to find out about it through other people. A fact the defense concedes. A real grey area, that…

        • The men were all acquitted of the criminal charges. Why? Because an accuser who can’t remember what happened has a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. You can huff and puff about that all day long but “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high burden of proof.

          The question isn’t really whether the person was intoxicated. The question is whether the other party knew or should have known that the person saying “yes” was intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated and unable to give consent. And again – beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Your inability to grasp the concept of both parties being drunk is unfortunate. If a person is drunk to the point of being unable to consent then it doesn’t matter whether they say “yes”. What happens if both parties are drunk to the point of being unable to consent and they both say “yes”? Who is guilty of rape? Both?

          All of which leaves us with the problem that has always existed. The criminal justice system would not consider many of the cases of rape on campus to be cases they could successfully try and win. After an investigation the prosecutor would refuse to try the case citing too little evidence to convict. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration wants those cases to be “tried” by the university with expulsion as the remedy for being found guilty. However, the universities have no subpoena power, they can’t threaten jail time for perjury, they don’t have forensic labs, etc. Beyond that, if the universities are later found to have unjustly expelled the accused in a real court they can be sued for damages.

          You’ve apparently tried the three accused Naval Academy midshipmen in your mind and found them guilty of criminal rape. Unfortunately, judges in real courts did the same thing and either found them not guilty or dropped the charges.

          This process doesn’t work and it won’t work regardless of how many candlelight vigils are held or how many “culture of rape” editorials are written.

          • geeze… was the reason there were NO reported incidents was that in every single case there was a drunk women who could not remember?

            good lord.

          • ” The criminal justice system would not consider many of the cases of rape on campus to be cases they could successfully try and win”

            why not let the Criminal Justice system speak for itself instead of the University?

          • ” Meanwhile, the Obama Administration wants those cases to be “tried” by the university with expulsion as the remedy for being found guilty. ”

            oh jesus H. KEERIST – can’t you keep the POTUS out of anything he’s not really involved in? This is so lame and petty.. what’s out of control is not the POTUS- but his relentless critics who are so hyper that even the way his daughters act is an “issue” these days.

            Some day there won’t be a POTUS named Obama and it’s going to be interesting as hell to see what the anti-Obama folks have to say at that point.

          • LifeOnTheFallLine

            “Your inability to grasp the concept of both parties being drunk is unfortunate.”

            I’m sorry that I have an inability to grasp that being drunk in the performance of a crime somehow turns that thing into not a crime. You see, your honor, I didn’t really rob that person because I was drunk!

            “What happens if both parties are drunk to the point of being unable to consent and they both say ‘yes’? Who is guilty of rape? Both?”

            Sure, yet that’s not what these men say. They just say no rape occurred. So let’s walk back out from the land of hypothetical.

            “You’ve apparently tried the three accused Naval Academy midshipmen in your mind and found them guilty of criminal rape.”

            Oh, no, I disagreed with a legal finding! How terrible! I wish I could be like you and never make a contrary judgment call about a court case.

            “Unfortunately, judges in real courts did the same thing and either found them not guilty or dropped the charges.”

            That is unfortunate, especially since the defense never refuted the accusers central allegation. Also unfortunate, the judges were in a military court, not a criminal court.

  6. Where to start?
    They should keep the Greek stuff on hold while this shakes out. The fall semester ends this week, anyway.

    Yes, there should be a thorough query into the facts of the alleged incident and whether non-consensual sex is a big problem.

    Yes, they should watch binge drinking. I’m not a prude but becoming comatose is a bad idea.

    All because Rolling Stone messed up on some of the facts doesn’t necessarily negate the entire argument of the story. We don’t know exactly what happened. I agree RS should have tried a lot harder to confirm “Jackie’s” story and contact the frat guys, but there is not evidence to suggest, at least yet, that the story is a complete and utter hoax.

    And please, do we have to bring up the bogey women of the shrill feminists? I didn’t exactly see them in the Rolling Stone piece. This is just stupid, knee jerk, right wing crap meant to divert from the real issues. It is idiotic and unhelpful. Please stop.

    • agree.. the “shrill feminists” story line makes the folks saying it look like they really are out of touch with the 21st century…

      • Larry, who used the phrase “shrill feminists?” Peter, not me.

        • why use the word “feminists” to start with unless you’re willing to provide a good definition? it just pollutes the discussion to start with and it introduces a right-wing perspective… from the get go.. you telescope your punches with your obviously biased views. You presume that there are “feminists” involved though you never really characterize them and you say and do everything but actually using the word “shrill” to perjoratively pigeonhole them as “part of the problem” as if even if such things exists – it demeans the idea that some women might actually have suffered sexual violence without being “feminists” or drunk or “asking for it”.

          your views are, to me a blend of stodgy yesteryear combined with the current right wing narratives we see from the like of Limbaugh and Hannity … just butt ugly – almost proudly claiming the willful ignorance award.

          there! they ought to get you going… 😉

    • Peter, I find it refreshing that you have such a negative view toward applying political labels, although I must point out that I did not attach the pejorative adjective “shrill” to the word feminist.

      I’ll make you deal: I’ll stop applying negative labels if you do, too.

      What that means is no more statements like, “This is just stupid, knee jerk, right wing crap.”

    • The real tragedy of the Rolling Stone article is that it highlighted a “black and white” case of premeditated, forcible rape. This let the right wingers simply say, “call the police”. That would have certainly been the right approach if the story had been true. However, even the magazine which published the story has called into question its veracity.

      I’d be willing to wager that the vast majority of student-on-student allegations of sexual misconduct are not premeditated forcible rape. I’d be further willing to wager that many (perhaps most) of the student-on-student complaints of sexual misconduct would not be taken up by prosecutors due to insufficient evidence for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply saying “call the police” would be futile in these cases. While the police will investigate, most of the charges will either be dropped for lack of evidence or, if tried, result in a not guilty verdict.

      What should a university do with a charge of sexual misconduct that lack sufficient evidence to be taken to trial in the criminal justice system?

      The Obama Administration wants the universities to conduct their own trial using a preponderance of the evidence test. However, the universities are not courts and they lack many of the legal tools available to courts. In the case of public universities this is essentially the state executing a trial without clear rules of due process, evidence or precedent. The university can’t hold the parties in contempt, threaten jail time for perjury or subpoena evidence. They all have their own process and the end result is a kangaroo court that is fair to neither the accuser nor the accused.

      The system doesn’t work.

      • I’d be willing to wager

        why would you?

        What should a university do with a charge of sexual misconduct that lack sufficient evidence to be taken to trial in the criminal justice system?

        get out of it and let the criminal justice system handle it

        The Obama Administration wants the universities to conduct their own trial using a preponderance of the evidence test.

        just total unadulterated bunk.

        “However, the universities are not courts and they lack many of the legal tools available to courts.”

        so why did you ask what they should do in your prior words?

        ” In the case of public universities this is essentially the state executing a trial without clear rules of due process, evidence or precedent. The university can’t hold the parties in contempt, threaten jail time for perjury or subpoena evidence. They all have their own process and the end result is a kangaroo court that is fair to neither the accuser nor the accused.”

        tell me again that Obama has told UVA to do this.. when, where and by who?

        The system doesn’t work.

        it most assuredly does not work if the people looking at it right now can’t view the current realities and want to politicize it instead.. for really – no good reason.. just throw stuff on the wall.. jesus.

  7. I MUST also comment on the image Jim provided.

    What would a slave owner engaging in sexual relations with one of his slaves say about the shenanigans at UVA? Probably not what Jim would think and certainly not what the right wing would like to believe.

    • What would I think, Larry? Please tell me.

      • In the pot-calling-the-kettle-black department:

        Larry, your comments about are priceless. You (and Peter) are the first to dismiss conservative think tank studies by citing the source without bothering to engage the substance of what they have to say. You also are among the quickest to label people who disagree with you as right-wing nut jobs, FAUX News watchers, etc. etc. You do it *all* the time.”

        the right has a track record of not only doing bogus studies but mischaracterizing them. The will actually take GOvt statistics and manipulate them to suit their propaganda.. the one about Obama and the deficit is the most obvious – and repeated over and over ..

        “I used the term “feminist” *without* pejorative labels as a descriptor of campus activists who hew to the epidemic-of-rape narrative, and act as if I’ve committed some thought crime.”

        I don’t see the evidence to support your claim.. where is it?

        ” I did NOT use the the Rush Limbaugh “feminazi” label to categorically dismiss what the campus activists have to say, although you responded as if I did. Indeed, in my post, I conceded that they *might* be right (although I want to see better data that what I’ve seen so far).”

        yeah you did… you just toned it down but it’s in essence his thesis.

        “If you want to see someone who displays a knee-jerk reaction, look in the mirror, pal!”

        you know “feminist” is not a modern word and it’s used almost exclusively by the right – not only the right but the hard right like Limbaugh and Hannity as a total pejorative mean to blow up any reasonable conversation.. it’s a bomb-throwing word that has no real definition other than to just pollute the issue.

        Show me some commentary NOT from the right that uses the word –

        Oh and then tell me that – that’s because anything to the left of Limbaugh is “leftist”.

        What would I think, Larry? Please tell me.

        not what the right wing thinks for sure. I think Jefferson was a flawed human being LIKE MOST – but I doubt seriously that he’d be using words like “feminist” like the right does these days.

        For the record – I DO believe there are “feminists” in this world but I just don’t see any evidence of their involvement in the UVA controversy. How in the world can you have NO incidents reported and with a straight face say that there are none reported because all of them involved some issue where the woman has some culpability – every single incident.. ??? really?

        that’s Limbaugh territory guy.

  8. In the pot-calling-the-kettle-black department:

    Larry, your comments are priceless. You (and Peter) are the first to dismiss conservative think tank studies by citing the source without bothering to engage the substance of what they have to say. You also are among the quickest to label people who disagree with you as right-wing nut jobs, FAUX News watchers, etc. etc. You do it *all* the time.

    I used the term “feminist” *without* pejorative labels as a descriptor of campus activists who hew to the epidemic-of-rape narrative, and act as if I’ve committed some thought crime. I did NOT use the the Rush Limbaugh “feminazi” label to categorically dismiss what the campus activists have to say, although you responded as if I did. Indeed, in my post, I conceded that the feiminists *might* be right (although I want to see better data than what I’ve seen so far).

    If you want to see someone who displays a knee-jerk reaction, look in the mirror, pal!

  9. LarryG – Since you insist on being ill-informed I will once again endeavor to educate you.

    You contend that the Obama Administration has nothing to do with the broken system of colleges trying to become courts.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Dept-Issues-New/127004/

    • Don – that article is 3 years old and it includes ALL schools including K-12 and it’s in the context of Title IX.

      but tell me were Obama has inject himself in the UVa issue. Please!

      • From the article:

        “The letter goes on to clarify how institutions should handle complaints that are simultaneously being investigated by law-enforcement agencies. A law-enforcement investigation does not relieve a school or college of its duty to conduct a Title IX investigation, it says.”

        It tells schools (including colleges) how to handle sexual misconduct investigations. At least read the title of the article.

        Now, you revert to form. Having been proven ill-informed you try to argue facts not in evidence. You ask where Obama injected himself in the UVA issue. Here’s my actual quote, ” The Obama Administration wants the universities to conduct their own trial using a preponderance of the evidence test. ”

        I believe that Joe Biden and Arne Duncan qualify as members of the Obama Administration. The title of the article is, “Education Dept. Issues New Guidance for Sexual-Assault Investigations”.

        Now, what is inaccurate with my statement?

        • “The letter goes on to clarify how institutions should handle complaints that are simultaneously being investigated by law-enforcement agencies. A law-enforcement investigation does not relieve a school or college of its duty to conduct a Title IX investigation, it says.”

          how about ones the college chooses not refer?

          “It tells schools (including colleges) how to handle sexual misconduct investigations. At least read the title of the article.”

          what does it tell them to do with reports not provided to law enforcement?

          “Now, you revert to form. Having been proven ill-informed you try to argue facts not in evidence. You ask where Obama injected himself in the UVA issue. Here’s my actual quote, ” The Obama Administration wants the universities to conduct their own trial using a preponderance of the evidence test. ”

          I believe that Joe Biden and Arne Duncan qualify as members of the Obama Administration. The title of the article is, “Education Dept. Issues New Guidance for Sexual-Assault Investigations”.”

          and you did the same thing the right is doing. tell me WHERE the OBAMA administration has gotten involved in the UVA issue…

          why do you bring up an administrative issue that is 3 years old and make it sound like the Obama administration has injected itself in the UVA issue?

          that’s disingenuous Don – but it’s par for the course these days.. shame on you.

          Now, what is inaccurate with my statement?

          the implication that Obama has gotten involved in the UVA issue .. when he did not.

      • One of the two authors of this article is a former dean at Harvard. Not exactly Rush Limbaugh territory.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/colleges-must-promote-personal-responsibility-not-he-said-she-said-trials/

        The Obama Administration’s process does not work.

        • ” The Obama Administration’s process does not work.”

          The Obama administration was attempting to reform an existing policy it inherited … and – did not fully fix it.

          they did not CREATE the problem – the involvement of the Feds was already a fact BEFORE he got involved.

          it’s just lame – to attempt to re-define something as an initiative of his administration rather than his role in a continuum… that was in place and moving before he took office.

          that’s just not right and I’m calling you on it.

          http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title-ix-rights-201104.pdf 1972

          • Don’t bother “calling me” on anything. Call the two college professors (one a former dean) who wrote the article. Here is the germane point:

            ” In 2011, relying on the gender equity provisions of Title IX, the federal government issued standards for the conduct of sexual assault proceedings in virtually all American colleges. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education advised colleges that they must use the “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil court proceedings, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal trials. Within a year, almost all institutions, including UNC, had complied rather than risk the loss of federal funding.

            The lower standard of proof will result in more convictions—of both guilty and innocent individuals. For some, perhaps, a few false positives are merely the collateral damage of outcomes that are more just in aggregate. But this is not a convincing argument in a society that values individual rights. The lower penalty for a conviction in a college court—a “rapist” label and career-shattering expulsion, rather than imprisonment—does not justify a lower standard of proof.”

            In many cases the expelled students have appealed to real courts and been reinstated and / or given monetary damages.

            The universities are caught between failing to comply with a poorly considered Obama Administration policy and losing funding or complying and getting sued.

            In other words, the Obama Administration erred in their directive. They should not have simultaneously threatened to take away funding and lowered the threshold of guilt to a “preponderance of the evidence”. They may have had noble intentions but the results have been chaotic.

            Again, for emphasis – “The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education advised colleges that they must use the “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil court proceedings, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal trials.”

            In many cases the accusations have insufficient evidence for a prosecutor to proceed with a “beyond a reasonable doubt” trial. In these cases colleges and universities are forced to become a secondary court system for cases falling between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “a preponderance of the evidence”. However, colleges and universities are not courts for the reasons I have repeatedly cited.

            America has a civil court system that relies on “a preponderance of the evidence test”. If the Obama Administration wants to try these cases as civil proceedings then the Obama Administration should do so – in a real court of law. Passing the buck to colleges and universities all but guarantees that these cases won’t be taken seriously.

            This isn’t cheating on a test. Rape is a felony prosecuted in criminal court. Denial of civil rights can be a civil case which should be tried in a civil court. Applicable law covers both options and should be the basis for proceeding with these cases,

          • Don’t bother “calling me” on anything. Call the two college professors (one a former dean) who wrote the article. Here is the germane point:

            give me the names of the folks who wrote this commentary and what publication it appeared in.

            show me this is how UVA handled it.

            If UVA handled it according to the regs – why don’t they say – they scrupulously followed the regs and the regs allow them to not refer any incident in the last few years to authorities…

            this is bogus guy.

            UVA did not do what these supposed regulations said they were supposed to do. They did not follow these regs and they did not report to authorities.

  10. Jim – if you want another example. The right is suing Obama over his “executive order” on immigration.

    there is only one problem – he never issued that order – even though the law allows him to – as prior POTUS have.

    now I can show you proof that he did not but my question to you is –
    do you believe he did issue the order – and why do you believe it?

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/head-fake-obama-never-signed-amnesty-order/

    so let me ask you – what is the basis of the Congressional lawsuit challenging his “illegal” behavior?

    can you tell me?

    • As usual, you are getting confused. You start by saying “the right” is suing Obama. Hard to say who you consider to be “the right”. Later, you declare a Congressional lawsuit. However, the article refers to a lawsuit by 17 state attorneys general. While Obama didn’t sign executive orders his administration did issue a policy directive to stop enforcement of immigration law. As the article you posted says, “Abbott’s press office referred WND to the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

      The complaint states: “The President’s new policies were effectuated through Defendant Johnson’s DHS Directive.”

      So, the suit described in the article is not directed at the invisible executive orders but at a DHS directive. The directive implements the policies that Obama described in his Nov 20 speech. The lawsuit asks the court to find the DHS directive illegal since it essentially rewrites immigration law – a power reserved for Congress.

      • ” Texas Attorney General and Gov.-elect Greg Abbott said a lawsuit over President Obama’s recent executive actions granting legal status to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants will be filed “any day now.”

        “We are dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s,” he said Monday on Fox News’ “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/greg-abbott-lawsuit-obama-immigration-any-day-now/

        want more?


        In his first “Meet the Press” appearance, Gov.-elect Greg Abbott said Sunday that the lawsuit he brought last week as attorney general seeking to block President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration is not about immigration but abuse of power.

        “This issue in this lawsuit is not about immigration; the issue in this lawsuit is about abuse of executive power and if this abuse is not stopped it will erode the Constitution that has attracted so many people to this country for generations,” Abbott told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd.

        The lawsuit was filed in a Brownsville federal court on behalf of Texas and what has grown to 19 other states.

        Greg Abbott says lawsuit is about Barack Obama’s abuse of power

        On Friday, the attorney general’s office filed a motion with the court seeking a preliminary injunction to keep the president from moving forward with his executive order, intended to protect as many as five million immigrants in the nation illegally from deportation, until the states’ suit can be heard.”

        want more?

        • A president can abuse his power by allowing the departments he oversees to abuse their power. Read the court document! The lawsuit is about the DHS directive, not some phantom executive order. Or do you contend that Obama should not be held accountable for the actions of the DHS reporting to him?

          Harry Truman had a sign that read, “The buck stops here.” on his desk. The buck for DHS’ willful policy of failing to enforce laws legally passed by Congress stops with Obama. Period.

          • no it’s not. The people suing are saying it’s the POTUS – all along – and the DHS is doing what the law – the law written by Congress – allows it to do.

            this is right wing idiocy like “repeal and replace”.. nothing more

            anyone who quotes directly from Breitbart – tips their hand.. anyhow..

            you sucking right wing koolaid guy.. and then taking opportunity to take gratuitous swipes at Obama .. shame on you.

            He’s got his share of flaws and faux paus.. I do not defend but these gratuitous back hands are just lame.

      • what’s disingenuous and a favorite tactic of the right these days is to attack Obama for doing something that is a law or regulation that has been in force for years – decades -… like immigration.. or Title IX.

        it’s that the right has been opposed to both – all along – for decades – but were not man enough to oppose it under GOP POTUS or Clinton – but now use it as a cudgel on this POTUS.

        It’s totally disingenuous and really just corrupt from an integrity perspective.

        They have been opposed from the beginning… and now their position is actually no only in opposition to Obama but to all prior POTUS including GOP POTUS before him.

        in other words – they are far, far to the right of any modern POTUS and you join them in pretending this is about Obama and not their long-standing positions they’ve had all along – for decades.

        and now you’re joining their cause.. shame.

        • Again, LarryG – reading is fundamental. The Obama Administration (presumably with Obama’s concurrence) issued the 2011 policy directive which mandated that colleges and universities use a preponderance of the evidence test in conducting their kangaroo court trials of alleged sexual assault on campus. Prior to that, colleges could use “beyond a reasonable doubt” test for guilt. If the local prosecutor wouldn’t take the case under that test for guilt the college could say they wouldn’t take it either. The avenue of suing for denial of civil rights in civil court was still available to the accuser.

          Now, it doesn’t matter whether a prosecutor will take the case. The college is obligated to try to function as a civil court. Only colleges aren’t civil courts so this isn’t working.

          The change was occasioned by a directive from the Obama Administration’s Department of Education mandating a preponderance of the evidence test.

          Do you doubt that?

          • “The Obama Administration (presumably with Obama’s concurrence) issued the 2011 policy directive which mandated that colleges and universities use a preponderance of the evidence test in conducting their kangaroo court trials of alleged sexual assault on campus. ”

            You implied it was HIS initiative.. not a continuing agency proceeding.. which is what it was – something that was evolving from the time the law was first written – decades before Obama..

            You’re the same guy who cited Obama as presiding over the biggest debt in US history a while back.. right?

            “Prior to that, colleges could use “beyond a reasonable doubt” test for guilt. If the local prosecutor wouldn’t take the case under that test for guilt the college could say they wouldn’t take it either. The avenue of suing for denial of civil rights in civil court was still available to the accuser.”

            was this a directive from Obama to do this?

            “Now, it doesn’t matter whether a prosecutor will take the case. The college is obligated to try to function as a civil court. Only colleges aren’t civil courts so this isn’t working.”

            can you show me where UVA actually followed this? How many ‘convictions” did UVA adjudicate?

            “The change was occasioned by a directive from the Obama Administration’s Department of Education mandating a preponderance of the evidence test.

            Do you doubt that?”

            It was and is a continuing issue that has evolved in the DOE through multiple administrations.. not a separate and new initiative that changed the way the agency was already headed.

            you – like the right wing- convicts this POTUS over – ongoing agency actions – that are in a continuum that was also ongoing on Clinton and Bush … yet you personalize it now -why? Tell me this is a policy initiative of Obama.

            It might be – but provide the evidence – and show me how this has caused changes and impacts to UVA…

            youre working off a narrative here – that is – false.

  11. “Shrill?”
    vs.

    “Highly vocal.”

    Now there’s an argument to distract for the meaning!

    Typical right wing crap.

  12. LarryG:

    Here is the actual lawsuit filed with the Texas courts. I don’t care what the asshat mainstream media has reported, the lawsuit concerns the DHS directive and not some imaginary executive order.

    https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203Multi-stateImmigrationOrderLawsuit%281%29.pdf

    The lawsuit contends that the DHS (a department under the executive branch) does not have the authority to stop enforcing laws legally passed by congress.

    Are the attorneys general right? I don’t know. That’s why we have courts and judges.

    However, the contention that they are suing over an executive order is factually incorrect.

    We’ll see if the DHS directive is legal or not.

    • Here is the actual lawsuit filed with the Texas courts. I don’t care what the asshat mainstream media has reported, the lawsuit concerns the DHS directive and not some imaginary executive order.

      do you want to see some videos of Abbot himself talking?

      https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203Multi-stateImmigrationOrderLawsuit%281%29.pdf

      The lawsuit contends that the DHS (a department under the executive branch) does not have the authority to stop enforcing laws legally passed by congress.

      they’ve changed their narrative NOW that the word IS out but they still say that they’re going after Obama .. and video to prove it.

      “Are the attorneys general right? I don’t know. That’s why we have courts and judges.”

      it’s totally bogus and you know it. Any law is written so that the agency that writes the regs – has the ability to – write the regs.. as long as they do not violate the wording of the law.

      any law that is written has to be promulgated by the Agency that will implement it .

      These idiots are saying that Obama is breaking the Constitution!

      Do you doubt these are right wing folks, Don?

      do you think the moderates in Congress are joining them?

      “However, the contention that they are suing over an executive order is factually incorrect.

      We’ll see if the DHS directive is legal or not.”

      It’s willful ignorance of the law and the Constitution – by idiots who themselves do not care because the point of what they are doing is purely ideological …

      you say mainstream media guy. You clearly read Breitbart. Why don’t you quote me what Brietbart says about this?

      • here, let me do it for you:

        ” King Obama Violates the Constitution”

        http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/10/King-Obama-Violates-the-Constitution

        this is the kind of right wing crap that is the same Media you are calling “asshats”.

        would you like me to line up some more to read including videos of Abbot and some other “luminaries” of the right – on the issue?

        so tell me again – where Obama has inserted himself in the UVA issue – and the result of his involvement.

        mea culpa time – Don.

        • This is what you wrote:

          “On Friday, the attorney general’s office filed a motion with the court seeking a preliminary injunction to keep the president from moving forward with his executive order, intended to protect as many as five million immigrants in the nation illegally from deportation, until the states’ suit can be heard.”

          That is factually incorrect. Read the lawsuit. It is not about an executive order. It is about a DHS directive. Whatever media outlet reported this got it wrong.

        • Obama inserted himself in the UVA issue when his Department of Education threatened to pull funding for universities unless they conducted “trials” of sexual misconduct using a preponderance of the evidence test for guilt. That was his Department of Education, announced by his VP and Secretary of Education. If you don’t believe that Obama knew about this or approved it then you have a lower level of respect for the president than I do.

          The net effect of this ill-considered decision was to create chaos on campus regarding the universities’ efforts to prevent sexual assault. It turned universities and colleges into courts. They are not courts. Courts are courts.

          A central theme of the Rolling Stone article is that University of Virginia executives are unconcerned about sexual misconduct or the safety of women on campus. Why a consistently super-liberal group of administrators would be unconcerned about women’s rights is a question RS never bothers to ask. I believe they feel “damned if the do and damned if they don’t” when confronted with the Obama’s Administration’s threat to pull funding unless they investigate and “prosecute” felonies as a haphazard civil court.

          Obama inserted himself into the UVA matter through the incompetence of his Department of Education.

          • “Obama inserted himself in the UVA issue when his Department of Education threatened to pull funding for universities unless they conducted “trials” of sexual misconduct using a preponderance of the evidence test for guilt. That was his Department of Education, announced by his VP and Secretary of Education. If you don’t believe that Obama knew about this or approved it then you have a lower level of respect for the president than I do.”

            so can you show me where UVA did this and Obama insisted that they do it?

            “The net effect of this ill-considered decision was to create chaos on campus regarding the universities’ efforts to prevent sexual assault. It turned universities and colleges into courts. They are not courts. Courts are courts.”

            Again – show me how UVA did this

            “A central theme of the Rolling Stone article is that University of Virginia executives are unconcerned about sexual misconduct or the safety of women on campus. Why a consistently super-liberal group of administrators would be unconcerned about women’s rights is a question RS never bothers to ask. I believe they feel “damned if the do and damned if they don’t” when confronted with the Obama’s Administration’s threat to pull funding unless they investigate and “prosecute” felonies as a haphazard civil court.”

            show me where UVA took these actions you say they were forced to take.

            Obama inserted himself into the UVA matter through the incompetence of his Department of Education.

            pure Breitbart-style right wing dogma – congrats.

      • You’re sputtering a bit here. Calm down.

        Do I want to see a video of Abbot? No. I read the filed lawsuit. That’s the official document.

        Does the DHS have the authority to stop enforcing lawfully enacted legislation? I would guess not. While departments do have some latitude with regard to regulation I do not believe they have the authority to essentially veto legislation. We’ll see when the lawsuit is heard in court.

        Are the attorneys general going after Obama? Yes. I have no doubt that Obama fully supports the DHS directive. If he didn’t, he could order DHS to reverse itself. Whether he acted by executive order or by DHS directive Obama is fully behind this.

        A good question is why Obama didn’t use an executive order to accomplish his goals. Maybe he thought that having an executive order deemed unconstitutional would be too big a loss of face.

        Does Obama have the right to suspend a law through a lack of enforcement? I don’t know and neither does anybody else. Executive orders and regulations are not inherently constitutional or unconstitutional. Since he didn’t issue an executive order we may never find out.

        I have no problem with the lawsuit by the states attorneys general. It seems like a very legitimate question to ask if an executive branch department can effectively nullify a law through inaction.

        • Do I want to see a video of Abbot? No. I read the filed lawsuit. That’s the official document.

          that document was CHANGED after the news broke that Obama did not issue an order

          “Does the DHS have the authority to stop enforcing lawfully enacted legislation? I would guess not. While departments do have some latitude with regard to regulation I do not believe they have the authority to essentially veto legislation. We’ll see when the lawsuit is heard in court.”

          they have discretion in allocating resources and prioritizing according to what resources they have .. just as police can decide they’re not going to prosecute some types of “crimes”. If the police refuse to issue tickets for small amounts of Marijuana WHO would you sue? If the Feds choose to not go after people who claim certain levels of charity deductions – who do you sue and under what provisions?

          “Are the attorneys general going after Obama? Yes. I have no doubt that Obama fully supports the DHS directive. If he didn’t, he could order DHS to reverse itself. Whether he acted by executive order or by DHS directive Obama is fully behind this.”

          the point is – is he doing anything any different than prior POTUS on the use of discretion as to what DHS will do – or not within their legal purview – as given to them by Congress? If he law says police the border and Obama decides to put one border patrol every 100 miles – who are they going to sue and under what provision?

          “A good question is why Obama didn’t use an executive order to accomplish his goals. Maybe he thought that having an executive order deemed unconstitutional would be too big a loss of face.”

          no – he knew what he could do – legally without having to do an executive order – and all these idiots who say he broke the Constitution clearly do not understand the Constitution nor the law.

          “Does Obama have the right to suspend a law through a lack of enforcement? I don’t know and neither does anybody else. Executive orders and regulations are not inherently constitutional or unconstitutional. Since he didn’t issue an executive order we may never find out.”

          He does Don – and you know it. He only has to do what the law says he has to do – in specifics. Otherwise in most cases, the law is enforced by regulation.. and regulation is written and enforced by interpretation and policy..

          “I have no problem with the lawsuit by the states attorneys general. It seems like a very legitimate question to ask if an executive branch department can effectively nullify a law through inaction.”

          it’s not inaction. He IS taking ACTION – that’s what they are suing him for.. that he’s prioritized who he will concentrate on deporting – in part according to how much resources he has to do it with. And what is Congress going to do ? They’re going to de-fund DHS immigration so the people doing the work right now will have to be laid off.

          but the bigger point here is that you’ve signed on to their narrative.. and their anti-Obama narrative which is – and you know it – totally bogus.. It’s like suing the Gov of Virginia because the State Police are not pulling over people who go over 55 mph instead of 69 or whatever their policy is – or not.

          this is totally bogus.. idiocy… on the part of people – who are to the right of George Bush and Ronald Reagan.. you know the guys that did Iran Contra and torture… and refused to enforce the EPA rules, etc..

          you know this guy… and yet you traffic in the same bogus narratives …

          and you are – for the most part – in my book – a principled person – and this is beneath you.. and tell me again why you read Breitbart for your trustable “news”?

          • Maybe a Republican president will be elected and he will allow his IRS head to stop enforcing the tax increase passed by Congress with the support and urging of Barack Obama. Would that be a reasonable decision regarding asset allocation?

            Maybe the next president will allow individuals in his or her administration to stop enforcing the provision of Obamacare that requires people to acquire health insurance. Would that be a reasonable decision regarding asset allocation?

            Maybe the next president will instruct the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting corporations for failing to pay corporate income taxes because that president doesn’t think corporate income taxes are a good idea.

            You’re killing me here LarryG. There are limits to what regulators and others in the executive branch are allowed to do. The question of the DHS directive is a legitimate question.

          • “Maybe a Republican president will be elected and he will allow his IRS head to stop enforcing the tax increase passed by Congress with the support and urging of Barack Obama. Would that be a reasonable decision regarding asset allocation?”

            what the H E L L are you blathering about now?

            “Maybe the next president will allow individuals in his or her administration to stop enforcing the provision of Obamacare that requires people to acquire health insurance. Would that be a reasonable decision regarding asset allocation?”

            it would. it’s been done before by prior administrations on a variety of issues – INCLUDING immigration which has never satisfied the right wing under ANY POTUS.

            Do you REALLY THINK someone is going to get elected POTUS by promising to deport everyone or getting rid of health care that people now have?

            “Maybe the next president will instruct the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting corporations for failing to pay corporate income taxes because that president doesn’t think corporate income taxes are a good idea.”

            yup – you now sound just like the wacko birds.. congrats.

            “You’re killing me here LarryG. There are limits to what regulators and others in the executive branch are allowed to do. The question of the DHS directive is a legitimate question.”

            no it’s not. they’re operating with the very same discretion they have always had and used and that discretion can be locked down, changed, tightened, take away by explicit provisions in the law – but in order to do that – you have to get elected – both houses and the POTUS and have veto-proof majorities.

            How old are you? How many prior POTUS have you lived through? Did you always agree with their decisions? Did you think every time you disagreed it was “illegal” or “unConstitutional” AND wanted to sue? How many prior POTUS have been sued for “breaking the law”? – successfully?

            this is just right wing lunacy. and you’ve apparently got yourself into a large-sized jar of it when you thought you had moonshine.. 😉

          • Ummm … didn’t you cite Breitbart? If I did I can’t recall where.

          • after you have in other posts… guy.. you gave it as a source reference..

            do you read Breitbart? truth now….

            and Don – I DO NOT cite Breitbart as a source of legitimate news.. but rather an example of the crap coming out of the right these days.

  13. All of the above dialogue is quite fascinating and also quite revealing.

  14. ” “You’re killing me here LarryG. There are limits to what regulators and others in the executive branch are allowed to do. The question of the DHS directive is a legitimate question.”

    do you mean like this: ” Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    or this:

    ” GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority”

    Goodlatte said, the “9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority.” A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration.

    We rate Goodlatte’s statement False.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

    or this one where the POTUS would not enforce it:

    Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    I can go on and on…

    but there is another aspect to this and that is what does the Right want to do instead – on these issues?

    what is their preferred path?

    You would think if they are prepared to launch lawsuits that they felt strongly enough to want a different way.. but in most of these – they cannot even agree among themselves on what the path forward is.

    They basically want to stop govt… keep govt from working at all.. because they don’t like what it does – none of the options.

    Whether it’s immigration, marriage, healthcare – or sexual violence in education – they are the party of see no evil, hear no evil – do nothing.

    like these things you cited – they don’t have specifics – just things like “follow the law” or “follow the Constitution” or deport them all.. “patient-centered healthcare” or “legitimate rape” or worse.

    how about following the law to clean up the Chesapeake Bay or emissions from Coal Plants or ethics in Va – whose responsible to make sure those laws are followed?

    Who decides who can write papers on Climate Science at UV by threatening to charge for misusing state funds, the AG? Can one-strong-minded fool actually fire the President of a University?

    At any particular place in time – there are folks on both sides of the issues who do not like the current level of enforcement or lack of – but only the Right goes ape-crap over it and threatens to impeach the POTUS or shut down govt or now, as of late – not invite him to give the SOTU – and defund Air Force One..

    where were these folks under Bush, Clinton and Reagan?

    they were around! Back then they were called John Birchers and Newt Gingrich!

    here’s more wonderful headlinesfrom the media you apparently read:

    ” Obama Praises Communist Dictator & American Enemy Ho Chi Minh”

    ” 5 WAYS TO STOP THE EXECUTIVE DICTATORSHIP”

    ” THE DEATH PANELS ARE COMING”

    is this the media you put credence in it’s reporting – while at the
    same time reviling Rolling Stones for it’ leftist leanings?

    I must say Don… well.. I won’t. 😉

  15. One last comment on the original topic…….

    JAB,
    Having just read the MacDonald article, I now understand why you would use such hyperbole when referring to those who have supposedly imposed a ‘rape narrative’ . In her view and in the examples she cites, those who allege rape want it both ways. This is nothing but a cynical misreading of the entire controversy, not to mention her summary of the last 4 decades. Denying any campus epidemic, she blames young women for having casual sex and then regretting it later. Period. Little mention or blame of the young men besides concluding that many are ‘guilty of acting as boorishly as they can get away with’. She refutes statistics by again referring to the ‘feminist-industrial complex’. There is little of value here besides lots of clever phrasing, and adept cherry picking of stories. But then again, considering for whom she writes (Manhattan Institute) the mocking conservative tone is to be expected. Her only solution is a return to the past – good advice if it was 1946. However the horse is out of the barn. Real solutions offer a way forwards, not back.

    • Let me preface my continuing dislike of the modern-day “Right” – below – by saying I have voted more than a couple of types – Republican in the past – I usually voted for the best candidate – when ideology was not at issue with either one – just their perspective on issues. There was no blame and bastardization of government in general even if there was occasional anger and angst – at the end – it was realized that govt was what people voted FOR – just what kind.

      but today the “Right” has morphed into something beyond just a philosophical conservatism.. it’s basically hate-filled anger on many issue – fueled by truly dishonest narratives.. that evade the truth and seek to fool the gullible.. and very successfully.. unfortunately.

      newmann’s observation on the “original topic” illustrates what is behind fairly typical narratives of the “new” right these days – on actually a wide variety of issues – from poverty, abortion, immigration, health care, marriage, climate, pollution, regulation, etc – but even on this one.. once you delve into the supplied source reference material as he/she has – and commented on.

      It’s not just opposition from the right these days – it’s opposition without real alternatives in a modern world other than “let’s go back” and articles and studies that basical masquerade as something other than not going back – as well as not only cherry picking but outright misrepresentation of data, beyond propaganda – misinformation, even disinformation – i.e. “death panels”… “government health care”, the POTUS who is a Muslim from Kenya, Feminist Industrial Complex, – on and on – just senseless and rancid blather that has always existed but in John Birch type societies.

      When I say “new” right – it really is a return to the John Birch era and in doing so, has all but wiped out rational modern day Conservatives like Bush and even Reagan. Lugar of Indiana – gone because he was considered a RINO. Ditto Bennett of Utah. Try to find a moderate Conservative in Congress today. They are countable on one or two hands – the rest are with those who say the earth is 6000 yrs old and rape can be “legitimate”.

      Policies that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II supported are now called “leftist” and rejected. When you ask “New” sic Conservatives what prior GOP POTUS they hold in high esteem – they go back to Thomas Jefferson!

      Every issue now days of any consequence has become a Conservative ideological litmus test and the UVA issue is, to them, REALLY about feminism and the Govt injecting itself into issues it ought not be doing.

      Nevermind in the UVA case – there is no actual govt involvement – much less those dreaded “feminists” but that don’t matter.. if they are now obviously involved – the right WILL INSIST that they are and will cook up plausible-sounding conspiracies if they have to – to convince folks…

      so now – we no longer have an issue about sexual violence on college campuses – nope… it’s yet another “liberal” feminist jihad on good ole American boys just being boys and the RS article is obviously a tool of the leftists.. and the feminist industrial complex.

      this is what passes for dialogue – from the right these days on issue like College sexual violence. Deny it – blame it on rabble rousers.. and govt leftists.. next subject please.

  16. On Friday Dec. 5 T. Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post reported:

    “A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are advocates at U-Va. for sex-assault awareness, said they believe that something traumatic happened to her, but they also have come to doubt her account. A student who came to Jackie’s aid the night of the alleged attack said in an interview late Friday night that she did not appear physically injured at the time but was visibly shaken and told him and two other friends that she had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men. They offered to get her help and she said she just wanted to return to her dorm, said the student, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

    “The friends said that details of the attack have changed over time and that they have not been able to verify key points in recent days. For example, an alleged attacker that Jackie identified to them for the first time this week — a junior in 2012 who worked with her as a university lifeguard — was actually the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.”

    “Reached by phone, that man, a U-Va. graduate, said Friday that he worked at the Aquatic and Fitness Center and was familiar with Jackie’s name … But … that he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date … (and) that he was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi.”

    “Jackie, who spoke to The Washington Post several times during the past week, stood by her account, offering a similar version and details….”

    “… (Phi Kappa Psi) — which has been vilified, vandalized and ultimately suspended on campus since (the) Rolling Stone article went online last month — said … Friday that its “initial doubts as to the accuracy of the article have only been strengthened as alumni and undergraduate members have delved deeper … (and that) it did not host “a date function or social event” during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012 when Jackie alleges that she was invited to a date party, lured into an upstairs room and then ambushed and gang-raped by seven men who were “rushing” the fraternity.”

    “The fraternity also said it’s … roster of employees at the university’s Aquatic and Fitness Center for 2012 … does not include a member of the fraternity — a detail Jackie provided in her account to Rolling Stone and in interviews with The Post — and that no member of the house matches the description detailed in the Rolling Stone account … (and) that the house does not have pledges during the fall semester. “Moreover, no ritualized sexual assault is part of our pledging or initiating process,” the fraternity said. “This notion is vile, and we vehemently refute this claim.”

    “U-Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan said Friday that the developments will not alter the university’s focus on “one of the most difficult and critical issues facing higher education today: sexual violence on college campuses.” “The University remains first and foremost concerned with the care and support of our students and, especially, any survivor of sexual assault.”

    What can we deduce from this Washington Post reporting? A host of new perspectives, and insights arise from this news article. For example:

    It is quite reasonable that “A group of Jackie’s close friends, who are advocates at U-Va. for sex-assault awareness, “would come to doubt her account” of the night in question in the RS article. To be raped by seven pledges (prospective male initiates) and a beer bottle for three hours on a bed of broken glass per the dictates of a pledge initiation ritual supervised by two additional fraternity brothers of a “prominent national fraternity” is one kind of experience. Off the charts, in most every way imaginable, some might say, a kind of Manson event even by rape culture standards.

    And it’s a far different one from Jackie’s alleged first description of her encounter per the Post report, namely that she “had been at a fraternity party and had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men.”

    Indeed, in today’s hook-up culture, consensual “oral sex with a group of group of men” is acceptable party behavior. (Even under law a crime here only arises if force is applied.) This explains the otherwise inexplicable Rolling Stones article quote: “For the first month of school, Jackie had latched onto a crew of lighthearted social strivers, and her pals were now impatient for Jackie to rejoin the merriment. “You’re still upset about that?” Andy asked one Friday night when Jackie was crying. Cindy, a self-declared hookup queen, said she didn’t see why Jackie was so bent out of shape. “Why didn’t you have fun with it?” Cindy asked. “A bunch of hot Phi Psi guys?” One of Jackie’s friends told her, unconcerned, “Andy said you had a bad experience at a frat, and you’ve been a baby ever since.”

    Of course the Rolling Stone’s article goes out of its way to convince its readers that this behavior is not only typical but is forced on women either by brute physical manhandling or by social pressures imposed by fraternity men and their groupies already hooked on such practices.

    In fact group oral sex often appears to be a celebrated practice of the hook-up culture, generally. And it’s celebrated whether it is engaged in by straight people, or by gays, or by lesbians, or by transgendered people, and/or by any combination thereof, without regard to who gives the party. Thus fraternities, should they be involved, are only the venue, and only one of many venues at that.

    So the Hook-up culture, not fraternity culture, is the central driver of the tragedy here, one magnified by the likely fact that Jackie was an innocent, no player of the game. And if the Rolling Stone article be our guide, its central message, however unconscious and unintended, is that a very substantial portion of the Hook-up industry now wants to push fraternities out the game so they can have to spoils and venues all for themselves. That is what a close reading of the article itself seemed to say.

    So the RS article’s practical thrust was to destroy the nation’s fraternity system and UVA’s traditions with Jackie’s story. In the process, she and a lot of other people became victims too. But far too many of those victims, including many of those within the UVA community, appear to have marched right alongside quite willingly, towards that desired destruction. And appear now, no matter what, to be marching still.

    I’ll have more to say about that in a follow up post.

    • wait! wait! are we saying that the far left liberal Washington Post eviscerated their sister in looney liberalism – and they were – in fact, the ONLY “principled” media – left or right to have called RS to account for their sins?

      just asking… much of what I read here in other posts claim that WaPo is an unprincipled lefty publication that cannot be trusted.

      no?

      • I consider Paul Farhi, a principal architect in fashioning the Post coverage of the UVA – Rolling Stone matter, to be the best reporter on cultural matters in the nation. For many years Paul and I exchanged e-mails on his outstanding work, and the qualities of good journalism generally. For an equally long time I’ve considered the Post’s Ban Balz to be the best political reporter in the nation. On many days, I consider Karen Tumulty of the Post to be Dan Balz’s closest second. And I’ve exchanged e-mails with this pair as well. Although new to me, young Shapiro appears to be growing in the tradition set by Balz, Farhi, and Tumulty.

        In my view no WSJ’s reporter(s) can match this trio, either singularly or as a group.

        I do however believe that far too many Post reporters are ruled by Stereotypes that warp and destroy their work. Stereotyping short circuits intelligent thought and analysis. The reader who tries to understand the product of a closed loop circuit that operates under the thrall of its own stereotypes is wasting his or her time. Fortunately, a close reader can pick up this all too common problem in Post stories in the 1st paragraph, discard the story, and go in search of something useful to read.

  17. Mr. Bacon:

    I do wish that you would use your influential media outlet on one aspect of this topic that I think we could all agree on.

    We need to do everything we can to defeat the Saslaw and Bell-Albo legislation that mandates all universities to report ALL sexual assault reports to police.

    That’s really bad policy. I could support a policy that requires all 1st years at all universities to go through instruction on rape kits and the collection of physical evidence of sexual assault and the importance of early reports for criminal prosecution.

    But it is extremely dumb to have mandatory reporting from 2 angles. First, a lot of sexual assault victims do not want to go through the criminal process. That’s just a fact. But these women do seek out rape counselors and therapists to cope with what happened. The police would be negligent if they did not follow up with each report received. You wanna talk about “cover ups”…..if this statute is enacted, plenty of rapes/sexual assaults will never be reported b/c a number of victims do not want anything to do with the criminal process.

    Second, from the conservative/libertarian angle…..I don’t think even the most vocal “advocates” of sexual assault victims would dispute that college campuses are the sites of many drunk sexual encounters. And that, yes, sometimes girls seek out people at universities to discuss “what happened” just to ask questions about sex and alcohol and consent w/o having any intent to prosecute someone they may have “hooked up” with… Do we really want to require police to have to arbitrate every questionable sexual encounter? Police are trained and equipped to investigate crimes. I don’t think they’re trained to talk about sexual ethics/ambiguity. But I will guarantee that every such incident will be referred to police if reporting is mandated b/c university employees will be scared not to report even the most benign situations (he kissed me at the keg and I was uncomfortable). And the cops are going to have to deal with a lot of things that should never get to their desk. Do we want to devote law enforcement resources to every “maybe something happened, but I can’t remember” or “I’m not sure what happened” situation or “he rubbed up against me on the dance floor and I think it was intentional but I’m not sure” instead of other criminal investigations?

    I think the only mandated reporting should be if the university official has a reasonable belief that date rape drugs have been used. Those guys should be castrated, and yes, if they’re using those drugs, they probably are all predators. But every questionable sexual encounter? This will blow up in our faces if such a bill is passed and will probably harm sex assault victims more than our current status quo. Once it becomes clear that every report “goes to the cops”, victims are gonna quit talking to anyone at their respective universities. That will be a tragedy. There are a lot of resources that can truly help the rehabilitation process at schools. But will anyone who doesn’t want to talk to cops ever take advantage of them if mandatory reporting is required?

    • I do not agree with Cville Resident HOWEVER this is a good forum to have a civilized discussion about it – and I might be convinced .. if something is brought up I had not considered.

      but I think the University has an essential conflict of interest in these cases.

      and when we say the University should do “this”… “except” in that case – we are essentially creating a separate legal system – not just a separate system but a different one for each College and University to ‘roll’ the way they want to –

      and yes – I think it’s important to protect BOTH the accuser and the accused and that’s another reason why one state law should be used.. and not 40 different college “laws”.

    • Excellent commentary. Thank you Cville Resident.

    • C’ville Resident – Per your above comment allow me to add some more.

      Recall my opening comment to Jim Bacon’s article: “How can it be that no rape convictions have been obtained if ten years of rape culture has been in progress at UVA? That is the crux question.”

      I believe this question has to answered with integrity if only to insure and improve public safety. BUT THAT:

      1/ At the same time I suspect a fair inquiry will most likely reveal that UVA’s system and performance in handling these complex and sensitive matters likely achieved the best and fairest results for all parties that could be reasonably expected at the time and under the circumstances of the vast majority of cases.

      2/ And also that perhaps a relatively few cases of rape that rose to the level of mandating state court prosecution, if only to protect the public, may have slipped through the cracks.

      That’s my suspicion of what happened. And you’ve outlined above many of the reasons why that suspicion may be well founded.

      On the other hand, I suspect that a fair and essential inquiry will conclude that UVA dropped the ball on an important related matter, namely:

      1/ that UVA failed to provide its students with adequate protections against the inevitable damage cause by a rampant Hook Up sex culture. One that’s national in scope, and prevalent at UVA.

      2/ And that UVA failed in this regard most particularly as it relates to freshman women (of which the Jackie example is perhaps a classic) but also as the plague relates the the entire student body.

      3/ And that this explains UVA’s hyper-over the top and highly inappropriate response to date to the Rolling Stone article even as its narrative unravels.

      Thus I also believe that UVA (and several of its constituencies) are now, and will continue to be HIGHLY RESISTANT to any such finding of fault. And that this may well grow stronger the closer we get to the truth for a variety of reasons, self-interests and special interests, most short sighted and selfish.

      We can already see this at work. This, for example, explains the strong and premature effort to shift all the blame to UVA fraternities. And why this scapegoat effort continues unabated despite growing evidence that the RS article was likely in all of its major details a fabrication aimed at harming not only the UVA fraternities, but UVA generally.

      Such scapegoating, without trial or proof, MUST STOP.

      Such efforts will fail to solve the problem and throw the baby out with the bath water, doing great and irrevocable harm to Mr. Jefferson’s University, I believe.

  18. “What would T.J. say?” –
    He would advise you to get yourself a slave woman because they can’t report anything. It worked in his day.

  19. and to start the compromise ball rolling…

    Have a State level agency with on-site college reps who report to a State supervisor – not a local College Administrator.

    Require that the person be a credential legal professional.

    Make the rules – one set for all Colleges – crystal clear with little discretion and whatever discretion there is – make that clear.

    Create and maintain a database for each report and allow that database to be queried when a new report is filed to cross-check with prior complaints including complainant and the subject of the complaint.

    Make clear that any false report and any charges will result in suspension until resolved and any conviction will result in expulsion and a included report of it with any transcript request.

  20. I thought everyone might really enjoy/ponder this piece. It’s pretty thoughtful and balanced (no sarcasm):

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

    • This Slate article is a very fine. It is also frightening.

      Particularly the Star Chamber nature to the university proceedings against male defendants – 1/ a trial without clear charges (no bill of particulars) brought, 2/ no burden of proof, 3/ no right right to confront and cross examine accuser, 4/ no right to remain silent, 5/ no inadmissible evidence, 6/ no objective hard evidence required, 7/ all hearsay evidence admitted 9/ no weighing to witness creditability – college bureaucrats are the Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury all wrapped into ONE, this is truly frightening –

      Secondly, the article points to the Federal Government being the driver behind this , the mandate that the university INCREASE the number of sexual abuse complaints within their system – the MORE complaints filed against Men, the better and more accurate the SYSTEM is deemed to be – so Federal Government keeps lowering standards and burdens of proof, and keeps enlarging and expanding the definitions of the crimes of sexual abuse-

      All of this is straight out of Kafka.

      Part of the federal political narrative now driving local judicial proceedings, Part of War against Women allegations to aggregate political power – all of this the article examines.

    • There is however a large gap in the Slate article’s coverage. The Hook-Up Culture feeds the fires of the Rape Culture’s Hysteria that is behind the pathologies discussed in the article. This article fails to address this causal link.

  21. The other thing I would add to my compromise proposal is an annual uniform school crime reporting – report – compiled by JLARC or APC that details all crimes on each campus -much like the required reports for K-12 schools in Va.

    Make the reports totally dispassionate but complete and accurate portrayals on all criminal activity from property crimes, to weapons offenses, to crimes of violence against people and staff.

    and let each College/University stand on it’s own in it’s record – compared to their peers – and perhaps let that be one of the things that kids and parents look at when deciding which school to apply to.

    I’m opposed to any specific advocacy with respect to sexual behavior being the focus or only item to be the primary concern.

    but at the same time – I would get the colleges out of the business of hiding data.. and I would impose harsh sanctions on any lying or hiding of the data.

    we have to come up with proposals that we can move forward rather than choosing up sides and defending positions – and essentially gridlocking the issues by those would refuse to try to come up with solutions but rather defend the status quo – business as usual .. no matter what.

    for all the fire and fury – I see nothing that UVA has been forced to do that has resulted in harm to the institution – at this point.

  22. So the Hook-up culture, not fraternity culture, is the central driver of the tragedy ………So the RS article’s practical thrust was to destroy the nation’s fraternity system and UVA’s traditions…..

    A final observation about ‘fraternity culture’..
    The real issue here is that open house parties given at some fraternities do in fact provide an ideal venue for the ‘hook up’ culture, hence their long-standing reputation. Where else on campus would you find: a) privacy (unlike a dorm) for all variety of goings-on; b) copious amounts of libations and other recreational drugs; c) an encouraging atmosphere; d) many potentially willing partners e) an absence of any authorities or other pesky interference; and most importantly f) frat brothers who do not ‘rat’ on one another. Loyalty pledges are taken seriously and are not to be broken under any circumstances.

    That ‘drunken couplings’ occur elsewhere within any academic community is a given, but fraternal groups have a responsibility when their members (or guests) engage in risky behavior in their own house. We bemoan the ‘hook-up culture,’ but some frats were permitting licentious behavior long before the term hook-up was even invented. During the ‘boys will be boys’ era(s) such things were kept quiet and thus have been perpetuated for generations.

    The dubious distinction of UVA as party school is thus inextricably linked (in no small measure) to its large greek student pop. (30% of the student body plus another 10% of students who are ‘hangers on’). Although this can be seen at some elite schools in the east (ie Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn State, etc), many other large elite schools in the US have smaller numbers of greek orgs and correspondingly smaller incidents of assaults… Interestingly many southern schools in particular have a predilection towards greek life, but I leave it to the social scientists to explain why.

    Finally, if UVA (and other schools nationwide) are ‘overcorrecting’ in its response to widespread assaults, its because many schools did too little, too late when dealing with them in the past. So instead of hysterically pointing to those few cases where some young men were falsely accused (although important), we should be taking a long hard look at why we have this problem in the first place and figuring out how to reduce and prevent future tragedies………for everyone’s sake.

    • What is your personal experience and involvement with the UVA fraternity culture during the era of the Hook-Up culture?

      What is your personal experience and involvement with the UVA fraternity culture before the era of the Hook-Up culture?

    • I’m not seeing any evidence of :

      1. systematic mal-treatment of guys by the University much less what is driving it –

      2. any evidence of actions taken on behalf of alleged victims other than the guys anecdotal experience reported in SLATE which walks and talks a lot like the RS article in terms of verification and validation of the claims… being asserted.

      I think when the University itself becomes a black hole of information – how would anyone know one way or the other?

      protecting privacy does not mean you can’t report statistics like how many reports, how many actions, etc..

      and again – we don’t really want as many different unique approaches to the problem as there are individual colleges in Virginia do we?

      Why do we have to wait for the Feds and then react to what they’ve done instead of Va itself taking the lead?

      Keep in mind also – that it’s Congress that make the Title IX laws and if they think the administration is not doing what they want – they are free to do exactly what they did with Gitmo – and that is make it illegal to move prisoners in Gitmo to US prisons.. they can do something like that with the Title IX law if they don’t think they like what is being.

      But again – WHERE is the EVIDENCE that clearly shows what the University is doing – administratively for each reported case? I see almost none and why is UVA not reporting ?

  23. Posted on behalf of Ed Sidd:

    Does no one remember Janet Cook, a “journalist” at The Washington Post (1980)? Author of the sensational story, “Jimmy’s World”, about an 8 year old heroin addict? It was a total hoax , there was no “Jimmy”, sending then Mayor Marion Barry and Social Services frantically looking for the child, whom Janet claimed she placed in a social services shelter-then he died. She hung on to her Pulitzer Prize for a couple of days. The story caused quite an uproar.

    Now that Sabrina Rubin Erderly appears to be not quite the award winning feature writer and investigative reporter that she was billed to be, we can start digging around what the true purpose of the hoax was/is.

    How about the national “epidemic” of sexual assault?
    “Jackie”s close friends were “sex assault awareness advocates” suggesting a negative sexual experience, rather hard to define.
    One only has to Google “sex week on campus” to get the picture.
    Started at Yale in 2002, Sex Week was quickly adopted by Harvard, Brown and other universities

    …”The World Health Organization’s definition of sexual health states that “sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.”

    http://www.sexweekut.org/about/
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/11/28/366333032/talking-very-frankly-about-sex-on-campus

    http://www.browndailyherald.com/…/sex-week-promo...

    Brown’s Sex Week includes education/discussion of BDSM ( Bondage/Discipline Sadism/Masochism)
    The latest DSM-5 “ explains that sexual masochism disorder is diagnosed in individuals who openly acknowledge and freely admit fantasy and urges to be beaten, bound or humiliated during sex (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Although behaviors associated with sexual masochism disorder are very prevalent, diagnostic criteria requires that the patient experience distress, such as shame, guilt to anxiety related to sexual fantasy, urges or experience. Many consenting adults who enjoy sexual masochism consider themselves to be part of a healthy subculture. Although many enjoy participation, certain types of sexual masochism can result in serious injury or death. Sexual masochism disorder can be treated using an integrative approach to therapy.”

    According to changes in the DSM-5, common manifestations include being beaten, bound, or verbally abused. In some cases, asphyxiation is used to achieve sexual desire and patients often enjoy pornography or erotic literature involving masochism. To be diagnosed, the symptoms must cause impairment or distress. If the patient is not experiencing anxiety, guilt, shame or other negative feelings related to masochistic sexual desires, it I considered a sexual interest, not a disorder.

    The average age for onset of sexual masochism disorder is 19.3 years.
    Sabrina’s alma mater is University of Pennsylvania, which enjoys Sex Week. She was looking for a school to write about the Rape Culture- so U of Penn was probably of not much interest -if the campus is “sex-positive” oriented.
    UVA does not celebrate Sex Week, but did garner the honor of being named the #1 party school by Playboy Magazine in September 2012, so maybe has no need to set aside a special week for sex. Interesting that this is when the horrific alleged gang-rape is to have occurred.

    SMACK-DOWN for Mr. Jefferson’s University! The fact that Mr. Jefferson, a Founding Father of our nation was also the founding father of UVA is not an insignificant fact. Founding Fathers are not too popular with the Progressive and other sort of Lefties.

    • Well I DO remember that one as well as one at the NYT for that matter but I’m not getting the point here from Mr. Sidd.

      We have bogus stories written by unprincipled, unscrupulous “journalists” that tarnish the publication – from time to time – from both liberals and Conservatives as I recall…

      And it’s also weird that those on the right apparently think people to their left – don’t think much of Jefferson. That could not be further from the truth – but what Mr. Jefferson shows us – is that he had slaves, he cheated on his wife, he had children by slaves and the man died bankrupt – and he has been lauded by Conservatives as the Conservatives Conservative also violated a plethora of Conservative “values”.

      What makes Jefferson NOT a hypocrite like his modern day conservative admirers is he never pompously paraded his “values” as better than others.

      . He was a great man – who was not bound by moralistic poobahs.. but I’m quite sure if you listed out his behaviors – without naming him – those on the right would roundly condemn him.. especially if he was black.

      He was a flawed but great leader and human being – like many subsequent leaders who also had their flaws.. but you’d never know it today from the right..

      Finally – I still don’t see any government or a journalistic target pinned on UVA alone… this issue has been simmering at many colleges for – well.. for decades… and the one thing that truly hurts them all is there is no agreed-to uniform reporting protocols and statistics… because the colleges themselves and their supporters have insisted it’s not needed…and they should be left alone to “handle” the issue – in fact some here have said that the US Govt – REQUIRES them to handled – while in the same breath, complaining about the intrusion of the govt –

      what happened to UVA is they essentially got hoisted on their own petard – by a bogus magazine article written by a (now) disreputable journalist – but UVA was so unnerved about it -because they thought one of their suppressed incidents got out.

      think about it. The RS article was so bogus that even a cursory reading of it should have sent alarm bells going off – and the first thing UVA did – was not challenge the account and point out the obvious inconsistencies but instead hit the panic button… and yes.. it took a LIBERAL publication with their own journalistic shortcomings to blow up a peer liberal publication.

      funny how everyone has different perspective of this elephant, eh?

Leave a Reply