Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

Steve is right. And to be clear, this is about the university's sexual assault investigations; it is not about the standards used for convicting someone of rape in a criminal case. No one is going to be convicted for rape on the basis of less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[old]

It's brought up because simply being accused is usually enough to get you kicked out of whatever university you're at. I'm not some MRA, but there should be at least some protections for the accused, like making it illegal for a college to boot them out or for a newspaper to call them out by name before they go to court.

Like at Duke?

Section 67386 (b) (1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.

The wording here seems to suggest the possibility of not publicly naming either the accuser or the accused. I'm not certain. It's a bit vague on the details.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Ppffft, moving the goal posts. No means no and yes means yes doesn't make a difference. The problem with "no means no," is that it causes so many problems for survivors that they never "technically said no," and that it doesn't address men physically intimidating their victims into silence.

Guys can physically intimidate women into say "yes" too, and then you have the guilt spiral again, that women worry that they "technically said yes."

And what happens when a woman gives her consent? Remember women can withdraw their consent at any time. No means no, even after yes meant yes.

Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a paradigm shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." Earlier versions of the bill had similar language.

"With this measure, we will lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that's healthy, that's conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex," de Leon said before the vote.

Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it's also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep.

Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as maybe a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Uhhhhhhh, as far as I know, it was always illegal to have sex with a drunk, drugged, unconscious, or asleep person. So... Way to break new ground there!

It does nothing to address the root problems and continues to put the onus on the actions of women, rather than for men to change their behavior.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Like at Duke?

Like at UC, where a guy was accused of rape and kicked despite there not being enough evidence to bring actual charges against him. Or that time where a University of North Dakota student was expelled after a rape accusation that turned out to be false (the accuser was arrested using the same evidence the university used to expel the accused).

Rape is obviously a horrible crime, but that doesn't mean that we should adhere to shamefully low standards of evidence and plaster the accused's name everywhere so we can punish him just in case.