Search Results

IT’S LIKE THAT WAS THE GOAL: Rape Numbers Rise Along With FBI’s ‘More Inclusive Definition’ of Rape.

SIMPLE JUSTICE: The Department Of Education’s Office Of Civil Rights Gone Rogue.

Even McIntosh, despite her dodging and weaving, concedes that Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and head of the DoE Office of Civil Rights has gone off the reservation. She has no lawful authority to mandate colleges and universities adhere to her political whims, as reflected in her “guidance,” upon pain of losing federal funds.*

When asked (see 1:37 in the video) who gave Lhamon the authority to impose her personal will upon the nation’s colleges and universities, she responded, “with gratitude, you did when I was confirmed.”

The United States of America did not confer upon a person named Lhamon the authority to recreate Title IX in her image, to impose threat of the loss of public monies upon failure to adhere to her vision, to force a fundamental and systemic change that created a wholly new authority to rid the nation’s higher educational system of anything that might adversely affect the feelings of “marginalized” students, ascertain and punish students who are alleged to have engaged in conduct that caused such unpleasantness.

While much of the discussion, and dispute, addresses the fringes of this system of adjudication, ranging from what conduct is subject to collegiate condemnation to how it’s determined, to what’s to be done about it, precious little thought has gone into the government’s authority to do any of this in the first place.

There is none. Lhamon took it upon herself to send out a letter to her “dear colleagues,” and the nation’s higher education system chose to read her letter and say, “well, okay then.” The “dear colleague” letters are not, and never were, of binding authority upon anyone. They are not the law, and anyone asserting that this creature devouring innocent students on campus is mandated by law is wrong. Title IX does not create authority for colleges to adjudicate rape and sexual assault on campus.

You know, Administrative Law is a nice field. But in this fundamentally-transformed America, there’s a lot more administration than there is law.

IT ALLOWS FOR GREAT SELF DRAMATIZATION: From women who never faced adversity.  The Myth of the College Rape Culture.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Rutgers Professor Accused Of Raping Disabled, Nonverbal, Diaper-Wearing Black Man Takes The Stand In Her Own Defense.

During cross-examination, philosophy professor Anna Stubblefield, 45, insisted she and the victim – a 34-year-old African-American man who is unable to speak or eat on his own – were in a consensual relationship.

Under questioning from her lawyer Wednesday, Stubblefield explained the man could express himself through a technique known as facilitated communication in which she used her hands to help him type on a keyboard.

But the prosecution Thursday questioned the method and how the man could communicate if he wanted to stop having sex in her Newark office in 2011.

Stubblefield said he could bang on the floor.

So to be clear: A woman who’s had a single sip of alcohol is unable to consent to sex. But a profoundly retarded man who can’t speak or eat on his own can. More of that Male Privilege at work, I guess.

BY “DENYING ABORTIONS” THEY MEAN “NOT PAYING FOR ABORTIONS:” The US Just Decided to Continue Denying Abortions to Rape Victims Worldwide. By this logic, the U.S. government is also denying Corvettes to middle-aged men worldwide.

THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS IS JUST A NOVEL, RIGHT GUYS? RIGHT? GUYS? Rape and child abuse ‘are rife in German refugee camps’: Unsegregated conditions blamed as women are ‘seen as fair game’ in overcrowded migrant centres.

A culture of rape and sexual abuse is being allowed to take hold in asylum centres across Germany as Europe struggles to cope with the migrant crisis, it has been alleged,

Women’s rights groups and politicians have highlighted assaults against women and children in at least one camp.

And they suggest such incidents may be widespread, with many going unreported to the police.

Campaigners also claimed some men saw unaccompanied women as ‘fair game’, and also blamed conditions in which occupants were unsegregated by gender or nationality.

To paraphrase Chrissie Hynde, when you let in a big chunk of the bloody Third World, the rapists just come with the scenery. But hey, “it’s their culture.”

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO LIE ABOUT RAPE: Prosecutor: NHL Rape Accuser’s Mom Lied. “The Illinois district attorney handling the Patrick Kane rape investigation said Friday that a bag found at the accuser’s mother’s home—which prompted allegations of evidence tampering—was really just an ‘elaborate hoax’ by the mother. ‘The evidence in the case wasn’t tampered with nor was it compromised,’ the district attorney said. The drama around the bag included the accuser’s lawyer saying that it had been left anonymously at the mother’s home, and then retracting that claim. The lawyer subsequently resigned after saying that he no longer believed the story spun by the accuser’s mother.”

ASHE SCHOW: How schools can stop ‘civil rights’ trampling due process.

The civil rights of accusers — this right to an education in an environment where they don’t have to see men they accuse — can probably be protected without trampling the civil, legal and constitutional rights of accused students. Unfortunately, that’s not how things are currently done.

One way to accomplish this would be to let police and prosecutors handle the issue, as many in the criminal justice system have advocated. The justice system ensures that those found guilty of rape are removed from society, instead of just kicked off campus and left to prey on other victims. If police and prosecutors handle these cases, the real-world court system will protect accused student’s rights. It will also mete out punishments that are appropriately severe. Sexual assault is, after all, a crime. Perpetrators need to be held legally accountable.

But this logic falls apart if the real reason for the current ad hoc campus court system is to expel more students for political reasons rather than to actually combat a crime.

Maatz testified that by using a lower standard of evidence than at criminal trials — a preponderance of evidence, allowing administrators under federal pressure to be just 50.01 percent sure an assault was committed — is acceptable, because that’s the standard used in civil trials. But what Maatz failed to note is that civil trials also provide rules of evidence, discovery, right to effective counsel (not just a lawyer sitting silently in the background), subpoena power and sworn testimony. In civil court, there are safeguards against wrongful accusations. But such safeguards make it more difficult to convict without evidence, and so the activists are not fans of that system, either.

Nope. It’s a war on college men.

#RAPECULTURE: Not on college campuses, but in prisons. Which, I should note, are run by the government.


I thought Rich Lowry’s unstoppable tirade about El Trumpo’s figurative emasculation at the hands of Carly Fiorina would be hard to top, but the South Park guys have never been one to shy away from a challenge. In last night’s episode they showed a Canadian politician mocked up to look like Trump literally being raped to death. It was pretty fantastic.

That being said, it’s the sort of thing that’s worth stopping to think about for a second. I mean, Trey Parker and Matt Stone went there. They showed a (lightly fictionalized representation of a) major American presidential candidate being f—ked to death onscreen by one of the show’s beloved characters.

And yet, episodes of South Park have famously been bowdlerized by parent company Viacom when the show attempted to display an image of the Prophet Muhammad. This censorship occurred because of violence committed by Islamist savages in response to past displays of Muhammad.

So, to recap, at this point in American history you can show a major American political figure being anally raped until he expires but you cannot show an image of a historical figure from Islam. Why? Because Muslim radicals do not want the image shown and threatened violence if South Park exercised its freedom of expression.

My advice: If you don’t like your media coverage, behead a few people. That’s the incentive system they’ve — more or less knowingly — created.

If I were Trump, I’d tweet their home addresses. Because people who create such incentives should have to live with them. And if you don’t appreciate liberal bourgeois values, maybe you should try living without them for a while. . . .

IF YOU CAN’T STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE TV STUDIO: Is Trump Ready for Truman’s Kitchen?, asks Roger Simon:

Truman was one tough dude.  He was, it’s worth remembering, the man who told us of politics and the presidency “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”  He also opined, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”  Wise word those.

Barack Obama has been a kind of anti-Truman, hardly ever living up to his word.  Two easy examples are the phony redline to Assad regarding chemical weapons and the now silly-seeming claim that the Iranians would have to allow “anytime, anywhere” inspections in order for us to sign the Iran deal.  Compared to Harry, Barack’s a wimp. That Putin has (literally) pushed him all over the map – first Ukraine, now Syria- is no accident.

So where does The Donald fit in this equation? Superficially, he seems a macho guy, but I’m not sure Truman would approve of his thin skin.  Right now Trump’s announced he’s “boycotting” Fox News because he says he’s not been treated fairly.  Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly have been mean to him.  Maybe so, but at least from my vantage point, Sean Hannity’s been acting like Trump’s virtual press secretary.  You gotta take the good with bad.  Fox News is no perfect news organization, but I never heard of one that is. And if Trump is trying to play Fox against CNN, I have got bad news for him.  Get in bed with CNN and they will cut your heart out and feed it to all the wolves from here to Alaska when the general election starts.  These are the self-interested creeps who lied about Saddam’s rape rooms, remember, to keep access with the dictator. (Well, maybe Trump doesn’t.  He’s not always up on foreign affairs.)

Trump’s also angry at the gang from the Club for Growth for running commercials in Iowa pointing out that he, in the past at least, has not exactly been Grover Norquist when it comes to lowering taxes.  Well, he wasn’t. But The Donald called out CFG for running ads that were not only ”disingenuous, but replete with outright lies, false, defamatory and destructive statements and downright fabrications which you fully know to be untrue.”  The CFG, from their side, told him to “Stop whining.”

Read the whole thing.



As author of the enormously influential book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, feminist writer and activist Susan Brownmiller has done more than almost any living person to combat the scourge of sexual violence. So when she critiques the excesses of today’s rape-crisis activists, you might think the activists would listen—that is, if today’s anti-rape movement were actually an open-minded, reality-based effort to combat a very real social problem rather than, as Christina Hoff Sommers memorably described it, “a panic where paranoia, censorship, and false accusations flourish.”

In an interview with New York magazine last week, the 80-year-old Brownmiller suggested that the campus rape movement is narrow, elitist, and “doesn’t accept reality.” Asked what advice she would give activists, Brownmiller said, “extend your focus to the larger percentage of women and girls who are in danger of being raped. They are more important than the college kids.” She also violated the well-known taboo against drawing a connection between sexual assault and the campus culture of binge drinking: “If you drink you lose your sense of judgment. Everybody knows that. You should know that when you are going into a fraternity party, something can happen.”

The rape crisis crusaders contemptuously brushed Brownmiller’s views aside. . . .

Ironically, Brownmiller’s swift exile from the shrinking tent that is third-wave feminism confirmed one of her other critiques of the current movement: that modern activists “think they are the first people to discover rape, and the problem of consent, and they are not.”

No, but they’re both vicious and tedious at the same time, which is surely some sort of accomplishment.

HILLARY CLINTON’S EMPIRE OF DIRT: Victor Davis Hanson writes, “The more she castigates others, the more she convicts herself:”

Hillary Clinton has developed a strange but habitual tic of railing and remonstrating about hot-button issues and egregious behaviors that offer windows into her own plagued soul, past and present. It is as if Hillary has become an ailing Johnny Cash singing “Hurt” — draped in black at the end, a faint simulacrum of his once combative self, seeking new resonance through a rocker’s lyrics for the confession of his own sins: “I wear this crown of s— / Upon my liar’s chair.”

In her Freudian calls for solutions to the sort of ethical and moral transgressions that have defined her own long career, near the end of it, Hillary Clinton seems to be asking in vain of her dissipating cadres of true believers, “What have I become?”


As she limps along, wounded, on the campaign trail, her flat, half-hearted sermons are best translated as, “You could have it all, / My empire of dirt. / I will let you down. / I will make you hurt.”

Read the whole thing — though, I must admit, I’ll still trying to wrap my brain around the notion of VDH quoting Trent Reznor…

OF COURSE IT DOES: New sexual assault survey suffers same problems as others.

A new survey released Monday purports to prove that 1 in 5 women (or more) will be sexually assaulted while in college.

The survey, conducted by the Association for American Universities, included responses from 150,000 students at 27 colleges and universities, including many Ivy League schools. Despite this large number of responses, the survey still suffers from the same problems as so many others trying to prove the existence of “rape culture” and scare colleges into expelling innocent students based on no evidence (or evidence to the contrary).

The researchers who developed the survey acknowledged fairly up front in their report that a “non-response bias” may have resulted in estimates that are “too high because non-victims may have been less likely to participate.” The researchers also acknowledged the large difference in estimates across the 27 schools, meaning that “1 in 5” is not the national percentage of victimhood, despite what every other news outlet will be claiming.

“[M]any news stories are focused on figures like ‘1 in 5’ in reporting victimization. As the researchers who generated this number have repeatedly said, the 1 in 5 number is for a few [institutions of higher education] and is not representative of anything outside of this frame,” the researchers wrote. “The wide variation of rates across IHEs in the present study emphasizes the significance of this caveat.”

Next, the survey’s developers “specifically avoided” using the words “rape” and “assault” so that, as they said, “respondents would use a set of uniform definitions when reporting on the types of events that were of interest.”

A skeptic might see this as an attempt to get higher responses by avoiding such harsh words. Indeed, that’s what the Washington Post did, as they admitted, to get “dramatically” higher results.

The other major problem with this survey and all others is the expansion of the definition of “sexual assault” to include everything from a stolen kiss to forcible rape. When broken down, 11.7 percent (about 1 in 9) of students across all 27 universities “reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by force or incapacitation” since enrolling in college.

While on paper forced kissing sounds bad, think of how this has been employed in movies without it appearing to be sexual assault. (Remember when Indiana Jones sexually assaulted someone? Neither do I.) Again, on paper this seems bad, and we can all imagine a scenario where a forced kiss is indeed sexual assault, but it seems absurd to assume that all of them are.

Well, it’s not absurd if your goal is to inflate the numbers in support of “War on Women” agitprop in support of Hillary’s floundering campaign, and to create more power and positions for campus educrats.


And that brings us to the next problem with this and other surveys: Respondents not believing they were victims of sexual assault. Nearly 60 percent of students who had responded to what researchers defined as sexual assault said they did not report the incident because they did not consider it serious enough. Vast majorities of students gave this as the reason for individual classifications of assaults, including harassment (78.6 percent), sexual touching due to physical force (75.6 percent) and sexual touching due to incapacitation (74.1 percent). These were the types of “sexual assault” most students said they had experienced.

That might imply that students themselves don’t believe what they experienced was sexual assault in the way that the media and the White House want them to believe.

Hey, you can’t have phony solutions if you don’t first have a phony crisis.

GRADUALLY, AND WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT: Scott Greenfield: How Did Title IX Turn Into A Rape Law?

I’D LIKE TO SEE SOME PRANKSTER AMEND THIS BILL SO THAT IT ALSO APPLIES TO MICHIGAN LEGISLATORS: Michigan lawmakers to introduce ‘yes-means-yes’ consent bills.

Michigan has had a rough month so far when it comes to campus sexual assault.

Earlier this month, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights determined that Michigan State University had violated the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX in part because the school didn’t open an investigation into an alleged sexual assault, even though the accuser didn’t want one.

And just last week, the University of Michigan agreed to throw out its sex assault finding against Drew Sterrett, who had sued the university alleging his due process rights had been violated and that he had not committed the assault.

But despite what should be a wakeup call to rethink the way the state treats accused students, Michigan lawmakers have decided to introduce a bill that would result in more lawsuits like Sterrett’s, and maybe more investigations from OCR. “Yes-means-yes” — or “affirmative consent” — bills broaden the definition of sexual assault while narrowly or vaguely defining consent.

It labels drunk sex as rape, in some cases even if the woman (men are not absolved from drinking, but women are) had only one drink. In fact, under these laws, the only kind of sex that isn’t rape is question-and-answer-style sex, where each person in the encounter must ask and answer constant questions about consent. “May I touch you here?” “Yes, may I touch you here?” and so forth. Of course, an accuser never has to prove that she also asked such questions, or that the questions weren’t asked, or that consent wasn’t given.

No, the burden of proof is on the accused student, after the fact.

These bills are unAmerican, and in a just America their sponsors would fear tar and feathers.

OF COURSE SHE DOES: Hillary Clinton pushes campus sexual assault myths. If she told the truth, that rape on and off campus has been plummeting for over 20 years, her whole War On Women campaign would collapse.

MILO YIANNOPOULOS: Sexbots: Why Women Should Panic.

Another reason men might be enthusiastic about female-free sex is obvious: the sociopathic, man-hating feminism we see so much of on television and in our newspapers today is turning men off dealing with women altogether. Constant whinging about “toxic masculinity,” “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” the bogus gender pay gap and the absurd campus rape culture myth are pushing the sexes apart, fostering mistrust and fear.

The fact that wacky, misandrist intersectional feminists are an unpopular minority — as a result of their horrid influence, just 18 per cent of women now call themselves feminists — doesn’t matter because they hold court in the media and on campuses, and young women are starting to parrot discredited and absurd nonsense about the “oppressive patriarchy,” picking up on a victimhood script they believe they can leverage for social and professional advantage.

In response, men are simply checking out, giving up on women and retreating into porn and video games. I call it the “sexodus,” and its immediate victims aren’t men, but women, who are being consigned to singledom as men lose interest in them or are simply too exhausted or fearful of the social consequences of approaching girls romantically. The truth is, men get along okay without women, unlike women, who become shrieking, neurotic messes if they’re still single in their 30s.

Sorry, no offence, but it’s true: women have been getting steadily unhappier since the Second World War, when they first entered the workplace in large numbers. It sounds bizarre, but ever since the rise of feminism, every decade has seen another slump in female morale. Women now report themselves more generally depressed and more likely to think about suicide than at any time in history. (The vast majority of suicides are still men, by the way. Women talk about it endlessly, but rarely pull it off.)

Gee, somebody should write a book on this.


A collection of previously censored films made by women will be shown in Washington, D.C., in November. The films — part of the Censored Women’s Film Festival — highlight the plight of women around the world who face genital mutilation, “honor killings” and child marriages.

The films have caused a backlash in various parts of the world. “India’s Daughter,” a film about the gang-rape of a young girl, was banned in India after the filmmakers revealed they had interviewed one of the rapists in prison. “Honor Diaries,” another film to be shown at the festival, received a negative reaction from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which tried to keep the film from being screened across the U.S.

“Persepolis,” a graphic novel published in 2000 documenting the childhood of an Iranian girl during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was banned from Chicago Public Schools in 2013. A film adaptation of the novel, which was nominated for an Academy Award, will be included in the festival.

CAIR’s efforts at censorship, of course, are no surprise.

OF COURSE, HIS REPUTATION WILL NEVER FULLY RECOVER: A Campus Rape Ruling, Reversed: The University of Michigan has vacated its findings against a student accused of sexual assault, after he sued the school for violating his civil rights.

The sexual encounter in question took place in March 2012, in the spring semester of Sterrett’s freshman year. Legal documents described how the female student, CB, who was a friend of Sterrett’s, asked to stay in his room because her roommate was having guests. He expected her to sleep on a mat on the floor and was surprised when she got into his bunk bed. Soon the two were kissing, then more; CB asked Sterrett about a condom, and he got one. Their encounter went on for so long, and was so loud, that Sterrett’s roommate, who was trying to sleep in the top bunk, sent Sterrett an annoyed Facebook message about being kept awake. The roommate later gave a sworn statement that he was close enough to the pair that he would have heard, and intervened, if CB had said no or objected.

The semester ended, and Sterrett and CB left school. The events that prompted the university investigation of Sterrett are described in an affidavit sworn on his behalf by LC, a friend of CB and her sophomore-year roommate. While CB was home for the summer, her mother discovered her diary, in which the young woman described her drinking, drug-taking, and sexual encounters. (In her own deposition, CB confirmed the contents of the diary.) After confronting her daughter with her discovery, CB’s mother drove her to campus, where CB made her accusation. She never reported it to the police.

During the summer, campus officials informed Sterrett via Skype that a student had made an allegation against him. When the tone of the interview turned hostile, he asked if he should retain a lawyer. He was told if he ended the interview this would be reported to the university and the investigation would go on without him. He continued to talk.

Sterrett was never provided with the charges against him in writing. The Skype interview turned out to be his sole encounter with the campus officials investigating and deciding his case. He never had a chance to question his accuser. He was not told the names of the witnesses the university interviewed in its inquiry. In November of his sophomore year he received a “Sexual Misconduct Investigation Report,” which concluded he was responsible for the accusation against him.

Everyone involved in this travesty should be fired, and the University of Michigan should have to pay a large damage award. Vindication is nice, but not enough. And since the rape charges are unfounded, shouldn’t the “victim’s” name be public now?

Meanwhile, male students, and parents of male students, have a reason to be suspicious of the University of Michigan, which costs at least $27,812 per year in-state and $57,432 per year out-of-state.

WHEN YOU’VE LOST ANDREA MITCHELL: White Women ‘Abandoning’ Hillary Clinton ‘in Droves,’ Mitchell Reports:

During Tuesday’s edition of NBC’s Today morning program, news anchor Andrea Mitchell addressed a trend that probably has former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff feeling “trumped:” White women are “abandoning” the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential campaign “in droves.”

The host of Andrea Mitchell Reports — which airs at 12 noon weekdays on the MSNBC cable channel — started her report by stating: “Hillary Clinton is reaching out to that group that she’d always counted on: white women voters who are now abandoning her in droves during the last two months. “

Gee, I can’t imagine why women would be turned off by the Clintons.

RELATED: In Shift, Hillary Clinton Says Rape Victims Have Right to Be Believed.

IT’S COME TO THIS: Liberals bemoan new campus rape law which could involve police in prosecuting crimes.

ALEX GRISWOLD: No, Hillary: Rape Victims Don’t Have A “Right To Be Believed.”

Does Hillary Clinton believe her husband is a rapist?

Now before you bite my head off, the question is a fair one given what the Democratic candidate said in a speech before a “Women for Hillary” event earlier today:

“To every survivor of sexual assault…You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.”

The vast majority of conservatives and liberals who are deeply concerned about sexual assault will agree with Clinton’s larger point. I don’t think anyone would disagree that victims of sexual assault who come forward have a right to be heard, a right to be taken seriously, and a right to have their claims thoroughly investigated. But Clinton goes a step further and says they have “the right to be believed.”

Well, as it happens, her own husband has been accused of sexual assault. Not once, but several times. And contrary to Clinton’s bold new standard, the media and Democrats alike elected not to believe a single accusation. “In media accounts, [Paula Jones] tends to be portrayed as a trailer-park floozy digging for money and celebrity,” Newsweek admitted back in 1997. Clinton’s own stalwart ally James Carville was just as blatant: “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, there’s no telling what you’ll find,” he said.

Accountability is for the little people.

UNEXPECTEDLY! Sanctuary City enjoys skyrocketing rates of murder, rape.

MORE ON REP. JARED POLIS (D-CO): Mothers of sons falsely accused of rape hammer congressman who called for expulsion of innocents. “Being expelled from college does not simply lead to transfer to another college, as permanent disciplinary records with ominous findings make it difficult or impossible to enter another institution or find employment. Furthermore, the profound and lasting emotional trauma associated with a false accusation, just as for victims of assault, is not a matter to be taken lightly. Many victims of false accusations suffer from PTSD, depression and other health issues as a result of their experiences.”

If you watch the video, Polis’s laugh (at about 1:54) is rather creepy.

REMEMBER, SHE ALSO HAD A WHITE HOUSE CONNECTION: Woman who introduced Rolling Stone to Jackie leaves UVA.

Emily Renda, the sexual assault activist who introduced Rolling Stone to “Jackie,” a woman who lied about being gang-raped, has left the University of Virginia.

Her reason for leaving is the fallout from the now-discredited Rolling Stone article. The unraveling of the article, coupled with the attacks on Renda in the media, have led to a year of “all hell and hopelessness.” Renda has decided to go to law school far away from U.Va., and told Vanity Fair that she has abandoned her work with sexual assault survivors.

“I don’t want to say it’s been the worst year of my life, but it has been the worst year of my life,” Renda said.

Renda met Jackie in the spring of 2014, while working as an activist. Jackie told Renda her story of being gang-raped by fraternity members at a party (parts of this story appeared differently in the story Jackie told Rolling Stone). Renda would later share Jackie’s story during testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, omitting Jackie’s name.

Well, it was a pretty bad year for the falsely accused frat guys, too, who suffered a sort of University-sanctioned lynching.

More on the White House connection here:

Emily Renda, a UVA advocate for sexual assault victims, has been identified as the person who helped steer the author of the Rolling Stone article to the student identified in the story only as “Jackie” who said she was gang-raped by seven university students. Ms. Renda had previously met with the White House Task Force to Protect Students Against Sexual Assault, a committee created by President Obama. The administration says it sought her input as a “stakeholder” on the issue. . . .

The U.S. Department of Education has declined to answer Freedom of Information requests for telephone logs and other information that might show to what degree, if any, the White House orchestrated the rape story at a time when it was pushing hard to expand the role of the federal government in combating sexual violence on college campuses. The Institute on Government and Media Integrity has asked Congress to further inquire.

So far, I don’t think UVA is talking, either. In fact: Review of Univ. of Va.’s debunked gang rape to remain under wraps.

An independent review of the University of Virginia’s handling of a student’s gang rape allegations will not be publicly released because of privacy concerns.

The review focuses on the Charlottesville school’s handling of an alleged gang rape that was reported in graphic detail by Rolling Stone magazine. The piece was later retracted.

In an email from the school’s Freedom of Information Act officer late last month, U.Va. rejected a request from The Associated Press to publicly release an executive summary of the review.

The officer cited a letter from a U.S. Department of Education official who said its release would violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

How convenient for all concerned. Was the official Catherine Lhamon, by any chance?

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Another female coach with a female student. “I want you to 50 Shades me.”

Remember, male teachers are rare because people fear they might be sexual predators.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Woman gets prison time for sex assault of teenage girl.

USA TODAY: ISIL haunts 9/11 anniversary: 14 years ago, Americans learned they can’t ignore the terror of extremists.

SIL represents the embodiment of evil in the modern world, and it mustn’t be allowed to establish a foothold from which to plot attacks against the United States or to inspire so-called lone wolf sympathizers to do so. But the U.S.-led effort to “degrade and ultimately defeat” ISIL has shown underwhelming results.

The effort’s seemingly deliberate pace is of little comfort to those being raped, shot and beheaded while the West figures out how to take on a group that has attracted an estimated 20,000 fanatical foreign fighters and defied predictions that it would never get this far.

It’s almost as if Obama doesn’t really want to stop them.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Woman caught having sex with unconscious man in Virginia parking lot.

I SMELL A COVERUP. BUT THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW! Ashe Schow: We might not learn anything new from Rolling Stone lawsuits.

Rolling Stone magazine is seeking to limit what gets publicly disclosed during the ongoing defamation case brought forth by University of Virginia Associate Dean Nicole Eramo.

Eramo was the only named official blamed for improperly handling an accusation of a brutal gang rape by a student known as “Jackie.” The accusation was detailed in a now-discredited article that appeared in Rolling Stone. After the story fell apart, Eramo filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine for its portrayal of her.

The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple noted late last week that even though a Columbia Journalism Review of the article revealed some additional details, there could still be more information out there — information that could be private (such as Jackie’s confidential report of the alleged gang rape). It doesn’t matter that she lied, what she said to Eramo could be protected information.

“The proposal would secure confidentiality for disclosures that fall into any one of several baskets, including information whose release is barred by statute, trade secrets or ‘commercially sensitive’ information, ‘unpublished newsgathering materials’ and ‘information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual,'” Wemple wrote.

Wemple, predictably yet amusingly, opposes the protection of “unpublished newsgathering materials.”

The big story here is one of malfeasance by the press. “Unpublished newsgathering materials” are highly relevant to the public’s ability to judge.

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Campus Rape Panic Scaring Women Away From College. “Why is the government collaborating in this dangerous myth?”

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Former Texas high school teacher accused of having sex with a second student. “Ramirez was arrested in July, 2014 after cell phone video surfaced allegedly showing her being intimate with a student at her home. The former teacher turned herself in after prosecutors say they identified her in the video through a tattoo on her back, which is about 8 inches long.”

SPENGLER: THE PRICE OF EUROPE’S FECKLESSNESS: “In Luis Bunuel’s eponymous 1961 film, the young postulant Viridiana leaves her convent to claim her uncle’s rural estate, and creates a refuge for local beggars. They ransack her house in a bachannalia staged to lampoon the Last Supper, and a couple of them rape her. The classic film should be mandatory viewing for European officials caught up in refugee euphoria. This is going to end very, very badly.”

OBAMA SUPPORTER Damon Wayans Defends Bill Cosby, Calls Accusers “Bitches” and “Unrapeable.” “I believe he was in relationships with all of them and then he’s like, ‘You know what? [I’m] 78. It don’t work like that no more. I can’t get it up for any of y’all. Bye, bitches,’ and then they’re like, ‘Oh, really? Rape!’” I mean, he is an Obama supporter, right?

TRYING TO AVOID EMBARRASSMENT: Rolling Stone files motion for protective order in Virginia dean’s defamation case.

Lawyers for Rolling Stone magazine yesterday entered a motion aimed at limiting the amount of information and documents disclosed in the ongoing defamation case filed this year by Nicole Eramo, a University of Virginia associate dean whose actions were depicted in the November 2014 Rolling Stone story “A Rape on Campus.” That story, which narrated an alleged gang rape at a campus fraternity house, was later exposed as a fraud, prompting a review by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and a retraction.

Though the Columbia report laid bare the faulty editorial procedures behind “A Rape on Campus,” written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely (a named defendant in Eramo’s suit), Rolling Stone is apparently seeking to limit how much more information can leak into the public realm through this proceeding. “The Parties acknowledge that disclosure and discovery activity in this litigation is likely to include production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted,” reads the proposed protective order. Though Eramo’s legal team isn’t opposing the order, it comes at the behest of Rolling Stone.

The proposal would secure confidentiality for disclosures that fall into any one of several baskets, including information whose release is barred by statute, trade secrets or “commercially sensitive” information, “unpublished newsgathering materials” and “information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual.” For the consideration of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the Erik Wemple Blog has a great interest in “unpublished newsgathering materials.” We oppose this motion!

The protective order would “survive” the litigation and could be undone only by a court order or a request from one of the parties.

I think all this information is a matter of great public interest, and it’s very important that it be made public.

LIES ABOUT RAPE: Study includes ‘remarks about physical appearance’ to trump up sexual violence numbers. So if someone calls you ugly, you’re a “victim of sexual violence.”

One of the best tactics so-called researchers have used to conclude that fully one-fifth of college women will be sexually assaulted is to vastly expand the definition of what it is.

A new study, conducted at Rutgers University, relies heavily on this tactic to stoke fear and encourage witch hunts of college men across the country.

Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown dissects the study, noting the definition of “sexual assault” and “sexual violence” included everything from “remarks about physical appearance” and “persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient” to “threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching and unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration.”

There’s an ocean of difference between someone saying you look good today and someone physically pinning you down against your will. To include both under the category of “sexual assault” is just ludicrous, and certainly not a serious way of studying the issue.

It’s a naked power grab. Related: Ashe Schow: My warning to incoming and returning college students.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Woman sentenced for sexually abusing boys at Talent trailer park. “Shawna Marie Nerby, 25, of Lower Lake, Calif., was sentenced to five years’ probation after pleading guilty to attempted first-degree sodomy, attempted first-degree rape and attempted second-degree rape. She is a former resident of the trailer park. She previously had been indicted on two counts of first-degree sodomy, second-degree sodomy, first-degree rape and second-degree rape. . . . She admitted in court to having sexual contact in 2009 with two boys who were age 10 and 12 at the time, Smith-Norton said. The sexual contact came to light in late 2014 after the boys stepped forward and talked to authorities. They told police the sexual contact began in 2005, when they were about 6 and 8 years old, according to Talent police.” Would a male convicted of such offenses get probation?

TIME TO DEFUSE CAMPUS RAPE HYSTERIA: Serial predator in your campus closet? Not likely: Research showing serial predators commit most campus rape includes just 1 flimsy study.

The truth is that there is no campus rape “crisis.” Instead, rape rates on campus are plummeting, just as they are everywhere else. What there is instead is a war on male students, and a power grab by campus educrats.


University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan blamed federal privacy regulations for her school’s failure to debunk the Rolling Stone gang-rape story.

Those regulations did not stop her from treating innocent people as rapists, however.

Sullivan, speaking to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, said the school couldn’t counter the Rolling Stone article about a now discredited accusation of a brutal gang rape because of a law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

“The university couldn’t say it wasn’t true because of FERPA,” said Sullivan, referring to federal student privacy law. “And the only reason I can say it to you now is because there’s a police chief’s report, which is not FERPA-protected.”

But in the wake of the Rolling Stone hoax, Sullivan, despite now admitting the school knew all along that the claims were false, spent little time suggesting evidence be collected before punishment meted out. Two days after the article was published, the Inter-Fraternity Council decided to suspend social activities for one weekend. Sullivan immediately expanded that suspension to two months, and only allowed fraternities and sororities to resume social activities after signing new agreements with the university.

Sullivan told the Times-Dispatch that universities should not “run roughshod over student privacy,” but that schools “are put into a position in which we cannot defend ourselves.”

Sullivan did try to defend her school – by placing blame on the fraternities when she and her administration had access to the reports made by the Rolling Stone accuser, Jackie, that did not line up with the magazine article.

Sullivan also said that the rector who apologized to Jackie during a board meeting did so due to “emotion” and “pressure.”

Her behavior has been disgraceful, a complete breach of the duty of fairness she owes to all students, even fraternity guys accused (falsely) of rape. She should resign — or be fired.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Italian woman locks up man for refusing sex.

The pair reportedly met this summer and enjoyed a fling, Il Messaggero reported.

But the man soon grew weary of the amorous adventure, and refused to have any more intercourse with the woman, who is separated from her husband.

Unhappy with the rejection, she then allegedly locked him in the basement of her home in Arzano, a town north of Naples.

It is unclear from the reports just how long the man was kept in the room, but he somehow managed to alert a passerby to his presence.

“The young man, visibly frightened, managed to seek help from a passerby, who told the police immediately,” Il Messaggero reported.

I blame our pervasive culture of female sexual entitlement.

WHAT THIS NYT PIECE IS REALLY ABOUT, is an effort to expand “campus” definitions of rape to apply everywhere else.

This is chilling and retrograde. And it shows the gap between the definition of rape in many states and the “culture of consent” at universities, Tuerkheimer argues. As she puts it, “On campus, this is rape; off campus, it often is not.” The discrepancy, she argues, diminishes the violation of victims outside universities, even though studies show they are actually more vulnerable to sexual assault than college students.

Tuerkheimer and others are pushing to reform state rape laws and the Model Penal Code. As the American Law Institute re-examines the code’s sexual-assault provision for the first time since 1962, a heated debate is taking place over how to replace the old language. Should the code follow states like New Hampshire, or go further and adopt the standard of affirmative consent?

You knew this was coming, right?

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Faith Academy teacher accused of sex with student.


“Moreover, ‘yes means yes’ legislation effectively criminalizes millions of actions by individuals and partners that do not lead to rape or sexual assault,” Staley wrote. “Rape and sexual assault still occur at unacceptably high levels, but the solution is not to criminalize normal, healthy behavior.”

I’ve written about this aspect of “yes means yes” before. Under these policies, all sex is rape unless one follows the rules set forth under the policy. And even then, unless one can prove they obtained consent under these policies, the existence of a “yes” every step of the way is meaningless.

These policies are deliberately designed to terrorize men. They are, in and of themselves, responsible for creating a hostile educational environment on account of sex.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Well, you won’t do that with consequences like this: Former NFL Cheerleader Pled Guilty To Raping Boy, Gets No Jail Time. Would any man get off this lightly?

The parents to Delaware Superior Court Judge E. Scott Bradley: “Any adult who rapes a child deserves to be in prison. Please hold her accountable.” He disagreed.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO LIE ABOUT RAPE! Student charged over false sexual assault accusation.

A University of Arkansas student who claimed she was sexually assaulted will face felony charges for her false report, according to the Arkansas Traveler.

Police are charging junior Lindsey Sweetin with filing a false police report. Sweetin claimed she was groped by a stranger in a parking garage on Feb. 26. But witness testimony and video surveillance cast doubt on Sweetin’s claim and she eventually admitted to lying.

“Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions,” Capt. Gary Crain of the UA police department told the Traveler. “In this case, what was reported to the police did not happen, and therefore, just like anyone else who commits a crime, they have to be held responsible.”

This was the second false report of sexual assault at the university in the past year. Previously, Julia Garcia, another student, had claimed she was raped in a different UA parking garage. Again, video surveillance proved she was lying.

I’m glad they’re punishing these women, and reporting their names.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): DA: Malvern Prep counselor promised teen Harvard admission for sex.

A guidance counselor at a prestigious private school in Chester County is accused of pursuing a teen student for sex, even promising him admission to Harvard University in an effort to coerce him.

Emily Feeney, 40, of Wayne, Pa., was a swim coach and Director of College Counseling at Malvern Prep for two years. She has since been fired, District Attorney Tom Hogan said.

“The defendant was extraordinarily predatory in the way she attacked this 16-year-old boy, going after him again and again and again,” said Hogan. . . .

“When it’s happening between a 40-year-old adult and a 16-year-old child – with that difference in power and authority – that is the sort of sexual abuse that we worry about,” said Hogan.

Investigators said hundreds of emails were recovered after a search warrant. They say Feeney was sending messages from her Malvern Prep work email account.

Should’ve used her own private server.

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Judge Denies Glory Johnson’s Request for $20,000 in Spousal Support from Brittney Griner. “Glory Johnson’s request for $20,000 a month in temporary spousal support from Brittney Griner was denied in an Arizona court on Thursday. Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court commissioner Jacki Ireland stated that Griner, after only a 28 day marriage to Johnson, is not responsible for any financial support after the annulment. This decision comes on the heels of Johnson announcing earlier this week that she is pregnant with twins. Griner and Johnson were married on May 9, but a month later, and a day after Johnson announced she was pregnant, Griner filed for an annulment. Griner stated that the marriage was a mistake. Johnson was not only seeking $20,000 a month in spousal support, but she was also requesting her attorney fees to be paid, as well as car payments. . . . Also the court stated that Johnson could seek child support after the twins are born, even though Griner alleges that she was unaware that Johnson’s in vitro was successful or that she had undergone treatments.”

Lesbian divorce with child support issues and perhaps even a paternity maternity? dispute. Should be interesting.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: College Freshmen Required to Attend a Musical about How to Not Rape Each Other.

Cost of attending the University of Indiana Indiana University, Bloomington: $24,538 In-State, $47,890 Out-of-State.

ASHE SCHOW: California continues descent into campus sexual assault madness. “California was the first state to implement a “yes means yes” — or affirmative consent — policy, which regulates how students engage in sexual activity. Now the state wants to allow community colleges to expel students for sexual misconduct even if the accuser isn’t a student and the alleged incident occurred off-campus.”

Just another advertisement for Reynolds Online University.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, KANGAROO COURT EDITION: LAWSUIT: Official in charge of sexual misconduct hearing screened ‘The Hunting Ground’ right before.

The university official in charge of a disciplinary proceeding against a student accused of rape had hosted a showing of a slanted documentary about campus rape the day before the hearing, according to a lawsuit by the accused student.

The anonymous “John Doe” student is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 from Clark University in Massachusetts, accusing the school and several officials of “impeding his education, damaging his reputation and causing psychological and emotional harm” in response to false allegations by “Sue Smith.”

Like other lawsuits against colleges by students accused of sexual misconduct, Doe’s suit claims Clark ignored voluminous text-message evidence establishing an ongoing romantic relationship with Smith even after the alleged rape.

Annual Tuition at Clark University, $41,590.

WHO ARE TRUMP’S SUPPORTERS? Not Who You Think. I think to some degree it depends on what you mean by “supporters.” Lots of people support Trump’s kicking sand in the faces of the media and GOP establishment who don’t actually support him for President.

UPDATE: It’s paywalled for some people, apparently, but I can get through fine. But here’s an excerpt for the gist, for those who can’t read the whole thing.

Today’s prototypical conservative base voters are infamously principled. Their views are hardened, their heels dug in. They are armed with all kinds of litmus tests and purity tests to make sure the “fake” conservatives are weeded out from the good ones, often to the chagrin of the party.

It shifts with time, but at the moment the ideological guillotine falls on issues like immigration (are you for a pathway?), abortion (are you for exceptions?), guns (are you for universal background checks?), education (do you support Common Core?) and climate change (do you think it’s real?). Departing from doctrine on just one of these can cast a foreboding shadow of skepticism upon an otherwise devout and disciplined conservative.

For Republican base voters, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are unforgivably moderate. While to the rest of the country people like John McCain and Mitt Romney are sufficiently conservative if not “severely” conservative, to use Romney’s phrasing, to the hardened base voters the 2008 and 2012 presidential losses were proof that voting for the so-called electable candidate, instead of the principled one, leaves them with nothing to show for it. They got neither the satisfaction of voting their conscience — be it for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum — nor the consolation of a less than conservative Republican in the White House.

The idea that in 2016 these voters would simply turn off their hard-wired orthodoxy and support a guy who has voted for Democrats, said “the economy does better under the Democrats,” refused to pledge to support the Republican nominee if it’s not him, openly defended Planned Parenthood, approved of exceptions to abortion bans, supported a single-payer health care system, backed an assault weapons ban and advocated a one-time 14.25 percent mega-tax on the wealthy to erase the national debt is, to put it in Trumpian language, really, really stupid.

Base voters will stick with candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who demonstrated their conservative bona fides by shutting down the government, filibustering the Patriot Act and pledging to repeal Obamacare. The more evangelically inclined will support Huckabee and Santorum, or maybe even Marco Rubio, who recently said he personally opposes any exceptions — rape, incest, health of the mother — for abortion.

So who is the Trump supporter, if not the conservative base? I’d argue it’s mostly disaffected moderates who no longer strictly identify with either party. They think the political system is rigged. They think politicians are corrupt. They want a total collapse of the ruling political class.

While Trump probably gets more support from the right, running as a Republican, he attracts from the left as well.

So there.

THE HUNT FOR A GOOD BAD GUY: Gavin McInnes on Canada versus “pickup artist” Roosh V:

There is a severe rape drought going on in the West; not the violent sexual assault as is broadly defined by the law but a particular kind of rape. We want wealthy white males with blond hair high-fiving each other as they torture some poor girl who was just trying to get an education. The Middle East is resplendent with these scenarios, but the guy usually has a funny hat on instead of Richie Rich hair. Here in America prison tops the rape charts, but that’s men on men, and men are gross. Firmly planted behind the prison-rape stats we have black-on-white rape clocking in at tens of thousands a year (unfortunately, the white-on-black rape stats are negligible). That sounds racist. Women were getting gang-raped en masse at spring break this year, but that was mostly blacks too so no thanks.

There is a lot of currency behind the Duke lacrosse rapist ideal. Through Title IX, the government offers financial rewards to schools for digging up sexual offenders in varsity jackets. Rapists give feminists something to fight for in a culture where women have little to complain about. This means when a woman lies about frat boys, or carries a mattress around, or simply says someone resembles a rapist, the ax falls hard.

Read the whole thing.


In the Perfect Storm scenario, the ex-boyfriend, when called before the tribunal, refuses to bow down.  He does not beg for a lawyer.  He does not offer pathetic, chauvinistic attacks against his victimized accuser.  He does not beg for mercy.

Instead, the accused ex-boyfriend claims that the charge against him cannot possibly be true.  The reality, he says, is that during the time he was dating his accuser, his gender identity was feminine.  Not only was his gender identity feminine, it was also lesbian — and to the extent his appearance on campus was externally masculine, he behaved that way because he had discovered that he had much greater sexual success as a lesbian (with sexual success defined as encounters with other women) when those same women believed he was a man.  He knew, however, at all relevant times, that he was a lesbian having sex with the woman now hiding behind a screen and accusing him of the heteronormative crime of rape.

Not only does the accused ex-lesbian boyfriend deny the charges against him, he counterattacks.

Read the whole thing.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Teacher seduced student at Disneyland, police say.

A former substitute teacher at a Los Angeles-area high school was set to be arraigned on Wednesday on charges of molesting and having sex with several young boys, officials said.

Michelle Yeh, 28, was charged with eight felony counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, oral copulation and lewd acts on two boys under the age of 16, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement.

Remember, male teachers are rare because people fear they will be sexual predators.

ASHE SCHOW: Another sad reason to be skeptical of brutal campus sexual assault allegations.

One of the more damaging and lasting effects of the Rolling Stone gang-rape debacle was that allegations of brutal campus sexual assaults would be less likely to be believed.

The accuser in that story, Jackie, painted a picture of an assault so brutal as to challenge the imagination. She claimed she had been gang-raped on broken glass and punched in the face, and that the experience left her covered in blood and bruises and cuts.

Given her own description, it was difficult to believe that anyone who saw her in such a state would have suggested she not report such a hideous and obvious crime. It became impossible to believe that a man responsible for orchestrating such an attack would shortly afterward say he had a “good time.”

The same issues plagued Emma Sulkowicz at Columbia University, who claimed that during an otherwise consensual sexual encounter, a man who had never before shown violent tendencies suddenly punched her, choked her and raped her as she fought back. The accused student, Paul Nungesser, invited Sulkowicz to a party two days after this alleged attack — hinting that if the allegations are true, he must be a real sociopath. . . .

The problem here is that these two frightening stories of brutal rape are not what they appear to be. In the case of Jackie, no evidence exists she even had sex the night of her alleged attack, or that her alleged attacker ever existed. For Sulkowicz, the sex actually occurred, but there is no evidence to suggest it was the violent encounter she described.

The idea that a woman would wait months after an obvious, brutal attack, and that her friends wouldn’t notice or care about her injuries, strains credulity.

And now another accusation appears to follow suit. A woman using the pseudonym Jane Doe is suing Virginia Wesleyan College for allegedly failing to prevent her rape or respond properly to her report after the fact.

Women do lie about rape. That’s not the PC line, but it’s become abundantly clear that it’s the case.

ASHE SCHOW: How ’emotional reasoning’ informs current campus sexual assault hysteria:

The notion that one’s negative feelings reflect reality is permeating our college campuses when it comes to free speech and sexual assault.

In an informative article for the Atlantic, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt tackle “The Coddling of the American Mind” — specifically how “microagressions” and “trigger warnings” are leading to mental health problems on college campuses.

While discussing the reality distortions identified by cognitive behavioral therapy, Lukianoff and Haidt invoke the concept of “emotional reasoning,” defined by adjunct psychiatric professor David D. Burns as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” The distortion is also defined by other cognitive therapy experts as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.”

Internet commenters might recognize this as “the feelz.” Although Lukianoff and Haidt restrict their explanation of “emotional reasoning” to college speech codes, it also applies to the way campus sexual assault is now treated.

As Lukianoff and Haidt point out, “subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong.” This is the case for some sexual assault accusations, where feelings of regret in the weeks, months or even years after an encounter suddenly feel like evidence that another person committed a heinous crime.

We saw this in the case of John Doe at Washington & Lee University. John’s accuser attended a presentation by the school’s Title IX officer Lauren Kozak, who asserted that “regret equals rape.” This truly dangerous idea is an emerging concept being supported by various individuals, including herself.

The idea that feelings, developed over time and after the intervention of college administrators or therapists, have been shaping attitudes toward sexual assault with devastating consequences. Even one of the top advisers to colleges on the issue, Brett Sokolow, acknowledged that sometimes accusers “genuinely believe they have been assaulted, despite overwhelming proof that it did not happen.”

It’s always like that in a witch hunt.

THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLING: Campus Rape Expert Who Misrepresented His Work Faces Powerful New Criticism. “Dr. Mary Koss—a scientist, feminist, and acclaimed expert on the subject of campus sexual assault—says the psychologist who popularized the serial predator theory of student-on-student violence has misrepresented his research for years.”

I’m beginning to lose faith in the social science community.


The McMartin preschool case is the most famous example of the child abuse hysteria that swept across the nation three decades ago, and it is the focus of Richard Beck’s ambitious and meticulously researched new book, We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s. But it is not the only case, or even the most bizarre one, that Beck describes. In Kern County, a working-class area in central California, a couple was convicted of “selling their children for sex in area motels and abusing them while the children hung from hooks in the ceiling,” and other children “claimed their abusers wore black robes and brandished inverted crosses.” A Texas prosecutor said at trial that children were abused by a group of men “dressed as monsters and werewolves.” The panic was a national phenomenon, with communities descending into witch-hunt style investigations from Washington to Minnesota to Massachusetts.

Beck, an editor of the avant-garde literary journal n+1, is an able historian and a clear writer. His thorough analysis of media reports, police records and court transcripts successfully brings this nightmarish cultural episode to life. The book is a devastating indictment of the earnest but irresponsible detectives and psychologists who effectively projected their own fantasies into young children’s imaginations over the course of extended interrogations, and of overzealous prosecutors—including such high-profile figures as Janet Reno and Martha Coakley—who put innocent people in prison.

But We Believe The Children is not only, or even primarily, a work of history. It is first and foremost a sophisticated culture war polemic. Woven throughout Beck’s measured, journalistic accounts of the investigations and prosecutions is a radical political argument—an all-out attack on “the patriarchal nuclear family,” an institution that he sees as having no function whatsoever except to suppress individual freedom. It is the “patriarchal nuclear family,” Beck insists, that is the real cause of child sexual abuse. The heroes in his narrative are the radical feminists who sought to dismantle the family in the 1960s and 1970s. And the villains are the Reagan-era social conservatives who sought to stem its decline. According to Beck, these reactionaries created the 1980s hysteria by terrifying parents into thinking that alternative social arrangements would put their children in peril. . . .

There is something quite strange about Beck’s casual association, over and over again, of “the patriarchal nuclear family” with child abuse. As W. Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson have pointed out, the data show that children living with their married biological parents are an order of magnitude less likely to be abused—sexually or otherwise—than children living in other social arrangements. Children are more likely to be abused by someone they live with than by a stranger, but stepfathers and men cohabitating with the child’s mother are among the most frequent perpetrators. One can debate the extent to which poverty factors into these statistics—poor children are more likely to live with single parents or step-parents—but there is no dispute that children living in the “patriarchal nuclear family” that Beck so despises are least likely to be harmed at the hands of their guardians. So Beck is standing more on ideological than empirical footing when he insists that the weakening of the family as a social institution from the 1960s onward was an unalloyed good, and that the conservative campaign to shore up the family is born purely out of fear, bigotry, and reaction. But that is his view, and he is certainly not the only person on the cultural left to see things that way. . . .

The large-scale feminist complicity with the hysteria would seem to undermine the notion that it was an anti-feminist enterprise. But Beck claims that the panicky, censorious, victim-oriented feminism that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s was merely a byproduct of the period’s conservative revival. Conservative arguments about sex had “gained so much momentum,” he writes, “that even some feminists joined in, arguing that the liberalization of sex had gone too far and produced not freedom but anarchy, danger, pornography, victimization and psychological trauma.” It might be the case that this type of feminism (as opposed to the more libertarian, sex-positive, 1960s version) was merely a projection of the culturally conservative mood of the 1980s, but it seems unlikely—not least because social conservatism today is weaker than it has ever been before, and yet what might be called “MacKinnon feminism” is as strong as ever, especially on college campuses.

One wonders if Beck deliberately chose to publish this book in the midst of the national outcry over campus rape in order to draw implicit parallels between the 1980s hysteria and what is taking place today.

Well, that’s certainly a parallel.

LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: Rogue drones a growing nuisance across the U.S.

Rogue drone operators are rapidly becoming a national nuisance, invading sensitive airspace and private property — with the regulators of the nation’s skies largely powerless to stop them.

In recent days, drones have smuggled drugs into an Ohio prison, smashed against a Cincinnati skyscraper, impeded efforts to fight wildfires in California and nearly collided with three airliners over New York City.

Earlier this summer, a runaway two-pound drone struck a woman at a gay pride parade in Seattle, knocking her unconscious. In Albuquerque, a drone buzzed into a crowd at an outdoor festival, injuring a bystander. In Tampa, a drone reportedly stalked a woman outside a downtown bar before crashing into her car.

The altercations are the byproduct of the latest consumer craze: cheap, easy-to-fly, remotely piloted aircraft. Even basic models can soar thousands of feet high and come equipped with powerful video cameras — capabilities that would have been hard to foresee just a few years ago.

Well, maybe the government has been setting a bad example.

CLINTON FEEDS OFF MEGYN KELLY’S “WAR ON WOMEN” QUESTION: Hillary Clinton has unsurprisingly begun to capitalize on the “war on women” narrative amplified by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly during the GOP presidential debate. Kelly reignited the narrative with the following question posed to Donald Trump:

Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.

You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” . . .

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

Afterwards, Trump amped up the rhetoric and made matters worse when he told a CNN host,”You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”

It was utterly predictable that Clinton would eventually capitalize on this #waronwomen opening, and today she did so, according to the Daily Caller:

At a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Monday Hillary Clinton slammed Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Fox News host Megyn Kelly as “outrageous” but said that other Republican men running for president have made equally “offensive” remarks. . . .

“But I think if we focus on that we are making a mistake,” Clinton said of Trump’s remarks. “What a lot of the men on that stage and that debate said was offensive.”

“When one of their major candidates, a much younger man, a senator from Florida, says there should be no exceptions for rape and incest, that is as offensive and as troubling a comment as you can hear from a major candidate running for the presidency.”

So Clinton is equating Trump’s crude comment directed at a woman with Rubio’s substantive position on abortion? Nice move. Because, you know, those Republican men “offend” women by supporting human life. And while a recent Gallup poll shows that a slim majority of women presently self-identify as “pro-choice,” longitudinal polling has shown that women’s views shift, with pro-choice versus pro-life majorities altering from year to year. Presumably, according to Clinton, women who hold a pro-life position are “offending” women?

I’m no fan of Trump’s post-debate comments about Kelly. It wasn’t “presidential,” and it was unnecessary. But his initial response to Kelly’s debate query was fundamentally correct, that he (and the country) doesn’t “have time for total political correctness.” And Kelly is a professional woman in a high profile position, and she can certainly handle some insults. She has appropriately said that she is a “big girl” and can “take it.

The thing that bothers me most about the Kelly-Trump exchange is that Hillary Clinton is now going to accept the invitation–issued by Kelly–to reopen and amplify the “Republicans hate women” narrative. In an overt attempt to bring down Trump a notch or two, Kelly’s query has reignited Hillary Clinton’s key campaign issue.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Woman Arrested for 1st Degree Child Rape. “The Kennewick Police Department said they received information on August 4th that 44-year-old Dawn Preston has repeatedly sexually abused a child in Kennewick. Preston denied the allegation of rape but confessed to inappropriately touching the child victim from 2014 to the present. Preston was booked into Benton County Jail for Rape of a Child in the first degree.”

FLASHBACK: Clinton accused of 1978 hotel rape:

Juanita Broaddrick, who now runs a nursing-home business in Arkansas, told the Wall Street Journal that Mr Clinton raped her in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock in 1978, when he was the state attorney-general.

The newspaper reports that Mr Clinton persuaded Mrs Broaddrick to have coffee with him in her hotel room during a conference of nursing home administrators in 1978. She alleges that he then forced her on to the bed, where he held her down, bit her lips and raped her.

When it was over, Mrs Broaddrick claims, Mr Clinton told her that she should not worry because he was sterile due to a bout of childhood mumps.

Mrs Broaddrick is not directly quoted in the Journal’s account of the alleged rape but in response to Mr Clinton’s sterility claim she said: “As though that was the thing on my mind – I wasn’t thinking about pregnancy or about anything. I felt paralysed and was starting to cry.”

She added: “This is the part that always stays in my mind – the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said ‘You better put some ice on that’. Then he left.”

Norma Rogers, a friend of Mrs Broaddrick, told the Journal that she found the alleged victim in a state of shock. In reported speech, she is said to have alleged that Mrs Broaddrick’s lips were discoloured and swollen to twice their normal size and the crotch of her tights was torn.

“She just stayed on the bed and kept repeating ‘I can’t believe what happened’,” Mrs Rogers said.

Since it looks like the Dems are rolling out that whole “War on Women” theme again.

ASHE SCHOW: Huffington Post smears fraternities, laments bills pushing for campus due process.

The media backlash against a pair of campus sexual assault bills that would protect due process rights for accused students continues with the Huffington Post’s Tyler Kingkade.

Kingkade uses his article to smear fraternities as pushing “bills to limit college rape investigation,” the implication being that they don’t want crimes investigated. The article’s subhead reads: “In some circumstances, colleges would be forbidden from expelling a student for sexual assault.”

Those “circumstances” include not punishing a student based on the quasi-legal system set up by Title IX and the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter. Under those policies, due process rights are thrown out the window and the colleges are incentivized to find students responsible on the flimsiest of evidence — sometimes solely on the word of the accuser.

Sexual assault, as Kingkade acknowledges, is a crime, but currently schools and advocates are treating it as a disciplinary matter no different than cheating or plagiarism. The North-American Interfraternity Conference and the National Panhellenic Conference (Kingkade conveniently leaves sororities out of the headline) are supporting bills that make sure crimes are handled by the criminal justice system. . . .

Avoiding the legal system in favor of campus kangaroo courts and star chambers doesn’t help accusers. An accused student can at most be expelled, free to prey on non-students or even the accuser if she steps foot off campus. But going through the legal system can get a rapist off the streets. If sexual assault is a violent crime, shouldn’t we want violent felons off the street?

That’s precisely what the fraternity and sorority groups want, according to Kevin O’Neill, a lobbyist for the groups.

“Our position has always been that if you commit a crime of violence against a student, we think the first stop should be the police station, not the dean’s office,” O’Neill told the Washington Examiner.

It’s not about protecting students. It’s about demonizing men as a group, while empowering campus bureaucrats.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Married police dispatcher, 40, ‘had long-term sexual relationship with son’s 11-year-old friend.’ “Police are also looking into whether there are other victims. Chandler was an avid supporter of local little league baseball sports, according to Florida Today.”


It’s all over the wires: Puerto Rico has defaulted on its $58 million payment to creditors of its Public Finance Corporation, which was due by the end of day. San Juan’s treasury only managed to scrape together some $628,000 towards the total. The government had tried to argue that the PFC bonds were of a different category—and had a different legal status—than general obligation debt. Credit rating agencies rejected the argument. “Moody’s views this event as a default”, Moody’s analyst Emily Raimes said in a statement, according to Reuters. “This is a first in what we believe will be broad defaults on commonwealth debt.”

What now? A whole lot of mess, more than likely.

That’s what happens when you run out of other people’s money.

TAMARA TABO: 3 Lies That Linger Even After Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Story Was Debunked.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Woman allegedly lures 11-year-old boy on Xbox.

AS WELL THEY SHOULD BE: Questions raised on role White House played in UVA rape hoax.

MEGAN MCARDLE ON those bogus campus rape studies:

Back then, the assumption was that most campus rape was caused by a bad culture — that men were committing rape because they’d been raised to understand that women who placed themselves in certain situations were “asking for it.” In the years since then, however, that assumption has been shifting. Now the focus is on serial predators, men who may be enabled by a culture that shames victims of sexual violence, and fails to do enough to protect them, but are very different from the majority of men who realize that rape is not really all right if she showed up at your fraternity party in a short skirt.

One of the major foundations of this shift in focus is a 2002 study by David Lisak, which has been widely cited in support of the emerging model of campus rape as a crime committed by serial predators who will perpetuate a cycle of violence unless stopped. This has major consequences for how you address the problem. If the issue is that most boys don’t understand a woman’s right to say no right up until the end, then what you need is a lot of education, combined with punishment of those who don’t get the message. If the problem is a small number of repeat offenders, then what you need is not so much education as much as better methods to identify and neutralize them.

Unfortunately, a new article in Reason magazine suggests that this foundation is much shakier than most people working on this issue — myself included — may have assumed. . . .

In short, Lisak’s 2002 study is not a systematic survey of rape on campus; it is pooled data from surveys of people who happen to have been near a commuter campus on days when the surveys were being collected.

Before I go any further, let me note that I’m not saying that what these men did was not bad, or does not deserve to be punished. But if LeFauve is right, this study is basically worthless for shaping campus policies designed to stop rape.

Nope. But it provided an excuse for people who want to turn college campuses into man-hating sexual police states. And that was the goal.

MAKE ‘EM PAY. U.Va. Grads Sue Rolling Stone Over Retracted Rape Article. “Court documents show that three University of Virginia graduates and members of a fraternity profiled in a debunked account of a gang rape in a retracted Rolling Stone magazine story are suing the publication and the article’s author. The three graduates filed suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York. They are also suing Rolling Stone’s publisher, Wenner Media. A lawyer for the men said they suffered ‘vicious and hurtful attacks’ because of the inaccuracies in the November 2014 article, which was written by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely.”

The complaint is here. The Southern District of New York, where this was filed, tends to be especially friendly to libel defendants.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): “A 41-year-old woman accused last week of inappropriate sexual conduct with a 15-year-old male via Facebook was back in front of a judge Monday facing an additional charge in the case. Kathi Linn Pederson was charged with attempted witness tampering for calling the boy’s home at about 3 a.m. Friday, less than 24 hours after her first court appearance.”

ASHE SCHOW: No more campus sexual assault legislation, begs national group of college administrators.

Colleges don’t need any more sexual assault laws or policies, says Kevin Kruger, president of NASPA — Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

I would only disagree in that legislation might be needed to guarantee basic due process rights to students who are accused — sadly, the current campus culture ignores such constitutional rights.

Kruger, in an op-ed for the Washington Post, has taken issue with the notion that colleges were not previously taking campus sexual assault seriously.

“Advancing half-truths and twisting statistics for political gain does nothing to prevent incidents of sexual assault, help victims or make campuses stronger,” Kruger wrote. “Public and private college and university administrators, advocates and other experts are working together proactively and students are safer now than they have ever been.” . . .

Kruger added that multiple laws on the books for campus sexual assault are creating confusion. New York, which recently passed a “yes means yes” consent policy, now has three different definitions of consent.

That alone is a due process violation. Related: How an Influential Campus Rape Study Skewed the Debate: Widely cited study relies on surveys that don’t actually have anything to do with on-campus sexual assaults.

President Obama’s January 2014 memo announcing the creation of a White House task force to address campus sexual assault repeatedly cites Lisak. His research provides evidence of the notion that “campus rapists are often serial predators” who perpetrate a “cycle of violence” unless stopped, according to the memo.

The 2002 Lisak study that supposedly makes that case—”Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists”—is fundamental to the activist campaign to reduce campus rape. But despite the study’s prominence, its assertions about the serial nature of campus rapists are dubiously sourced, according to a thorough investigation conducted by Reason contributor Linda LeFauve.

The study pooled data from four separate surveys of interpersonal violence that were conducted at the University of Massachusetts-Boston during the ‘90s, at which time Lisak was employed as an associate professor. Lisak’s study had a total sample size of 1,882 men, 120 of whom gave responses in the surveys indicating that they were predators. Of the 120 rapists, 76 were judged to be repeat offenders, leading to the oft-cited claim that the majority of campus sexual assault is the work of serial predators who remain “undetected,” i.e., are never convicted for their crimes.

The claim suffers when scrutinized. For reasons left unclear, the four surveys that contributed data are never actually identified in the study. In fact, Lisak struggled to recall which ones he used when asked about them during the course of a telephone interview with LeFauve. When LeFauve suggested to him that the data in question came from his doctoral students’ dissertations and masters’ theses, he agreed that this was “probably” the case.

I spoke with James Hopper, one of Lisak’s former students at UMass-Boston, who confirmed that the survey data he conducted for his own dissertation was included in the 2002 study. He also identified several other students as near-certain contributors via their masters’ theses and dissertations.

What’s remarkable about these surveys is that they don’t actually have anything to do with campus sexual assault (aside from the location where they were conducted). . . . This is quite the revelation: The canonical text of the campus sexual assault crisis is filled with data repurposed from academic papers that never intended to survey campus violence in the first place.

Sounds bogus to me. But Kirsten Gillibrand et al. are happy to use it to ruin lives.


And while happy talk (some of which I’ve indulged in myself) may dismiss Trump as this year’s flash-in-the-pan like the 2012 Republican also-rans, right now he’s more likely a version of Ross Perot in 1992 — the man who got Bill Clinton elected. Perot managed to convince people he was only in it to talk about the deficit and the national debt when it was probably more the case he was running out of a long-standing personal animus toward George H.W. Bush and a desire to deny him the presidency based on an imagined slight. Trump doesn’t even have a real issue to bring in Democrats and Republicans dissatisfied with their choices. Trump is Trump’s issue.

These are unhappy times in the United States, and unhappy times generate unhappy political outcomes. Last week I made the case for despair following the Iran deal. I know people always want commentary that offers a path forward, a way out of trouble, a hope for something better. Sometimes, though, you just have to sit back and despair at the condition of things, and maybe from the despair some new wisdom may emerge.

Despair? You’re soaking in it: “Twitter to get much worse [today] with Daily Beast’s story of Donald Trump rape allegation.”

I wonder who dialed up the hit piece on Trump?

ASHE SCHOW: Columbia student accused of rape amends lawsuit to include ‘the mattress attends graduation’.

Former Columbia University student Paul Nungesser, who was accused of being a “serial rapist” by mattress-toter Emma Sulkowicz, has amended his lawsuit to include his graduation ceremony, where Sulkowicz carried her mattress across the stage.

The amended complaint, filed on Tuesday, includes a section titled “The mattress attends graduation,” and describes how Columbia allowed Sulkowicz to continue her harassment campaign against him through graduation, where she carried her art project, a mattress, across the stage.

“In the weeks and months before graduation, Paul reached out repeatedly to Columbia administrators, requesting detailed information regarding whether Defendant Columbia would allow Emma to carry the mattress at the graduation ceremony,” the lawsuit says. “Despite repeated requests, Defendant Columbia refused to provide him with any information.”

The night before graduation, university administrators sent an email informing students they could not bring “large objects which could interfere with the proceedings or create discomfort to others in close, crowded spaces shared by thousands of people.” Despite Sulkowicz’s mattress clearly falling into that category, she did in fact carry her mattress during the ceremony.

It’s a hostile environment for male students. And it was intended to be so.


I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed him out of science fiction fandom.

It’s a sad story.

LIFE IN OBAMA’S AMERICA: Slut-Shaming The Military:

In the wake of the massacre in Chattanooga, Tenn., Defense Secretary Ash Carter approved a series of “immediate force-protection steps” designed to protect service members. One of those steps was to ask recruiters not to wear their uniforms in public.

Regular readers (all two of you; I’m being generous) will recognize this attempt to “protect” people by telling them what not to wear as “slut-shaming” or “victim-blaming.” At least, that’s what it’s called when the protection is meant for young women on college campuses.

In this case, soldiers are being told not to wear their uniforms because it may make them targets of another shooting. College women used to be told not to wear skimpy clothes to avoid being raped.

The obvious difference here is that a military uniform clearly identifies someone as a member of the military, whereas a short skirt doesn’t identify someone as wanting to have sex. In both instances, however, an authority figure is at least in part blaming the victim for the crime perpetrated against them.

Where are the protests?

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): San Pedro Teacher, 28, Suspected of Sexual Abuse of 15-Year-Old Student. “Michelle Yeh was on a temporary teaching assignment at the San Pedro school’s science department in February, according to a news release from the Los Angeles Police Department. At the end of the 2015 school year, she ‘reached out to the victim and arranged private meetings,’ the release stated. The alleged victim, who was one of Yeh’s students, disclosed in July that he was sexually abused by Yeh on multiple occasions, according to police. It was not immediately clear if the boy or his family went to police, or how LAPD learned of the allegations.”

ASHE SCHOW: Ever had drunk sex? That’s rape, according to this university.

Have you ever had sex after consuming alcohol (any amount)? If so, then you’re a rapist – or rape victim, depending on your sex.

Coastal Carolina University, in South Carolina, is continuing its apparent quest to become the biggest panderer to the extreme wing of the campus sexual assault crusaders with a new poster claiming that only sober people can consent to sex.

Nearly a decade ago, the same university hung up posters around campus claiming that women could not consent if they had been drinking, heavily implying that men could. That poster was discovered after an old coworker of mine sent me a photo of it on Twitter.

The poster claims that while Jake and Josie were both drunk, only Josie was unable to consent, making Jake an automatic rapist. “A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime,” the poster read.

Forget the fact that an “intoxicated” man should also be unable to consent, this poster implies that women are weak, unable to handle themselves when drinking and therefore need additional protections. By this same logic, a woman who is caught driving while drunk should be innocent because hey, she’s a woman, she shouldn’t be responsible for the things she does after drinking alcohol.

Women are obviously too weak for college. They should be kept at home under parental supervision, until they’re old enough to be married off and placed under a husband’s control.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE! (CONT’D): Married female teacher, 32, accused of having sex with 15-year-old girl is re-arrested after she ‘tried to contact the victim.’

ONE ENTERED THE CITY LIKE A GOD; ONE SCUTTLES IN NOW LIKE A RAT: A beautiful photographic look back at the original Penn Station, demolished in the early 1960s.

As to the confluence of mid-century socialism that led to both its destruction, and its rat-trap sub-Miesian replacement, I explored that a few years ago at Ed, with a little help from Don Draper.

WAIT, I KEEP HEARING THAT FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RAPE NEVER HAPPEN: Man wrongly accused of rape finally released from prison.

Mark Weiner wanted to do a good deed by giving a young woman who was walking alone at night a ride home. Unfortunately for Weiner, that young woman was looking to get sympathy from a man she was dating. So as Weiner drove her home, the woman, Chelsea Steiniger, texted her boyfriend, Michael Mills, claiming she had been abducted for sexual purposes.

Steiniger alleged that within a span of 28 minutes, Weiner “tried to get in my pants,” wouldn’t let her out of the car at her mother’s house and then took control of her phone to send threatening texts to Steiniger’s boyfriend. In one of those messages allegedly sent by Weiner, he told Mills: “[S]hes [sic] in my house she said she was cold so IMMa [sic] warm her up.”

Weiner was a 52-year-old manager at the local Food Lion, perhaps not the type of person one would expect to text “IMMa” to someone.

Steiniger would later testify that Weiner drove past her mother’s house, incapacitated her with a chemical-soaked rag and took her to a rural property to rape her. She claimed she had escaped by jumping off a second-floor balcony, hiding in the woods and walking two miles to her mother’s house. At no time did she call the police.

Mills did call the police, who tried to contact Steiniger, But she had turned off her phone after checking her voicemail. Police then went to Steiniger’s home. She answered the door looking exactly like someone who had not just jumped out a window and trekked through the woods.

Despite this, Weiner was arrested. The prosecutor for the case, Denise Lunsford, didn’t turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Lunsford had spoken to two cops who said cell phone records indicated that Steiniger’s phone pinged two towers near her mother’s house but none near the house she was allegedly taken to by Weiner. Lunsford declined to allow the policemen to testify and didn’t notify the defense of their evidence.

As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick noted, no physical evidence tied Weiner to the rural house or Steiniger’s phone. Weiner was convicted based solely on Steiniger’s testimony and was sent to prison.

This is why “believe the women” is a lousy foundation for a legal system. And Denise Lunsford should lose her job for this travesty.

ROBBY SOAVE: Coastal Carolina University Thinks All Drunk Sex Is Rape: Requires Sobriety, Enthusiasm. “Colleges don’t understand consent.”

I hate the discrimination against Dionysexuals.

IF YOU LOVE DATA AND WORDS, the following job description may be of interest and perhaps we should talk. Contact [email protected]

Must be able to do both summary statistics and deep-dive analyses using Excel, Access or other software programs to analyze large official databases such as FEC contributions, FBI Uniform Crime Reports data and CMS Excluded Doctors in search of news at the Daily Caller News Foundation. Should also be able to scrape/clean/reformat documents and datasets, and be comfortable graphically communicating data-driven stories using D3 or Tableau. Knowledge of national politics and recent history required. BIG plus for candidates with web programming capabilities. Salary commensurate with experience.

HOSTILE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT: Student Expelled for Rape Has Evidence He Was the Victim. Amherst Refuses to Review It.

ASHE SCHOW: University updates policy stating that students with disabilities cannot consent to sex.

Until late last Thursday, Armstrong State University’s sexual misconduct policy stated that students with disabilities couldn’t consent to sexual activity, making any such activity rape.

The policy had been in effect since Sep. 8, 2014, but on Thursday — following questions from the Washington Examiner — the university updated its policy, calling the original wording an error.

Original policy: “In addition, persons under the age of 16 and persons who have a physical and/or mental impairment are unable to give consent.”

Updated policy: “In addition, persons under the age of 16 and persons who have a physical or mental impairment and are unable to communicate are unable to give consent.” (Changes in bold.) . . .

The original policy indicated that physically disabled students — including those who were fully able to participate in college classes — were unable ever to consent to sexual activity, an absurd notion.

The original policy was first brought to light by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Samantha Harris in a tweet.

Thankfully the policy has been changed, so students with disabilities attending the university for the upcoming school year will not be treated differently.

Could have been an ADA suit. I wonder how many other universities are similarly vulnerable?

MORE ON THE UVA DEBACLE: Rolling Stone responds to lawsuit by university dean defamed in article.

Perhaps even more chilling is the fact that Rolling Stone editors cut important disclosures from the final article. Disclosures like the fact that the sociopathic statement from one of Jackie’s friends about not wanting to participate in the article due to fraternity loyalty actually came from Jackie. Erdely had written that section to make it clear that she had not spoken to the friend and that Jackie had told her that’s what he said. Her editors reworded the section to make it seem as though Rolling Stone had actually spoken to him.

There’s also the fact that Erdely claimed she had doubts about the veracity of the story shortly after it was published, but continued to appear on news programs claiming it was accurate.

Eramo alleged in her lawsuit that the statements made about her were not the result of an innocent mistake. “They were the result of a wanton journalist who was more concerned with writing an article that fulfilled her preconceived narrative about the victimization of women on American college campuses, and a malicious publisher who was more concerned about selling magazines to boost the economic bottom line for its faltering magazine, than they were about discovering the truth or actual facts,” Eramo’s lawsuit states.

Among the claims in the Rolling Stone article was a quote from Eramo calling the university that employs her a “rape school.”

Eramo’s attorney, Libby Locke, responded to Rolling Stone in a statement to the Washington Post.

“It is unfortunate, however, that Rolling Stone continues to deny wrongdoing and seeks to avoid all responsibility for their malicious and reckless journalism that has caused Dean Eramo and the entire U.Va. community so much harm,” she said.

Part of that denial of wrongdoing comes from the fact that neither Erdely nor her editors nor the fact-checkers have been fired, or even reprimanded publicly, for their involvement.

This suggests that Rolling Stone doesn’t want them talking.

HMM: Rolling Stone Argues University of Virginia Vouched for Discredited Rape Story.

But maybe most provocative is the letter’s discussion of a woman named Emily Renda. Who’s she?

Here’s how the Columbia School of Journalism report opened:

“Last July 8, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, telephoned Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show ‘what it’s like to be on campus now … where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture,’ according to Erdely’s notes of the conversation.”

And now here’s how the Rolling Stone letter to Eramo puts what happened:

“Ms. Erdely did not stumble on Jackie’s story. She was directed to Jackie by Emily Renda, then working closely with Dean Eramo in the Student Affairs office the — same Emily Renda that included Jackie’s account of being ‘gang-raped’ in her Congressional testimony about campus sexual-assault policies. There is no question that both the author and Rolling Stone had full faith in Jackie’s credibility and the accuracy of its Article at the time of publication. In no small measure, Rolling Stone believed in the credibility of Jackie’s story because it came with the imprimatur of UVA, and of Dean Eramo specifically.”

The boldface is in the letter. The publication is essentially arguing that Eramo vouched for the credibility of its main source. And this is potentially important because the letter states “at bottom, any libel inquiry turns on what Rolling Stone knew and believed at the time of publication” and a footnote in the letter also says that Eramo is “unquestionably a public figure.”

Rolling Stone is also asserting in its Answer yesterday that the statements published weren’t made with “actual malice” — the standard if Eramo is deemed a public figure — besides challenging plaintiff’s harm amid other typical defenses.

It’s also worth noting Renda’s reaction once the story came out and was retracted.

Read the whole thing, and note that Renda was the link between UVA, Rolling Stone, and the Obama White House’s college-sex-prohibition operation.

ASHE SCHOW: Lessons from the California court ruling campus sex assault hearing ‘unfair.’

The California ruling will most certainly be cited by lawyers for accused students in the future because it was the first time that a judge has declared that the process used to find a student responsible was “unfair.” Pressman ruled that the accused student wasn’t able to defend himself through meaningful cross-examination, as the questions he wanted to ask had to be approved by the hearing chair. Most of the accused students weren’t asked, even those dealing with relevant information like how the accuser acted after the alleged rape. When a question was asked, the accused student was given no opportunity to follow-up.

It is an issue that is prevalent across the U.S. when it comes to campus sexual assault hearings. Accused students are afforded extremely limited due process rights. This makes a mockery of the justice system. Students must pay for their own lawyers – if they’re even allowed to have one. The lawyer, if allowed to be present, cannot speak on the student’s behalf. Witnesses and evidence are disallowed on the whims of hearing panels set up by the university’s Title IX office, which is supposed to act as a victim’s advocate. Guilt, it seems, is assumed from the start.

So yes, Pressman’s ruling will be used to guide further discussion of campus sexual assault adjudication, as it should be. Colleges and universities need to read his ruling and see how fundamentally unfair it is to eviscerate due process for the purposes of appeasing political interests.

Indeed they do.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO LIE ABOUT RAPE (CONT’D): When Prosecutors Believe the Unbelievable: A man is finally freed, but that doesn’t mean the system worked.

Three years ago, one of the strangest criminal cases in recent memory began in Charlottesville, Virginia, where I live, when a young woman sent a series of text messages telling her boyfriend that a man had abducted her, followed by a series of texts, allegedly from her captor, taunting her boyfriend with threats of sexual violence. Her story was strange, and the case was fraught with complications from the get-go, but the accused ended up in prison long after the doubts outweighed the evidence.

This story is bizarre, but it’s not all that unusual: Prosecutors can prosecute even the weakest, most clearly flawed cases relentlessly, and innocent people can end up in jail.

This week, after two and a half years in prison, Mark Weiner saw his conviction vacated. It finally ended a saga in which Weiner was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to eight years in jail on charges of abducting a woman with the intent to sexually harm her. . . .

The Albemarle County prosecutor, who is elected to the post, is currently Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Lunsford. As part of her prosecution strategy, Weiner’s trial lawyer later said, Lunsford “sought the advice of two respected detectives in the city and the county” to pinpoint where the alleged victim’s text messages had originated. Each cop concluded independently that the texts had been sent from near where Steiniger’s mother lived. Lunsford interviewed the first officer for the first time at the courthouse, just before he was scheduled to testify. He told the prosecutor he’d guess the calls came from Steiniger’s mother’s house, not the abandoned property.

Some prosecutors would call that sort of thing exculpatory information that must legally be turned over to the defense. Lunsford thanked the officer for stopping by and said she would no longer be needing his testimony after all. (This officer would later call the defense attorney and tell him what had transpired.) The second law enforcement officer offered up the same conclusion. He didn’t get to testify, either.

Railroading people on bogus rape charges seems to be a Charlottesville specialty.

UPDATE: “Isn’t Mark Weiner’s experience exactly what Obama seeks to impose on college campuses?” Yes. Believe the women!

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO RAPE (CONT’D): Mother charged in daughter’s alleged rape by stepdad.

The mother of a woman who says her stepfather and mother abused her for years was indicted for rape in Accomack County.

Ruth Ann Johnson, 58, of Sulpher, La., was arrested June 26 after an Accomack County grand jury indicted her June 1 on charges of rape, indecent liberties and child endangerment in connection with incidents dating to the summer of 1986.

The indictment names Johnson as an accessory before the fact in sexual crimes allegedly committed by her then-husband, Khalil Mohammed Muslimani, against her daughter, who was under age 13 at the time. . . . Spione, who said she was impregnated by Muslimani at age 11 and later gave birth to four children fathered by him, said she continues to be treated for post-traumatic stress disorder as result of the alleged abuse, which started when she was 4.

Muslimani, 68, of Onancock, Va., also was indicted in June on a total of seven counts of rape, forcible sodomy, carnal knowledge and child endangerment in cases involving Spione and another underage victim. He was arrested June 30 and remains in jail without bond.


IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THEY’RE LESS RARE THAN MANY CLAIM: Ashe Schow: Even if false rape reports are rare, they shouldn’t be ignored.

Whenever a high-profile account of alleged campus sexual assault comes crashing down – such as Rolling Stone’s gang-rape accusation – activists predictably fall back on the claim that only 2 percent of rape accusations are false.

This isn’t accurate. First, the 2 percent figure refers to false reports made to the police. Making a false police report carries a penalty, which exists to deter people from doing so (although sometimes that penalty isn’t enforced, such as with the Duke Lacrosse rape hoaxer). No such penalty exists on college campuses. (Indeed, even the accuser in the Rolling Stone article, though proven to have lied, did not face any punishment from the school.)

Not having that penalty is meant to make accusers feel more comfortable coming forward, although it’s difficult to see how being punished for lying would make truthful victims fearful. Regardless, a lack of consequences makes it easier for student accusers to come forward and punish fellow students who may have hurt them or with whom they had a previous regretted encounter that has come to be seen as assault. . . .

So what does this all mean? Francis Walker, who runs an exceptional blog taking down statistics such as the MAD study, has done the math. He found that from all the statistics listed above, just 7.8 percent of rape reports in the MAD study could be classified as true.

“From this we can see that 39.1% of the cases end in either a guilty verdict or a guilty plea. Multiplying that by the 20% of police cases that result in arrest, we are left with the 7.8% I used at the start of my first post,” Walker wrote. “Even this isn’t a good number to use though. If a confession that a report is false isn’t enough to classify the report as false, then the corollary is that a guilty plea isn’t enough to classify a case as true. After all, it would not be difficut [sic] to imagine a scenario where, for any number of reasons, someone pleads guilty to a crime that they didn’t commit. 20% x 5.9% leaves us with a ‘true’ rate of just 1.2%. Even if we decide to be generous and include not just the 20% arrested, but also the 17.9% exceptionally cleared, the number still only goes up to 2.2%.”

From all of this one could determine that 15.6 of reports could reliably be determined as false, another 17.9 percent weren’t actually crimes and just 1.2 percent (or 2.2 percent) could be reliably determined as true. The remainder would fall into a “we’ll never know for sure” category.

Perhaps only 2 percent of rape reports are false. That doesn’t necessarily mean that 98 percent are true. But assuming that is the case, one can’t possibly know which category a report falls into until after a proper investigation (which would include due process). And to pretend that false reports don’t happen just because they are rare minimizes the impact such reports have on those falsely accused.

And beyond all of this, none of this data can be applied to reports of campus sexual assault. There is no data available on the number of campus sexual assault accusations that turn out to be false, as it hasn’t been studied. And again, without a penalty associated with false police reports, false accusations made to campus administrators are likely to increase.

People behave differently when there are consequences, and when there are not.

ASHE SCHOW: Due process for campus sexual assault is not a left/right issue.

The fight over campus sexual assault and due process has somehow devolved into a Republican vs. Democrat issue. The most vocal supporters of draconian sexual assault policies are Democrats like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. There are several prominent Republicans on a Senate bill to curb sexual assault, but none have made a name for themselves as a proponent.

Meanwhile, the print and online commentary voices defending due process rights for the accused have been mostly right-leaning. The only television voice on the issue of due process has been Fox News.

There have been exceptions to this, but unfortunately, the issue has become a way for political opponents to score points against each other. Those who favor due process are accused by liberals of being “rape apologists,” while those who favor the accusers are excoriated by right-leaning media.

That sentiment has muddied the issue. Due process used to be deeply important to liberals. Toughness on crime was more commonly associated with Republicans. Now the tables have turned and it makes no sense.

Due process should concern everyone. So should sexual assault.

Related: Police officer brags about circumventing due process in sexual assault cases.

YES. NEXT QUESTION? Vanity Fair: The Troubling Question in the French Jewish Community: Is It Time to Leave? If you’re a Jew, and you’re wondering if it’s time to leave, then it’s probably past time. “Last December, Créteil endured the brutal case of a 19-year-old woman whose apartment, which she shared with her boyfriend, was broken into. One of her assailants allegedly said, ‘You must have cash here because you are Jews.’ They then gang-raped her.”

IT’S NOT FUNNY, AND YOU MUST AGREE: Robert George explains the latest progressive/liberal/totalitarian temper tantrum over humor they don’t like by comedian Amy Schumer:

The UK Guardian went after the native New Yorker’s “blind spot on race” last month, citing standup jokes like, “Nothing works 100 percent of the time, except Mexicans,” and “I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual.”

It reached a fever pitch Tuesday. In The Washington Post, Stacey Patton and David Leonard called Schumer a racist on par with Donald Trump. They closed with this haymaker:

“While black families are burying their dead, churches are burning, black women church pastors are receiving death threats and the KKK is planning rallies in South Carolina, Schumer is ‘playing’ with race. While Latinos are being deported in record numbers, while ‘80 percent of Central American girls and women crossing Mexico en route to the United States are raped,’ while children are languishing in camps in the Southwest, Schumer has got jokes, and only white America is laughing.”

Isn’t that just a bit . . . dramatic?

Why yes, yet it is dramatic. But this objection is coming from the same delicate snowflakes who incessantly search for  “micro” aggressions, require explicit consent before kissing, and need “safe spaces” to complain that everyone else is a bigoted hater.  As I noted yesterday, this is not authoritarianism, it’s totalitarianism, and they won’t be happy with just stopping practices they deem offensive. No, they want you to agree with them.  As George Orwell put it in 1984,“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.” 


The “tough on crime” posture is going out of style, even on the right, except when the crime in question is rape. Advocates complain that it is too hard to lock up predators. And so, according to Judith Shulevitz, the American Law Institute, an influential, invitation-only body that publishes model codes and other suggestions for legal reforms, has been considering how we could make the law harsher.

Here is a hypothetical that some concerned members of the group have raised:

Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).

Okay, we can all agree that this is nutty. But as Shulevitz goes on to point out, this is what happens when you combine two principles designed to make it easier to prosecute sexual assault: affirmative consent and “enlarged definition of criminal sexual contact that would include the touching of any body part, clothed or unclothed, with sexual gratification in mind.” The result is that “if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal.”

Defenders of the thinking behind this proposal might say no prosecutor is going to bring such a silly case, but that’s the opposite of comforting. Who would pass a law intended to be unenforced in almost every case? It’s eerily totalitarian: a sort of blanket mandate convenient for targeting undesirables and threatening suspects.

And that’s the other thing. It’s about empowering the administrative class at the expense of everyone else. Tar and feathers is an appropriate remedy for this kind of “empowerment.”