Preserving The Feminist Narrative

I suppose we must call this a case of “Must protect the narrative even if it's false” by the feminist arm of the progressive movement.

In this case a piece in Ms. magazine repeats the canard that “one in five” women on college campuses are sexually assaulted on the very first line of the article. Never mind that claim is based upon very iffy data, questionable math, and an overly broad interpretation of the term. It all goes down hill from there.

While I am not trying to diminish the problem of sexual assault by any means, whether on campus or off, the colleges have gone way off the rails both in defining it and dealing with allegations of sexual assault, much of this at the behest of the Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. That letter basically gave colleges carte blanche to redefine sexual assault in ways that would take an expert in abnormal psychology to unravel (assuming they didn't give up in frustration) and to institute a hearing system that is nothing more than a kangaroo court, denying an accused offender any means of defending themselves. With no means of mounting a defense, all that's required for conviction is an allegation because the burden of proof is incredibly low. It's one of the reasons more colleges are finding themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits by 'convicts'. But that doesn't seem to bother Emily Shugerman, author of the Ms. piece.

A handful of male students are suing their universities, claiming that they were falsely accused of sexual assault and unjustly punished by their college’s judicial system. Cases have been filed against Occidental College, Columbia University, Xavier University, Duke, Vassar and more. Most colleges adjudicate sexual assault cases as they would other serious disciplinary infractions: with a trial conducted by a panel of professors and administrators. This system is meant to protect victims from the time-consuming and potentially traumatizing process of a criminal trial.

First, Ms. Shugerman doesn't see the either the danger or the hypocrisy of granting institutions that are not part of the judicial system the power to adjudicate what are in fact criminal cases. No such power can be granted to any non-governmental agency or institution, particularly by a department within the Executive Branch of government. It would take an amendment to the US Constitution and an act of Congress to do so. Then again we're dealing with an administration that has already shown its contempt of the constitution and the rule of law, so the Dear Colleague letter certainly makes sense in that regard. With the lack of due process protections in these extra-legal 'courts', is it any wonder there's a push back by a number of men convicted?

Second, Ms. Shugerman doesn't address the laughable definition of sexual assault, either because she hasn't looked into it or has chosen to ignore it. In either case, her discounting that factor weakens her argument that the colleges are taking the right course of action. The definitions can be so vague and all encompassing that a somewhat salacious invitation to go out can be considered sexual assault. Are college women really that thin skinned? Apparently so.

Third, Ms. magazine allowed one token comment with an opposing view. Others were deleted. How do I know this? It's simple, really: Mine was deleted. I have no doubt there may have been others but we'll never know because they never appeared. (Comments are moderated and don't appear until approved.) I also found that I have been banned from commenting because all of my follow up comments were never saw light of day, not even informing me whether they were waiting moderation. So much for having an open discussion. However, I did manage to save a copy of my original comment just in case it disappeared into the bit-bucket.

With the definition of sexual assault being so widely defined ("I didn't like the fact that he asked me out. It made me feel uncomfortable!") as to become meaningless, how can one possibly defend one's self against an allegation of an offense? To say there is due process when there is no means of conducting a competent investigation, no means of deposing witnesses, no means of verifying the allegations, and no right to cross-examine any witnesses or contest evidence, is at best a delusion and at worse a canard.

To say that these 'crimes' are being handled in the same fashion as other disciplinary problems on campuses is a stretch of the imagination. Under the sanction of the "Dear Colleague" letter, the only evidence the offense took place is the allegation. No proof is required. The defendant is guilty as accused. If the colleges handled it in a fashion that allowed true investigation and due process, then the 50.01% 'proof' might be enough. But since they aren't, the 'judicial' actions put forth by the colleges are nothing more than a DOE sanctioned kangaroo court. Truth need not apply.

One more thing: Why does the author insist on using the long discredited "one in five" statistic? It has been disproven more than once, the methodology being poor and the analysis so fraught with errors as to be laughable.

Maybe it was my last paragraph that doomed my comment to oblivion despite including a link that looked into that oft-quoted statistic and found it wanting.

Like any claim like that, if it's repeated again and again as if it's true, eventually becomes true, even if it is indeed a lie. Because it serves the narrative, anyone questioning its veracity is accused of sanctioning rape and being part of the “Rape Culture” so decried by radical feminists.

What a travesty. Is it any wonder there is a backlash? Is it any wonder more men are going their own way, refusing to become nothing more than a scapegoat for everything that is wrong in women's lives?