Professors Must Defy Feds To Protect Victims

Article here. Excerpt:

'The federal government is in desperate need of both rape and sexual harassment victims. These victims are needed in order to justify sweeping nationwide changes to the campus judiciary. These changes include holding quasi-rape trials on college campuses using a preponderance of evidence standard, instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also included in these changes is suspension of double jeopardy protection so that women can repeatedly try accused rapists until they achieve the desired result of conviction, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
...
Just how extreme are the changes in reporting practices? Here is what I’ve learned so far by questioning a couple of administrators here at UNC-Wilmington. If they are wrong about any of the following, that is problematic. (But if they are right, it’s even more problematic):

1. No student can speak to a professor in confidence about an allegation of rape or sexual harassment. The professor must report the incident to his (or her, or its) supervisor who must then forward the information to the Dean.
2. Warning students that they cannot talk to a professor about a rape or sexual harassment will not protect the alleged victim because the above rule also applies to hearsay. If the professor hears the story second-hand, or even third-hand, he must report it to his supervisor who will report it to the Dean. ...
3. Even rape and harassment claims that a professor suspects or knows to be false must be reported by the professor.
4. Even off-campus incidents must be reported. If you were raped in Alaska or sexually harassed in Russia it falls under UNC-Wilmington’s jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is called “everywhere.”
5. Incidents involving perpetrators from outside the university community must be reported to the university.
6. There is no specific statute of limitations associated with such reports.
7. All of the previous requirements apply to classroom discussions touching on rape and sexual harassment.

In other words, the federal government, which is the source of the new practices, and the university, which communicated them, both appear to have lost their collective minds. ...
...
... I am writing this brief column with my simple response:

You may both go straight to hell. If you are not religious (and therefore don’t believe in hell) then go to Cleveland, which is essentially the same thing.

I’m not complying with the law as interpreted by university officials. And I urge my fellow colleagues to do the same. If university officials are mistaken about the law then they need to correct their mistakes. If not, the law must be abolished. In short, our allegiance to the bureaucrat must always be overshadowed by our concern for the victim.'