USC Student Acquitted of Rape; May Still Face Campus Discipline

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last week, after reviewing evidence from security footage, a California judge dropped charges against University of Southern California (USC) student Armaan Premjee, 20, after finding that his female accuser was the party that initiated the sexual encounter.

However, under USC’s Title IX, Premjee could still face campus discipline because the woman he slept with was inebriated and did not give formal verbal consent.

USC’s rules state, “Consent must be affirmative. ‘Affirmative consent’ means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is positive cooperation in act and attitude made with knowledge and agreement to the nature of the act.” It adds, “It is the responsibility of each person involved to ensure they have the affirmative consent of the other(s) to engage in sexual activity. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.”
Premjee told the New York Times that he did not know about the politics of the issue, but that he would likely support DeVos’s position in favor of reform: “The key issue here is evidence. In most sexual assault cases, there’s not video evidence like there was in my case. Innocent men are put in prison for that, or are punished, or kicked out of school.”'

Like0 Dislike0


... that the current campus ideology is aimed fully at getting men pushed out of higher education, review a previous story here on MANN discussing just why the case was tossed out of court.

Now see that the uni has not disclosed the girl's name but the boy's is all over the place. Next, any person with 2 brain cells to rub together can see the girl was very much into getting nekkid with the boy. Finally, note that USC's policy is written to state that each *person* must have affirmative consnt from the other. AND YET, it's the boy who is still in trouble. Questions:

1. Why isn't the girl facing criminal charges around filing a false report?
2. Why isn't the girl facing the disciplinary process at USC, and not the boy?

MRAs already know the answer to the above two questions. It's an old song.

Not sure, BTW, but in this case the boy appears to be a foreign student. One reason I think so is he states he was unaware of the politics of "the issue", something the typical domestic US male student is painfully aware of. Not sure exactly where he may be from, but if after he can get out of this nightmare he's been tossed into (hopefully he can), I would not blame him if he packed his bags and went home. Possibly one reason the girl chose him to be her victim was indeed, being from someplace else, he would not know the danger he was in from going home with a contemporary US college female. Thus he was an easy target for her.

If there was a mutual fund for men's colleges, I'd buy into it now. Something tells me such colleges are going to do well in future.

Like0 Dislike0