Is UMass-Amherst Biased Against Male Students In Title IX Assault Cases?

Submitted by charlie on Sat, 2014-09-06 13:41

Article here. Something that you don't see very often: a story that actually tells the point of view of men without demonizing them. Excerpt:

'The University of Massachusetts at Amherst was one of the first of 55 institutes of higher education declared to be under investigation for Title IX violations over the way it handled sexual violence and assault. As a result, its ability to protect victims has been under intense scrutiny. However, two lawsuits against the university filed by male students who were expelled for misconduct—one for sexual, the other physical—alleged that the school struggles just as much to deliver justice for the accused.
...
In many ways, the trial reveals how men and women are judged differently when it comes to the mixing of sex and alcohol. This is an issue that is not limited to UMass. “I think in a lot of cases, there are gender stereotypes of who should be responsible for drunk interactions involving students engaging in sex, and it always falls on the male,” Kimberly Lau, who is also one of the attorneys for John Doe, tells The Daily Beast. “It's persecuting the male students and allowing females to escape scrutiny for voluntarily ingesting alcohol, as well.”
...
The fact that both male and female parties are violating the law and potentially impairing their ability to communicate and read others' intentions is the elephant in the room when it comes to alcohol and sexual consent. It is rarely considered that female students bear a level of responsibility, as well, in part because it is so controversial (the storm surrounding Emily Yoffe's column on drinking's association with sexual assault was infamously denounced across the web as pure and simple victim-blaming). But claiming alcohol exempts one party from giving consent, but does not excuse another from misinterpreting consent can create a problematic double standard.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

since I've been here on earth, to be fair and balanced when it comes to physical violence (men/women). guys are pretty much always the default bad guy. the larger male is the guilty party, game over. same w/ false accusations. men bad. women don't lie, and not for a thousand crazy reasons.

I found myself agreeing w/ whoopie g. the other day. don't tell. she was a lone voice among the gals on 'the view' in defending guys who get assaulted by women and just immediately reacts to it. she said that women/girls need to be taught to not hit guys. ya think?

wow. what a concept. so hard for some to comprehend, sadly. I see where they oft refuse to believe women are usually the initial aggressor. you can see that on any baby daddy show. its almost always the big gal who jumps on the guy.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Sun, 2014-09-07 01:36

The comments of the other women reveal what most--or a lot--of women think.

They think it's perfectly okay for a woman to hit a man and never okay for a man to hit her back. Always okay for the woman to hit, never okay for the man to hit back. Even if the woman comes at the man with a knife, the man is supposed to take it. Rihanna went after Chris Brown with stiletto heels while he was driving and the only bad thing was he hit her back.

In a cynical moment, I once wrote that the purpose of the DV movement was to make it okay for women to hit and physically men but make it not okay for men to ever a woman. Turns out I was right. Women can do whatever they want. Men have no right to hit back, even in self-defense.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sun, 2014-09-07 13:54