When ‘Yes Means Yes': Assembly Passes Campus Sexual-Assault Bill

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2014-08-26 14:01

Article here. Excerpt:

'California is on the brink of becoming the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses.

A bill doing so, SB967, passed the Assembly on a 52-16 vote Monday as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. It now heads back to the Senate for what is expected to be a final vote on amendments.

The bill by state Sen. Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, changes the definition of consent for campuses investigating sexual assault cases by requiring “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity. That marks a shift from the popular sexual-assault prevention refrain, “no means no.”
...
“This bill goes so far past what is acceptable for government to regulate,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, a former vice president of marketing at California State University, Stanislaus. “It will just become another one of the many laws in California that always lead to litigation.”
...
“Frequently these cases involve two individuals, both of whom maybe were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and it can be very tricky to ascertain whether consent was obtained,” Meloy told The Associated Press earlier this month.

SB967 also requires colleges and universities to adopt “victim-centered” sexual-assault response policies and implement comprehensive programs to prevent assault.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If they're *that* concerned about drugs/alcohol as a factor (which seems they are), a bill making all campuses in CA dry would make a lot more sense. Also, actually enforcing drug laws in CA on college campuses would be a good next step. Anyone caught w/ alcohol on campus gets immediately tossed off campus if 21+ yrs. old, and underage offenders are charged w/ unlawful possession *and* thrown out of college. As for illicit drugs, anyone caught gets charged and thrown out of college. Simple enough -- unless you're scared of losing current or future students since w/out the promise of being able to drink underage w/out their parents around, a lousy employment market even for college grads, and never-ending college loan payments, potential students may well wonder why should they go to college. Fewer students naturally translates into less revenue, and oodles of it.

So it's just easier and much less costly to create a litigious feeding frenzy for the CA Bar Assn. members who are short on clients these days while going with the misandrist flow. After all, no one ever lost betting that ppl would go with misandry when given the option not to. It's also easier to get allegations of sex crimes on campuses diverted from public scrutiny/diverted from the courts since it's bad PR for the colleges, whether the allegations are genuine or not. Using pariah groups as fall guys (in this case, it's literally guys, college guys) is expedient and, they think, the least costly.

For now, anyway.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2014-08-27 13:11

I wonder how often a woman makes sure she has consent of any kind before having sex, let alone making sure she has "affirmative consent." I doubt any women will make much of an effort to gain consent; if he's apparently willing to have sex, then she's not going to make sure it's unambiguous.

That might be a surprise for for a gal who dumps a guy, only to discover he's vindictive and charges her with sexual assault because he never gave affirmative consent. Women have done similar things. But, of course, we know DAs will never make their bones prosecuting women for rape. And this law was passed to put more men in jail by re-defining consent.

I wonder if the local hardware store sells an "enthusiasm" meter to measure how enthusiastic the consent is.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Wed, 2014-08-27 22:05