'California's new “Yes means Yes” law is insulting'

Wow, what a complete whackadoodle! Just looking at items 1 and 2, consider how item 1 ends: "Burdensome criminal laws should never be used on campus." Indeed! Burdensome criminal laws like those prohibiting murder, extortion, armed robbery, etc., ought to be unenforceable on college campuses. Indeed! Well, to be fair, even giving her the benefit of the doubt, let's say she intended to suggest that burdensome levels of proof as req'd (supposedly) at crim. trial ought not be the standard when considering student conduct violations. Most ppl know that in the US, there are typically 2 levels of proof law courts recognize. In civil cases, preponderance (i.e., any amt. of certainty greater than 50%). In criminal, it's certainty beyond reasonable doubt (i.e., no other rational explanation for how a given crime could've been committed, and that indeed, a crime was committed). I wonder if anyone stopped to think that since the campus admins. are now being asked to act like judge, jury, and punisher, but are not actually members of the US judicial or executive branches, that a totally new standard of proof could be applied; say, they must be 2/3 certain, or 80% certain someone did something to violate campus conduct rules around that terribly difficult, unthinkable topic known as undergrads getting loaded and scrogging.

Well, as most MANN regulars know, I'm against having college admins, profs, and hand-picked students decide the guilt or innocence of anyone wherein the conduct they are accused of fits the def'n of a criminal offense. Conduct rules that don't, well, in principle, campus administrations can prohibit or allow all manner of behaviors. They can institute dress codes, declare the campus to be dry, etc. Their power to do so arises from the fact that they are the agents of the owners of the property on which the students live and go to class, not from the fact they are college admins as such, since for all students aged 18 and over, they no longer act in place of the parents (legally speaking). Next question is though, for those campus rules allowing/prohibiting behavior that isn't defined as such under the law, are they enforcing them uniformly w/out regard to students' nationality (exc. as req'd by law), sex, ethnicity, etc. (again, exc. as req'd by law). If not, the college is violating the infamous Title IX and probably a cpl other laws.

By going after only male students with even those rules, they violate Title IX. But maybe the issue here is that male students aren't filing the kinds of complaints that female ones are because they don't have the rather silly idea in their heads that just b/c you were drunk and had sex w/ a girl who, if sober, you'd never had, that such constitutes a sexual assault on you. But maybe as a form of protest, male students across Cali's campuses ought to start doing so. Each male pick a female he doesn't even know, and file a complaint vs. her. Flood the colleges' student affairs (or whatever) offices w/ complaints. Demand their "assailants" be summarily punished. If a hearing is req'd, the guys can avail themselves of the right to not even be present but to have an advocate there in their place. If the schools refuse to comply, the guys ought to hire lawyers and sue the pants off them.

Turnabout's fair play.

As for the whole "unwelcome" thing, again, such a std has always implied an ability to read another's mind. The only way one can know something's unwelcome is to be told, esp. in cases where physical contact has started in the context of affectionate intimacy. In ordinary contexts, ppl have the common-law right to inquire and to initiate civil communication. W/out this right, anyone asking for the time of day from a stranger could be accused of harassment, right? The right of inquiry stands until the inquired party asserts the reciprocal and equally-important common law right to be left alone. So the right of inquiry is checked by the other right. If person A starts yammering at person B, B can tell A to leave them alone, and for any reason. If A doesn't do so, B has the right to withdraw from A's company, or to ask for assistance from the police, etc. What the "unwelcome" std does is give B the right to find A's even civil communication to them to be the basis of a criminal complaint or in this case, a campus conduct code violation. It relieves person B of any duty to express a desire to be left alone. If B never wants A to talk or communicate with them, B can state that and if A doesn't comply, then B has a case. But as long as a judgment of "unwelcomeness" can be passed at any time, no one is safe from arbitrary complaints vs. them for even such offenses as asking someone to a movie.

As with item 1, I say, if college men want to make a point, they can do with 2 what they can with 1. Get organized and get complaining. :)

Yes. Orientation, day one, in CA unis. will see female students given "binders full of men" they can just turn around and send in to the campus conduct code complaint dept. (or whatever) and *presto*, no more pesky men!

American feminists: One step (leap, more like it) toward their goal of creating women-only but nonetheless, "officially" co-ed, institutions of higher learning. It starts in Cali and will, they hope, spread from there.

'Tis always been their goal to eradicate men from collegiate education, and they're on their way, by hook or by crook, any means necessary.