Wives who refuse to have sex with their husbands are blameless

Below is a shocking example of how women pin the blame on men for their own failures. While we at WFM in no way condone this husband’s behavior—making an Excel spreadsheet for all the reasons his wife turned him down for sex, which then went viral on the Internet—the response on the HuffPo is totally predictable. The author clearly implies the husband is lacking in some way, otherwise the wife would want to have sex with him.

The truth is women are running themselves ragged and have no time and energy left for their husbands. Women DO require more when it comes to sex—they can’t turn it on and off as easily as men can. So that leaves women with two choices: they can either slow down and make the health of their marriages a priority, or they can get comfortable with quickies. 

To suggest men are selfish Neanderthals, as this post does, is NOT an answer.

An Excel spreadsheet might be the last thing that anybody would expect to go viral on the Internet, but when a man used one recently to document all the reasons his wife didn’t want to have sex with him, that’s exactly what happened.

Sex? ...or sex not. A spreadsheet

The woman, justifiably annoyed by the spreadsheet (which her husband emailed her before she left on a business trip), posted it to Reddit — and the responses poured in. While the original post has been removed, people have continued to offer their commentary. The wife later posted this comment in response to critics:

Our sex life HAS tapered in the last few months, but isn’t that allowed? We are adults leading busy, stressful lives. I cook for him, I do his laundry, I keep our house clean and tidy. It’s not like our sex life was going to be this way FOREVER, it was a temporary slow-down due to extenuating circumstances.

The entire incident highlights an oft-accepted and rarely questioned cultural narrative that tells us men want to have sex more than women. But if women were enjoying sex with their partner, wouldn’t they be more eager to have it? Why would they need an excuse in the first place?

The truth might lie in a concept known among sex researchers as “the orgasm gap,” which explores the unequal distribution of orgasms between men and women. It’s highlighted in many studies, including a survey of American adults that concluded that men have three times as many orgasms as women.

This would be easy to explain away by saying that men’s bodies are more wired for sex and orgasms, but research on sexuality shows us that when women have sex with other women, their rate of having an orgasm is equal to that of heterosexual men. And the myth that women take more time to orgasm than men is also a socially constructed fallacy — studies show that when women masturbate, they take roughly the same amount of time as men to climax.

Roughly 75 percent of women can never reach orgasm from penetrative sex alone, according to an ABC News report.

With this in mind, men with grievances about the lack of sex in their relationship might find the real problem staring back at them in the mirror. The real solution might be to focus more on their partner’s pleasure and less on their own.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

New forum for college students harmed by false allegations of sexual misconduct

The letter below is from the Carolinas chapter of the National Coalition for Men.


We are delighted to announce the launching of The Sojouner discussion group site. We wish to thank the National Coalition For Men Carolinas  (www.ncfmcarolinas.comfor their assistance and guidance in helping us to develop this new group site. The Sojouner is a forum for college students (and their families) harmed by false allegations of sexual misconduct to meet and talk with other persons that share their experience.

We know your pain and want you to know that you are not alone. This forum is designed to be a safe harbor to express yourself. However, be forewarned that we will not tolerate and will remove obscenity, personal attacks or any other malicious postings.

If you wish to become a member of this group, please email us at: thesojourner@yahoogroups.comWe are here for you and wish you healing, comfort and wellness on your journey.

Please feel free to forward this email to any person or persons that could benefit from joining this important online community.

Best regards,


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Superb, short description of feminism

The following post is from a relatively new group called Women Against Feminism, which currently has 10K members. I wish I could attribute it to the actual writer, but it’s unclear as to who that person is. Regardless, I wholeheartedly support this new endeavor and am very impressed with this excellent description of why no woman today should identify with feminism. 

Okay, I have never written something like this before because I don’t think “anti-feminism” is some kind of rigid ideology, creed, religion, or doctrine, even a real “ism.” I think it’s just an umbrella term for people who think there is something seriously wrong with the actions of people acting in the name of “feminism.” I use the term simply because it means “against feminism,” and I am against feminism for the following reasons:

  • Equal rights exist right now: Feminists are the only people who lose their minds with rage when you tell them that women already have the same exact rights as men. That’s not good enough. They want more. They desperately want to be victims. They want a privileged social position.
  • Censorship: Feminism is about censorship. Feminists are the most vocal promoters of censorship of First Amendment Rights, hands down. Just look at how they react to Facebook comments, Twitter speech, and here on Tumblr. They also promote censorship campaigns against opinions in the media, on blogs, and on YouTube. They promote inequality of speech.
  • Helpless Victim Cult: Feminism promotes the idea that women are fragile damsels-in-distress who must be rescued by an external entity (the state/patriarchy) in order to be protected from having their feelings hurt by words that they disagree with. Feminism encourages women to think in terms of weakness.
  • Inequality: Contrary to what it claims with a dictionary definition, Feminism is not about equality in practice. Did you hear that part?… in practice. Based on its overall actions, it is about socially engineering society to give special privileges to women and special punishments to men. That’s not equality. That’s not respecting genders. Once again, I don’t give a crap about your dictionary definition. It’s the actions that turned me against feminism. The actions don’t match the rhetoric.
  • Discriminatory: The very name “feminism” is discriminatory. The “fem” refers specifically to women. It can never refer to men. To say that only through women can equal rights be claimed is like saying that only through black people can people have rights.
  • Patriarchy Fantasy: There is no “Patriarchy” because a real patriarchy would not allow women to vote, divorce, go to college, have a career, live single, get abortions, etc. If this is a patriarchy, then it’s a pathetic patriarchy and attacking it is like attacking a little boy as if he were a man.
  • Gender roles…only for men: Feminists claim to be against gender roles, but I see feminists doing nothing about men’s gender roles when it comes to working the hardest, most dangerous jobs in society. They seem perfectly okay with men being the majority of the homeless on the street. They don’t want to look at the bottom of society where they will find lots of men (along with women), thus ruining their “patriarchy” fantasy and their claims to victimhood (and stuff for free).
  • Equal pay is here… but it’s your choice: The “equal pay” claim is bogus and has been debunked. Any “average” differences in pay can be shown to come down to different choices in careers that have different earnings. The easiest way for women to “narrow the pay gap” is to train for engineering, computer science, and science-based career fields (the highest paying careers around). But they would rather complain. In fact, new research shows women are out-earning men in cities.
  • Elitism: Feminists are elitists. They are preoccupied with elite men: CEOs, millionaires, Senators, etc. But the majority of men will never have elite status. So, feminists are out of touch with the daily reality of the vast majority of men.
  • Hypocrites: Feminists preach against slut-shaming only to march in the streets calling themselves sluts. They scream against “objectification” but then objectify men for their abs, looks, money, and status. They claim to be for equal rights, but they only advocate for one gender. They claim to be for “choice” but they are constantly policing other women and telling what is “okay for women to do”.
  • Policing other women: A lot of feminists seem to think they have been appointed the Women Police who can then go around shaming other women for the things that are “not okay”. Makeup, shaving, wearing pink, and more are all “crimes against feminism” and punishable by social attacks. Nearly every online feminist seems to be a petty dictator marching around and telling women what “true feminism” is.
  • Rape culture fantasy: Since Feminism is all about playing the persecuted, weak, helpless victim, feminists have promoted the fantasy that we live a culture that “teaches men to rape”. But nowhere is rape taught as acceptable.Rape is illegal and is seen as a crime by most people in society. Feminists confuse dominance and submission themes as rape. Only rape is rape. Posing in a picture for perfume is not rape.
  • Inflated rape statistics: Feminists love to “cite” that “1-in-4 women are raped” during her lifetime. This is a misreading of the statistic. The real statistic is that “1-in-4 women claims sexual assault”, which can mean anything a women wants it to mean when she reports it. It can mean rape, touching, kissing, groping, or even lewd comments. “Sexual assault” can be a very broad category. But feminists only select the most shocking aspect (rape) and then claim that is the definition.
  • Abortion as “empowerment”: This opinion is unpopular, but I don’t agree that I need to have my baby scraped out of my uterus in order to feel empowered. But the abortion industry (i.e. Planned Parenthood) makes a ton of money off this perversion of empowerment. “Abortion as empowerment”  teaches women to see their wombs as nothing but garbage bins full of disposable waste.

Okay, I could list more, but you get the point. Feminism is not what it claims to be. Anyone can recite a dictionary definition. But my rejection of feminism comes from more real-life reasons. Thank you for reading.


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

A shortage of women in certain fields does NOT mean girls are shortchanged

Christina rebuts Verizon’s Inspire Her Mind ad, which uses phony data and misleading messages to “prove” girls and women are shortchanged.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“The state is deaf to me.”

Jonathan Bornstein tells his story at A Voice for Men.

I am coming out of the closet. Yep. Like many, it took me a long time to come to peace with it, years of soul-searching and introspection. But now I have come out to myself and to the world, and I feel like a weight has been taken off my chest. I am a men’s rights activist.

Growing up in the cradle of western feminism, the Upper West Side of New York City, and attending enlightened and well-funded public schools (where as kids we labored over the guilt-inducing importance of the failed Equal Rights Amendment), I was raised to be a feminist. A full-blown—male—feminist.

While I never advocated a policy of feminism, I am indeed the product of it. A complete product of it. I had brilliant female teachers who advocated feminism. I shared co-ed classrooms with brilliant young girls whom I admired, whose intelligence I wished I could emulate.

We wrote papers on the first female Supreme Court Jurist, Sandra Day O’Connor. While Dad turned me on to the Yankees, Mom took me to the ballet and exposed me to her interests: The Met, Lincoln Center, refined stuff, etc. Mom worked; she was an accomplished full-time educator raising two boys along with my father in our nuclear family. Our synagogues were egalitarian.

Never was I exposed to any messages that specifically reduced women or girls. That was just philistine! Any suggestion that women were on their own merits inferior to men would have been met with rejection and ridicule. Looking back on this indoctrination now, I see a lot of mixed messages.

See, radical feminism exploits the natural confidence of young boys. It seizes boys’ engrained disposition that girls are separate and it guilts them. Yes, girls are separate from boys, aren’t they? Us boys are taught from a young age that girls are indeed separate. We are taught to be gentle with girls, not rough-house with them, to treat them as ladies, to defer to their feelings, to please them.

Young boys are taught to exalt girls. Boys are the dirty ones who ride bikes and fight over a touchdown. Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice. Then, BAM! We enter adolescence and we are told that girls are oppressed, sidelined, overlook, victimized by some boogie-man patriarchy. What the hell just happened? First I was trained to separate and elevate them, to regard them as fully equals. Now they are ringing the bell of cosmic victimization. Did I miss something?

I finally became acquainted with radical feminist policy when my role as a father was legally shattered. Enter adultery by my wife, followed by an allegation of invisible domestic violence. Jon’s life, over. No proof of a crime. Whatever one thinks of my character, (fine, I am obviously scum), let’s assume the worst of me, for argument’s sake. The crucial point is that without a shred of proof, but with complaints spoken by an admitted and exposed adulterer, my life was ruined. Where are the witnesses? The hospital record? The photos? The police reports? None to be found.

This low threshold of “proof” raises the obvious constitutional question about the role of the state. Should the state be so reactive that fathers are removed from children because of the words of a hysterical and adulterous woman who, as a person with the sudden liability of abandoning the marriage, has an interest in my removal? I cannot think of a more tragic sexist policy. And with this I was removed from my children, my home, my clothes, my heirlooms, my photos, my books. My whole life.

The state’s mobilization to remove me was the result of the Radical Feminist Legal Complex.

Look, I get it. If a dude hits his wife, charge him. Take him down. Felony. Existing statutes provide for this. But this dilemma is far more insidious. Apparently, New York operates along the thought-crime-likepremise that domestic violence need not be “violent”—a concept at war with language and reason, as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently wrote. New York entertains something called implied violence. It is absurdia infinitum. My adulterous wife conveniently claimed fear of me. This is violence to New York.

Since that day in September 2010, I have been to hell and back. Every participant in the systemic process has responded to my pleas with an apathy the likes of which I never thought could exist in a government to which I paid taxed, that once employed me, whose military I was prepared to join, whose public universities educated me. I am viewed differently now. As farm dung that fertilizes a massive—MASSIVE!—governmental process. There is an unmatched zeal “to get me”:  law enforcement, DAs, judges, court-appointed psychologists, attorneys ad litim—all shielded with immunity.

Today I have a new education to boast. I now know of VAWA, child support, orders of protection available like condoms at the health center, the Duluth model of domestic violence re-education theories, a complicit legal guild, Title IX, Title IV-D, university sexism, a consumer culture that mocks dads, prison, etc. There is an endless horizon of sexual-politics, radical-feminism policies that are reshaping every sense about manhood and fatherhood with which I was raised to see as proper and good. And took as holy. How stupid, right?

And I also learned something else: I am hated. Hated. Yes. I am hated. I get no presumption of favor—ever. The more I seek to remain a dad, the more I am told I am “angry” and thus unfit. The state is deaf to me and to what it does to me. I am also painfully alone.

I have tried to get my story out to every media outlet I can think of. I have found no support anywhere in my fight to be a father. Seems only fellow dads care about dads. Lawyers want money. Cops sneer or arrest. Legislatures are insanely politicized, as are judiciaries. Most dads’ groups are seen as “reactive” and “unfocused.” The silence of unavailable resources tortures me.

All of this is the result of a social/legal policy informed by vengeful radical feminist ideology, one that seeks to swing with a hammer than to extract with a tweezer.

Look, I am a lot of things: a loving father is paramount. The last thing I wanted is to be “that guy,” embittered and ranting about feminism. I just cannot figure out when I became such a bad guy.

So why am I now a men’s rights activist? My children. These policies keep me from them. I love them. They need me. And I need them. If this is a bad impulse, I am nothing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

New non-profit dedicated to the restoration justice on college campuses


July 15, 2014

Families Unite for Campus Due Process Rights 

Contact: Sherry Warner Seefeld                                               

Families Advocating for Campus Equality                                                                                                         

Website:  Families Advocating for Campus Equality          

Email:  facecampusequality@gmail.com

Phone:  701-491-8554

Twitter:  @FaceCampusEqual

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/familiesadvocatingforcampusequality

Fargo, ND – Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE), a newly formed not-for-profit organization dedicated to ensuring fairness and due process for all parties involved in allegations of sexual misconduct on college campuses, was officially launched today, it was announced by Sherry Warner Seefeld, president and one of the organization’s co-founders.

Organized by three mothers from around the nation whose college-student sons each suffered the ordeal of false accusation and subsequent entrapment in a web of injustice, FACE will, through education and dialogue, work to raise awareness of the challenges presented under current university hearing procedures while actively seeking, in the interest of justice, to bring about effective change in the ways campuses respond to sexual assaults.

The establishment of FACE is especially timely, particularly in light of the recent report from the White House Task Force regarding sexual misconduct on college campuses.  Regrettably, that report was silent when it came to the vital issue of the rights of the accused. The focus in Washington has been similarly lopsided, with barely a mention in Congress of those who have been victimized by a lack of fair and balanced safeguards within campus hearings.

Title IX has been a vital tool for ensuring gender equity on America’s college and university campuses. But through unsupported interpretations of Title IX regulations which were outlined in the Department of Education’s April, 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, the Obama Administration has undermined the due process rights of accused students so dramatically that a mere accusation of misconduct can  be  sufficient  to  destroy  a  young life.  Campuses across the  country have eliminated the presumption  of  innocence, lowered the burdens  of  proof, and proceeded to adjudicate accusations of serious crimes without the basic procedural safeguards which  comprise  the very Constitutional protections so fundamental to our system  of justice.

Worse still, diverting these cases from law enforcement and courts has placed adjudication in the hands of untrained, inexperienced, and often biased campus administrators who lack the forensic tools and formal structure needed to reliably make determinations of guilt or innocence. These alternate “investigations” and “hearings” have become the new and frightening norm in adjudicating sexual assault allegations, and the consequences are dire for everybody. Amateur courts deciding cases of this gravity fail both accusers and accused students, and dangerously leave actual offenders free to prey on others.

“The very real issue of rape on campus has received considerable and deserved high profile attention.  Less known, however, is the troubling epidemic of unfairness that has become the unintended consequence of this attention,” says Allison Strange, Co-Executive Director and mother of Joshua Strange, former student at Auburn University who was falsely accused and expelled without merit in 2012.  “Under the present circumstances, all too often an entirely different class of victim emerges – the unjustly accused.”

Adds FACE President, Sherry Warner Seefeld, “There now exists a warrant for the arrest of the young woman who falsely accused my son of non-consensual sex.  Her submission of false statements to police authorities and her willingness to pursue false allegations against Caleb metastasized into an absolute violation of Caleb’s due process rights, subjecting him to the procedural nightmare of a campus disciplinary hearing at the University of North Dakota that culminated in his expulsion.

It is undeniable that Caleb is a victim of his accuser’s perjurious efforts: however, he is not the only victim. For each time someone is untruthful about sexual assault, the voice of a true victim grows weak.”

FACE is committed to restoring fairness to a system which is inherently out-of-balance, a system in which the pendulum, driven by political correctness, has swung too far. “Basic fairness and due process of law are not and should not be gender-driven,” adds Judith Grossman, Co-Executive Director.  “An unjust system serves no one.”

Through its efforts, FACE will work to ensure safety and protection for all students entrusted to the care of our colleges and universities.


Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Campus Rape Crisis: “Industrial-strength feminist victimology”

From Heather McDonald at National Review.

The New York Times ran another front-page exposé this weekend of a college’s alleged indifference to rape. Its target this time was Hobart and William Smith Colleges, following a similar treatment of Columbia University in May. Hobart had acquitted three football players of raping a first-year student last year after she had drunk herself blotto at a frat party.

By now, the template for such reporting is familiar: The reporter picks at various lines of questioning by the campus assault tribunal, trying to show that the questioners were insensitive or incompetent. Innocuous changes of topic by the tribunal are seized upon as evidence of malfeasance. Inquiry into the details of the various sex acts that were performed by the accused and accuser is presented as bumbling and grotesquely intrusive, since the alleged victim deserves an almost indefeasible presumption of credibility. (In fact, the reported transcript shows the questioners making an almost painfully concerted effort to be sensitive, however awkward and inappropriate their role may be.)

And of course, the acquittal itself is prima facie, if not conclusive, evidence of a campus administration’s indifference to females. Other colleges be forewarned: Any acquittal in a campus rape proceeding risks a visit from the New York Times.

All this is standard by now. But the Times article did contain one bit of less familiar information: A picture of a Hobart-sponsored event last May called “Walk a Mile in her Shoes,” an international consciousness-raising concept in which males walk in high-heeled shoes to raise awareness of sexual assault. This institution was new to me, but Walk a Mile events seem to be overtaking Take Back the Night rallies as a locus of feminist campus organizing.

Now I have nothing against cross-dressing. But according to the Walk a Mile website, these walk-ins help “men better understand and appreciate women’s experiences.” The implication would seem to be: Just as women are victims of the patriarchy in their footwear, they are victims of the patriarchy in ubiquitous sexual assault.

The originator of Walk a Mile wanted to persuade men to “think differently about gender roles, gender relationships and gender violence.” But women choose to wear high heels because they want their legs and feet to look sexy. Nothing forces them to be sex objects; they assume the role voluntarily.

Campus rape hysteria may be industrial-strength feminist victimology, denying the possibility of females exercising personal responsibility when it comes to deliberate binge drinking and hooking-up. To the extent that “Walk a Mile” events embrace the idea that women are forced into uncomfortable “gender roles” in their footwear and elsewhere, they are a more trivial but still telling example of feminist myth-making.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Claire McCaskill Declares War on Due Process

KC Johnson writes at Minding the Campus about Claire McCaskill and the so-called campus rape crisis.

Over the past several months, Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) has emerged as the Senate’s most ferocious opponent of campus due process. One of the upper chamber’s unequivocal defenders of the Office for Civil Rights, McCaskill also attempted to browbeat the American Council of Education for representing its members, and convened several town hall sessions on campus sexual assault to which she didn’t invite defense attorneys or civil libertarians.

So it should come as little surprise that McCaskill’s report on campus sexual assault not only backs the OCR’s efforts, but also contains recommendations that go beyond even the OCR’s due process-unfriendly approach. Given McCaskill’s status as a former prosecutor, her disdain for basic fairness has to raise questions about how she handled cases in her previous career.

McCaskill’s 12-page report (with 100-plus pages of survey results) rests on the curious premise that also plagued the White House Task Force document—uncritically accepting that the colleges face an unprecedented wave of violent crime (one in five women will be sexually assaulted) while simultaneously not recommending anyincreased law enforcement presence on the nation’s campuses. Instead, McCaskill recommends increased training for campus security officials. She offers no explanation for this approach, instead making her point implicitly: it seems that because “many sexual assault survivors prefer to avoid reporting to police at all,” the senator isn’t interested in changing federal law to ensure that crimes are investigated by the people who are actually trained to investigate them. Instead, she wants an expensive (paid for, it seems, by colleges) training effort to produce security forces that would duplicate the efforts of local police.

The report’s most troubling conclusions address the campus disciplinary process. Incredibly, McCaskill claims that too many colleges have “biased or harmful sexual assault adjudication procedures”—biased, that is, against the accuser. How could she possibly reach such a conclusion?

No Jury of a Student’s Peers

According to the Missouri senator, too many schools (less than half of the total) allow students to participate in the disciplinary process. McCaskill raised two objections to such a process. First: “student participation can present privacy concerns for survivors who can be forced to divulge intimate and painful details of their experiences to peers that they live and study among.” Second: the policy creates “conflicts of interest, as students may know the survivor and/or the alleged perpetrator.”

These are odd objections. Any university disciplinary policy should have a manner of dealing with conflicts of interest, which after all can occur with faculty or administrator panelists just as easily as with student panelists. And McCaskill provides no substantiation for her assertion that “privacy concerns” would be any greater when an accusers are “forced to divulge intimate and painful details of their experiences” to a resident advisor or other administrator with whom “they live” or a professor from a department where they study.

Given the absurdity of McCaskill’s rationalizations for excluding student disciplinary panelists, what could be her actual motivation for this recommendation? A clue can be seen in the language her report uses. Discussing the status of a disciplinary panel—which occurs, keep in mind, before any adjudication—McCaskill describes the two parties: “the survivor” and the “alleged perpetrator.” But at the stage when the sexual assault is “alleged,” before any adjudication, how is there a “survivor”? Could it be that the Missouri senator, a former prosecutor, believes that all those who file allegations are automatically survivors? What happens in the event of a false allegation?

McCaskill’s recommendation, alas, appears designed to guarantee that these “survivors” receive vindication, one way or the other. Administrators and professors are subject to pro-conviction pressures that student disciplinary panelists can avoid. Administrators, who serve at the will of the school, could easily believe (or be guided to believe) that presuming guilt would serve the interests of their school, lest it receive an OCR investigation for finding too many students not culpable. Faculty panelists are drawn from a faculty disproportionately one-sided on gender-related questions. Assistant professors from humanities and some social sciences departments are particularly vulnerable: could a not-guilty vote be used against them (surreptitiously, of course) in a subsequent tenure vote?


McCaskill’s second procedure-related objection regards the need to train members of the disciplinary panels. “Institutions,” she writes, “are also failing to provide adequate training for the individuals who adjudicate sexual assault claims. This is particularly problematic because of pervasive and culturally ingrained misunderstandings of what constitutes sexual assault, such as the prevalence of acquaintance rape versus stranger rape, what constitutes consent, the type of conduct that constitutes rape, and how trauma can impact the survivor’s demeanor and memory.”

This is a remarkable, and troubling, passage. At a practical level, we’ve seen how this type of “training” works, from the few institutions where training material has leaked out. (To the best of my knowledge, no college or university has voluntarily publicized its sexual assault training materials.) At Stanford, however, panelists are told that an accused student who is “acting persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt. At Duke, as the McLeod lawsuit revealed, the training items likewise seemed designed to make the panelists inclined to find guilt.

At a theoretical level, in the criminal process jurors in sexual assault cases receive no “training”—since doing so would likely be deemed as unfair to the accused. McCaskill provides no explanation as to why special training is necessary for sexual assault in the college disciplinary process when it’s not used in the criminal process. And the subjects on which McCaskill demands “training” all seem to make it more likely that accused students would be found guilty.

Due Process

Lest there be any doubt, McCaskill spends several paragraphs all but expressing contempt for the idea of fairness for accused students. As the ACE general counsel noted, McCaskill’s document “treats the rights of the accused as an afterthought, which colleges and universities clearly cannot do.”

In the real world, campus tribunals are wildly unfair to the accused, for reasons virtually anyone who follows the issue knows (most accused students can’t use lawyers; often they can’t cross-examine the accuser; almost always they have limited discovery rights; they can be branded a rapist on a preponderance-of-evidence threshold).

McCaskill fantastically dismisses this record; in her version of reality, and “contrary to these concerns, it appears that some institutions actually afford certain due process elements more frequently to alleged perpetrators than they do to survivors.” (Note that, again, her language implies that an accuser is automatically a “survivor.”) On what does she base this highly counterintuitive claim?

The senator cites three elements: that 15% of schools have resisted OCR’s reinterpretation of Title IX to retain a “clear and convincing” standard; that an insufficient number of schools utilize group punishment (“sanctions” against fraternities or athletic teams, apparently if an accused student is a member); and “82% of schools allow alleged perpetrators to challenge hearing members regarding impartiality or conflicts of interest, while only 78% provide the same right to survivors.” (Note that, for a third time, her language implies that an accuser is automatically a “survivor.”)

At what point will members of Congress start resisting the witch hunt?

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments