<p>No body is going to “kick out” a guy who grabs a butt passing someone in the hallway. He might get reported, he might get a lecture, he might get some sensitivity training but he’s not getting kicked out unless he’s walking around campus randomly grabbing many butts and then I would suspect he’s got some sort of mental issues and probably mumbling to himself about spaceships and probably needs to go home and get some counseling on a suspension.</p>
<p>A few dozen pages ago, while talking about the new law about sexual assault at California colleges, we had a discussion about the California penal code as it pertains to rape.</p>
<p>@JHS maintained that because the relevant California statute concerning rape defines rape as sexual intercourse “where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another,” the word “forcible” implies that the person has to resist in order for the crime to be rape. A person who just lay there, unresisting even though they were physically capable of resisting, JHS said, would not be a rape victim according to California courts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This really bugged me. Not that JHS would say such a thing, as I assumed that JHS was expressing a genuine belief, but that it might be true, that a woman in California would have had to resist in order for her rapist to be convicted of rape.</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer, and don’t have access to Westlaw. But Santa Clara County operates a free law library. A friend who is a lawyer took me there on a field trip and showed me how to use the citation system. I read the relevant cases.</p>
<p>It turns out that California law used to specifically require resistance for a rape conviction. In 1980, that requirement was removed. The Supreme Court in 1986, in People v. Barnes, concluded (I removed the citations to make the opinion easier to read): </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, whew! A woman doesn’t have to resist in order that her rapist be convicted.</p>
<p>I also checked out the law regarding the defense of mistake of consent. In this situation, the defendant would acknowledge that the victim didn’t consent, but claim that he thought she did. </p>
<p>In California, the burden of proof is on the defendant who claims he wrongly thought the victim consented. In People v. Williams (1992), the California Supreme Court wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, it’s up to the defendant to give evidence of what the victim did to make him believe she consented, and he also must show that his belief was reasonable.</p>
<p>My view, stated a while back, is that no school should be in the position of adjudicating rape at all. </p>
<p>But if it does or is forced to do so by the Feds, then it has to do full monty due process – basically everything a criminal court does. Including providing counsel at no expense, hiring an independent judge, discovery, cross-examination, appeal, etc. The whole enchilada. </p>
<p>Also no expulsion for a first time offense unless rape was proven after full monty due process. </p>
<p>The amount of due process increases as the severity of the offense/punishment increases. We handle capital murder cases a lot different than we handle civil court cases. There’s a reason for that.</p>
<p>Sure and understand that consent can take many forms. it matters not to me anyway if a college gal wears a sports bra and shorty shorts that say Juicy across the rear and that expose the butt cheeks to a party, but probably not a good idea to go to a boys room and remove said sports bra and shorty shorts after consuming 3 Coke and rums then try and claim she was raped at some point in the future. Not going to go well in a criminal case, might not go well in front of a college tribunal. Underlying all this dissection of one or another state laws, being forced or being coerced, the bottom line is consent, until it’s required to be written or videotaped or recorded is going to hinge on what came before and what came after for both parties involved. If she at 3 AM ends up locked in the suite bathroom, dialing 911 or a roommate to come rescue her, that is a world of difference than waking up weeks later and deciding she probably shouldn’t have done that and good golly she was forced into the situation. So yes, law is evolving but it still entails the story and the truth and what others might have seen or heard before, sometimes during and after. Most women are upright about their behavior. Most guys are pretty upright. But there are wackadoodles of both sexes. So my advice is if you’re a wackadoodle, make sure you got your story straight.</p>
<p>Northwesty, that’s my argument. Different cases handled differently. 
</p>
<p>I don’t think we are that far apart. </p>
<p>A kid was playing with fireworks on campus. He was suspended for a semester. If he did it again, he was out of the school. The criminal justice system was not necessary. He didn’t do it again. </p>
<p>There are reasons why a student can be kicked out of a school and the reasons don’t have to be as severe as rape. </p>
<p>And if a the kid is kicked out, I guess he could get a lawyer. </p>
<p>You danced around my question. </p>
<p>A kid grabs a butt and is put on probation. He does it again. There are witnesses. Do you have a problem if the school kicks him out? Do you want the police called?</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, Since you want to take the butt issue literally, I was talking about my butt. I don’t need you to tell me how to handle my butt. ;)</p>
<p>Actually no I don’t take the butt thing seriously at all and fortunately our current system allows you to handle it how ever you want LOL short of shooting the person or causing him great bodily harm.</p>
<p>“Are you and momrath SERIOUSLY arguing that because Matthews was NOT charged with a crime by the police, Christopher Newport and Liberty U should have permitted him to remain on campus as a student? Because, frankly, that’s the logical outcome of your arguments that we should not have separate university systems for adjudicating such allegations and should leave it all to the police.”</p>
<p>The women in those case declined to pursue prosecution. And, no I didn’t suggest any such thing anywhere and I doubt Momrath is arguing that either because it would be nuts. He was kicked out of both schools and went on to a decade of escalating crime. The part I don’t understand is the obsession with campus punishment. As for my own obsession with the case it did begin with the writer and my feeling that Jackie was totally used by an advocacy journalist. You may have guessed I’m not a fan of this particular brand of so-called reporting, But, yeah Jackie has turned out to be more interesting than expected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He will, however, be fired from his job if he does this at work, and, quite frankly, that is a good enough standard to hold our college students to in this day and age. This butt grabbing guy ought to know better and if he doesn’t, it’s really, really NOT my problem. It’s his.</p>
<p>My understanding is that only ONE of the women—the woman at Liberty–refused to press charges. If you find something to the contrary, please let me know. </p>
<p>“Matthew attended CNU from January 2003 to October 2003, and was also briefly on the football team there. He left the team five days after he was accused of sexual assault on September 7, 2003 by another student, and he left the school one month after that.“The matter was thoroughly investigated by University Police. No physical injuries were reported. The victim chose not to proceed with a criminal prosecution,” said university spokesman Bruce Bronstein.”</p>
<p>The Liberty case is more mysterious since no sex is allowed at Liberty, including consensual sex. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guilty as charged 
I am indeed male, and I have a DS in college in addition to the UVA DD and the soon to be (probably UVA) DD2. </p>
<p>I find it impossible to believe at this point any report that states a a victim “chose” not to proceed when we know full well that most young women have, up to now, been consistently advised and hindered from proceeding by both police and school administrators. Truly. </p>
<p>
I am “advocating” we all speak up (men and women) so one woman doesn’t have to all by herself.</p>
<p>I’m advocating changing the status quo so the “problem” doesn’t exist. We don’t have to accept butt grabbing as a norm. I’m a little surprised some of you don’t see that norm as a problem. Why are they still grabbing butts if strong women have been objecting when it happens?</p>
<p>adding: Is it really every women for herself (and dstark for himself) with regard to the butt grabbing? She (and dstark) are just expected to solve their individual problems? </p>
<p>Because clearly not every has the same reaction when things happen and some people are very good at signaling. I had a “huggy” male boss years ago. I don’t every want to be hugged by my boss of either sex. I don’t like to be touched and hugged in the office. He was roaming the halls going in and out of offices hugging everyone one day and stepped in my office, stopped short and flapped his hand in a wave. I hadn’t been there that long, I had never participated in a hug fest but somehow he just knew not to hug me. I think most people can fend off a butt grabber, but you are also entitled to whatever legal recourse you are afforded if you aren’t comfortable signaling disgust, or anger, or “hands off.” If that boss had tried to grab and hug me I probably would have put my hand on his chest and simply said “I don’t hug people I work with” and that probably would have taken care of it. But I’ve also been told that my persona is intimidating, i don’t think I’m intimidating, I’m just introverted, but apparently it’s something obvious so that alone could have been what stopped him. i don’t feel violated if someone touches me and I had my boob and butt grabs when I was young, but i’m perfectly capable of handling myself and I also don’t expect that every single person is going to be 'just like me." By the same token we can’t have a system that protects and takes care of only one class of people and there has to be compromise somewhere. I happen to draw the line between misdemeanor offenses or bad behavior and criminal offenses and think we can quite easily deal with them differently. </p>
<p>i feel strongly about rape and when women chose not to pursue this criminally it bothers me, but intellectually i can understand, and Poet has drummed into my head, why this happens. What bothers me is that it seems ‘acceptable’ to turn true rapists back out into society just to avoid our existing system. </p>
<p>Stark – read what I wrote.</p>
<p>No expulsion for a first time offense unless it is a rape (not sexual misconduct) proven using full due process. </p>
<p>If I were a school forced to adjudicate rape by over-reaching Feds, my policy would be that I would not adjudicate any rape allegation that was not reported to the cops.</p>
<p>You wouldn’t expel a person who removed all the clothes of an unconscious woman, fondled her and left her in the dorm hallway? You wouldn’t expel a person who broke into another student’s room, a student who had no prior relationship with this guy, and began kissing and fondling that person until he was stopped? Those two people could stay on your campus?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what if she was making it up? You do know that nearly all “so-called” rapes are actually either made up or consensual don’t you? Even with witnesses you can’t be sure that they weren’t making it up too, or that the woman didn’t really consent. And who said they had no prior relationship? Do we have proof beyond all doubt? Reliable studies have shown that 1 in 1 billion (yes, B as in billion) are actually assaulted.<insert eye=“” roll=“” here=“” and=“” disgusted,=“” sarcastic,=“” smh=“”></insert></p>
<p>How many unconscious women are lying around in dorm hallways? And, why aren’t these people locking their doors? And, no-one is saying that nearly all so-called rapes are made up and I don’t know what a so-called rape is anyway but it’s probably the grey area thing where the couple is making out and then it escalates into sex and three weeks later she labels it rape after being told by her girlfriends that if she was drunk or didn’t say yes enthusiastically she was raped. Yes, this happens. </p>
<p>Northwesty, I read your post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I brought up a second offense (a lesser offense than rape) and asked you if you were ok with a school kicking out a student who was on probation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You answered me with by talking about rape. That really doesn’t answer what I asked you.</p>
<p>Title IX makes note of harassment and discrimination, how they impact equal access to education It also includes sexual assault. Ass grabbing may, in fact, be perceived as harassment, as well as reach a level of assault, as Title IX defines that.</p>
<p>NW and others have repeatedly used the phrase, “adjudicating rape.” And, NW said that no school should be in the position of adjudicating rape at all. Some feel campus sexual assault should not be pursued by the colleges unless also reported to the police. Some call the campus actions a parallel justice system or a replacement.</p>
<p>It may not be relevant what you think. What matters is that Title IX exists as written and mandates certain procedures.</p>
<p>For every college I’ve looked at, the Code of Conduct includes sexual assault, well as the other harassment and/or discrimination issues, in line with Title IX. That’s how it is. </p>
<p>Anyone can rant (my word) about this or that, what the stats are, too high or too low, whether advocates are inflating numbers and encouraging women to report nonsense, whether some perps are serial rapists, some are just confused (or too drunk to know better,) or the impact on the accused. Or that some women do this or that, including call boys (!) or get rip roaring drunk. You can argue women should do this or shouldn’t do that. We can all point to the colleges that bungled. It goes on, ad infinitum.</p>
<p>But folks, Title IX exists as written. And the expectation is that the colleges will adhere. The colleges are adjudicating infractions of their Codes of Conduct. </p>