The “rape culture” hysteria hyped by feminist fanatics keeps producing new atrocities at elite universities. I was frankly shocked when I learned the truth about Emma Sulkowicz’s vendetta against Paul Nungesser at Columbia. She accused him of rape six months after their last hook-up, without a scintilla of evidence, and when the university refused to expel Nungesser on her mere say-so, Sulkowicz then turned her accusation into a protest for which she received class credit.
This is part of a climate of fear fostered by feminists who have deliberately exaggerated the frequency of rape on campus using statistics derived from surveys of dubious methodology which, if taken at face value, would lead us to believe that male college students are more likely to commit rape than are other men. In other words, feminists are suggesting that the “best and brightest” males at elite schools are more dangerous than any common street thug.
Under pressure from the federal Department of Education, schools are moving to abolish due-process protections for accused students. The University of Pennsylvania’s new policy is under fire:
Law professors at the University of Pennsylvania are not happy about the university’s new sexual assault policies, which they say undermine due process.
Nearly one-third (16 out of 49 tenure or tenure-track professors) signed a letter to school administrators denouncing the new policy, which institutionalizes the low “preponderance of evidence” standard for sexual assault allegations and disallows cross-examination of the accuser.
“Due process of law is not window dressing; it is the distillation of centuries of experience, and we ignore the lessons of history at our own peril,” the faculty members wrote. “All too often, outrage at heinous crimes becomes a justification for shortcuts in our adjudicatory processes. These actions are unwise and contradict our principles.” . .
The new UPenn policy, unlike many universities across the country, does allow students to obtain legal counsel, although the lawyers cannot speak on their client’s behalf. The policy also prohibits cross-examination of accusers and their witnesses, one of the biggest biases against accused students.
The professors argue that threats from the federal government to curb funding if schools don’t adequately punish accused students provides quite an incentive for hearing panels to find students guilty. Recent findings from the Department of Education show an administration more concerned with looking tough on sexual assault than a fair hearing.
“Sexual assault is indeed an important problem, but the federal government has dictated a set of policies and twisted universities’ arms into compromising some of the safeguards that we teach our students are essential to fairness,” UPenn professor Stephanos Bibas, who signed the letter, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “There is a tremendous amount of money on the line. It is understandable that universities feel pressure to comply.”
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Will freshman orientation now include a Miranda warning? It should. The Sulkowicz Scenario — a vindictive ex-girlfriend making a rape accusation without evidence — is a nightmare that is likely to become more common before the current witch-hunt subsides. Accused students should remember they have the right to remain silent. Don’t try to talk your way out of it. Admit nothing. Deny nothing. Make no statement of any kind. Lawyer up immediately: “I have the right to have my attorney present during questioning.” And once you’ve vindicated yourself, sue the hell out of the university for violating your civil rights with their Stalinist “show trial” disciplinary procedures.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.