Abusing Men: The Other Side of the Rape Culture

Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about how there is a rape culture in American universities. Perhaps there is a significant increase in the number of rapes of women, but many people deny it. Certainly, the strong and peculiar ideology of the extreme feminists who lead the charge about this rape culture cause one to have serious doubts about the charges.

There is also, of course, another aspect of the universities efforts to combat this alleged rape culture: the denial of equality and due process to men who are charged with these rapes. Much of the discussion has focused on the preponderence of the evidence standard that the Obama Administration has been pushing on colleges. But there are other due process problems. Consider this list from KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland blog about Duke:

That “fair and just process” is one in which:

the accused student is consigned to an “advocate” who cannot speak in the hearing that will determine whether Duke brands him a rapist;

consent is vaguely defined, on grounds that “alcohol or other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and effectively given”;

a preponderance of evidence (50.01 percent) threshold is used;

the accused student cannot directly cross-examine his accuser;

the accused student only has a maximum of five days to examine the evidence that Duke has compiled against him, while he lacks the power to subpoena potentially exculpatory evidence from the accuser;

double jeopardy exists, in that the accuser can appeal a not-guilty finding;

Duke is allowed to use evidence from anonymous parties against the accused student.

Fair and just, according to Duke.

But there are other problems. Are the rules governing rape sensible and equal? I doubt it in many cases. In my next post, I will discuss one of the basic inqualities between men and women under the Duke standards.

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.  His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Comments

  1. gabe says

    This was inevitable, if somewhat long in the making.
    Starting with the EEOC / OFCCP rulemaking back in the 80′s when the burden of proof shifted from the accuser to the accused and the employer was forced to prove a negative.
    I suppose that in the Leftist fantasy land of academia, it is not constructive to uphold the presumption of guilt – it simply gets in the way of the narrative and may cause consternation during faculty lounge discussions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>