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.