Some thoughts on "yes means yes" and related matters.

This blog enter is inspired by an article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education on the spread of the "yes means yes" rule across higher education:
http://chronicle.com/article/When-a-State-Decides-That/231805/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

No one can seriously oppose the goal of eliminating, or at least discouraging so far as possible, sexual assault.  The campaign initiated by President Obama in a speech in June 2014, and taken up by the Department of Education, is well-intentioned.  It may even accomplish its goal.

Along the way it has created a lot of new jobs, mostly under the title of Title IX Officer.  Whether these new posts will survive the economic challenges facing higher education remains to be seen.  Ask me again in five years about this one.

The crusade has spawned some unhappy side effects, notably a growing number of lawsuits by accused males, who are subsequently either cleared of the charges or who have been found "more likely than not" responsible but who protest their innocence.

The most egregious abuse was perpetrated by Rolling Stone Magazine  against the University of Virginia and Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity.  The lawsuits that came out of that travesty will be in the courts for quite awhile, I expect.

As is so often the case,  words really do matter far more than many of us will acknowledge in this age of instant messages and texting.  Calling the accuser "the victim" creates a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused.  "Complainant" is the term that should be insisted upon in all sexual assault cases.

In my view, if an accusation rises to the level of a crime, it should be referred to the police immediately.  I maintain that colleges are ill-equipped to adjudicate these kinds of cases.  Furthermore, as noted above, the standard of "more likely than not" is a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt."  This strikes me as especially problematic when the university is a public institution, and thus a state actor subject to the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment.  

Besides the all-too-frequent use of "victim" in lieu of "complainant", this low standard of guilt prejudices the case for the accused from the onset.

And, once a panel has determined that the accused is more likely than not responsible, there is little chance that anything but "capital punishment" --- termination for an employee, or expulsion for a student--- will be the penalty, because what risk manager will take the chance of keeping the "perp" on the payroll or the student rolls?  

As for "yes means yes," it conjures up images that hardly look romantic in my mind's eye.  As a mere teenager in higher school, I was accused by a perceptive nun of being "an incurable romantic."  My wife and I had our first date nearly 50 years ago and have been together ever since.  So I guess I am a poor example and also a poor judge of what goes on in residence halls and fraternity houses today.  I can only say it saddens this unreformed and unrepentant romantic to contemplate ht impact of these laws on true love.