« Debate Question of the Day | Main | Rain »

April 08, 2010

Duke University Needs Your Help

I apologize for the sparse posting this week. The Princess has been incredibly busy, but also she has been under the weather most of the week so just getting through the day has been a challenge.

At any rate the smart, socially enlightened folks at Duke University need your help to capitalize on an exciting new discovery they've made with regard to sexual dynamics:

Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus.

...Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

Duke's ill considered and poorly written policy is being touted as anti-male, but certain provisions could actually work to level the playing field for young men on campus:

1. If inebriated students are judged unable to consent regardless of their level of intoxication and regardless of sex, a young man who has consumed even a single beer is just as incapable of consent as a young woman who is legally drunk.

2. If a "perceived power differential" between any two students is evidence of coercion, then isn't Mindy the popular cheerleader "coercing" young men into unwanted sex every time she wears a short skirt or revealing clothing?

3. This is great news for anyone who hated the cool kids in high school. Don't like the captain of the football team or the head cheerleader? If you can prove they had consensual sex with anyone of a lower social status, you can have them brought up on rape charges! Even if the "victim" says it was consensual!

Of course, leveling the playing field was probably the farthest thing from the minds of University officials. Reactions from The Women's Center at Duke indicate that the school may have achieved precisely the opposite of what they intended:

Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.

What I'm wondering is, how can Duke take advantage of this bold foray into sexual equality? I'm thinking a bumper sticker:

duke.jpg

Feel free to supply your own advertising slogan in the comments section.

Update: Something MikeD. said reminded me of one of my all time favorite BlameBush posts:

Andrea preferred to travel by foot, for buses were built by men, maintained by men, and driven by men. Mass transportation was nothing more than another means for men to assert their dominance over womyn. Sometimes, when she was feeling especially frisky, she enjoyed stepping onto a bus, then stepping off again, then getting back on and off repeatedly until the driver complained. "HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PENETRATED?" she'd scream at him. "HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE THE RAPED INSTEAD OF THE RAPIST?"

The bus would quietly roll away and Andrea would walk on, satisfied.

Somewhere along the way, she'd start walking backwards, simply because males expected her to always walk forwards. It was the man's way to keep a womyn docile and under control, facing the opposite direction while he whispered his insidious rapist plots behind her back. So she'd plod along backwards for a couple of blocks, knocking over pedestrians, garbage cans, and produce stands full of phallic shaped fruits and vegetables. Then she'd stop, light up a cigarette, and survey the chaos she had wrought. This is how men must feel when they rape the world, she'd think. Then once again, she'd turn around and start walking forward - not because she was expected to, but because she had empowered herself to do so.

As she approached the drug store, she'd pause to glare at the homeless man sitting on the sidewalk - the same vile animal who had brutally raped her in BROAD DAYLIGHT only two weeks earlier by holding open the door and saying "Good Morning, Ma'am". Hundreds of passers-by witnessed the violent act, heard her screams of "RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!", yet not a single one tried to stop him....

The comedic genius of Liberal Larry never gets old.

Posted by Cassandra at April 8, 2010 11:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3604

Comments

I think the lady's own words would make a good bumper sticker:

"Imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke!"

Posted by: Grim at April 8, 2010 12:28 PM

I like that!

Posted by: Cassandra at April 8, 2010 12:31 PM

Duke: producing smarter sex offenders since 1838.

Posted by: Cassandra at April 8, 2010 12:32 PM

"Duke: The Cream of the Crop."

Posted by: Grim at April 8, 2010 12:39 PM

Or we can combine them.

"Duke: Imagine the Cream of the Crop."

Posted by: Grim at April 8, 2010 12:40 PM

"Duke grads: Cream of the crop, and they know how to use one!"

Posted by: Cousin Dave at April 8, 2010 12:51 PM

Did anyone else notice this:
students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication.

So... NOT being intoxicated is still A level of intoxication. Which means all sex (according to Duke's policy) is non-consensual. Remember, the LEVEL of intoxication is irrelevant (to include that you are not intoxicated) therefore it is impossible for you to give consent.

Mind you, there are feminists out there who would agree with that statement.

Posted by: MikeD at April 8, 2010 12:52 PM

OMG, Dave. That's priceless!

therefore it is impossible for you to give consent

Bingo. But don't you *dare* interfere with their Goddess-given, autonomous right to make coerced non-decisions!!!

Posted by: Cassandra at April 8, 2010 12:58 PM

"Perceived power differentials"... hm. Perceived by whom? By the person inviting the other to consider sex? By the person consenting to sex? By a third party (say, the Women's Center), judging after the fact and without direct knowledge of what happened?

I notice that the policy itself provides several 'practical examples' to guide you. All of the examples prove to be violations of the policy.

What would it take to satisfy the policy? You get clear verbal consent, your partner clearly states that they perceive themselves to be your equal in all respects; you likewise give similar statements; perhaps in front of witnesses...

Posted by: Grim at April 8, 2010 01:10 PM

Seems to me that just told "the powerful" they can do whatever they want so long as they take a drink and make sure the other person is sober.

Effing Brilliant. Obviously, the people running Duke didn't go there.

Posted by: ¥û÷Åîñ Ģøńņăŋő at April 8, 2010 01:45 PM

Those with power are the authorities at Duke.

If they wished to stop being hypocrites, they would execute themselves or at least confess to their sex crimes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 8, 2010 02:30 PM

(In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis...

IOW, "I never said that, that's not what I think, it's 100% correct."

I'm sure what she meant to say was that she stood by her *analyst*.

Posted by: BillT at April 8, 2010 02:49 PM

As a reverent University of Maryland Alumnus, all I have to say is: Duck Fuke.

Posted by: Boquisucio at April 8, 2010 02:56 PM

afe's ginormous codpiece has competition.

Posted by: Cricket at April 8, 2010 03:10 PM

'Nuke 'em from orbit.

That's the only way to make sure you wipe them out.
******
So just who would go to such a school that has such a policy? Just axin'.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at April 8, 2010 03:26 PM

Something tells me that the basketball players are going to be exempt, at least until the end of this week. That said, since Coach K. has daughters and is an Army man, his players probably behave themselves anyway! "Gentlemen, the shotgun is not just an offensive pattern."

Why don't they just require everyone to sign a pledge of celibacy and chastity, sort of like an honor pledge? You mess around, you leave. It's plain, up-front and gender/sexuality neutral. {awaiting screams from feminists and fraternity brothers in three-two-one . . .}

Posted by: LittleRed1 at April 8, 2010 03:41 PM

Duke: Ask and we shall perceive.

Posted by: spd rdr at April 8, 2010 03:43 PM

Seems to me that just told "the powerful" they can do whatever they want so long as they take a drink and make sure the other person is sober.

Yu wins.

Posted by: MikeD at April 8, 2010 03:49 PM

Yeah, there's nothing like handing the people you suppossedly are trying to punish a "get out of jail free" card.

But Coach K, I couldn't have raped her. I was drunk so SHE RAPED ME! It's all right there in the school's policy!

Posted by: ¥û÷Åîñ Ģøńņăŋő at April 8, 2010 04:00 PM

Our name may scream "sexist oppressor"
Our students untrustworthy too
But if sin is your mission
Check out our tuition!
It's why even our devils are blue.
Goooooooooo DUKE!

Posted by: spd rdr at April 8, 2010 04:11 PM

"What would it take to satisfy the policy? You get clear verbal consent, your partner clearly states that they perceive themselves to be your equal in all respects; you likewise give similar statements; perhaps in front of witnesses..."

Doesn't work. Duke administrators can decide that your partner made the certification of equality because she/he was already so incredibly turned on by your tremendous power.

Posted by: david foster at April 8, 2010 05:10 PM

I find your lack of faith in this Farce -- disturbing...

Posted by: BillT at April 8, 2010 06:08 PM

Wow, you'd think Duke would have learned their lesson, but apparently the lesson they've learned is the wrong friggin' one. Brodhead *especially* should know better than this. If I had college-age kids right now, I would never, *ever* send them to Duke with this policy or anything like it in force; I wouldn't feel safe doing so.

This is great news for anyone who hated the cool kids in high school. Don't like the captain of the football team or the head cheerleader? If you can prove they had consensual sex with anyone of a lower social status, you can have them brought up on rape charges! Even if the "victim" says it was consensual!

Actually I half-wonder whether this policy was formulated by people who were unpopular in high school and are seeking to get their revenge back on those they feel were their tormentors back then (this would also explain some of the vindictiveness to the lacrosse team qua lacrosse team during the rape scandal, such as suggestions that lacrosse lose its intramural status and be reduced to a "club" sport). In any case, it *does* seem to me that those who formulated this policy aren't actually interested in protecting or doing what's best for anyone--they're more interested in acting out vindictiveness and revenge. Check out this here:

The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.

I remember reading somewhere that when working with sexual assault victims, if the victim does not feel comfortable pressing charges, you *do not try to force him or her to do so.* They've already experienced one of the most brutal depowering attacks imaginable; trying to force them to press charges or report the incident just compounds the experience and heightens the trauma. So yeah, that right there, to me, is a red flag that this policy isn't actually about helping people: it's about vindictiveness and punishment.

Posted by: colagirl at April 8, 2010 06:11 PM

Duke administrators can decide that your partner made the certification of equality because she was already so incredibly turned on by your tremendous power.

Yes, well, that would be an understandable error.

Posted by: Grim at April 8, 2010 06:20 PM

I'm still laughing at the "perceived power differential".

Posted by: Cassandra at April 8, 2010 06:27 PM

Use the perceived power differential, Luke!

Posted by: Obi-Wan Kanoodle at April 8, 2010 06:45 PM

Geez, I think I missed something in my college days. I was a member of the student council, honors student headed to law school and all that--and the young ladies had not got the memo! I won't say I was totally celibate (tried as hard as I could, and even a blind hog finds an acorn, or a willing partner, once in a while). If this Duke factual finding had been around in those days (the early 1960's) I might well have been worn to a frazzle! I guess I went to the wrong school, and too soon.

Posted by: Mike Myers at April 8, 2010 09:50 PM

Good helk. As a man thinketh? Just tell 'em they went all New Testament on the guys. That'll stop it.

"A guy flew over me and used his mind powers and then shook me like a doll!" (paraphrased from 'Monsters, Inc.')

Posted by: Cricket at April 8, 2010 10:41 PM

I remember that post. The comments were priceless.

Posted by: Cricket at April 8, 2010 10:44 PM

If those quotes are accurate, there's not a good-looking woman on campus who can engage in sex without commiting rape.

This opens up whole new vistas of litigation.

Now I know why the professors from that school jumped to conclusions in that infamous case. The alumni and parents of the current students should step in, and demand the resignation of the entire faculty.

Posted by: valerie at April 8, 2010 10:56 PM

I think LR's got it right: the only safe path is celibacy for the entire campus. Not even marriage is safe any more, now that we know that all marital sex amounts to rape as well. Sex is just too dang scary.

Maybe we should give up on co-ed schools, too?

Posted by: Texan99 at April 8, 2010 11:18 PM

Meanwhile, on the other side of this fair land ...

http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-04-08/news/moxley-confidential-haidl-three

Posted by: Intoxication Can Be Swell at April 9, 2010 12:32 AM

"The comedic genius of Liberal Larry never gets old."

It does when he hasn't posted anything new for over a year. Y'know?

Posted by: camojack at April 9, 2010 03:52 AM

So.... the next time an employee (of any status) boinks a student (of any status)..... say that non-traditional 35yr old PhD student who is dating an instructor from another department who only has a Master's...... There is no protection for either of them.... They are Both guilty of Rape?

William sends (while adding reason 11,976 to the list of reasons to dislike NC)

Posted by: William at April 9, 2010 05:44 AM

Maybe we should give up on co-ed schools, too?

Not to mention co-ed dorm rooms.

Posted by: Cassandra at April 9, 2010 06:02 AM

The New Duke Blue Devil Fight Song
(To the tune of the Oscar Meyer Hotdog song)

Blue Devils see a problem
It's R - A - P - E - Rape
Blue Devils see the reason
As L - U - S - T - Lust
When Devils can't do
What Devils could do
Its why they become
so Swollen and Blue

Posted by: SShiell at April 9, 2010 08:38 AM

So, now they're calling themselves the Community-Based Reality, yes?

Posted by: BillT at April 9, 2010 08:57 AM

In my school, only the Kool Kids got lucky. The rest of us played Dungeons and Dragons. Looks like it's time for the geeks to score!

Posted by: Joe Doakes at April 9, 2010 09:16 AM

The Geeks at my school collectively took the nickname - The NADS.

Whenever possible they would chant this cheer:
Go Nads Go!

Seems somewhat appropriate at this time!

Posted by: SShiell at April 9, 2010 09:43 AM

Then the good-looking women should be sued for their 'power' and forcing men to look at them.
Us Pillzbury Doughgirl types will then get all offended and uh...yeah. Sue everyone because I think I will be marginalized at some point in time in someone's thoughts.

I told my son to not even consider Duke.

Do you think this is the result of the fallout of the rape case that wasn't?

Posted by: Cricket at April 9, 2010 10:17 AM

Cricket, I have no doubt that that is so. Clearly, the administration is still pissed that the case against the lacrosse players fell apart so spectacularly (and took down one of their major political backers). So now they are taking revenge against the student body at large.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at April 9, 2010 10:44 AM

Do you think this is the result of the fallout of the rape case that wasn't?

Without a doubt. The faculty did NOT like being made to look stupid (by their own actions I'd like to point out). So this is the hammer they think they can use to beat down those "awful awful frat boys". But I think that in reality, Yu Ain hit the nail on the head. Those frat boys just need to make sure they take a swig of beer before any of their 'relations' and suddenly, not only are they off the hook, but their chosen partner dare not report it lest they be accused of rape.

Oh sure, the local cops won't do anything about it (pesky laws requiring EVIDENCE and actual RAPE before charging someone... perceived power differentials notwithstanding), but the school would (by their own policy) be forced to expel someone their policies were meant to protect.

And this brings me to my most salient point. The Left has a SERIOUS problem with unintended consequences. This policy looks for all the world to have been drawn up by the University's Women's Center "to protect innocent womyn from those horrible phallocentric men." But their policy unintentionally gives men a pass by giving them an ironclad defense of "I had a beer, so I couldn't have given consent... thus I was the victim. This "perceived power differential" crap is all about giving victim status, but yet in their attempt to further enhance that victim status with "unable to give consent regardless of the level of intoxication" they let it blow up right in their face.

Posted by: MikeD at April 9, 2010 10:44 AM

From your mouth...

I had a snark about ginormous codpiece-wearing wimmen, but just don't feel up to it.

Posted by: Cricket at April 9, 2010 12:12 PM

And this brings me to my most salient point. The Left has a SERIOUS problem with unintended consequences.

... because you just know it's ALWAYS the fault of "the Left", that scary juggernaut against which even truth, justice and the American Way is a limp rag ...

Posted by: I Call BS at April 9, 2010 12:23 PM

Insecurity breeds atrocity. Keep up the cycle of violence, a Leftist regulated business.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 9, 2010 12:52 PM

Wouldn't say the LEFT is ALWAYS at fault...but they are scary. :)

Posted by: ziobuck at April 9, 2010 12:56 PM

Humans love war for the same reason they love their country. Because that is their family. They will fight to protect what is important to them.

If you become a threat to them, by marginalizing their interests and trumping somebody else's, creating an unbalanced power situation, then they will retaliate.

There is no true security when you have to keep your boot on someone's neck, just in case they want to try something. You are stuck there, never truly secure. And the person on the bottom is stuck there too, never truly secure.

It's the Leftest fantasy that they lust after with all their pride and joy. A world free of men and women who are...

Free

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 9, 2010 12:57 PM

One of the things that people like to float around like it is folk lore concerns the justifications in attacking the status quo, whether it be Western civilization, Judeo-Christian principles, or the Catholic Church. The justification is always that these institutions and people have the power, so they are responsible for everything. Everything horrible, that is. The organization responsible for all the good things, obviously, would be the Left.

But this kind of dichotomy isn't real. It is an artificially created imbalance.

If the status quo is responsible for the bad, then they would also have to be responsible for the good. If they have power to do evil, then they must also had power to do good. By constructing a world view that says those in power will never use their power for good, that they have always used it for evil, de-humanizes a very human trait: the power to command. In a sense, those that have power to command others, are responsible for the outcome of their actions. That is what it means to be a leader, amongst other things.

If you can have power and never take responsibility for the good or never take responsibility for the bad, then you can essentially create a cult. Reform will never be possible with the world view that those in power cannot do good, that they must be eliminated and replaced anew with those that have always used their power for good.

Coincidentally, this has the byproduct of making supposed underdogs, like Leftist organizations and Palestinian terror groups, into freedom fighters. It creates the child like mentality that there are always good guys and always bad guys. That the good stays good, that the bad stays bad. A happy ending created by the good guys by taking out the bad guys.

That's not how the real world works. In the real world, people can change their allegiances. Good people work for evil organizations. Evil people work for good organizations. There traitors like Arnold and Judas that traded in trust for silver/gold. There are traitors who traded their own respectability and honor in return for the safety and liberty of their countrymen. There are all kinds of people, good and bad, evil and virtuous. Sometimes it is even hard to tell them apart. The angels of God can look like Obama, yet be the Devil in disguise. The Lord of Lies.

It is also human to mistake the good for the evil. Which is why it is never as complex as good vs evil. Because one first needs to figure out... what is the good and what is the evil.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 9, 2010 01:08 PM

it is never as complex as good vs evil.

Never as simple.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at April 9, 2010 01:10 PM

real world knowledge gaining ground
hormones running high
protect yourself as is right
have a drink tonight

William sends

Posted by: William at April 11, 2010 10:23 AM

There must be something in the water that academia drinks. Do any of these wankers actually believe these fairy tales? Actually, yes, they do. Is anyone likely to surrender their sex life to a huddle of academic eunuchs?

I strongly suspect the purpose of higher education is to prolong childhood.

Posted by: Mark at April 13, 2010 01:56 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)