The federal government is in desperate need of both rape and sexual harassment victims. These victims are needed in order to justify sweeping nationwide changes to the campus judiciary. These changes include holding quasi-rape trials on college campuses using a preponderance of evidence standard, instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also included in these changes is suspension of double jeopardy protection so that women can repeatedly try accused rapists until they achieve the desired result of conviction, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
In order to achieve such an affront to widely accepted principles of due process an epidemic is needed. Our own student newspaper, the UNC-Wilmington Seahawk, has been fooled into thinking the epidemic is already here. Recently, they reported that there has been a nearly 50 percent increase in campus sexual assaults since Obama was elected. That simply isn’t true. Rape has been declining in America since the early 1990s. But the campus statistics tell a different (and utterly false) story. There is a reason for that: new reporting practices have been mandated since Obama was elected.
Just how extreme are the changes in reporting practices? Here is what I’ve learned so far by questioning a couple of administrators here at UNC-Wilmington. If they are wrong about any of the following, that is problematic. (But if they are right, it’s even more problematic):
- 1.No student can speak to a professor in confidence about an allegation of rape or sexual harassment. The professor must report the incident to his (or her, or its) supervisor who must then forward the information to the Dean.
- 2.Warning students that they cannot talk to a professor about a rape or sexual harassment will not protect the alleged victim because the above rule also applies to hearsay. If the professor hears the story second-hand, or even third-hand, he must report it to his supervisor who will report it to the Dean. In other words, dear student, mere rumors about your rape, real or imagined, will be run up the administrative hierarchy and documented without your knowledge.
- 3.Even rape and harassment claims that a professor suspects or knows to be false must be reported by the professor.
- 4.Even off-campus incidents must be reported. If you were raped in Alaska or sexually harassed in Russia it falls under UNC-Wilmington’s jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is called “everywhere.”
- 5.Incidents involving perpetrators from outside the university community must be reported to the university.
- 6.There is no specific statute of limitations associated with such reports.
- 7.All of the previous requirements apply to classroom discussions touching on rape and sexual harassment.
In other words, the federal government, which is the source of the new practices, and the university, which communicated them, both appear to have lost their collective minds. So why am I angry over all this? And how does this affect me? Let me share a story.
A UNC-Wilmington student previously disclosed to me that she had been a victim of a gang rape. There were three perpetrators. She was drugged but conscious when the assault occurred. After her boyfriend turned her over to his two friends to have sex with her while he held her down, they decided to take turns and alternate back and forth. While one penetrated, the other would alternately slap her and pour alcohol down her throat. She decided not to press charges and then began to regret her decision. That’s when she came to me.
It never occurred to me to violate her trust by disclosing her name to my department chair, the Dean’s office, or anyone else at this institution. I picked up the phone and called the district attorney in the jurisdiction where the attack took place. After I got him to agree to offer to meet with the victim I called her and urged her to accept the offer. She did. And she’s very glad she made the decision.
Now, my employer, UNC-Wilmington, and the federal government are telling me I have an obligation to divulge her name to university administrators. I am writing this brief column with my simple response:
You may both go straight to hell. If you are not religious (and therefore don’t believe in hell) then go to Cleveland, which is essentially the same thing.
I’m not complying with the law as interpreted by university officials. And I urge my fellow colleagues to do the same. If university officials are mistaken about the law then they need to correct their mistakes. If not, the law must be abolished. In short, our allegiance to the bureaucrat must always be overshadowed by our concern for the victim.