Support NeoGAF

[mugurumakensei]

if two people get stupidly drunk and had sex and then black out.

who would be the guilty party if the other person accused them of rape? From what I've read, it's pretty much the first person to go to the police/school administrator

nah, this was answered by a school admin. the male will be assumed the guilty party.

the assumption operates under the presumption that the male is more likely to be the aggressor and is more likely to be stronger.

"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.

http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-du...ions-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302

 

[timetokill]

nah, this was answered by a school admin. the male will be assumed the guilty party.

the assumption operates under the presumption that the male is more likely to be the aggressor and is more likely to be stronger.



http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-du...ions-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302

thus perpetuating the idea that women cannot be responsible for themselves and must be protected.

 

[GorillaJu]

The lack of due process for the accused seems extremely pernicious. I feel for both the John Doe from Occidental, and the main focus of the article as well, as they were essentially being attacked by school administrators with a point to prove. And if I understand correctly, both men have yet to resolve their lack of educational (and by extension career) options.

 

[Paper Sparrow]

Jesus at those statistics. The bad math burns me.

 

[Tertullian]

The lack of due process for the accused seems extremely pernicious.

The article does seem to have a pretty good argument for the above.

 

[Kinitari]

I think this sort of bad math and general over zealousness does long term damage to the cause, and should be curtailed quickly. A lot of good is coming out of this international discussion, but it needs to be as above board as possible or else doubt and dismissal starts to creep in.

Any language that perpetuates men are by default the aggressors and in the wrong is doing the most harm. It doesn't have to be that way and it is frankly, gross and sexist.

 

[Reishiki]

Hey, sometimes you have to be patient.

I guess it's not going to happen.

There are a bunch of people who seem to agree the maths is pretty awful, though.

 

[Cronox]

Thanks to the OP for posting this article here, I'd have missed it otherwise. It's disappointing to see the bad math being cited by people and organizations that should know better, though, I suppose it's encouraging that those aren't the actual numbers.

Aside from the "1 in 4" study, I can't take seriously any study that includes grab-ass in a way so as to eventually fall under the heading of "rape" when the numbers are tallied up. Guy or girl, someone has grabbed/pinched most of our asses at some point from high school upwards. The problem of rape doesn't and shouldn't need statistical inflation to be important.

I don't find anything particularly axe-grindy in the article, by the way. I suppose that presumed "10 page blowup" didn't happen mostly because this article requires people read, not respond in knee-jerk fashion to its title. Good for the readers, but unfortunately less likely to get the important debunkings of certain studies out to the people who should be seeing them - half awake Facebook users who parrot incorrect information to their friends, perpetuating echo chambers from which nothing useful emerges.

 

[Cybit]

Thanks to the OP for posting this article here, I'd have missed it otherwise. It's disappointing to see the bad math being cited by people and organizations that should know better, though, I suppose it's encouraging that those aren't the actual numbers.

Aside from the "1 in 4" study, I can't take seriously any study that includes grab-ass in a way so as to eventually fall under the heading of "rape" when the numbers are tallied up. Guy or girl, someone has grabbed/pinched most of our asses at some point from high school upwards. The problem of rape doesn't and shouldn't need statistical inflation to be important.

I don't find anything particularly axe-grindy in the article, by the way. I suppose that presumed "10 page blowup" didn't happen mostly because this article requires people read, not respond in knee-jerk fashion to its title. Good for the readers, but unfortunately less likely to get the important debunkings of certain studies out to the people who should be seeing them - half awake Facebook users who parrot incorrect information to their friends, perpetuating echo chambers from which nothing useful emerges.

There's a reason I didn't quote parts of the article in the OP; I want folks to read the entire article before commenting.

 

[Dude Abides]

No data in the article about how many men have been unfairly accused, just anecdotes (based in significant part on one-sided legal filings). Pretty thin gruel to support Yoffe's alarmism about an epidemic of feminazis run wild on campus.

 

[Kinitari]

It's amusing enough to see Feministing cited as a legitimate source, but truly remarkable to use it as part of a counterargument alleging that another journalist is untrustworthy due to holding an agenda. A half awake reader can discern that every word and thought on that site originates first from activism and perhaps only secondarily from journalism, if at all, yet its personal vendettas evidently can be used as evidence to discredit better researched articles in considerably more prominent publications.

I looked more into it after this post, and read this reply to the OPs article... and needless to say, it's not very good. The comments are polite, but extremely critical - ie, the misrepresentation of how preponderance of evidence works.

I think everyone, including people like the author of the link I just posted, need to look at this article more reasonably, and not as an attack on women or anything of the sort. A constructive and mutually (to both sexes) beneficial conclusion can absolutely come out of that sort of a discussion.

No data in the article about how many men have been unfairly accused, just anecdotes (based in significant part on one-sided legal filings). Pretty thin gruel to support Yoffe's alarmism about an epidemic of feminazis run wild on campus.

Well that might not be data that's readily available, however Yoffe does provide numbers in the form of payouts universities have provided to the accused. I mean, it's not like it's a rampant epidemic, but something doesn't have to be rampant for it to be wrong and to be discussed and prevented.

 

[Im a Manatee]

No data in the article about how many men have been unfairly accused, just anecdotes (based in significant part on one-sided legal filings). Pretty thin gruel to support Yoffe's alarmism about an epidemic of feminazis run wild on campus.

This belies one of the greater issues here - the lack of due process. I don't think the number of men falsely accused is that high and there probably isn't enough for the MRA types to spout something about accusation culture on campus. Without due process, its hard to make a judgement and compile these statistics in a meaningful way.

My school, after some bona-fide tragedy involving a football coach, now deflects most of the work onto actual police. Its a step in the right direction for both parties. Survivors can get actual justice served and those who are not guilty will have a better chance than they would in some campus-led kangaroo court.

 

[Wiktor]

Are those cases all handled internally by universities? Or are people who are found guilty then passed over to the police?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I looked more into it after this post, and read this reply to the OPs article... and needless to say, it's not very good. The comments are polite, but extremely critical - ie, the misrepresentation of how preponderance of evidence works.

I'm not sure how you can even talk about evidentiary standards when some of these proceedings seem to be entirely non adversarial. How can you gauge preponderance or any other standard when you don't have anything remotely resembling either a trial or an unbiased arbiter or allowed to confront witnesses against you? Analogizing these case to civil lawsuits is absurd when you can have anonymous witness statements used against you as well as other tactics that would never fly in a court or arbitration.

 

[Mumei]

Are those cases all handled internally by universities? Or are people who are found guilty then passed over to the police?

It's a separate issue. The universities are responsible for investigating because of their Title IX responsibilities. There's a page on the Department of Education website (well the Office for Civil Rights page) describing it:

Know Your Rights: Title IX Prohibits Sexual Harassment and
Sexual Violence Where You Go to School

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., is a Federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities. All public and private elementary and secondary schools, school districts, colleges, and universities (hereinafter “schools”) receiving any Federal funds must comply with Title IX. Under Title IX, discrimination on the basis of sex can include sexual harassment or sexual violence, such as rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion.

Below is additional information regarding the specific requirements of Title IX as they pertain to sexual harassment and sexual violence.

What are a school’s responsibilities to address sexual harassment and sexual violence?

• A school has a responsibility to respond promptly and effectively. If a school knows or reasonably should know about sexual harassment or sexual violence that creates a hostile environment, the school must take immediate action to eliminate the sexual harassment or sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.
• Even if a student or his or her parent does not want to file a complaint or does not request that the school take any action on the student’s behalf, if a school knows or reasonably should know about possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred and then take appropriate steps to resolve the situation.
• A criminal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably.

What procedures must a school have in place to prevent sexual harassment and sexual violence and resolve complaints?

• Every School Must Have And Distribute A Policy Against Sex Discrimination
  • Title IX requires that each school publish a policy that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in its education programs and activities. This notice must be widely distributed and available on an on-going basis.
  • The policy must state that inquiries concerning Title IX may be referred to the school’s Title IX coordinator or to OCR.
• Every School Must Have A Title IX Coordinator
  • Every school must designate at least one employee who is responsible for coordinating the school’s compliance with Title IX.
  • This person is sometimes referred to as the Title IX coordinator. Schools must notify all students and employees of the name or title and contact information of the Title IX coordinator.
  • The coordinator’s responsibilities include overseeing all complaints of sex discrimination and identifying and addressing any patterns or systemic problems that arise during the review of such complaints.
  Every School Must Have And Make Known Procedures For Students To File Complaints Of Sex Discrimination.
  • Title IX requires schools to adopt and publish grievance procedures for students to file complaints of sex discrimination, including complaints of sexual harassment or sexual violence. Schools can use general disciplinary procedures to address complaints of sex discrimination. But all procedures must provide for prompt and equitable resolution of sex discrimination complaints.
  • Every complainant has the right to present his or her case. This includes the right to adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, the right to have an equal opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence, and the right to the same appeal processes, for both parties.
  • Every complainant has the right to be notified of the time frame within which: (a) the school will conduct a full investigation of the complaint; (b) the parties will be notified of the outcome of the complaint; and (c) the parties may file an appeal, if applicable.
  • Every complainant has the right for the complaint to be decided using a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred).
  • Every complainant has the right to be notified, in writing, of the outcome of the complaint. Even though federal privacy laws limit disclosure of certain information in disciplinary proceedings:
    • Schools must disclose to the complainant information about the sanction imposed on the perpetrator when the sanction directly relates to the harassed student. This includes an order that the harasser stay away from the harassed student, or that the harasser is prohibited from attending school for a period of time, or transferred to other classes or another residence hall.
    • Additionally, the Clery Act (20 U.S.C. §1092(f)), which only applies to postsecondary institutions, requires that both parties be informed of the outcome, including sanction information, of any institutional proceeding alleging a sex offense. Therefore, colleges and universities may not require a complainant to abide by a non-disclosure agreement, in writing or otherwise.
      The grievance procedures may include voluntary informal methods (e.g., mediation) for resolving some types of sexual harassment complaints. However, the complainant must be notified of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the formal stage of the complaint process. In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, mediation is not appropriate.

And that's where the preponderance of evidence standard comes from, at least. In order to pursue criminal charges, you'd need to report to the police, as well.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not sure how you can even talk about evidentiary standards when some of these proceedings seem to be entirely non adversarial. How can you gauge preponderance or any other standard when you don't have anything remotely resembling either a trial or an unbiased arbiter or allowed to confront witnesses against you? Analogizing these case to civil lawsuits is absurd when you can have anonymous witness statements used against you as well as other tactics that would never fly in a court or arbitration.

I don't think it's typical to have an adversarial proceeding in any college disciplinary matter, but I could be mistaken.

 

[deadlast]

I'm not seeing a 10 page blowup here.

That's because people have to read the whole article.


Also that math is amazing.

 

[gerg]

That was a very interesting article, although I was a bit thrown once I realised that Emily Yoffe had written that other article advocating that women not get drunk. I read the Feministing rebuttal to it but that did not convince me much.

I think it's consistent to believe that the studies regarding the prevalence of sexual assault against women have been flawed, that significantly more women are assaulted than are reported, that these women need thorough systems in order to encourage reporting and charge perpetrators, and also that those accused deserve that same thoroughness as (ideally) afforded to all those with a legal claim against them.

On the other hand, I do feel that this causes something of a quandary: is it not the case that any support for the defense implicitly suggests that the accusation might be untrue? In a context where women need all the support they can get to come forward with reporting of rape and sexual assault I can appreciate that that may make some people uncomfortable.

But, at the same time, the myth that men are frequently falsely accused of rape needs to be dispelled with as quickly as the myths perported by various elements of victim blaming. A thorough and fair system should ideally be capable of working towards both ends.

 

[Yrael]

Hmmm, a couple of initial thoughts:

I am not convinced that the sexual assault rate is as low as Yoffe implies. For instance, a survey at MIT this year found that one in six female students reported having been the victim of a sexual assault while enrolled at the university (but only 5% reported their assault). This aligns with the 2007 CSA estimate, which Yoffe seems to dislike on the basis that it includes "everything from nonconsensual sexual intercourse to such unwanted activities as “forced kissing,” “fondling,” and “rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes” (which seems to me to be conveying the message that it's not really a sexual assault if it's not a violent rape...which I don't think is a great message), and also that it's not nationally representative because it was a survey of only two universities (but is nonetheless consistent with the survey from MIT, and also with a survey from early 1997 of 4,446 women attending a randomly selected 2- or 4-year college or university). In any case, more surveys are being planned by other universities.

The author implies that those accused of rape are more often failed by the system than victims of rape themselves, using legal filings and this (losses from students suing their universities) as her main evidence.

(Edited, I overlooked part of the article.)

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I don't think it's typical to have an adversarial proceeding in any college disciplinary matter, but I could be mistaken.

I can't imagine that it is at all common. And, I would add that if students don't read the fine print and not realize they agree to this system by attending, then it's on them to a degree. Attendance equals acknowledgment that tthe student is subject tI this style of investigation. I can see both sides of this, a very challenging issue to balance. I will say that I do not trust universities to actually conduct impartial investigations and proceedings and the doe framework really allows the schools to pretty much run roughshod over the alleged perpetrators if they choose. These rules are very strict on reporting etc but very loose on the investigation and hearing end, ie where the actual evidence is evaluated. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

 

[hachi]

The issue is not only preponderance on paper, but most specifically how the federal enforcement has strong-armed colleges into procedures that they themselves would not be ethically comfortable with.

Much of what’s happening on campuses today regarding the handling of sexual assault is due to the rise of a small, once-obscure arm of the federal government. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights dictates to colleges the procedures they must follow in regard to campus sexual complaints.* It also examines schools for violations of Title IX, the law that forbids discrimination in education on the basis of sex. In recent years, OCR has used Title IX, best known for tackling imbalances in athletics, as a tool to address sexual violence. When OCR issues findings against a school, if the school declines to admit wrongdoing, the office has the power, as yet unexercised, to essentially shut the school down.

...

“Not Alone,” billed as “The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault,” was released to great fanfare at the White House in April, and it outlined how OCR would help implement the report’s stated goals. Not Alone encouraged schools to consider adopting a “single-investigator” model—as Harvard has done—in which a sole administrator is tasked with being investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury in sexual assault cases. Since that person would work at the school’s Title IX office, which is tasked with keeping the school off the list of those being scrutinized by the federal government, impartiality may not be that person’s first imperative.

Being investigated by OCR for a Title IX violation places a college on a growing federal list of shame, now 88 schools long. Even more disastrous is standing up to OCR. The agency has the power to pull a school’s federal funding, essentially putting a school out of business—ask Tufts University if they’re willing to use it. A female Tufts student had accused a former boyfriend of rape, and after he was cleared (and the female student sanctioned for misleading campus authorities in the course of their investigation), she brought a Title IX complaint against the school. OCR’s mandate was to look at Tufts’ procedural deficiencies, not the finding in the case, and it criticized Tufts at length. The university agreed to make all the OCR’s recommended changes: to improve its protections for accusers and speed up its resolution process, among other things. The school also agreed to give a monetary settlement to the female student. But Tufts balked at signing off on OCR’s finding that the school was a Title IX violator. It issued a statement saying the school “could not, in good faith, allow our community to believe that we are not in compliance with such an important law.” In response, OCR told Tufts it would pull the university’s federal funds, a threat, the Boston Globe wrote, that was “so catastrophic that it virtually required Tufts to reach some understanding with the government.” It took only a few days for Tufts to cave.

Given how interconnected the system of higher education is -- and how grave the consequences for all future educational access if one is found guilty of sexual misconduct by one of these mandated one-person, decidedly pro-victim college investigators -- and given the tremendously gray area of consent into which most of these cases fall, along with substantial evidence of many false accusations, the standard of preponderance is simply preposterous, and an enormous, ideologically-driven problem that the article rightly points out through each individual case examined.

I also didn't see any mention of the fact that 55 universities across America are now under federal investigation for allegedly failing victims of sexual assault (violating Title IX).

It's right there, in the section I just quoted ("Being investigated by OCR for a Title IX violation places a college on a growing federal list of shame, now 88 schools long"), and it is very much evidence that supports and augments the article's critique. The federal department responsible for this process is actively engaging in a power play to nationally restructure campus practices on sexuality to fit a very particular ideological agenda, all by using the continued threat of revoking funding.

 

[Yrael]

It's right there, in the section I just quoted ("Being investigated by OCR for a Title IX violation places a college on a growing federal list of shame, now 88 schools long"), and it is very much evidence that supports and augments the article's critique. The federal department responsible for this process is actively engaging in a power play to nationally restructure campus practices on sexuality to fit a very particular ideological agenda, all by using the continued threat of revoking funding.

Apologies, I overlooked that bit and just amended my post as you were writing.

I'm not really buying the "ideological agenda" angle, given how much it feels like the author tried to downplay sexual assault statistics as much as possible to make her case (the study from 2000 certainly looks dodgy, because of its fudged maths...not so much the others though).

 

[hachi]

I overlooked that bit and just amended my post as you were writing.

I'm not buying the "ideological agenda" angle, given how much it feels like the author tried to downplay sexual assault statistics as much as possible to make her case (the study from 2000 certainly looks dodgy, because of its fudged maths...not so much the others though).

The attention on the article author in this thread, however, is very telling, particularly the Feministing blog's predictable personal tirade that was linked early as the only reason to wave away the problems detailed at length in the article.

This conversation doesn't begin with Slate; it's been ongoing across the past year. Here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education (which actually tends to be very left-leaning overall, and is the leading news source for higher ed, with enormous influence) from several months ago, which uses the specific term "overcorrection" and details problems that connect directly with the Slate piece, particularly the role of federal pressure.

http://www.chroniclecareers.com/article/Opening-New-Front-in/147047/

An ‘Overcorrection’?

Title IX requires campus officials to investigate and resolve reports of sexual harassment and assault whether or not the police are involved. If colleges don’t deal with such reports promptly and fairly, they may be blamed for violating the rights of alleged victims and creating a hostile environment for learning. Campuses have come under pressure from activists as well as the White House to be more responsive to students’ complaints. The OCR is responsible for investigating when students complain that colleges have mishandled their allegations of sexual abuse.

Brett Sokolow, president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management—a consulting and law firm that advises colleges—says Mr. Kopin’s letter is a natural progression in the battle college men are waging against mounting accusations of sexual misconduct.

...

He believes that the rising number of complaints from men stems in part from increasing pressure on colleges to hold students responsible for sexual misconduct, and the mistaken belief among administrators that this means they should find more young men responsible. "All of this pressure from the White House and OCR has been communicated, and these university panels believe they are supposed to vote a certain way now," says Mr. Sokolow. "Campuses are saying, We have to comply with Title IX, so we have to side with the victim."

 

[Cybit]

I overlooked that bit and just amended my post as you were writing.

I'm not buying the "ideological agenda" angle, given how much it feels like the author tried to downplay sexual assault statistics as much as possible to make her case (the study from 2000 certainly looks dodgy, because of its fudged maths...not so much the others though).

Both the 1 in 4 and the 1 in 6 studies (the ones commonly cited) were shown to have incorrect (none of this "fudgy" BS, it is flat out wrong) math and unprovable assumptions in their extrapolation methods, and both were stated by their lead authors to not be representative due to the sample size.

She's not "downplaying" them. She's calling them out as products of unfounded extrapolation and bad math, and rightfully so. I don't think its tied to an ideological agenda; I think its tied to trying to do the right thing, but colleges just want the problem to go away, and will kowtow easily to public pressure.

 

[Dude Abides]

Given how interconnected the system of higher education is -- and how grave the consequences for all future educational access if one is found guilty of sexual misconduct by one of these mandated one-person, decidedly pro-victim college investigators -- and given the tremendously gray area of consent into which most of these cases fall, along with substantial evidence of many false accusations, the standard of preponderance is simply preposterous, and an enormous, ideologically-driven problem that the article rightly points out through each individual case examined.

How bizarre. There are no "Mandated one-person, decidedly pro-victim college investigators" nor evidence of "many" false accusations. And, of course, the issue of the standard of evidence is tangential to both of those things. These are a handful of fringe cases being blown up into a manufactured crisis by people with obvious ideological axes to grind.

 

[Yrael]

This conversation doesn't begin with Slate; it's been ongoing across the past year. Here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education (which actually tends to be very left-leaning overall, and is the leading news source for higher ed, with enormous influence) from several months ago, which uses the specific term "overcorrection" and details problems that connect directly with the Slate piece, particularly the role of federal pressure.

http://www.chroniclecareers.com/article/Opening-New-Front-in/147047/

Rightio, I'll read up more about Brett Sokolow's views when I'm not browsing this from my mobile.

My personal fear is that people are potentially using this as a cudgel to minimise the problem of sexual assault - and I could see that happening here, which understandably tends to put me immediately on the defensive (even without previously knowing about the author's past articles). Even if the "fix" turns out to be flawed, one can still advocate for a better way of ensuring justice without doing that.

Both the 1 in 4 and the 1 in 6 studies (the ones commonly cited) were shown to have incorrect (none of this "fudgy" BS, it is flat out wrong) math and unprovable assumptions in their extrapolation methods, and both were stated by their lead authors to not be representative due to the sample size.

She's not "downplaying" them. She's calling them out as products of unfounded extrapolation and bad math, and rightfully so. I don't think its tied to an ideological agenda; I think its tied to trying to do the right thing, but colleges just want the problem to go away, and will kowtow easily to public pressure.

The 1 in 4 statistic from 2000 was shown to be wrong, but the CSA study that I was referring to was not (see my first post). The authors of that study do say that theirs alone isn't nationally representative, but it also aligns with findings from other surveys at other universities.

 

[hachi]

How bizarre. There are no "Mandated one-person, decidedly pro-victim college investigators" nor evidence of "many" false accusations. And, of course, the issue of the standard of evidence is tangential to both of those things. These are a handful of fringe cases being blown up into a manufactured crisis by people with obvious ideological axes to grind.

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't been reading the sources? Or perhaps "mandate" comes off strong, but that is exactly how this kind of pressure effectively operates in higher education, where over-corrective risk aversion is pretty much the only factor considered when dealing with federal requests that threaten funding.

“Not Alone,” billed as “The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault,” was released to great fanfare at the White House in April, and it outlined how OCR would help implement the report’s stated goals. Not Alone encouraged schools to consider adopting a “single-investigator” model—as Harvard has done—in which a sole administrator is tasked with being investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury in sexual assault cases. Since that person would work at the school’s Title IX office, which is tasked with keeping the school off the list of those being scrutinized by the federal government, impartiality may not be that person’s first imperative.

That specific situation and concern over partiality is exactly what a whopping 28 members of the Harvard Law School faculty have been speaking out against in their public criticisms of the policies and results:

Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:

■ The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

■ The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

■ The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.

 

[Kinitari]

How bizarre. There are no "Mandated one-person, decidedly pro-victim college investigators" nor evidence of "many" false accusations. And, of course, the issue of the standard of evidence is tangential to both of those things. These are a handful of fringe cases being blown up into a manufactured crisis by people with obvious ideological axes to grind.

I don't think that's fair, because honestly these sorts of things upset me, and I don't think it matters if it happens once or a hundred times. Does that mean I have some nefarious ideological slant? When you frame your statement like this I feel like you're poisoing the well.

What I can't believe is that your are justifying these stories by saying they just don't happen enough for us to worry about - they are examples of gross injustice, and rather than diminishing them, we should take ALL cases of injustice and discrimination to heart.

Fundamentally, there is broken math and flawed methodologies as pointed out by this article that I have not seen rebut. If this info is true, I think that it needs to be addressed in order to create a more functional environment.

 

[Stet]

Fundamentally, there is broken math and flawed methodologies as pointed out by this article that I have not seen rebut. If this info is true, I think that it needs to be addressed in order to create a more functional environment.

They are two broken studies. That's pretty much the rebuttal. There exist several more dating back to the 80s.

People have always found issues with them--but usually those issues are with the definition of "rape" and less tangible criticisms of the questions asked. These are just the low-hanging fruit that are unfortunately the most recent of the studies.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't been reading the sources? Or perhaps "mandate" comes off strong, but that is exactly how this kind of pressure effectively operates in higher education, where over-corrective risk aversion is pretty much the only factor considered when dealing with federal requests that threaten funding.

It doesn't come off as strong. It comes off as false, which it is. "Encouraged to consider adopting" is not "mandated."

That specific situation and concern over partiality is exactly what a whopping 28 members of the Harvard Law School faculty have been speaking out against in their public criticisms of the policies and results:

Yes, I'm aware of that talking point, but I don't see how this appeal to authority establishes that there are "many" false accusations or convert "encourage" to "mandate"?

I don't think that's fair, because honestly these sorts of things upset me, and I don't think it matters if it happens once or a hundred times. Does that mean I have some nefarious ideological slant? When you frame your statement like this I feel like you're poisoing the well.

I'm simply noting a fact. This is presented as a purported problem across academia by people like Heather MacDonald, but when you drill down there are only a handful of cases.

What I can't believe is that your are justifying these stories by saying they just don't happen enough for us to worry about.

I can't believe it either, since I'm not doing that. I'm simply disputing the narrative that is being spun out of a handful of colleges that went too far.

they are examples of gross injustice, and rather than diminishing them, we should take ALL cases of injustice and discrimination to heart.

Putting aside the fact that most of these are one-sided accounts from the accused's counsel, what I'm getting at is how these handful of incidents are being used to drive an agenda out of all proportion to the problem.

 

[hachi]

It doesn't come off as strong. It comes off as false, which it is. "Encouraged to consider adopting" is not "mandated."

Yes, I'm aware of that talking point, but I don't see how this appeal to authority establishes that there are "many" false accusations or convert "encourage" to "mandate"?

The move from encourage to mandate is essentially the entire thrust of both the article, the recent critiques of the federal role, the Harvard response, etcetera. I don't see how you can possibly not understand how this works; something that is strongly encouraged by the Title IX compliance arm and then tied to funding threats -- with a growing, public list of schools that are under a warning -- is essentially nothing less than a mandate. Read in the full article how Tufts tried to battle on these points and was essentially pushed into compliance without possibly of retaliation, all by virtue of federal power over funding. One would need a head in the sand to not understand how the federal role is operating here, and to pretend that these are merely suggestions or recommendations.

Putting aside the fact that most of these are one-sided accounts from the accused's counsel, what I'm getting at is how these handful of incidents are being used to drive an agenda out of all proportion to the problem.

A "handful of incidents are being used to drive an agenda out of all proportion to the problem" -- you've described the situation quite well. Unfortunately you seem to have the poles reversed, and very little to back that up in response to the bulk of work presented in the article(s).

 

[Dude Abides]

The move from encourage to mandate is essentially the entire thrust of both the article, the recent critiques of the federal role, the Harvard response, etcetera. I don't see how you can possibly not understand how this works; something that is strongly encouraged by the Title IX compliance arm and then tied to funding threats -- with a growing, public list of schools that are under a warning -- is essentially nothing less than a mandate. Read in the full article how Tufts tried to battle on these points and was essentially pushed into compliance without possibly of retaliation, all by virtue of federal power over funding. One would need a head in the sand to not understand how the federal role is operating here, and to pretend that these are merely suggestions or recommendations.

Or one could live in a world where words mean things. If this was effectively a mandate, it would be universally adopted. Presumably the articles would say so. Yet they don't.

A "handful of incidents are being used to drive an agenda out of all proportion to the problem" -- you've described the situation quite well. Unfortunately you seem to have the poles reversed, and very little to back that up in response to the bulk of work presented in the article(s).

There we have it. Not surprising to see you think that there are only a handful of sexual assaults on campus and they pale in comparison to the prevalence of false accusations, though. It's all about ethics in campus sexual assault investigations.

 

[Cybit]

Or one could live in a world where words mean things. If this was effectively a mandate, it would be universally adopted. Presumably the articles would say so. Yet they don't.

So, this entire thing has been sparked by a "recommendation" from the OCR to colleges that if they do not adopt such recommendations, that their Title IX funding will be taken away. That's the point. They can't legally "force" a college to do it, but they sure as hell can threaten them by taking away their money. Think most people would call that a mandate functionally.

There we have it. Not surprising to see you think that there are only a handful of sexual assaults on campus and they pale in comparison to the prevalence of false accusations, though. It's all about ethics in campus sexual assault investigations.

Nice. Trying to accuse people who don't agree with you that they're related to the assholes involved in Gamergate. Cool story bro.

That's a load of crap. There are actual people being hurt; women because they're getting a superficial bullshit "solution" designed to cover up the problem on a PR level and not actually deal with any real factors or give any real solutions; and men who are getting railroaded so that the country can go back to ignoring the problem while telling themselves they did something about it. Add in that you're telling the country that the level of rape on college campuses across the US is equal to that of the damn Congo - freaking everyone out and creating a culture of fear (which can then be properly monetized by the media and consultants, just like school shootings were, just like terrorism was, etc) to pass puritanical bullshit legislation.

 

[Dude Abides]

So, this entire thing has been sparked by a "recommendation" from the OCR to colleges that if they do not adopt such recommendations, that their Title IX funding will be taken away. That's the point. They can't legally "force" a college to do it, but they sure as hell can threaten them by taking away their money. Think most people would call that a mandate functionally.

Except that isn't what happened. At all. No school has had its funding cut, or threatened to have its funding cut, because it failed to adopt the recommendation to have one person investigate and adjudicate sexual assault allegations. OCR had issue with a number of Tufts' procedures (crack journalist Yoffe declines to tell us what they were) and only threatened to cut their funding when Tufts refused to agree that they were in violation of Title IX. Did you even read the article?

Nice. Trying to accuse people who don't agree with you that they're related to the assholes involved in Gamergate. Cool story bro.

That's a load of crap. There are actual people being hurt; women because they're getting a superficial bullshit "solution" designed to cover up the problem on a PR level and not actually deal with any real factors or give any real solutions; and men who are getting railroaded so that the country can go back to ignoring the problem while telling themselves they did something about it. Add in that you're telling the country that the level of rape on college campuses across the US is equal to that of the damn Congo - freaking everyone out and creating a culture of fear (which can then be properly monetized by the media and consultants, just like school shootings were, just like terrorism was, etc) to pass puritanical bullshit legislation.

It's a similar situation. Ideologues trying to turn a minor issue into a major one, and well-meaning but naive people being duped into following suit.

 

[mugurumakensei]

It's a similar situation. Ideologues trying to turn a minor issue into a major one, and well-meaning but naive people being duped into following suit.

eh, in this case, if even one personally passes through and is falsely expelled, its one too many cause there's not just the expulsion. other universities will look at that and more or less assume guilt based on the outcome. similarly, any employer will also see that. the fact that you see it as a minor issue is actually quite appalling since one's livelihood is never a minor issue. it's also coddling university system with a setup that wont happen outside university. even in civil suits, you will be cross-examined. even in civil suits, the judge, investigator, and prosecutor are all different people. a jury may or may not be present in a civil case. this does not happen in university trials.

 

[Cybit]

Except that isn't what happened. At all. No school has had its funding cut, or threatened to have its funding cut, because it failed to adopt the recommendation to have one person investigate and adjudicate sexual assault allegations. OCR had issue with a number of Tufts' procedures (crack journalist Yoffe declines to tell us what they were) and only threatened to cut their funding when Tufts refused to agree that they were in violation of Title IX. Did you even read the article?

From the article itself

Schools are legally required by that law to address sexual harassment and violence on campus, and these activists filed complaints with the federal government about what they describe as lax enforcement by schools. The current administration has taken up the cause—the Chronicle of Higher Education describes it as “a marquee issue for the Obama administration”—and praised these young women for spurring political action. “A new generation of student activists is effectively pressing for change,” read a statement this spring announcing new policies to address campus violence. The Department of Education has drafted new rules to address women’s safety, some of which have been enshrined into law by Congress, with more legislation likely on the way.

Unfortunately, under the worthy mandate of protecting victims of sexual assault, procedures are being put in place at colleges that presume the guilt of the accused. Colleges, encouraged by federal officials, are instituting solutions to sexual violence against women that abrogate the civil rights of men.

Schools that hold hearings to adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct allow the accuser and the accused to be accompanied by legal counsel. But as Judith Shulevitz noted in the New Republic in October, many schools ban lawyers from speaking to their clients (only notes can be passed). During these proceedings, the two parties are not supposed to question or cross examine each other, a prohibition recommended by the federal government in order to protect the accuser. And by federal requirement, students can be found guilty under the lowest standard of proof: preponderance of the evidence, meaning just a 51 percent certainty is all that’s needed for a finding that can permanently alter the life of the accused.

More than two dozen Harvard Law School professors recently wrote a statement protesting the university’s new rules for handling sexual assault claims. “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process,” they wrote. The professors note that the new rules call for a Title IX compliance officer who will be in charge of “investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review.” Under the new system, there will be no hearing for the accused, and thus no opportunity to question witnesses and mount a defense. Harvard University, the professors wrote, is “jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.” But to push back against Department of Education edicts means potentially putting a school’s federal funding in jeopardy, and no college, not even Harvard, the country’s richest, is willing to do that.

Relevant part bolded. Per the new rules, a Title IX compliance officer needs to be created; and by not doing so, they may find themselves out of compliance with Title IX - which threatens their federal funding. (Also, I am the OP, so yes, I read the article )

It's a similar situation. Ideologues trying to turn a minor issue into a major one, and well-meaning but naive people being duped into following suit.

I'm pretty sure Emily Yoffe, primarily known for being the online equivalent of Ann Landers, would not qualify as an "ideologue". It's not a "minor issue". It's someone finally taking to task how we handle legitimate issues in this country. We don't actually ever want to deal with the problem or understand how it works. We want to do whatever gets the loudest voices off of our backs, and we'll make whatever superficial changes are necessary, consequences be damned, until people stop paying attention. Anyone remember school shootings? Anyone remember the Child Abuse scares from the 70s and 80s? Hell, they even had a saying, "Believe the Children". Sound familiar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria)

Anyone reading the torture report released today, all done in the name of "national security"?

The way to deal with a problem that has long been ignored is not to go to the opposite extreme. You don't deal with the problem. You just create more.

 

[Dude Abides]

From the article itself



Relevant part bolded. Per the new rules, a Title IX compliance officer needs to be created; and by not doing so, they may find themselves out of compliance with Title IX - which threatens their federal funding. (Also, I am the OP, so yes, I read the article )

But those are Harvard's rules, not OCR's rules. Hachi claimed that the big bad federal government was forcing a one-person sexual assault star chamber on universities, and that is simply not the case. That was how Harvard, and only Harvard (as far as we can tell from the article) chose to respond to OCR's recommendations.

I'm pretty sure Emily Yoffe, primarily known for being the online equivalent of Ann Landers, would not qualify as an "ideologue". It's not a "minor issue". It's someone finally taking to task how we handle legitimate issues in this country. We don't actually ever want to deal with the problem or understand how it works. We want to do whatever gets the loudest voices off of our backs, and we'll make whatever superficial changes are necessary, consequences be damned, until people stop paying attention. Anyone remember school shootings? Anyone remember the Child Abuse scares from the 70s and 80s? Hell, they even had a saying, "Believe the Children". Sound familiar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria)

Anyone reading the torture report released today, all done in the name of "national security"?

The way to deal with a problem that has long been ignored is not to go to the opposite extreme. You don't deal with the problem. You just create more.

Yoffe falls more into the naive dupe camp than the ideologue camp. I don't know what any of the rest has to do with the article. A few universities have gone overboard in addressing the issue of sexual assault on campus, and a handful of men have been treated unfairly (largely according to their lawyers in civil suits they have filed against their universities). That's about the size of it. The relevance of the torture report eludes me.

 

[Cybit]

But those are Harvard's rules, not OCR's rules. Hachi claimed that the big bad federal government was forcing a one-person sexual assault star chamber on universities, and that is simply not the case. That was how Harvard, and only Harvard (as far as we can tell from the article) chose to respond to OCR's recommendations.

From the Harvard letter itself: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.

We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community.

In the Harvard letter; they note that federal funding may end up being at stake. I think the confusion lies in that the legal requirements (as defined by courts) are differing from the administration based requirements. Title IX is laid out by courts, but is enforced and compliance is determined by the Federal Gov't / Administration's office. That office has laid out "recommendations" regarding the Title IX compliance officer and the recommendations that Harvard more or less just used to create their policies. The Harvard profs are pointing out that the recommendations are above and beyond what Title IX law requires. (Basically, the executive and the judicial aspects from the gov't are not aligned)

Yoffe falls more into the naive dupe camp than the ideologue camp. I don't know what any of the rest has to do with the article. A few universities have gone overboard in addressing the issue of sexual assault on campus, and a handful of men have been treated unfairly (largely according to their lawyers in civil suits they have filed against their universities). That's about the size of it. The relevance of the torture report eludes me.

In an ironic point; who wants to bet most students can't afford lawyers and the time and energy to try to fight the university? Yoffe's point is that the solution most colleges are deciding upon is to end up treating men now like rape victims have been in the past. Just assume that one aspect is true, stack the process up against them, and most people will just throw their hands up in frustration and just give up. That's not justice; that's vengeance.

The torture report is reference to our society's general philosophy of flipping to the other extreme when faced with a problem. We weren't able to get the appropriate info on what happened on 9/11 through traditional means? Let's go to the other extreme. Women have the deck stacked against them for reporting rape at universities? Let's go to the other extreme.

 

[Dude Abides]

From the Harvard letter itself: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html



In the Harvard letter; they note that federal funding may end up being at stake. I think the confusion lies in that the legal requirements (as defined by courts) are differing from the administration based requirements. Title IX is laid out by courts, but is enforced and compliance is determined by the Federal Gov't / Administration's office. That office has laid out "recommendations" regarding the Title IX compliance officer and the recommendations that Harvard more or less just used to create their policies. The Harvard profs are pointing out that the recommendations are above and beyond what Title IX law requires. (Basically, the executive and the judicial aspects from the gov't are not aligned)

You are not understanding, and "more or less" is obfuscating the issue. None of this establishes that, as Hachi claimed, OCR requires institutions to create a one-person tribunal for investigating and deciding sexual assault claims. This has nothing to do with whether OCR's policies have departed from what Title IX recommendations (something a university could challenge in court if it wished.) The federal government simply did not do what Hachi claimed it did. Harvard overreacted but that's on Harvard, not OCR.

In an ironic point; who wants to bet most students can't afford lawyers and the time and energy to try to fight the university? Yoffe's point is that the solution most colleges are deciding upon is to end up treating men now like rape victims have been in the past. Just assume that one aspect is true, stack the process up against them, and most people will just throw their hands up in frustration and just give up. That's not justice; that's vengeance.

"Most colleges" is actually, if we judge from the article, a handful. This is the molehill/mountain problem I'm talking about. There are certainly cases where institutions have gone overboard and accused men have been treated unjustly, but the right, with the assistance of dupes like Yoffe, is doing its damnedest to portray this as some kind of widespread kafka situation on the nation's campuses that the nefarious Obummer administration is forcing.

 

[Cybit]

You are not understanding, and "more or less" is obfuscating the issue. None of this establishes that, as Hachi claimed, OCR requires institutions to create a one-person tribunal for investigating and deciding sexual assault claims. This has nothing to do with whether OCR's policies have departed from what Title IX recommendations (something a university could challenge in court if it wished.) The federal government simply did not do what Hachi claimed it did. Harvard overreacted but that's on Harvard, not OCR.

Harvard is following the changes to the Clery Act that were released in Oct 2014 (NPRM went out in June 2014). Per the remarks of the Harvard Law Professors themselves, Harvard is

The new policy, which applies to all schools within the university and to all Harvard faculty, administrators, and students, sets up the Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution to process complaints against students. Both the definition of sexual harassment and the procedures for disciplining students are new, with the policy taking effect this academic year. Like many universities across the nation, Harvard acted under pressure imposed by the federal government, which has threatened to withhold funds for universities not complying with its idea of appropriate sexual harassment policy.

The appropriate sexual harassment policy is not defined in Title IX, but instead in the new and improved Clery Act. The Clery Act needs to be followed, otherwise the federal government can sanction universities based on Title IX requirements. (The NPRM is located here:https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/20/2014-14384/violence-against-women-act)

Going through the Harvard letter;

Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by:

■ Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law.

■ Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

Harvard has pursued a process in arriving at its new sexual harassment policy which violates its own finest traditions of academic freedom and faculty governance, including by the following:

■ Harvard apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials, rather than exercise independent judgment about the kind of sexual harassment policy that would be consistent with law and with the needs of our students and the larger university community.

The new definition of sexual harassment is taken from the changes in the Clery Act.

Unless you are telling me the Harvard Law professors are wrong and that instead, you are right, I can safely assume that they are taking their definitions and policies from "certain federal administrative officials."

"Most colleges" is actually, if we judge from the article, a handful. This is the molehill/mountain problem I'm talking about. There are certainly cases where institutions have gone overboard and accused men have been treated unjustly, but the right, with the assistance of dupes like Yoffe, is doing its damnedest to portray this as some kind of widespread kafka situation on the nation's campuses that the nefarious Obummer administration is forcing.

Nowhere is Yoffe saying this is some vast freaking kafka situation. She's pointing out that in our attempts to try to fix the problem; we've gone completely to the other extreme, and there's at least some evidence of the backlash. On top of it; the basic data we've been citing as driving us so hard in this direction is using bad math and misapplied data at best. Also, to quote the Harvard profs; "like many universities across the country". So it's not a "molehill", either.

I get that there are people who are trying to use this as evidence of some vast feminist conspiracy to take over the world. They're going to use anything they can. You can't shut down honest criticism of policy because the extremists might use it to further their own world view. It's telling that most of the criticism of Yoffe's article isn't about the article itself, but more articles about "oh god she's helping the misogynists." It's clear that they believe that there should be no debate, because the debate is too harmful and will "perpetuate the culture".

But that's the problem, isn't it? No one wants to talk about the issue. Because no one really wants to be told that they what they believe isn't 100% correct.

 

[GorillaJu]

Yoffe's argument is primarily that there's been an over correction to a problem which is real, and that we should react to that problem in a way that doesn't infringe on the personal freedoms of the accused. Not because it's structurally incorrect by the letter of the law, but because it clearly treads on the schools' principles as fair educational institutions.

It may be only a handful of cases that represent this over correction, but one case is still too many, and simply dismissing it as a mountain/molehill is justifying the loss of due process to the accused as a means to an end, which is pretty shameful.

I mean the point isn't that all accused are innocent or that there doesn't need to be a response to the problem of sexual abuse, it's that the prevailing narrative that universities are rape factories, that only men can be responsible for decisions made while inebriated, that rape is as prevalent in American universities as it is in the Congo, isn't a fair expression of the actual problem.

Some people seem convinced that finding the overreaction problematic is in essence an attack on the movement to offer more assistance and avenues for victims. It's not—it's just calling for a more pragmatic analysis.

 

[Coketruck]

Since the article in the OP dealt a lot with commonly-cited statistics that seem to be inflated or taken out of context, I thought this might be appropriate:

The Department of Justice just released a study titled "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013." According to the study, the rate of female students raped or sexually assaulted is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or .61 percent. Also, non-student college-age females were raped at a higher rate than students (.76 percent vs. .61 percent). Either way, this is a long way from the 1 in 5 (or 20%) statistic that the president and so many others have cited.

 

[Mumei]

Since the article in the OP dealt a lot with commonly-cited statistics that seem to be inflated or taken out of context, I thought this might be appropriate:

The Department of Justice just released a study titled "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013." According to the study, the rate of female students raped or sexually assaulted is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or .61 percent. Also, non-student college-age females were raped at a higher rate than students (.76 percent vs. .61 percent). Either way, this is a long way from the 1 in 5 (or 20%) statistic that the president and so many others have cited.

Speaking of taking things out of context: You're comparing estimates for an annual rate versus estimates of the total percentage of women over the course of four or five years who experience sexual assault. For instance:

The statistic is based on a study by the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 to 2007, when researchers conducted an anonymous web-based survey at two large public universities (one in the Midwest and one in the South). Of 5,446 women between the ages of 18 and 25 who responded (a response rate of about 42 percent), about 19 percent reported experiencing an attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college—12.6 percent reported an attempted sexual assault and 13.7 percent reported an actual sexual assault (there was some overlap). The study’s definition of sexual assault also included non-rape acts.

Therefore, based on this survey, only 13.7 percent of women respondents had been sexually assaulted. However, these survey results included freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. In 2009, researchers released a more complete analysis of the data, which showed that of senior women who responded, 19 percent had experienced an actual sexual assault. Hence the Obama administration's assertion that one in five women is sexually assaulted in college.

 

[Cybit]

Speaking of taking things out of context: You're comparing estimates for an annual rate versus estimates of the total percentage of women over the course of four or five years who experience sexual assault. For instance:

Except the posts above are talking about the DoJ (1 out of 5) report from 2005 & 2009 being significantly flawed and used out of context - even the lead author specifically states that the report cannot be used as representative. Alas, the 2009 analysis is blocked, so I'll have to look at the details later on it. I'm curious as to how they came up with the 1 in 5 from the "complete" analysis.

 

[Mumei]

Except the posts above are talking about the DoJ (1 out of 5) report from 2005 & 2009 being significantly flawed and used out of context - even the lead author specifically states that the report cannot be used as representative. Alas, the 2009 analysis is blocked, so I'll have to look at the details later on it. I'm curious as to how they came up with the 1 in 5 from the "complete" analysis.

The rates he quoted were still from a different time frame (one year) than the percentage he quoted (over four or five years).

But I'm at work, so I may have misread something.

Also, we have many different studies being referenced here. Can you do me a favor in the future: Link to a pdf (or at least quote the title) when you say "the 2009 analysis" or "2005" or "2009" so I know we're talking about the same things, and quote from and link to where specific studies are described as flawed or as used out of context?

To try to recap, it was the study from 2005 - 2007 whose lead author said could not be used as nationally representative ("It comes from a 2007 study funded by the National Institute of Justice, called the Campus Sexual Assault Study, or CSA," from Yoffe's piece); the study from 2000 was the one which tried to multiply rates. In the Politifact article (which the New Republic article I linked to links to), similar criticisms are raised about the 2007 study. It also references that absurd attempt to derive cumulative numbers by multiplying rates when it referencing the 1996 Sexual Victimization of College Women survey; just to make things more difficult this study is referred to as the "2000 study" in Yoffe's article (it came out in 2000, but the data is from 1996). It also references several other studies with similar numbers: There is the nationally-representative 2007 Medical University of South Carolina study, mentioned in the New Republic article, which says that 11.5 percent of college-aged women have "ever been raped", but that is a lifetime number. There is also the CDC number, also lifetime, which says that

So, to make sure we're on the same page:

1996 | 2000 : Measures rates of rape among college students, finds a rate of 1.7% for completed and 1.1% for attempted rape over a 6.91 month period while a student; did not measure rates cumulatively, though does make an ill-advised attempt at multiplying rates and comes to an estimate of 20 to 25 percent.
2005 - 2007 | 2007 : Finds that among college women surveyed at two Midwestern colleges, 13.7 percent reported a sexual assault since they had begun their schooling.
2009: Additional data for the above study, which says that, specifically among seniors, almost 20% experienced some type of sexual assault since the start of their schooling. Study author (and other experts) advise against using number generally due to its not being nationally representative
2007 : This is the 2007 Medical University of South Carolina study, which found that 11.5 percent of college-aged women "have ever been raped"; they estimate a number of 18.0 percent for the general population. This study is nationally representative, but doesn't ask specifically about sexual assaults or rape that occurred while a student
2010 : The CDC study, which found a rate of 18.3 percent lifetime for all women for completed rape. This study may represent an undercount, as it doesn't cover vulnerable populations like individuals under the age of 18, the homeless, the hospitalized, prisoners, or people in residential treatment programs.

So, we have a studies are representative and studies that aren't; studies that focus on college students annually and college students lifetime, but don't ask about college students' experiences specifically at college; studies that ask about students' experiences specifically on campus but do so over a short time frame (6.91 months) and / or aren't nationally representative. And we have numbers for both "sexual assault" and "rape" and "sexual assault" is by necessity defined more broadly than is "rape." And we have to keep this in mind:

Koss broke it down this way: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics equal what gets reported to police, the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey equals what people disclose to surveyors, and academic research surveys are "what people tell to nongovernmental entities when survey authors have the freedom to phrase the questions as they think best as scholars."

So, it can be very difficult to have an apples-to-apples comparison of studies about the experience of college students at college because there are so many different questions being asked and time frames being used. It's better with general population numbers; the lifetime rates for forcible rape, at least, tend to fall in a pretty consistent 12 - 15%-ish (give or take a couple points for the outliers) range; and the annual rates for forcible rape tend to also be in the 0.5 - 0.7% range, for instance.

 

[Guileless]

Ezra Klein writing at vox.com:

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

 

[GorillaJu]

A "cold spike of fear" sounds like a major boner killer.

 

[Mrmartel]

I'm glad someone's pointing out the distorted statistics that have been thrown around. I remember hearing Obama's speech where he dropped the "1 in 5" statistic and thinking how incredibly high that sounded.

He needs to stop using that statistic. It's a joke. The study that came to that conclusion is flawed on so many levels that no professional statistician would ever stand by it. The guy that did the study actually doesn't even know why government officials are using it.

 

[kirblar]

He needs to stop using that statistic. It's a joke. The study that came to that conclusion is flawed on so many levels that no professional statistician would ever stand by it. The guy that did the study actually doesn't even know why government officials are using it.

Because they were given a soundbite.

 

[Mrmartel]

Because they were given a soundbite.

Nobody's fact checks anything anymore I suppose. Just throw it out there. Wonderful