feminist Obama..

One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven

Marquette University Threatens Academic Freedom

Liberty Alerts, TheFIRE.org

Over at the blog Marquette Warrior, John McAdams provides a good example of how unwarranted investigations of campus speech can cause a deeply problematic “chilling effect” at a university. Universities must not pursue investigations of protected expression just because someone submits a complaint; as soon as it is clear that the expression in question is protected speech, the inquiry must end, even if there are other factual disputes. Prolonging the investigation tells everyone on campus that the university will pursue charges against you no matter how frivolous or malicious the complaint. The likely result is that people self-censor and keep their mouths shut rather than risk such investigation and a possible punishment.

It seems that Marquette University, where McAdams is a professor, made just such a mistake this month. According to McAdams, his introductory course in American politicsdiscusses alleged media bias and takes an anti-feminist perspective:

Ambiguous sexual encounters, often fueled by alcohol, are defined as “rape” by feminist researchers, but not defined that way by purported victims.

We point out that feminists insist that if a women consents to sex under the influence of alcohol, she has been raped. [...] Often, some guy who hasn’t yet learned that, in academia, he’s not supposed to question any feminist claim, will raise his hand in our class and ask “suppose the guy has been drinking too? Why didn’t she rape him?”

We always respond, sarcastically “you’ve got to look at this from the feminist point of view. Males are the oppressor class, and women the victim class. So of course the guy is responsible.”

We typically add “if you wake up in the morning and ask ‘what in the world did I do?’ you haven’t been raped. If you’ve been raped you feel violated. If it requires a feminist political activist to explain to you how what happened was rape, you weren’t raped.”

In response, someone complained using the “Ethics Point” hot line Marquette had set up for people to privately report illegal financial activity (which this classroom discussion certainly was not). The complaint (as reported by McAdams) was that the material in class was “demeaning to rape victims” and that “rape is a serious problem on campus, and thus we [in the course] were engaging in ‘harassment based on gender.’”

Marquette has no basis, consistent with free speech and academic freedom, to punish anyone for making a vigorous argument in class, even if some perceived that argument as “demeaning to rape victims.” Nevertheless, Provost John Pauly directed McAdams’ department chair to pursue the investigation. McAdams writes:

Faculty have a right to disagree with any political movement – including feminists. And social science faculty have a right to debunk bogus social science statistics. … [T]he complaint should have been dismissed immediately. Taking the complaint absolutely at face value, we did nothing but disagree with feminist claims about date rape, something clearly protected by the canons of academic freedom.

That’s quite right. Marquette, like most private universities, promises students and faculty members that it is the kind of university that supports free speech and academic freedom. Marquette’s Student Handbook, for instance, notes:

It is clearly inevitable, and indeed essential, that the spirit of inquiry and challenge that the university seeks to encourage will produce many conflicts of ideas, opinions and proposals for action.

Yet by pursuing this investigation, Marquette is letting a single student entangle a professor in disciplinary proceedings simply due to protected classroom expression. How many professors at Marquette are now going to steer clear of sensitive topics just to avoid an Ethics Point investigation?

Marquette has had free speech failings in the past, too, such as when it required a graduate student to remove no less than a humorous Dave Barry quote from his office door: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” At Marquette, this language was deemed so “patently offensive” that it could not be posted on the door. (Here’s Dave Barry himself speaking about it in a FIRE video.)

Once again, it seems that Marquette draws the line at offensiveness in a way completely at odds with what academic freedom and free speech should and do permit.

Used with the permission of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Link..

A self explaining video from the ManWomanMyth site that once again explains the need for feminists to treat women as total morons and children as well..

 Needless to say, there does not appear to be any opposition to that claim, I am waiting for them to catch up on the irony..

How the panic over rape was orchestrated

Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended.

Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time.

This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda.

Since 1999 the Home Office has known that its methods for calculating rape convictions are wrong. The real conviction rate is not the publicly broadcast 10 per cent but closer to 50 per cent (it varies slightly from year to year). In a Minority Report (1) which I wrote for a Home Office committee in 2000 but which advisers refused to forward to ministers who were then actively considering new rape legislation, the HO were told that they were confusing ‘attrition’ rates with ‘conviction’ rates.

The attrition rate refers to the number of convictions secured compared with the number of that particular crime reported to the police (it must be noted that a crime that is ‘reported’ does not automatically imply that the crime actually took place). The conviction rate refers to the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence.

Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. Why? The question is best addressed to Betty Moxon who, in 2000, was head of the Sex Offenders Review Team (SORT) for whom I wrote the minority report.

In the most recent edition of More or Less, broadcast last Friday and still available as a podcast, Ruth Alexander questioned why rape has been made an exception. Referring to a new report soon to be published by London Metropolitan University she said it claimed that Britain had the worst record in Europe for rape convictions. Over recent years, she said, the report showed that the conviction rate had fallen from 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent.

But this is based on the misleading attrition rate. When real conviction rates are calculated on a common basis with other crimes, her report endorses our findings of 2000 (and subsequent years), namely that it is more commonly in the 48-52 per cent bracket. Her latest figure, for 2007, was 47 per cent.

But how are we to judge if that is good or bad ? Comparable figures show that the conviction rate, for instance, for Violence Against the Person was 71 per cent.

In the past the Home Office used to publish annual “Criminal Statistics for England and Wales” which were very accessible. Its present embodiment, published by the Ministry of Justice does not helpfully list murder rates or conviction rates. Nonetheless, Ruth Alexander quoted comparable ‘attrition rates’for other crimes, listed below:

                                        

Wow, have we just witnessed the beginning of the end of the pussy pass, that card that women use to escape accountability and receive a much lighter sentence than even children receive ?

Can we now expect the population of female teachers to finally take notice and be made aware of the fact that shagging any underage student under your care is going to land you in the slammer for a  minimum of 25 years. Think they will change their mindset and behaviour, or what ?

Court documents..

ALLANAH TUMURA BENTON,  LC No. 09-024636-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before:  SERVITTO, P.J., and MARKEY and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
MARKEY, J.
 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct (CSC), MCL 750.520b(a)(1), for which she was sentenced to concurrent prisonterms of 25 to 38 years. She appeals by right. We affirm. 

Defendant, a former elementary school teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexualintercourse with a 12-year-old  former student from her sixth grade class. The victim hadacademic and behavioral problems and was suspended from school for fighting with anotherstudent at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. Defendant intervened on the victim’sbehalf and persuaded the school principal not to expel the victim from school. After the victimreturned to school, defendant invited him to religious activities at her Masjid (mosque) and to herhome, purportedly to offer him guidance and help him with his anger and academic problems. The victim was subsequently expelled from school after a second fighting incident.  After hisexpulsion, he spent more time with defendant at her home, with his mother’s permission. According to the victim, he and defendant progressed from hugging, to hand-holding, andto kissing, before eventually engaging in sexual intercourse. The victim testified that he anddefendant had sexual intercourse on two different evenings in October 2007. After the secondincident, the victim called defendant from his home and inadvertently recorded the call. Duringthe recorded call, the victim referred to defendant as his girlfriend, and stated that he was proudto be involved with a grown woman. The victim’s mother heard the recording and reported it tothe school. The school board later terminated defendant from her teaching position and thatdecision was upheld by the tenure commission.

Twenty-five year minimum sentence for statutory rape is not cruel or unusual punishment 

In People v. Benton, No. 296721, the Court of Appeals considered whether a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct constituted cruel or unusual punishment. The defendant, an elementary school teacher convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old student, argued that the mandatory minimum sentence for a statutory rape conviction prevented the court from considering mitigating factors and other particular circumstances of the offense. Most notably, the defendant wanted the court to be able to take into account her assertion that she never used force, violence, or coercion and her assertion that she did not physically or psychologically injure her victim. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that Michigan’s public policy goal was to prevent adults from engaging in sexual activities with pre-teens. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s assertion that she was less culpable than most other sex offenders was unpersuasive, noting that the defendant used her position of power and authority to insinuate herself into her victim’s life, isolate him in her home, and then engage in sexual activities with him. The court also noted that other states had similar minimum sentences for an adult offender’s first offense against a pre-teen victim, regardless of any purported mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by refusing to admit under the Rape Shield Act her victim’s prior sexual experiences. The defendant claimed at trial that her victim’s testimony about his inexperience with condoms created the untrue impression that her victim was sexually inexperienced. The defendant alleged that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence about the victim’s past sexual experiences to contradict this impression violated her constitutional right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that while in limited situations a rape victim’s past sexual history is admissible to preserve a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, the victim in this case had never actually stated that he was sexually inexperienced.

This is how the anti-male hysteria all started, by lying cows just like this, and it has not stopped since..

 

Twenty Years Ago Today: The Imaginary Rape That Prompted Calls for a Curfew for Men and Boys

by Archivist

Today is the twentieth anniversary of something that didn't happen, an imaginary rape that turned the teenage boys of the bucolic college town of Davis, California into creatures more loathsome than pariahs.

On August 2, 1991, Janet Berger, 44, who was then a circulation manager for a local Davis newspaper, falsely claimed she had been raped on July 29, 1991 at 10 p.m. by five skateboarding boys in one of the city's park-like greenbelts.

Berger said the supposed rape was in retaliation for her act of accidentally brushing up against one of the youths on her bicycle earlier in the evening. On her return trip along the same path, she claimed that a wilding gang of skateboarding teen males in tank tops, ages 13-17, wrestled her from her bike and proceeded to rape her.

Two weeks later, Berger told a rape counselor and police that it was a lie: she had merely fallen from her bicycle and had made up the rape story. She furnished neither an explanation nor a motive.

But it's what happened during those two weeks to one particular class of citizens -- the teen male skateboarding community -- that makes this story so instructive.  Immediately following the spurious allegation, the news media took the woman at her word. One headline solemnly announced: "Rape shatters illusions in Davis."

Anonymous flyers were circulated calling for a curfew for all men and boys.

Threatening, anti-male graffiti was scrawled on an overpass favored by skateboarders. It read: "Dead Boys Don't Rape."

Other graffiti repeated the "Curfew for All Men" sentiment; still other graffiti demanded: "Get the Skateboard Rapists."

Apoplectic women's groups ran out of synonyms for the word "shock."

The newspaper where Berger worked reported that a rally was planned in "support of the rape victim and other rape victims." But then the rally was canceled at Berger's request.

A local chapter of the National Organization for Women held a news conference to denounce the alleged crime. And townsfolk demanded arrests, even though the only evidence of the putative assault was the word of one then-unidentified woman whom the townsfolk knew nothing about.

Police questioned 75 completely innocent boys in connection with the rape that never happened.

Skateboarders kept a low profile once the woman's story became public. "After it happened, there wasn't a skateboarder in town," said Bill Gray, a Yolo County youth counselor at Davis High School.

One of the innocent boys taken in for questioning was then-16-year-old Josh Fernandez, who is now a mid-30s married man and a writer. Josh, then an avid skateboarder, knew as soon as he heard the allegation that he and his friends would be targeted.

"Once, when we were taking a break from skateboarding in the parking lot of Carl’s Jr.," Josh recalled, "a car pulled up. In the car was a man, about 40, who had a ratlike face with a patchy mustache. 'Hey, you fucking rapists,' he said, with his window rolled halfway down. He tried to spit on me, but the saliva didn’t quite make it out of his car."

Josh told the man, "Fuck you," but was glad that the man sped off, "because, frankly, he would have pummeled me to death with his white-trash methamphetamine arms."

This was typical, according to Josh: "For a couple of weeks, wherever we went, something of that nature would happen: A truck full of UC Davis jocks threw a dozen soda cans at us and screamed, 'Rapists!'; Butchy Davis women in hemp dresses glared us down with their murderous eyes as we rolled past on the sidewalk—and so on."

"I don’t know about my friends," Josh wrote last year, "but there were moments that summer when—even in my gangly, 5-foot frame—I felt like a big, lumbering, greasy rapist."

Finally, police decided Berger's story was filled with holes, so they confronted her with inconsistencies. One key failing in her story was her refusal to reveal the name of a doctor she claimed examined her.

"The reason I can't give you a doctor," Berger finally told police, "is because there is none."

Police officers and a rape counselor spoke to her for 3 1/2-hours, and she finally acknowledged the fabrication.

Davis Police Chief Phil Coleman called a news conference to announce the jig was up. Flanked by politicians, two detectives, and two rape counselors, the Chief said the rape never occurred.

Mayor Maynard Skinner offered an olive branch to the skateboarders, calling them "an important group in our community." He announced that the city planned to open a skateboard park.

The mayor also called on the woman, Jan Berger, 44, to publicly apologize. (I can find no indication whether she did.)

Councilwoman Lois Wolk said: "It's a tragedy for this community, We were very ready to point fingers and make accusations and stereotype groups--men (and) skateboarders."   But then Wolk proceeded to call Berger a "victim," and said she hoped Berger would receive therapy.

Some local women identified as feminists would not accept the fact that a rape did not occur, and they worried that rape victims might not come forward because people did not believe a rape occurred. "I don't think any one of us (is) convinced that it didn't happen," said feminist Sherilyn Adams. "It's not uncommon for women to recant out of fear of retaliation . . . or denial--make this thing go away."

Police confirmed a report that Berger ran a small day-care center that was shuttered after children were molested there in 1986. She was never prosecuted for the crimes, but felt responsible. Before she recanted her rape lie, she told a detective "what happened now [the supposed rape] was punishment for what had happened" at the day-care center.

A rape counselor, who told reporters that she only uses her first name (Cheryl), said that Berger did not "act out of malice." Rather, she had experienced unspecified traumas in her life. "She does deserve a great deal of compassion."

There is no indication that the newspapers were at all interested in Josh Fernandez's back-story, or that of the other 74 boys picked up for questioning by police.

For Berger's lie, for pitting an entire community against a group of some of its most vulnerable citizens--children--Berger was charged with a misdemeanor of filing a false police report, carrying a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $500 fine. (The newspapers aren't clear if she was convicted.)

The boys questioned by the police seemed to have bounced back and put it behind them, but they didn't forget. Josh Fernandez, the writer, and his skateboarding friends who were also questioned by police, have done pretty well for themselves. One is an ophthalmologist; another writes jokes for Jay Leno; another is a chemist.

When Josh got married last year, he got the old gang together to be his groomsmen, and they skipped the traditional bachelor party. Josh rented out an indoor skate park, and these guys now in their mid-30s--who, 20 years ago, were taken to the police station to be questioned for a rape that never happened just because they were skateboarders--skated like they were 16 again.

Sources:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-20/news/mn-1241_1_davis-enterprise

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/skateboard-bachelor-party/content?oid=1810692

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lpszAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sjIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5152,4943016&dq=skateboard+and+rape&hl=en

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/news/mn-1507_1_false-police-report

Mike addresses the feminist penchant for murdering the unborn as just being an event like choosing an item on the menu or it just being some lifestyle choice without granting the slightest consideration to the fact that they are promoting a heinous and sadistic operation that not only destroys a life but can and does totally destroy the female who undertakes that action..Here..Here and Here..

significant abortion risks:

• Breast cancer
: This is considered as major risk in abortion. About 50% of women are affected by this type of cancer after abortion.

• Premature delivery:
 When you go through one or more induced abortion surgeries, there is a significantly increased risk of premature delivery in future. This kind of abortion risk is mainly associated with several complications like cerebral palsy, prematurity in brain, eye problems and several bowel diseases.

• Infertility:
 This is a very rare case in the risks of abortion, where a woman might not get pregnancy in future.

• Pelvic inflammatory diseases:
 This can be a life threatening risk for you after abortion, which can lead to infertility and ectopic pregnancy. About 5% of women suffer with pelvic inflammatory diseases.

Mike Adams  
Poverty, Rape and Abortion

Author’s Note: Every summer at Summit Ministries (seewww.Summit.org) I give a speech meant to equip young pro-life students with proper rebuttals to pro-abortion choice arguments. I have been asked to reprint the speech in my column (in condensed form). I am doing so in two parts. The first part can be accessed by clicking on this link. I hope you find this – the second of two installments – both beneficial and informative.Whenever I find myself in an extended argument about abortion I find that there are about six arguments I can expect to encounter before the argument has come to term, so to speak. But, fortunately, the six arguments all suffer from one fatal flaw, which makes them somewhat easy to rebut as long as the proponent of life stays focused on the central moral question of the abortion debate, which is “Are the unborn human?” I’ve dealt with four of the six arguments in the first installment of this series. I deal with arguments five and six below.
Argument #5: “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to give birth to a baby she cannot afford.”This argument is also remarkably calloused – so much so that it is difficult to understand how those who make it could describe themselves as “liberal.” Do we really need to start reassigning Jonathan Swift’sModest Proposal to understand how profoundly sick and distasteful this argument really is? Swift wrote (satirically, of course) a proposal that suggested people eat their babies in order to relieve hunger and poverty. Pro-abortion choice arguments often sound chillingly similar.
For those who have never read Swift, I like to use a more contemporary example. In the 80s, a punk rock band calling themselves “The Dead Kennedys” wrote a song called “Kill the Poor” in which they mockingly suggested that we kill poor people as a means of eliminating poverty. That would certainly eliminate poverty. But is that really an acceptable solution? Of course, it isn’t. That was their point.
Make sure to confront abortion choice advocates with the question of whether it is permissible to kill to eliminate poverty. When you do, they will say something like this: “No, I would never advocate killing the poor. I would advocate abortion to prevent them from becoming poor people in the first place.” They are trapped once again in the untenable position of denying the personhood of the unborn. (Please review argument #1 from the first installment in this series).
2. “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!
They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead. Please review argument #1.
3. “It is wrong to force a woman to bring an unwanted baby into the world.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an “unwanted baby.” If a baby is unwanted by its mother there is always, and I mean always, someone else who would want to adopt the baby. People cannot easily adopt in the country because so many children are unnecessarily aborted. But there is something even more sick and twisted about the “unwanted baby” excuse; namely that it insinuates that abortion prevents child abuse. But we have already established that abortion is child abuse. Please review argument #1 before reading further.
The very idea that we would murder children to prevent child abuse, which usually takes the form of simple battery, elevates intellectual laziness to a Zen art. It is the intellectual equivalent of promoting arson in order to prevent burglary. It is true that burglary will go down when we burn down everyone’s house but by now you get the point. And hopefully the pro-abortion choice advocate gets the point, too.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that abortion has not been an effective means of stopping child abuse (even if we exclude abortions). In 1973, there were 167,000 reported instances of child abuse. By 1982, reported instances of child abuse rose to 929,000. That is an increase of over 500 percent in less than a decade. When will so-called liberals take responsibility for this unmitigated disaster?
4. “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to bring a handicapped baby into the world.” It is frequently suggested that abortion is morally permissible when doctors discover, prior to birth, that a baby suffers from certain physical handicaps – such as Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy. My response usually goes something like this:
“I agree that there are far too many handicapped people in the world. Every summer I take busloads of people who are wheelchair-bound on a trip to the Grand Canyon. We enjoy the view for a few minutes before I roll them off the edge of the Canyon. They are usually dead long before they hit the bottom. That is a good thing for them and for society as a whole. It is better to be dead than to be handicapped. Their lives are not worth living whether they realize it or not”
This provokes a strong reaction – as it should. After all, I am accusing the abortion choice advocate of gross insensitivity. That is usually when they argue that they are not killing a handicapped person but rather preventing a handicapped person from ever being born. Please review argument #1. Your opponent is trapped once again.

This is what Obama and his feminised cronies was aiming at when they introduced different rules to prosecute young male college students, who according to common law are found to be not guilty but the feminised Universities decide under their own guidelines that it has decided otherwise, which goes to show that the new rules introduced are so biased that the law itself does not even recognise it..

If you are contemplating sending your SON to University or even College, I would suggest you find out how biased they are towards males and how feminised they are as Men at Universities are just regarded as access fodder for that male-hating cabal that is feminism..

Mike Adams
The Rape of Caleb Warner 

At the University of North Dakota (UND) the unthinkable has become a reality. A student has been found guilty of sexual assault despite the fact that local police refused to charge him with a crime – any crime. In fact, the police have charged his accuser with lying about the very incident that led to his campus conviction. And the punishment is not insignificant. Former student Caleb Warner has been banned by UND from setting foot on any North Dakota public campus for three years. Meanwhile, his accuser has been wanted by the Grand Forks Sheriff's Department for more than a year on the charge of making a false report to law enforcement.
This tragic incident raises two fundamental questions: 1) How much evidence must UND administrators see before they admit they have made a mistake? and 2) Why are campuses like UND adjudicating rape cases in the first place?
The alleged incident took place back in December of 2009. Sometime in early February of 2010, Warner's accuser reported an allegation of sexual assault to both the university and the Grand Forks Police Department. UND held a hearing for Warner on February 11, 2010. On February 16, he was informed that he had been found guilty of the broad charges of "Violations of Criminal or Civil Laws, Sexual Assault, and Interference.” In order to find Warner “guilty”, UND had to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is the “probably” standard used in civil cases.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has been the national leader of the opposition to a federal Department of Education mandate, which is forcing more universities to adopt the preponderance of evidence standard in rape cases. Under this mandate, universities cannot receive federal funding, including financial aid for students, unless they adopt the lower standard of proof in rape cases. FIRE predicted it would result in more wrongful convictions. And FIRE was right.
In Warner's case, the police and the university arrived at completely different conclusions when analyzing the same incident. Evidence gathered by the professionals in the Grand Forks Police Department showed that Warner's accuser had not told the truth about being sexually assaulted by Warner. The deception was so clear that, on May 13, 2010, the Grand Forks County District Court formally charged Warner's accuser with filing "False information or report to law enforcement officers or security officials." A warrant for her arrest was issued on May 17, 2010. To date, she has failed to appear to answer the charges against her. In other words, she has been a fugitive from justice for more than a year.
Warner's attorney, Steven Light, wrote a letter to UND General Counsel Julie Ann Evans on July 28, 2010, asking for a rehearing in light of this unusual turn of events. UND's student code allows re-hearings with no time limit when substantial new information unavailable during a prior hearing is uncovered. Yet on August 26, then-UND Vice President for Student Affairs Robert H. Boyd denied the request, erroneously calling it an "appeal" – rather than a request for re-hearing - and disallowing it because more than five days had passed since the guilty finding. For the record, most of my eighteen year old “Introduction to Criminal Justice” students understand the different between a motion for retrial, based on new facts, and an appeal, based on old law.
On May 11, 2011, my good friends at FIRE wrote UND President Robert O. Kelley pointing out the university's serious procedural errors and its failure to reconsider the case. FIRE added an even more important point; namely, that Warner's name could not be cleared by the courts so long as his accuser persisted in her flight from the law. FIRE further noted that it was unfair for UND to deny Warner a rehearing simply because his accuser had not been convicted of lying to the police. That conviction is not likely so long as she is a fugitive from justice not meeting her legal obligations.
On May 20, University Counsel responded to FIRE - once again denying Warner's request for a rehearing. Evans admitted in the letter that the university used the very same evidence to find Caleb Warner guilty of sexual assault that the police and prosecutor used to charge his accuser with lying to law enforcement. Evans further insisted that the fact that Warner's accuser had not responded to the charge against her was meaningless and that she could not even assume that his accuser knew about the charge against her. Evans states in part: “Clearly, the only ‘new testimony’ would be that of the opinion of Officer Vigness, i.e. that the victim lied to the police. This would not be substantial new evidence. This would be an unproven allegation.”
But since there has been an arrest warrant issued there must, at minimum, be probable cause that Warner’s accuser lied. According to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution – made binding on North Dakota through the Fourteenth Amendment - no warrants can be issued on less than probable cause. But that is not enough for Evans. She wants the charges “proven” under the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The situation may be roughly summarized as follows: The justice system must abide by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” when dealing with accusers. But UND may use “preponderance of evidence” when dealing with the accused.
There is no indication whatsoever that Evans has contemplated the possibility that there is something very wrong with the UND judicial system – legally or morally speaking. Her smug arrogance and condescension provide little hope for a quick remedy to an obvious injustice. Nonetheless, I would strongly urge everyone reading this column to call President Kelley’s office and demand justice for Caleb Warner. And UND alumni should also write Kelley’s office and announce that they are ceasing all donations until Caleb Warner is both cleared and compensated for his mistreatment at the hands of the UND administration. Those interested in doing so may simply follow this link: http://und.edu/president/.

Just some more information on the blatant lies that feminists and their supporters indulge in which not only muddies up the actual situation but also destroys any effort for the truth to surface. Continually lying about rape does not in any way enhance the way it's treated but only attracts scorn and derision as the truth of the situation is ALWAYS overstated by feminists whose sole consideration is purely motivated towards more funding. They have already demonstrated that they are not really interested in stopping or helping rape victims but only interested in spreading their hate message to anyone requiring that assistance, even encouraging false claims to ensure those vacancies are filled to inflate the numbers. Only feminists and their misfits occupy those places where real victims of rape can go but fails to be assisted in any meaningful way..

Those centres are not staffed with professionals but only paid workers with one precondition and that is that they have to be pro-feminist. We have already read many articles by Carey Roberts, a professor, who has repeatedly demonstrated that those centres are run by incompetent, irrational, biased females whose sole purpose has been stated above. So it is about time that professional people were installed into those centres rather than letting real victims suffer even more..

The entire "Rape Industry" is designed to further the feminist cause and as they are not even slightly interested in getting to the bottom of this harrowing crime, be it either male or female victims, it would appear that help from those "centres" are only ever superficial and at best, only slightly helpful if being helpful is indoctrination..

While the lies continue, no positive outcome will ever be realised and it's only ever the victims who suffer the most..

Lies, Damned Lies, and Dr. Phil 

False Rape Society.

by Archivist 

I read a startlingly inaccurate assertion that is repeated, in one form or other, in many places:
"There is no empirical data to prove that there are more false charges of rape than of any other violent crime. Estimates indicate that only 2 percent of all rape reports prove to be false, a rate comparable to the false report rate for other crimes." M. Torrey, "When Will We Be Believed? Rape Myths and the Idea of a Fair Trail in Rape Prosecutions" (forthcoming 24 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1013 (1991)); Parrot and Bechholder, eds., "Acquaintance Rape" at 28 (1991) ("(A)ccording to police records, false reports are no more likely for rape than they are for other serious crimes.")
Sound familiar? Of course it does. Anyone who advocates for persons falsely accused of rape and similar offenses encounters it routinely.  It is as offensive as it is dishonest, and even though it was debunked long ago, it is repeatedly trotted as fact. See, e.g., E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947 (2000), a scholarly law review article that painstakingly traced the two percent canard to its baseless origin.
No, I didn't copy the above quote from the literature of a college's women's center.
It's from the Congressional Record.
Specifically, it was in a Report by the Committee on the Judiciary in connection with the Violence Against Women Act. Senate Report 102-197 (102 S. Rpt. 197), Pub. L. 102-197 n. 48 (Oct. 29, 1991). Even though it was as wrong as can be, it was accepted as evidence to justify passage of VAWA.
Why is this important today? Because we are in danger of having history repeat itself.
Dr. Phillip McGraw, a/k/a Dr. Phil, made claims at a recent Senate committee hearing that some are calling "reckless and false."  http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/25/3792668/dr-phils-testimony-was-reckless.html
"During his testimony, Dr. McGraw made repeated statements about violence against women, but glossed over the widespread problem of abuse against men. McGraw made a number of claims that were flatly wrong, SAVE alleges."
"Dr. McGraw asserted that 'Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44.' But the actual leading causes of injury to women are falls, overexertion, and car accidents. McGraw told the senators that 'In too many situations violence against women, young and old, is almost treated as an 'acceptable crime.'"' But that statement ignores research showing over 90% of Americans abhor domestic violence."
Id.
If this is correct, then we're about to see more lies about men and women find their way into the Congressional Record.
Will things be different this time?
Incidentally, I found something else in that same Senate report. A tidbit dripping with irony:
Testimony before the committee reported that "(m)ost of the NCS (National Crime Survey) crime screening questions are very concrete." For example, victims are asked, "Were you knifed, shot at, or attacked with some other weapon * * *?" For rape, the person is asked, "Did someone try to attack you in some other way?" As the National Crime Survey itself puts it, "No one in the survey is ever asked directly if she has been raped." "Women and Violence," hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 101st Cong., 2d sess. 29 (Aug. 29, 1990) (testimony of Dr. Mary Koss) (quoting National Crime Survey).
Why is this ironic? Because in the infamous Ms. Magazine/Koss study, where Mary Koss that found 25% of women are raped, "[r]ather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape." See here. It turns out that only 27 percent of the women Koss said had been rape actually believed they had been raped. See here. As Heather MacDonald put it: "In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code."
That did not find its way into the Congressional Record