Friday, April 22, 2016
The fabricated rape scare gets even more shrill
To a Leftist scaremonger, even an unwelcome kiss is "rape". Successful prosecutions don't enter into it
The statistic claiming 1-in-5 women are raped on college campuses is an oft-repeated but easily dispelled myth. The figure is diminished by the fact most of the evidence is manipulated and stretched to make rape occurrences appear more common than they actually are. Sadly, that’s not stopping a anti-campus rape propaganda group from launching “Unacceptable Acceptance Letter,” a campaign highlighting higher education’s supposedly callous attitude toward victims of rape.
A poster ad appeared this weekend in the Harvard Crimson, where a faux acceptance letter stated, “We know that you will make lifelong friends and memories here on campus. We’re sorry that one of these memories will include being raped by someone you thought you could trust. You’ll fear him the night he pressed you against a wall and every day after that. The claims you will make against your rapist will be ignored, mach like your right to feel safe at school. After all, you can’t expect us to expel someone on the basis of a story that beings with ‘I had been drinking.’” The caption read, “This is a true story. One in five women are sexually assaulted in college.”
Actually, they’re not, but the rhetoric doesn’t end there. The group created an entire video series as well that features incoming college freshman gleefully reading off acceptance letters that include apologies for their impending rape that will go ignored by campus officials. (See all the videos here.)
As Robby Soave over at Reason notes, “College campuses are not perfectly safe places, of course. But they are not veritable hunting grounds, either. And non-students are actually at much greater risk of sexual assault.” Unquestionably, rape is a problem. But so too are unfounded allegations (remember Jackie?) and changing the rules that sometimes result in prejudiced expulsions. As long as America nurtures the hookup culture, the problem isn’t going to get better. That’s a message you won’t see plastered anywhere near public universities.
Meet the radical new face of British students: NUS elects president who refuses to condemn ISIS and calls Birmingham University a 'Zionist outpost'
A radical activist who has refused to condemn ISIS was today elected president of the National Union of Students.
Malia Bouattia has previously endorsed Palestinian 'resistance' against Israel, arguing that 'non-violent protest' is not enough, and called her own university a 'Zionist outpost'.
She was elected as Britain's most high-profile student today hours after NUS delegates argued against marking Holocaust Memorial Day, to cheers from a crowd.
The developments were condemned by Labour MPs, who said they were 'aghast' at Miss Bouattia's election and warned that the NUS 'no longer represents students well', while a leading war hero denounced her as an 'anti-semitic advocate of terrorist violence'.
Miss Bouattia, 28, who is originally from Algeria but went on to study at the University of Birmingham, defeated current president Megan Dunn by 372 votes to 328.
She previously made the news when, as the NUS officer for ethnic-minority students, she led efforts to stop the union officially condemning the Islamic State terror group in 2014.
The activist warned that speaking out against ISIS would be a 'justification for war and blatant Islamophobia', forcing union officials to clarify that 'NUS does not support ISIS'.
In the run-up to today's election, Miss Bouattia lost the support of several NUS delegates when it emerged that she had called Birmingham University a 'Zionist outpost in British higher education'.
She wrote in an article: 'It also has the largest JSoc [Jewish society] in the country, whose leadership is dominated by Zionist activists.'
And this week a video emerged in which Miss Bouattia could be seen apparently arguing that Palestinians should take up arms against Israel to end the country's occupation.
In the clip recorded 18 months ago, she said that the only reason Muslims failed to support the 'resistance' was 'internalised Islamaphobia' and 'anti-blackness'.
Miss Bouattia said: 'To consider that Palestine will be free only by means of fundraising, non-violent protest and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is problematic. 'It can be misunderstood as the alternative to resistance by the Palestinian people.
'The notion of resistance has been perhaps washed out of our understanding of how colonised people will obtain their physical emancipation.
'Resistance is presented as an act of terrorism, but instead of us remembering that this has always been the case throughout struggles against white supremacy, it's become an accepted discourse amongst too many.'
Her election today was welcomed by Cage, a controversial human rights group whose director once described ISIS executioner Mohammed Emwazi as 'beautiful young man'.
The organisation tweeted: 'Congratulations to Malia Bouattia on being elected the NUS president!'
Miss Bouattia last week denied being anti-semitic after 57 leaders of Jewish university societies raised concerns about her remarks in an open letter. 'It seems I have been misrepresented,' she said. 'I am extremely uncomfortable with insinuations of anti-semitism. 'I celebrate the ability of people and students from all backgrounds to get together and express their backgrounds openly and positively, and will continue to do so.
'I want to be clear that for me to take issue with Zionist politics is not me taking issue with being Jewish.'
After her election, she said: 'My election was not just about NUS - it has to be about our society, and the role of our movement within it.
'We must ensure our union is at the centre of a national fight for something better, and puts liberation at the heart of all we do.'
Earlier today, the NUS conference in Brighton debated whether or not the union should mark Holocaust Memorial Day, with some speakers arguing that the NUS was 'ignoring and forgetting' other genocides.
'It suggests some lives are more important than others,' said Darta Kaleja from Chester University.
Although the motion was eventually passed, the crowd loudly cheered the arguments against commemorating the Holocaust, prompting shock in some observers.
Labour MP John Mann said: 'The union is not doing enough to combat anti-Jewish hatred, and as such is failing in its responsibilities to its members.
'I am aghast at the new president's previous response to the concerns raised by Jewish students and expect her to meet their representatives and to build confidence that tackling anti-semitism in the NUS will be a priority.'
Wes Streeting, a former president of the NUS who is now Labour MP for Ilford North, argued that today's developments had damaged the union's reputation. 'NUS is lost I'm afraid,' he wrote on Twitter. 'It's had good leadership from Megan Dunn, but it no longer represents students well.'
Former minister Sir Eric Pickles added: 'There are some within the NUS that allow anti-semitism to flourish within their organisation.'
And Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander in Afghanistan, tweeted: 'Disgraceful yet predictable. Anti-semitic advocate of terrorist violence elected President of National Union of Students.'
Being president of the NUS has long been considered a springboard to high office, with the union's former leaders including Jack Straw, Charles Clarke, Jim Murphy and Trevor Phillips.
Federal Court: Schools May Not Provide Separate Bathrooms Based on Biology
An unaccountable agency and an activist court are rewriting Title IX and remaking bathroom policy across our nation.
On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court ruled against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students.
The court concluded that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—should be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as a Department of Education letter suggested in 2015. The ruling allows a lawsuit brought by a transgender student to proceed.
The case involves a biological girl who identifies as a boy. The court’s majority explains it this way: “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,’” is female, but G.G.’s gender identity is male.” Note the scare quotes around what the court calls “so-called ‘biological sex.” Biological sex, in fact, is precisely what Congress protected in 1972.
In a stinging dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer points out that “the majority’s opinion, for the first time ever, holds that a public high school may not provide separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex.” It’s hard to imagine that that’s what Congress was prohibiting when it enacted Title IX in 1972.
Indeed, the court’s ruling goes against human history, practice, and common sense. Niemeyer explains:
This holding completely tramples on all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes. … schools would no longer be able to protect physiological privacy as between students of the opposite biological sex.
This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.
Niemeyer even points out that students have privacy rights to not have students of the other biological sex in their locker rooms:
Across societies and throughout history, it has been commonplace and universally accepted to separate public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of biological sex in order to address privacy and safety concerns arising from the biological differences between males and females. An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex. Indeed, courts have consistently recognized that the need for such privacy is inherent in the nature and dignity of humankind.
Nevertheless, G.G. sued the school district. Why? Because the district created a policy which says that bathroom and locker room access is primarily based on biology, while also creating accommodations for transgender students. Specifically, the policy is that only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students.
But even this accommodation wasn’t good enough. Hence the lawsuit and Tuesday’s ruling.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Andre Davis claims the student is at risk of “irreparable harm” if forced to use a single-occupancy bathroom. Davis says that to support the claim of “irreparable harm, G.G. submitted an affidavit to the district court describing the psychological distress he experiences when he is forced to use the single-stall restrooms.”
Davis adds that “G.G. experiences daily psychological harm that puts him at risk for long-term psychological harm, and his avoidance of the restroom as a result of the Board’s policy puts him at risk for developing a urinary tract infection as he has repeatedly in the past.” Davis concludes that for G.G. to use single-occupancy restrooms “is tantamount to humiliation and a continuing mark of difference.”
Niemeyer, however, points out that the majority relies not on the actual text, history, or legal implementation of Title IX, but on a 2015 letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education: “The recent Office for Civil Rights letter, moreover, which is not law but which is the only authority on which the majority relies, states more than the majority acknowledges.” Indeed, that letter suggested that schools “offer the use of gender-neutral, individual-user facilities to any student who does not want to use shared sex-segregated facilities.”
At the end of the day, it’s hard to disagree with Niemeyer when he writes, “Any new definition of sex that excludes reference to physiological differences, as the majority now attempts to introduce, is simply an unsupported reach to rationalize a desired outcome.” This is simply an unaccountable agency and an activist court rewriting Title IX and remaking bathroom policy across our nation.
Bathroom, locker room, and shower facility policies that protect privacy based on biology while also accommodating transgender students make good sense. And as Niemeyer explains, they comply with the law, too: “when the school board assigned restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex, it was clearly complying precisely with the unambiguous language of Title IX and its regulations.”
Posted by jonjayray at 12:49 AM