Intoxication has no place in the discussion but as a defence. This is the passage in the policy:

"A Respondent’s impairment at the time of the
incident as a result of drugs or alcohol does not,
however, diminish the Respondent’s responsibility
for sexual or gender-based harassment under this Policy."

Unless you mean "she was too drunk to know whether she was being raped, who's to say, really?" I have no idea what you're hinting at here. I know you are a perfect gentleman with nothing but good intentions in your heart and would never do something like feed a girl drinks to impair her ability to resist or escape, have some yourself, then characterize the rape as a mutual "hey, we were both pretty drunk, eh?"... but that is extremely common and what the rule above is meant to address.


I was thinking about going through the Harvard Letter line-by-line to show what a joke it is, but I have a bunch of work to catch up before tomorrow -- We've already talked about their ignorance of Massachusetts law and their unsupported and imprecise complaint about the breadth of the policy (they intend for you to understand that the list includes a bunch of normal behaviours no one could hope to ever comply with but don't actually cite which-- the revenge porn or the stalking?-- they consider "normal" and want struck).

This is just asserted and presented as bad, but they don't even attempt to establish why it is is bad: Why individual schools in a university should be their own little principalities and how this would be better than not doing it, or why, notwithstanding that Harvard Law is under investigation for mishandling this very kind of dispute, it should still be granted this authority.

Harvard's procedure is roughly as follows:
After an incident the complainant can request an informal resolution by lodging their complaint and having the investigator check it out and propose a solution, or initiate a formal dispute resolution. The complainant drafts a complaint and appends to it whatever supporting evidence she has for it. This is passed on to the investigative team who does some preliminary research and decides whether to proceed with a formal investigation.

Once they've decided to proceed, the respondent is notified in writing and told what he's being investigated for, and is granted a week to draft his own statement and append to it his supportive/relevant evidence. Harvard advises responding parties to consult an attorney if they feel the complaint rises to the level or criminal conduct.

The investigators interview each person separately along with any witnesses that might be helpful in determining what went down. The principals are then interviewed again at the end if they have anything to add to what the witnesses have said. The principals are encouraged to bring along a personal advisor (an officer of their school; no family) who can offer support and call for breaks if they think their "client" would benefit from it.

Finally, the investigators draft their report and if they've made a finding of responsibility then "Consistent with School policies, measures imposed at this stage might include, among others: restrictions on contact; course-schedule or work/schedule alteration; changes in housing; leaves of absence; or increased monitoring of certain areas of the campus."

Appeals are allowed by both parties on the basis of a misapplication of the rules or if new evidence emerges that would have caused a different outcome.


In all, anyone would agree this is an extremely fair and equal approach that meets the notice/hearing/appeal requirement of due process. What does Harvard Law think?

In view of the actual facts of the advertised Harvard policies and means of redress, the Harvard Letter is absolutely grotesque. In fact it doesn't even seem like they've read either document and if I didn't know better I'd have guessed the Letter was intended as a prank.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Absolutely grotesque to be able to confront witnesses and mount a defense.

Remember guise, PR is totally for due process.

Ikes, you know how I keep telling you "due process" isn't a fixed thing and you need to show on what basis either of those would be owed above what is already granted, what is different for their absence, and whether this is good or bad?

This would be a good time.

"Due process" is not a synonym for the due process granted criminal defendants. In school your interest is not in your freedom but in your good academic standing and eventual degree: it is considered a property right, and the procedure is set up to preserve, as much as possible, these interests while attempting to determine truth. Most of the resolutions are to keep some distance between the two parties for a while; Harvard doesn't imprison one of them. The Great Legal Bros of Our Time have blurred the line-- I hope deliberately-- and misrepresented not only their own standing, but also the policies and the law. They refused to participate in the consultations while the policy was being drafted and are now relying on that abstention to allege non-consultation. They waited months after it was published to try to ride the wave of popular anxiety about campus overreach via a letter to the Globe.

The letter is really negligent and reflects very poorly on the quality of education they purport to provide. I don't really get why you would pretend this is beyond your comprehension. This is easy ****. I normally assume you're just dishonest but if you are still struggling at this point I am willing to accept you might not be pretending and are in fact a little bit slow.

Due process isn't a fixed thing, however being able to actually mount a defense is absolutely required. Feel free to derp on, and mock the credibility of an institution you were touting a few posts ago.

In what kind of fake dream world are you living? When talking about caring about victims of rape which sides are there to care about instead of just simply caring about the people who suffer?

You can imagine your win in your imaginary game I didnt know I was involved in, no problem to me at all. I just hope people like you will eventually open up your heart so we can finally progress as humans instead of all the identity politics nonsense.

Oh, and after reading your response to my post I feel even more sorry for you. You're bitter dude.. Hope is out there for you, come progress with the outside world. Identity politics are for dinosaurs. The world is changing

Lol you really are clueless.

Try and imagine a case where intoxication might complicate a sexual assault accusation. One that does not involve the guy claiming his own drunkenness as a defense. And, one that does not involve him "feeding a girl drinks to impair her ability to resist or escape".

I know it's difficult but I think you can do it.

Lol derp on

Argue in a straightforward and complete way, please. If you have something to say about 'complications' just say it.

Occidental case PR.

done.

Here you go guys, knock yourself out. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...Out-Of-Society

Let's see, I like to play video games, do drugs, get pissed with the lads, didn't do well in school and yet inexplicably somehow don't do well with women. It's the feminists fault!

What does that moronic article have to do with this thread?

You still don't get it. How about, "she consented, but is arguing that she was too incapacitated by alcohol to offer genuine consent".

You seem unable to conceive of the possibility that a college woman might get drunk because she likes to drink, not because some guy "feeds her drinks so she couldn't escape" (lol no bias on your part there). And that this woman might have a drunken hookup with a guy. And that this same woman may then accuse the guy of assault, whether she gave consent at the time or not. And that this makes things complicated. Which is what the Harvard profs were talking about. Which isn't that hard to understand if you just get off the "I was drunk so I'm not guilty" angle, which no one is even debating except for you.

The world is changing, absolutely right, and your constant whining about women getting too much attention about rape issues gets only laughs.

Nobody buys the crap you sell about how concerned you are about men's rape issues when you whine at any chance you get when women's social justice issues are being discussed.

And lol at progressing as humans, the decent ones are waiting for you to make the first baby step. Don't take too long now, might get left behind.

I'm still trying to understand this whole "men's rights" thing in terms of what a certain subset of men seem to be so upset about. I'm curious if that article is clownishly over the top for everyone, or actually speaks to some here itt.

Article brings up some valid points (schools are currently failing boys for example) and is obviously over the top.

I grunched a bit of it but it seemed there was some bitterness in the author of article. Saying things like women are being hurt the most from feminism..... Like, really?

Just sensationalist writing for a specific audience.

Barking up the wrong tree with that one:

-------

Actually my "bias" is I've done enough partying to know that casual sex is not in any way a moral question, and sex under those circumstances wouldn't be rape -- I have argued at length that I don't believe there exists a level of inebriation that vitiates a woman's responsibility but doubles a man's: if you can understand what you're doing, you're good to go. Sex is not complicated, you can be ****ing hammered and appreciate what's happening, which is all that's required.

Incapactitation is, to me, the inability to say no or yes because you have no idea what's going on and can't assess or respond to the situation. Therefore the default is 'no.' A "redacted" consent on the grounds of normal inebriation at the time she made it is not something I necessarily support, but I guess it depends on the circumstances. So far I haven't come across any that didn't involve the woman being actually unconscious.


It would be nice if you stopped lashing out at me as an emblem of some larger mindshare. You're a grown-ass man who's spent an afternoon dancing around the subject of "redacted consent" and are getting mad at me for guessing at what a grown-ass man is thinking but won't way? gtfo.

lol PR that's what you were saying JUST NOW. It's you that is seriously confused, not us.

Ikes --

I was arguing against a claim of diminished responsibility on account of being drunk when he committed the rape. Before that was a joke about "she was so drunk how could she know?"

My objection to the infantalization of women via the mechanism above-- literally assuming the legal status of a child-- for her own good-- is well-known. Hope that helps.

Well then you need to work on not contradicting yourself every other post.

Ikes --

Show me the contradiction.

done

...

I'm assuming they mean "VI is not an affirmative defense," not that VI can't be used to argue that reasonable doubt exists as to the intent element for rape.