<p>Yes, to be impartial UConn just settled a suit out of court for 1.3 million to women.</p>
<p>Agree with Hunt and Poetgirl - education for all, support for victims, encourage reporting and maintain records to find bad actors, reduce the drinking age, and have adequate procedural protections for the accused as well as the accuser. Both men and women need education to understand the concepts of affirmative and implied consent and of incapacitated. Where we may differ is I think young women need to be taught responsibility for their own actions, how to reduce their chances of becoming a victim and to understand when consent is given. I would also like to see more emphasis on the idea that men are not the enemy here and that 20% of guys are not rapists. </p>
<p>Couldn’t colleges maintain sealed records, like the police do? That is, the records would not be available to a potential employer or grad school, but could be searched if an assault is reported to ensure the accused does not have a record?</p>
<p>I read a statistic that about 8% of crimes reported are false accusations and that it was expected that a similar number would be reported for campus rapes. </p>
<p>
Happy Dating Games, ladies, and the odds ever be in your favor. Only 20%?</p>
<p>Meant in light of the 20% of women being assaulted does not translate to 20% of guys being assailants. Was that not clear?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually think college records should be sealed much like employment records - perhaps only dates of attendance, GPA and major. I’m somewhat surprised that full disclosure of high school student and college students records hasn’t been challenged as a privacy issue. </p>
<p>Not sure there is full disclosure, but that could be a concern about keeping track of who is accused but not found “guilty”. </p>
<p>Exactly. But until they find a system to keep track of accusations, preferably blind searchable, they will never solve the campus rape problem. </p>
<p>“I’m somewhat surprised that full disclosure of high school student and college students records hasn’t been challenged as a privacy issue.”</p>
<p>They ARE private. No one can see them without the former student’s permission. What the student doesn’t have is a right to selective privacy. If you want University A to send a transcript to University B, you can’t get a version of the transcript that leaves off the expulsion. But University B can’t just call University A and get the information if the student hasn’t given permission.</p>
<p>That is good to know Hanna. Decades ago an employer used to be able to get all kinds of info on a employee, if they were disciplined, review results, salary etc. now pretty much all that can be given is dates of employment. Poet, that’s why crimes should be handled by the law. Colleges should be able to report if a student dropped out of their own volition or if they were expelled for an honor code violation, gaps in education should be private as there are so many reasons a kid might have a gap from financial to medical to academic to an honor code suspension. The student can explain to the future employer or college the details if asked. A college would be in a mighty precarious position if they reveal information that is supposedly confidential. That’s happened a few times and of course those are in the legal system. I think employees, landlords, universities should have a right to do a background search on a potential employee, tenant, or student for legal infractions, but I have high regard for privacy laws and they are much “looser” in this country than in the European communities.</p>
<p>They passed the law in CA. </p>
<p><a href=“Audio - SRN News”>Audio - SRN News;
<p>What is eye-opening is the interpretation of the lawmakers themselves:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess “no mean no” is now out of the loop in terms of governing principles? Huh? I must be dumb then because I think “no mean no” is a whole lot clear than the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, OK, so an audible, verbal “Yes” is not necessary. Was this not what the purpose of the bill in the first place?</p>
<p>Let me understand this in its full glory:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>An audible “Yes” is not necessary, but now “no means no” does not cut it as “no.” This is possible since a female can verbally say “no,” but then go through with all the nonverbal “yes” signals. This is very possible because everyone has the right to change his mind. Right? The later yes actions override the earlier no.</p></li>
<li><p>However, silence is not consent, but an audible, verbal “Yes” is not required of consent to be given. This means that body language now effectively and legally takes place of the advocacy groups wanted, which was a verbal “yes.” Oops…seems like a major fail here.</p></li>
<li><p>Drunk means one cannot give consent, but there no determination of what is drunk? One drink, tipsy, actually physically impaired? No breathalyzer test or proof of drunked-ness required. Let’s guess - all a female has to claim is she was drunk and that is it. How is that different than anything happening now in these cases? It isn’t.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My question is: What does this bill do differently for the majority of contested situations where the female has a few drinks; might or might not be drunk (unable to prove actual physical condition); says nothing to the guy verbally; texts her friends she is leaving with him and do not wait for her; willingly goes back to his room; voluntarily disrobes; makes out with him; has sex; and then claims rape sometime later?</p>
<p>Not much is my answer, except that it probably gives the female a weaker case since she gave the prescribed, legal “Yes” in more ways than one, as per this law. </p>
<p>Unfrigging believable I can’t believe they passed it. I cannot understand why women aren’t all over this stuff…they just keep losing ground. So yeah you are correct - No means no but yes now means means a nod, a wink, a hand on the thigh - clear as mud. And what the heck makes someone incapacitated and unable to make consent - one drink an hour, two drinks an hour, 4 drinks an hour…crazy stuff. </p>
<p>Come on, now. This law doesn’t mean that no doesn’t mean no any longer. In theory, at least, it means that no means no, but silence also means no.</p>
<p>I did not read that silence means no - I read that yes can be a gesture…so I read it as the opposite of silence is no. I’ll have to go back and read the bill closer, but I don’t think I’m incorrect.</p>
<p>Quoted above:
</p>
<p>I’m not crazy about this law, but it’s not because it does away with “no means no.” I don’t like it because it shifts the burden of proof to the accused on a key element of a crime. That’s not normally how we handle criminal charges in our system.</p>
<p>I just checked and as I thought, the bill’s language does NOT require verbal consent and allows for “verbal and non-verbal” consent. The sentence" silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent" - but it does not explicitly say that consent must be verbal. Incidentally some colleges have “tougher” standards than the California state bill and DO require verbal consent - but that is not an actual requirement of this bill.</p>
<p>What the lawmaker says is their intent to change the paradigm, to me, is instructive. I think that is hugely important because he wrote the law.</p>
<p>Of course, on the surface, no means no, and silence is not consent. But, the no and silence are now clearly, based on this law, only operative in ABSENCE of other actions. That is the paradigm shift that is pivotal.</p>
<p>Before the law: Girl meets guy; they hit it off; things escalate; makes out with the guy; she says no; stays silent thereafter as to no; then female does a series affirmative yes actions, such as leaves with him, texts her friends she is staying with him, holds hands while leaving, voluntarily goes back to the room; and finally, ends up having sex. Before the law, the earlier no and silence superceded any of the later affirmative yes actions, I.e., the later actions did not count.</p>
<p>After the law: same scenario above, seems to me that the female has to prove her later affirmative actions, after saying no and staying silent, were not meant as affirmative yes actions at all. Yes, the burden is still on the accused, but I do think this weakens the female’s position, rightly or wrongly.</p>
<p>I just do not see how silence is not consent is functionally useful along with a myriad of affirmative yes actions or vice versa. And remember, yes, does not have to be verbal, so the silence is not consent is approaching a tipping point of why is it even in the law. </p>
<p>At least, this is the way I read this.</p>
<p>So, I still do not see how you get past the, “He said, She said,” part of all of this unless they are videoing the entire evening. These two people are probably drunk and probably not going to agree on every nod and nuance anyway if one of them is being accused of rape.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that the law will be read to allow non-verbal actions to overcome a verbal “no.” I doubt if that is the law’s intention at all, and I doubt that judges will interpret it that way.</p>
<p>^^ I differ in that all the affirmative actions taken afterwards would not be persuasive to me that the earlier no is superceding and the “no” would be seen as ruling by a judge.</p>
<p>How does anyone tell the difference between the no and following silence still meaning no from a person who actually changed her mind to yes? No one is a mind reader and if positive affirmative actions are taken after a verbal no followed by silence, a strong argument can be made that the later affirmative actions indicate the female changed their her mind. Even a judge or a jury knows people are not mind readers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t.</p>
<p>I agree Hunt, I do not believe the law will supercede “no” in the grand scheme of things - “no” is a pretty clear, concise answer… but .by eliminating the need for a verbal “yes”, however, in my opinion the law “softened” all the reasons that women activists “liked” the affirmation concept by allowing non-verbal consent.</p>