BrianGarst.com

Duke University has a new “sexual misconduct” policy straight out of the minds of the most demented, male-hating feminists.

Duke University has instituted a new “sexual misconduct” policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered “powerful” on campus. The policy claims that “perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.” Duke’s new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the “atmosphere” or because one or more students are “intoxicated,” no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

“Duke’s new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong,” said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. “Members of the men’s basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are ‘perceived’ as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct.”

…Duke’s vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through “perceived power differentials,” which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when “intoxicated,” regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

…Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different “jury” to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one’s peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

On its face this policy is gender and race neutral. However, the enforcement of such a broad policy will necessarily be subjective. And if the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal showed us anything, it’s that Duke staff have an axe to grind against white males, who they see as unfairly privileged. This perception will both prejudice the jury against them, as well as make the rules more likely to be triggered, since such perceived power is what is being defined.

Which brings us to the real issue, the stupidity of defining misconduct this way. Women like power. That’s just how it is. They are attracted to alpha males who either have or show the potential to acquire power. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have programmed them this way. It makes no more sense to punish high-status males for this than it does to punish physically attractive women, but we all know that’s what this rule would do.

If you’re a white male looking to attend Duke, I suggest you look elsewhere. Why take the chance when they seem so intent on destroying you?

Duke University gender issues