Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide
 

This includes both prevention and response to sexual violence. Yale is NOT subject to a Title IX investigation, a rare Ivy that isn't.

It is very comprehensive and also quite detailed and long.
http://provost.yale.edu/sites/defaul...Misconduct.pdf

Well, this is misleading. They aren't subject to a current Title IX investigation because they were on the cutting edge of the rape crisis hysteria when it started, back in 2011, with the OCR's "dear colleague letter." Yale was investigated, and reached a settlement wih OCR in 2012.

Yes, quite detailed and quite long. The typical college student (even at Yale) won't even bother to read it. I submit that if most rape allegations were anything like the UVA story, it wouldn't need to be long and complicated.

But the universities are now being required to investigate and adjudicate a whole range of behavior that common sense tells us are not rapes, like the woman at Swarthmore. And if she doesn't get the "justice" she wants, she can file a Title IX complaint, or go to the media, or walk around with a mattress, or go on CNN and say she was sexually assaulted and her school did nothing about it. And how are we, her audience, to know the seriousness of her sexual assault? We can't know, because the universities can't comment and fill out the "other side of the story" and we have to believe the "victims".

The result: Its now the conventional wisdom that we have a rape crisis on our college campuses.

I don't post much, but I feel the need to put my .02 cents in here. To me, the only thing "common sense" about rape is that if I tell a man that I don't want to have sex with him, and he has sex with me anyway, then I have been raped. Regardless of any victim blaming excuse (level of intoxication, etc.) if I say or clearly indicate a lack of consent, and he does it anyway, I have been raped and I will never understand hesitance to adjudicate claims such as those. Why don't we, instead of blaming victims, teach our men/sons to ASK for EXPLICIT consent rather than ASSUME they have it?

I also find the notion of "seriousness" of sexual assault (i.e. levels of rape) extremely troubling.

Perhaps then you did not see this example I posted in another thread:

Sendrow is a 23-year-old brunette from Princeton, New Jersey. Her mother is from Mexico; her dad is a Jewish guy from the Bronx. She graduated last spring and works in health care in Washington, D.C. If 3,000 smiling Facebook photos are a good barometer, her four years at Swarthmore seem to have passed by untroubled. But in the midwinter of 2013, Sendrow says, she was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months. They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. “I basically said, ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you.’ And then he said, ‘Okay, that’s fine’ and stopped,” Sendrow told me. “And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep".

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/articles/ra...07gdZ2c5RUd.99

If you are a college administrator being asked to investigate and adjudicate her accusation of rape, several months after the fact, would you call this rape? Or sexual assault? Would you expel the male student?

I didn't see that you posted, but I did read that article. Its a very troubling case. What I think needs to happen is that we need to teach men that they need to make sure that each sexual act is explicitly consented to. Once we stop the notion that one has consent, unless the woman explicitly and forcibly says no (which she did do in this case), then a lot of potentially troubling cases will never come to be. (Put more eloquently, a man should assume a lack of consent unless explicitly given, rather than assume consent unless explicitly revoked.)

Cases like this make me glad I'm not a college administrator having to deal with this issue. I can see why this case, and others like it, inspires such strong feelings on both sides, especially with a college culture so focused on binge drinking and "hooking up" (not Swarthmore in particular but college in general). In my opinion, once she said no she totally revoked consent, so yes this is rape.

She "basically said no" (those are her words, according to the mag article) and he stopped. He then tried to initiate sex again and she was "too tired" to "basically" say no again. This is a common scenario in bedrooms across America every single night. I wouldn't call it rape. But if it is, my husband and I are both guilty.

I am VERY aware of the history of this issue at Yale, thankyouverymuch! I also have great familiarity with men from Yale, starting with my grandfather who got his Ph.D. there. You underestimate the diligence with which students at Yale familiarize themselves with serious matters such as this.

Will there ever be a Title IX investigation of Yale? Who knows. I never said there won't be. Nor do you know what might happen in the future there.

What I have posted isn't in the slightest misleading.

I never made a prediction that there would be another one in the future.

I simply stated the fact that Yale already had a Title IX investigation just a couple of years ago. The way you wrote your post "Yale is NOT subject to a Title IX investigation, a rare Ivy that isn't." implies that they have not been investigated even as so many other colleges have.

I absolutely call it rape and when it happened to me, my first call the next morning was to a divorce attorney. I couldn't call the police because, at that time, spousal rape was legal. It didn't mean I had to put up with it. If I say NO to a man and he continues to try and I'm not able to fight him, it is absolutely rape. Are you saying it's only rape if you physically fight back? Because that's also one way to suffer additional physical assault. Sometime the least traumatic thing to do is to be passive and hope it's over quickly. That doesn't mean it isn't rape.

I'm kind of appalled that you think it is ok just because it is your husband.

What would you call it, then? The woman said no, yet the man had sex with her anyway. If it's not rape, what is it?

I do, too.

Same here.

Where does she say that she had ever suffered a physical assault from this guy and was afraid of another one? On the contrary, she specifically says she was too tired to say no the second time he tried to initiate sex.

Where does anyone say that physical assault has to be involved for a rape to occur? She said no. Why does she have to keep saying it? She never gave consent, yet he had sex with her. AFTER she had already said no. Again, I ask you: If this isn't rape, then what is it?

Since when does rape require some physical assault above and beyond sex without consent? Stop turning rape into some kind of suffering olympics.

The last thing she said was no... seeing as he didn't get a yes after that, he raped her.

I respect what you and your husband have apparently established as cool for your relationship. Just stop expecting everybody else to be cool with it. A three-month relationship is NOT the same as a marriage on any measurable metric.

You're promoting "if she says no, just wear her down until she stops saying no" and it's irresponsible as shit.

If you have already said no with your words, then the only next way to say no is with fighting it physically which absolutely puts a woman at more risk. Most women are smaller than the man, less physically strong, and if they physically resist, then they are more likely to become physically assaulted as well as sexually assaulted.

All of this. The absence of consent is not consent. And can we stop calling rape anything other than rape?