Author: saveadmin

PR: On the Heels of Judicial Reversal, Law Professors Assail Affirmative Consent

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 8, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

On the Heels of Judicial Reversal, Law Professors Assail Affirmative Consent

WASHINGTON / February 8, 2016 – Following a landmark legal decision last summer, law professors across the country are criticizing affirmative consent policies as ineffective, unfair to defendants, and harmful to women. SAVE calls on lawmakers to focus on proven rape control strategies such as enhancing campus security measures, reducing alcohol-related assaults, and involving criminal justice authorities.

On August 4, 2015, judge Carol McCoy overturned a decision of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a student on allegations of sexual assault. McCoy ruled the university’s affirmative consent standard “improperly shifted the burden of proof” because the “ability of an accused to prove the complaining party’s consent strains credulity and is illusory.” (1)

Following the judicial reversal, legal experts began to express a range of concerns with the standard, including the policy’s unworkability, lack of effectiveness, curtailment of due process rights, wrongful convictions, constitutional problems, and broader social effects.

John F. Banzhaf, professor at George Washington University Law School, explains the affirmative consent standard “is not logical — nobody really works that way.” (2)

University of Kansas law professor Corey Yung worries that affirmative consent policies are ineffective “because the gains of the rule are likely to be minimal, the net effect for rape victims and justice will likely be negative.” (3)

Nadine Strossen, faculty member at the New York Law School and former president of the ACLU, notes: “These affirmative-consent rules violate rights of due process and privacy…Unless the guy can prove that his sexual partner affirmatively consented to every single contact, he is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct.” (4)

Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami School of Law reinforces concerns about shifting the burden of proof to the defendant: “But with affirmative consent, the accused must put on evidence.” (5)

Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Law School, explains that “Requiring the accused to demonstrate that affirmative consent was obtained, which is often difficult to prove,” would result in an “unacceptable” number of wrongful convictions. (6)

Baruch College law professor Jay Weiser highlights the constitutional problems: “The new affirmative-consent rules run afoul of many constitutional principles” because they are “vague and overbroad” and “amount to government-compelled speech.” (7)

Harvard Law School faculty member Janet Halley reflects on the broader social effects of affirmative consent policies that would “foster a new randomly applied moral order that will often be intensely repressive and sex-negative…They will install traditional social norms of male responsibility and female helplessness.” (8)

Referring to a proposal being considered by the American Law Institute, San Diego law professor Kevin Cole writes that the draft’s overly broad affirmative consent provisions would determine “the legality of every sex act between individuals who are not in an intimate, cohabiting relationship” and “will pose dangers to [women] whose protests are genuine.” (9)

University of Pennsylvania law professor Paul Robinson argues, “The most promising path to changing the culture of sexual consent on college campuses is to adopt and regularly reaffirm ‘yes means yes’ as the rule of proper conduct, but to reject it as the principle of adjudication.” (10)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) summarizes the legal pitfalls with affirmative consent, concluding, “Expanding the definition of an offense so broadly that it encompasses truly innocent people in an attempt to secure more guilty findings is unacceptable.” (11)

This week marks the two-year anniversary of the introduction of an affirmative consent bill in California. On February 10, 2014, Kevin de León introduced SB 967, which mandated the “yes-means-yes” standard for all California colleges. Seven months later Gov. Jerry Brown signed the controversial bill into law.

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Law Professors, Lawmakers, and Others Strengthen Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 25, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Law Professors, Lawmakers, and Others Strengthen Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Cases

WASHINGTON / January 25, 2016 – In recent weeks, numerous law professors, lawmakers, and others have issued statements calling for colleges to restore due process in the adjudication of sexual assault cases. These statements reveal a dramatic shift in the focus of the ongoing debate on campus sexual assault.

During a January 8 panel on “Grappling with Campus Rape” held at the American Association of Law Schools annual conference, several panelists were sharply critical of the current state of affairs. “’Rights’ is a generous description of what these schools gave the accused,” charged University of Miami law professor Tamara Rice Lave. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/14/law-professors-against-title-ix-faculty

Two weeks later, over 80 members of the American Law Institute signed a letter deploring a proposed model penal code because the draft law would engender “expansive criminalization” of sexual assault. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2016/01/more-concerns-expressed-about-alis-affirmative-consent-project-by-ali-members.html

Presidential candidates have expressed reservations about the proper handling of campus sex cases, as well.

On January 11, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders called for the referral of campus sexual assault cases to the criminal justice system, which embodies an array of due process protections. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/13/bernie-sanders-said-something-sane-about

Republican candidate Marco Rubio recently issued a statement noting that false allegations of sexual assault “can destroy lives….Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.” https://marcorubio.com/news/marco-rubio-campus-sexual-assault-bill-due-process/

State lawmakers are calling for a renewed focus on due process, as well.

In California, governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill last fall that would have established a mandatory minimum punishment for students found responsible of rape or sexual assault. “College campuses must deal with sexual assault fairly and with clear standards of process,” Brown announced. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-college-sexual-assault-punishment_561b184de4b0dbb8000f020f

Referring to a series of alleged due process abuses at Georgia Tech, Rep. Earl Ehrhart recently declared, “I cannot in good conscience continue to fund Georgia Tech at the level that it requests without some assurance to parents that there will be due process for their children.” http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/01/17/crazy-campus-consent-conundrum- collapses/

Last week a federal court in Kentucky ruled that a campus sexual assault hearing should be regarded as a “proceeding…akin to a criminal prosecution,” and held that states should ensure that adjudicatory procedures are fair. https://www.thefire.org/opinion-and-order-in-doe-v-hazard-no-515-cv-00300-e-d-ky/

The Independent Women’s Forum just released a policy paper, Title IX and Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, which deplores the fact that colleges that adhere to “basic concepts of due process and innocence until proven guilty” could be found to be in violation of the federal Title lX sex discrimination law. http://pdf.iwf.org/PolicyFocus16_Jan_p3.pdf

In January, over 60 editorials were published that enumerated broad concerns over the lack of due process on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/editorials/2016-2/ On January 17, for example, the Editorial Board of the Oklahoman noted that the processes used to handle sex allegations on college campuses “increasingly resemble kangaroo courts.” http://newsok.com/article/5472807?utm_source=MobileNewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Facebook

Accountability Department of Justice Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Wrongful Convictions

PR: Georgia Tech Reinstatement is Evidence of Growing Public Alarm over Due Process and Free Speech on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 6, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608

Georgia Tech Reinstatement is Evidence of Growing Public Alarm over Due Process and Free Speech on Campus

WASHINGTON / January 6, 2016 – The recent decision to reinstate a Georgia Tech student expelled for an alleged sexual offense marks a growing wave of popular concern over the erosion of due process protections and free speech rights on college campuses.

Earlier this week the Georgia Tech Board of Regents overrode the decision by a school administrator who had recommended the expulsion of a student accused of sexual assault. The Board reinstated the student when it learned that the investigator failed to interview witnesses provided by the defendant and gave him only one hour to review a 13-page, single spaced summary of the investigation (1).

Numerous other judicial decisions or legal settlements in recent months have overturned the findings of campus sex tribunals for due process violations. The decisions involved the University of California-San Diego, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Washington and Lee University, University of Southern California, and Middlebury College (2).

Concerns over the loss of free speech rights are being voiced, as well. President Obama has twice called for the restoration of open debate on campuses, first at a town hall meeting on September 15 and more recently during a November 15 interview with George Stephanopoulos (3).

Legislators have also taken up the cause of restoring free speech. On June 2, 2015 the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses (4).

In Missouri more than 100 members of the state Legislature signed a letter to the University of Missouri’s board of curators demanding the “immediate firing” of a professor who attempted to have a reporter forcibly removed during a student protest (5).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri likewise urged the University of Missouri to not compromise the right to free expression in its efforts to fight racism, saying, “Mistakenly addressing symptoms — instead of causes — and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response.” (6)

“Due process and free speech are part of the American DNA,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Lawmakers should not shrink from the challenge of restoring constitutionally-rooted rights and protections to college campuses.”

1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/expelled-georgia-tech-student-reinstated/article/2579610
2. http://www.saveservices.org/2015/09/pr-due-process-gains-momentum-moves-to-center-stage-in-campus-sexual-assault-debate/
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PlcALRh6Og
4. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20150602/103548/HHRG-114-JU10-20150602-SD003.pdf
5. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/missouri-lawmakers-flex-muscles-in-call-for-professors-firing.html?intcmp=hpbt2
6. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/aclu-urges-university-missouri-to-better-protect-students-free-speech.html

Campus

PR: SAVE Denounces Attempt to Muzzle Harvard U. Professors

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 15, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Denounces Attempt to Muzzle Harvard U. Professors, Calls on Office for Civil Rights to Revamp Sexual Harassment Policy

WASHINGTON / December 15, 2015 – SAVE is denouncing efforts of producers of a controversial film who are attempting to prevent 19 Harvard Law School professors from engaging in scholarly criticism. The professors’ analysis was featured in a November 19, 2015 statement chastising the movie, The Hunting Ground, for providing an “unfair and misleading portrayal” of an alleged incident of campus sexual assault (1).

In response, filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering published a statement in the Harvard Crimson accusing the Harvard professors of creating a “hostile climate at Harvard Law.”

An allegation of causing a hostile climate could be considered grounds for investigating and disciplining the professors. According to a high-level Harvard administrator, several persons have already inquired about the possibility of a formal investigation (2).

The Free Speech Guidelines of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences say, “Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching, and learning.” (3)

But the Harvard Free Speech Guidelines appear to conflict with recent directives from the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that define campus sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” A recent Letter signed by 15 professors criticized the OCR policies for causing an “alarming erosion of free speech and due process on college campuses.” For this reason, SAVE has called on Congress to rein in the federal Office for Civil Rights (4).

The Hunting Ground has been criticized in over 30 editorials for containing numerous factual errors and promoting an over-wrought “rape-culture” narrative (5). Editorialist Robbie Soave has commented that the movie co-producers apparently “believe that their work of propaganda should be immune from criticism.” (6)

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect free speech on campus and promote effective solutions to sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Campus

PR: Lawmakers Must Work to Stop Lawless Conduct on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 1, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lawmakers Must Work to Stop Lawless Conduct on Campus

WASHINGTON / December 1, 2015 – After a month of an increasing level of death threats, physical assaults, and intimidation tactics, SAVE is calling on lawmakers to take the lead to assure civil conduct, free speech, and due process on campus.

This past weekend, a death threat was issued against University of Chicago students: “At 10 a.m. on Monday mourning I am going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. I will be armed with a M-4 Carbine and 2 Desert Eagles all fully loaded. I will execute aproximately 16 white male students and or staff.” On Monday, Jabari Dean, 21 was arrested as the prime suspect in the case.

Physical assaults against students have been reported at the University of Missouri and elsewhere. At Dartmouth College, protesters pinned a woman to the wall while calling her a “filthy white b*tch.” At Occidental College, 400 students took over the school’s administrative building. At Towson University in Maryland, students occupied the president’s office until he agreed to institute mandatory campus “cultural competency” briefings.

A majority of colleges and universities across the country unlawfully deny students their free speech rights, often restricting such expressions to “Free Speech Zones.” These are a few examples

— The University of California has developed a list of verbal “microaggressions” that students and faculty must avoid lest they engage in behavior deemed to be racist.

— The words “American,” “illegal alien,” and “fathering” are deemed problematic by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide.

— At Washington State, a teacher of Women & Popular Culture threatened to fail any student who used “oppressive” expressions that refer to “women/men as females or males.

In 2011 the U.S. Department of Education issued a landmark sexual assault regulation. The regulation mandated that all allegations of felony sexual assaults be referred to campus sex tribunals and curtailed the due process rights of the accused. The Department did not seek prior public review and comment, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against colleges alleging unlawful violations of due process. Recently Georgia Tech was sued for expelling a student for sexual misconduct based on the recommendation of a single administrator with a “proven history of bias,” according to the student’s attorney.

“State lawmakers should be holding hearings, issuing resolutions, and enacting legislation to restore order on campus,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Colleges should be exemplars of peaceful protest and the rule of law.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect free speech on campus and promote effective solutions to sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Safe Campus Act Sexual Assault

PR: Treat Rape as a Crime; SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Enact the Safe Campus Act

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 3, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Treat Rape as a Crime; SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Enact the Safe Campus Act

WASHINGTON / November 3, 2015 – Nine out of 10 Americans say campus sexual assaults should be handled by criminal justice experts, according to a recent survey. SAVE is now calling on state legislators to enact legislation that moves criminal rape cases out of the hands of campus sex tribunals, as proposed by the Safe Campus Act.

The bi-partisan Safe Campus Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July, is also appropriate for implementation at the state level. The Safe Campus Act:

Places law enforcement agencies in the lead role to handle allegations of criminal sexual violence
Recognizes the appropriate role of campus disciplinary committees
Gives the complainant a say in the decision whether to investigate the case
Assures due process protections for the accused

The Safe Campus Act has been endorsed by nine organizations including the National District Attorneys Association, National Association of Scholars, and Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE).

The Detroit News has also endorsed the Safe Campus Act, explaining, “The members of Congress seeking to encode that concept into federal law are on the right track. State lawmakers in Michigan and elsewhere should seize the idea.”

“With all the awareness about campus sexual assault, it’s amazing how many persons want to treat rape like getting a parking ticket or cheating on an exam,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Rape is a crime and should be handled by the experts.”

Charlotte Hays of the Independent Women’s Forum has noted the Safe Campus Act is “a step in the right direction.” National columnist Cathy Young wrote, “The Safe Campus Act deserves support as a potential first step toward such reform.”

More information on the Safe Campus Act can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/safe-campus-act/ .

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Affirmative Consent

PR: Affirmative Consent — NY Times Article Elicits Derision and Outrage

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 16, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent — NY Times Article Elicits Derision and Outrage: ‘We have let the radicals hijack this issue’

WASHINGTON / October 16, 2015 – A recent New York Times article about affirmative consent, “Sex Ed Lesson: ‘Yes Means Yes,’ But It’s Tricky,” is triggering a strong negative public response. The article details the confused reactions of California high school students who are being instructed to ask permission for sexual activities every 10 minutes, or risk being adjudged guilty of rape. (1)

The highest-rated reader reaction to the NYT account deplored how “The yes-means-yes standard turns almost all of us into rapists. We have let the radicals hijack this issue with disastrous results for innocent young people.” (2)

Another reader commented ironically, “As far as I can tell, the new ‘affirmative consent’ paradigm allows for a very realistic possibility of two adults raping each other at the same time, which makes a mockery of the whole concept of rape.”

The NYT article has triggered numerous editorials, as well. Washington Examiner writer Ashe Schow charged, “If you don’t have sex the way the government tells you to, you’re a rapist.” (3) Columnist Blake Neff wrote, “some kids are getting the impression they need to set a timer during their intimate encounters to make sure their casual hookup doesn’t accidentally become a rape.” (4)

“Affirmative consent betrays the victims of sexual assault by removing the element of force,” charges SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Lawmakers who are serious about stopping rape should be working to remove these cases from the campus sex tribunals and send them to local law enforcement.”

On August 4, judge Carol McCoy overturned a decision of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a student on allegations of sexual assault. McCoy ruled the university “improperly shifted the burden of proof…Absent the tape recording of a verbal consent or other independent means to demonstrate that consent was given, the ability of an accused to prove the complaining party’s consent strains credulity and is illusory.” (5)

SAVE has compiled extensive information about the shortcomings of affirmative consent policies. (6)

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Dept. of Education Sexual Assault Program Falls into Disarray; SAVE Calls on Congress to Take Action

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 7, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Dept. of Education Sexual Assault Program Falls into Disarray; SAVE Calls on Congress to Take Action

WASHINGTON / October 7, 2015 – The Department of Education has long claimed that universities must comply with its campus sexual assault policies or risk loss of federal funding. But in testimony to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, two Department of Education officials recently admitted that its 2011 Dear Colleague Letter is non-binding guidance that does not hold force of law: https://www.thefire.org/second-department-of-education-official-in-eight-days-tells-congress-guidance-is-not-binding/

This admission portends the necessity of a major overhaul of Department of Education’s sexual assault policies and practices:

The Education Department will need to rewrite existing guidance documents, such as its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence, to conform to the altered legal status of the Dear Colleague Letter, often referred to as the “DCL.”

The legal validity of settlement agreements with dozens of universities, which were based on the DCL “requirements,” is now called into question.

The Department of Education must decide whether to suspend or terminate ongoing investigations at over 100 universities.

In addition, universities across the nation will need to consider revamping their sexual assault policies, especially in light of the growing number of lawsuits by expelled students alleging the university removed their constitutionally protected due process rights.

In direct violation of legal requirements, the Dear Colleague Letter was published without prior public review and comment. Given the long-standing pattern of improper and unlawful Department of Education actions in this area, SAVE is calling on Congress to assert its full oversight and legislative authorities.

“For over four years, a rogue Department of Education has strong-armed schools with the threat of removing their federal funding,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “These practices amount to nothing less than illegal bureaucratic extortion.”

The DCL has become a lightning-rod for legal controversy. Last October, 28 Harvard law school faculty members published an open letter expressing “strong objections” to a new Harvard sexual assault policy. Hundreds of editorials have criticized the Dept. of Education letter and resulting campus policies: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/editorials/2015-2/

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Survey Labeled Students as Sex Offenders for Violating Policy that Didn’t Exist

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 23, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Survey Labeled Students as Sex Offenders for Violating Policy that Didn’t Exist:

SAVE Calls on AAU to Retract Flawed Campus Study

WASHINGTON / September 23, 2015 – A widely publicized survey on campus sexual assault by the Association of American Universities (AAU) classified male students as violators of affirmative consent policies, even when such policies were not in existence on the campus at the time the survey was conducted. SAVE is calling for AAU to retract the survey and recalculate its findings.

On September 21, the AAU released its Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, which was conducted at 27 colleges around the nation. The survey reported that 23.1% of female undergraduates experience sexual assault or sexual misconduct sometime during their college careers.

The survey defined “sexual misconduct” to include failure to obtain affirmative consent. But affirmative consent is a controversial, possibly unconstitutional policy, and most colleges had not implemented the policy when AAU fielded the survey in April 2015.

An internet search of the terms “affirmative consent,” “student handbook,” and the name of each university reveals that at the time the AAU survey was conducted:

— For 15 out of the 27 colleges, no affirmative consent policy was in place when the survey was conducted

— For 9 colleges, an affirmative consent policy is currently in place, but the date of implementation is unknown

— For 3 colleges, affirmative consent policy was known to be in place when the AAU survey was carried out

The AAU report makes the claim that 11.4% of undergraduate females were “victimized” by the absence of affirmative consent. But for at least 15 out of the 27 colleges, no affirmative consent policy was in place. Therefore, absence of affirmative consent cannot be considered to represent sexual misconduct at these institutions, and the 23.1% female victimization figure is substantially over-stated

“Only in an Orwellian world would students be smeared as sex offenders for violating a policy that didn’t even exist,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “The Association of American Universities needs to retract the survey and recalculate its findings based on whether an affirmative consent policy was in place when the survey was conducted.”

The AAU survey has been criticized for its low response rate, its failure to adequately explain “incapacitation” to respondents, and other reasons. A listing of the status of the affirmative consent policies for the 27 colleges can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/aau-survey/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Law Professors Voice Concerns Over ‘Affirmative Consent’ Policies for Sex

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 9, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Law Professors Voice Concerns Over ‘Affirmative Consent’ Policies for Sex

WASHINGTON / September 9, 2015 – A growing number of legal scholars are expressing concerns over affirmative consent policies that some universities are considering for implementation. The concerns follow recent passage of laws in California and New York mandating such policies on college campuses.

This past week, Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami law school wrote on her blog, “I have a problem with legally requiring affirmative consent. I don’t see how making a person prove that her partner consented doesn’t switch the burden of proof to the accused…I find this trend to be extremely troubling.” http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/09/affirmative-consent-and-switching-the-burden-of-proof.html

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and current professor at New York Law School, recently noted, “These affirmative consent rules violate rights of due process and privacy. They reverse the usual presumption of innocence. Unless the guy can prove that his sexual partner affirmatively consented to every single contact, he is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct.” http://news.hamlethub.com/ridgefield/events/48981-former-aclu-president-nadine-strossen-will-be-the-keynote-speaker-at-wcsu-s-constitution-day

Professor Corey Yung at the University of Kansas worries that affirmative consent policies are ineffective and may turn out to be harmful to victims: “because the gains of the rule are likely to be minimal, the net effect for rape victims and justice will likely be negative.” http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/10/californias-college-rape-rule-is-probably-a-bad-idea-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-critics-say.html

In his law review article, Touro Law School professor Richard Klein undertook a detailed analysis of state rape statutes and concluded, “Instead of the historical requirement that the state prove each element of the offense – and lack of consent is the crucial element – it may well now be the case that the defendant must prove that there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence.” http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=scholarlyworks

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/