Category: Affirmative Consent

PR: ALI Drives Another Spike into the ‘Affirmative Consent’ Coffin

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 18, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

ALI Drives Another Spike into the ‘Affirmative Consent’ Coffin

WASHINGTON / August 18, 2021 – The American Law Institute (ALI) has conclusively rejected an “affirmative consent” provision that would have fundamentally reshaped the sexual practices of millions of Americans. At its recent annual meeting, the ALI membership ended a decade-long, sometimes contentious debate by approving a “willingness” standard over an “affirmative consent” concept (1).

Beginning in 2012, some ALI members began pushing to revise the sex crimes provisions of its Model Penal Code. The proposed changes would have endorsed a so-called “affirmative consent” standard, which was defined as, “a person’s positive agreement, communicated by either words or actions, to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact.”

At its June meeting, the ALI membership confirmed its rejection of the “affirmative consent” standard. The body gave final approval to the definition of “consent,” which means “a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact. Consent may be express or it may be inferred from behavior— both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances.”

The ALI dryly summarized a decade of heated debate with a one-sentence statement: “Approval of this draft marks the completion of the project, subject to the Council’s approval of the amendments approved at this Annual Meeting.” (2) A timeline of the ALI debate, including links to various draft documents, is available (3).

In 2019 the American Bar Association debated a resolution to endorse the affirmative consent standard (4). The Resolution was defeated after it was opposed by a broad coalition of groups, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (5).

California, Connecticut, and New York have enacted laws that require schools to find against a student accused of sexual misconduct unless he or she can prove the accuser gave “affirmative consent.” The New York affirmative consent requirement was a key component of the 2015 “Enough is Enough” law that was championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (6).

In practice, these statutes presume guilt and place the burden of proof on the accused. In a decision overturning the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s decision to expel a student for sexual misconduct using the affirmative consent rule, Judge Carol McCoy ruled (7):

“[The accused] must come forward with proof of an affirmative verbal response that is credible in an environment in which there are seldom, if any, witnesses to an activity which requires exposing each party’s most private body parts. 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.”

Affirmative consent has been ridiculed as a mechanistic “Mother-May-I” approach that potentially criminalizes every good-night kiss and passionate hug (8).

Citations:

Affirmative Consent Sexual Assault

PR: The End of Affirmative Consent? SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Enact Meaningful Solutions to Campus Sexual Assault

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 16, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

The End of Affirmative Consent? SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Enact Meaningful Solutions to Campus Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 16, 2016 – A recent study on affirmative consent practices found so-called “yes-means-yes” policies bear little relationship to the reality of sexual foreplay among college students. Based on interviews with hundreds of California students, sexual encounters reportedly “just happened” following, for example, a nuzzle of the neck or tug on a partner’s sweatpants (1).

In the wake of a series of judicial, policy, and legislative setbacks, the research casts further doubt on the value of affirmative consent policies, SAVE says.

In March, a federal District Court ridiculed the Brandeis University affirmative consent policy, which also applies to students in long-term committed relationships. Judge Dennis Saylor wrote, “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship.” (2)

Previously, a judge had ruled the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga’s affirmative consent standard was unconstitutional because the rule “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant, robbing the student of his due process rights. (3)

In May the membership of the prestigious American Law Institute, by a four-to-one margin, voted down a proposal to make affirmative consent the centerpiece of a proposed overhaul of its Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault. (4)

In July, it was reported that this year, six states have failed to adopt proposed laws requiring colleges to implement affirmative consent policies. The six states are Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Carolina. (5)

Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen charges, “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.” (6)

Disputing the claims of campus activists who claim affirmative consent policies can curb campus rape, columnist Ashe Schow recently wrote, “a standard that allows consensual sex to be reinterpreted or exaggerated into rape does nothing to help real victims.” (7)

SAVE has developed a bill that promotes basic reforms. Titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA), the bill seeks to curb alcohol abuse on campus and encourages referral of campus sex cases to criminal justice authorities (8).

Citations:

SAVE is working for practical and effective solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Accountability Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Due Process Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Victims

PR: American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 23, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

WASHINGTON / May 23, 2016 – By a resounding margin, members of the American Law Institute voted down a controversial “affirmative consent” standard being considered for the group’s proposed Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault. Instead, the ALI membership approved a definition proposed by attorney Margaret Love that states, “’Consent’ means a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. Consent may be expressed or it may be inferred from behavior, including words and conduct—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances.” (1)

The historic vote took place at the ALI annual conference on May 17 in Washington, DC. After two hours of at times acrimonious debate, approximately four-fifths of the 500 members present voted to remove the affirmative consent language (2). Leading judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys comprise the membership of ALI, which develops model laws for adoption at the state level.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had sharply criticized the proposed affirmative consent policy, charging the ALI draft used “the bludgeon of criminal sanctions to impose the new and yet untested concept of ‘affirmative consent’ upon society.” (3)

The affirmative consent standard has been struck down in two state-level decisions, as well.

In August, Judge Carol McCoy ruled the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga’s affirmative consent policy “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant. The administrative judge noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.” (4)

Last month the Massachusetts District Court ruled against the Brandeis University affirmative consent policy, saying “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship.” (5)

Decrying the rigidity and intrusiveness of the affirmative consent approach, Newsday columnist Cathy Young asks, “While there’s still time, we should stop and ask just how much government we really want in the bedroom.” (6) More information about affirmative consent can be found on the SAVE website (7).

(1) https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/19/a4/19a45dd8-da30-44d5-a4a1-5bb3992a3521/mpcsa-language-52016.pdf
(2) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-mess-law-group-rejects-affirmative-consent/article/2591692
(3) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NACDL-Comments-Draft-6-MPC-Sexual-Assault.pdf
(4) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf
(5) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/brandeis-decision.pdf
(6) http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/the-risks-of-affirmative-consent-1.11819583
(7) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

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

Affirmative Consent Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Affirmative Consent for Sex Gets ‘Thumbs-Down’ from Lawmakers, Legal Defense Group, and Harvard Professors

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 28, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent for Sex Gets ‘Thumbs-Down’ from Lawmakers, Legal Defense Group, and Harvard Professors

WASHINGTON / March 28, 2016 – Polices designed to require explicit and ongoing agreement, often referred to as “affirmative consent,” experienced three setbacks during the past week. These developments signal broader concerns about the effectiveness, workability, and constitutionality of these policies, sometimes referred to as “yes means yes.”

Last Monday, members of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee declined to take a vote on HB 1142, a bill that would have required students at all Maryland colleges to give their “ongoing,” “clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary” agreement before engaging in sexual activities. Monday was the deadline for Maryland Delegates to approve a bill in order for it to advance to the Senate. Since no vote was taken, the affirmative consent bill is now considered “dead.” (1)

On March 22, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) released a position paper on a proposed rewrite of criminal sexual assault laws. The Preliminary Draft, currently being considered by the American Law Institute (ALI), would make the absence of affirmative consent a key element in determining whether a sexual offense had occurred. (2)

The NACDL document takes sharp issue with the ALI proposal, saying the proposed affirmative consent standard would “shift the burden of proof to the accused,” a change the NACDL views as unconstitutional. The Preliminary Draft, according to the NACDL, would “use the bludgeon of criminal sanctions to impose the new and yet untested concept of ‘affirmative consent’ upon society.”

Highlighting the difficulty of laying out a precise definition of affirmative consent, the NACDL notes, “No person should face prosecution, conviction and imprisonment based upon a vague and ambiguous law.” The NACDL concludes, “In a utopian society, transparent and free flowing communication about sexual activity would be a beneficial goal, but we are hardly a utopian society.”

Thirdly, Harvard University professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk released a scholarly article titled The Sex Bureaucracy. The paper posits that ever-expanding definitions of affirmative consent have led to the current untenable situation in which “conduct classified as illegal by the sex bureaucracy…plausibly covers almost all sex students are having today.” (3)

More information about affirmative consent is available on the SAVE website. (4)

(1) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2016rs&id=HB1142

(2) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NACDL-Comments-Draft-6-MPC-Sexual-Assault.pdf

(3) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143

(4) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

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

Affirmative Consent

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 8, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

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

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/

Affirmative Consent

PR: Univ. of Minnesota Administrators Advance Controversial Sex Policy Without Full Review By Regents And Students

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 28, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Univ. of Minnesota Administrators Advance Controversial Sex Policy Without Full Review By Regents And Students

WASHINGTON / August 28, 2015 – Despite opposition from the campus community, University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler announced he will be implementing an affirmative consent sexual assault policy this upcoming school year. SAVE urges the Board of Regents to suspend the controversial policy at its upcoming September 9-10 meeting.

The policy will be implemented before students return to campus, meaning that students were not able to effectively express their concerns about the policy: http://www.startribune.com/debate-grows-over-proposed-sexual-consent-policy-at-the-u/322561191/

The new policy will require “affirmative consent” between any students engaging in sexual activity. Under the policy, affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.” The policy requires that consent be continuous throughout the sexual activity:

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

If students are accused of failing to obtain affirmative consent at each step of a sexual activity, they are subject to disciplinary action, including expulsion from the university.

An “affirmative consent” policy will remove the presumption of innocence from accused students and trivialize the problem of violent rape, SAVE believes: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

As explained by civil rights lawyer, Robert Shibley, “when these guidelines become binding rules that are adjudicated by campus courts, they effectively render students guilty until proven innocent.” Shibley warned, “Those accused, meanwhile, dare not forget a single detail of how that continuous consent was communicated each and every time they have sex.”: http://www.startribune.com/u-s-yes-means-yes-policy-is-obviously-flawed/321829881/

“The new policy was enacted without the understanding or consent of the students,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “It is dangerous to implement such a radical change without ever explaining how students are expected to be able to cope with it.”

SAVE recommends that the University Board of Regents table or suspend the policy at their September board meeting, while starting a serious review of the proposal and its consequences.

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

Affirmative Consent Sexual Assault

PR: Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 12, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 12, 2015 – A Tennessee judge has just ruled that the affirmative consent standard used by the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga was unfair because the rule “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant, robbing the student of his due process rights. Judge Carol McCoy noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.”

The decision can be read here: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf

The University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (UTC) sexual assault policy stated, “Consent is given by an affirmative verbal response or acts that are unmistakable in their meaning. Consent to one form of sexual activity does not mean consent is given to another type of sexual activity.

The ruling also highlighted undue interference in the adjudication process. The UTC Administrative Law Judge initially found Corey Mock, the defendant, to be innocent. Following a request by the UTC Chancellor, the Administrative Law Judge reversed her decision, but did not alter any of her original 49 specific findings

George Washington Law School professor John Banzhaf notes about the UTC case that “if the Constitution prohibits a ‘yes means yes’ standard of consent…that cannot be changed by legislation, by federal agencies, or even by the colleges themselves.

The UTC ruling follows two other recent judicial decisions which found university sexual assault proceedings violated the due process rights of the accused

In California, Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman ruled in July that the University of California-San Diego unfairly expelled a student for sexual activities that were allegedly non-consensual. And in Virginia, federal judge Norman Moon ruled last week that Washington and Lee University’s truncated adjudication process “plausibly support a Title IX claim” by the plaintiff

“Due process is a right afforded by the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Abridging this fundamental right, as many state universities are trying to do, has no justification in a nation that cherishes civil rights and the rule of law.”

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

Affirmative Consent

PR: SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 4, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 4, 2015 – SAVE, a national organization working to end campus sexual assault, is today calling on the University of Minnesota Board of Regents to reject the affirmative consent sexual assault policy proposed by President Eric Kaler. SAVE warns that the draft policy will do nothing to stop intentional sexual assault. Instead, the policy would serve to trample on students’ freedom, privacy, and due process protections.

The policy would require students to follow an “affirmative consent” standard or face disciplinary action: http://policy.umn.edu/review/sexualassault-appa The Board of Regents will reconsider the proposed policy at its upcoming September board meeting, after the Board earlier halted the policy from going into effect in mid-July.

SAVE’s letter to the Board of Regents cautions that the policy contains numerous vague and unworkable provisions, and does not even define the term “sexual activity.” Most importantly, the proposed policy never specifies how consent is to be communicated. Students would be left without practical guidance as to what indicators are sufficient to obtain consent.

Affirmative consent policies have become the focus of national criticism and satire: The Sexual Train Wreck Behind Yes Means Yes, Heather Wilhelm, Real Clear Politics, July 9, 2015, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/09/the_sexual_train_wreck_behind_yes_means_yes_127304.html Journalist Ashe Schow concludes that under the proposed U of M standard, “anything the accuser decides later they didn’t like can become grounds for an accusation.” The proposed policy was the subject of a satirical Reason.com contest where readers were invited to submit entries to mock the policy.

SAVE also warns the Board of Regents that the policy would shift the burden of proof to the accused in any campus adjudicatory procedure, and the mere accusation could suffice as proof of sexual assault. This new procedure would violate the basic right that students have to the presumption of innocence.

“The sexual assault policy is what the University of Minnesota will use to determine whether students have committed serious crimes,“ notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “It is important that the policy is carefully vetted so that students and the campus adjudicatory panel are not left more confused as to what the university mandates.”

The full letter to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents can be found here: http://www.saveservices.org/2015/07/save-letter-to-university-of-minnesota-board-of-regents/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — promotes evidence-based solutions to the problem of sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/

Affirmative Consent Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Bureaucrats in the Bedroom: Most Say ‘No’ to Government Mandates for Consent to Sex

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 12, 2014

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Bureaucrats in the Bedroom: Most Say ‘No’ to Government Mandates for Consent to Sex

WASHINGTON / November 12, 2014 – A national opinion poll has revealed the vast majority of persons are opposed to laws that seek to mandate how persons give consent to sexual relations. When asked whether the government should have the “authority to determine how partners give their consent to sex,” 85% of respondents answered ‘No.

In late September, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a controversial Affirmative Consent bill requiring that all California college students give their ongoing “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” consent during the course of having sex. Similar laws are being considered in other states.

The survey was conducted October 27 – 28. Over 600 persons participated in the telephone poll. The respondents consisted of 55.6% males and 44.4% females. Detailed findings can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/survey-overview/

Many respondents agreed that consent to sex should be conscious, voluntary, and ongoing. But 6 out of 7 respondents had not heard of the California Affirmative Consent law, so it is unlikely these persons held an opinion whether or not consent should be “affirmative.”

Affirmative Consent policies have proven to be contentious. Many have criticized the approach as being unlikely to deter a rapist intent on assaulting a woman, and for removing the presumption of innocence from the accused.

“Hopefully lawmakers will get the message that Americans don’t want ‘Big Sister’ government dictating the most intimate details of their private lives,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Instead, lawmakers should be considering proven approaches to the problem of sexual assault.”

SAVE has developed a bill that would require that campus sexual assault cases be handled by local law enforcement authorities, not untrained campus disciplinary panels: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-rape-courts/

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