Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech
Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech
Mona Charen
May 14, 2013
Two years ago, this column, along with others, raised an alarm about the Obama administration’s decision radically to diminish the due process rights of those accused of sexual harassment on American campuses. There’s a new outrage today, but first, a recap:
In a 2011 letter to colleges, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) mandated that in cases of suspected sexual harassment or sexual assault, universities were to reduce the standard of proof to a more likely than not standard. The new standard requires that fact finders believe only that there is a 50.01 chance that the charges are true.
I warned at the time that students falsely accused could see their lives upended and possibly destroyed. Clearly, if a student has committed a crime or serious offense, the university has a duty to investigate. But serious charges, which can blight careers, require serious guarantees of the rights of the accused. In a court of law, a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to see any exculpatory evidence the state discovers, the right to be represented by counsel and the presumption of innocence. In felony cases, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
No such safeguards are available to accused college students. As self-described feminist Judith Grossman discovered to her horror when her son was falsely accused of “non-consensual sex” by a former girlfriend, “the Department of Education’s OCR has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice.” Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other documents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him. Thanks to Grossman’s legal expertise and assistance, her son was eventually cleared. Other students are not so fortunate.
Following the Education Department’s directive, the University of Hawaii announced that students may be evicted from dormitories after no more than an accusation. At Yale, an unsubstantiated charge of sexual assault against a star football player was enough to deny him a Rhodes scholarship. At Xavier University, a student who was found not guilty of sexual assault by a judge was nonetheless told by the university that he would be prohibited from participating in classes or extracurricular activities with his “victim.” Caleb Warner was banned from the campuses of the University of North Dakota for three years. When police investigated the case, they issued an arrest warrant for his accuser, charging her with making a false rape charge. Only after repeated interventions on Warner’s behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) did the university finally admit that the charges were without foundation.
Having virtually obliterated procedural protections for those accused of serious offenses and crimes, the Obama administration has now added a new insult — a restriction on free speech itself. For two decades, universities have struggled with the question of “speech codes,” tempted by the left to enshrine political correctness at the expense of the First Amendment. Most campuses have resisted, but through the Obama administration, the censors have triumphed all at once and everywhere.
A letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice addressed to the University of Montana but explicitly intended as a “blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country,” the government has altered the legal meaning of the term “sexual harassment.” The new rule directly contravenes Supreme Court decisions and previous rulings from OCR that harassment “must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” The Supreme Court has ruled that to meet the test of sexual harassment, behavior must be “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.” Note the word “objectively,” meaning that a reasonable person similarly situated would be offended.
The reasonable person standard is now gone. The new definition of sexual harassment decreed by the Obama administration is “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct.” The purported victim now has the power to decide whether a young man or woman (but it’s nearly always a man) is branded a sexual harasser. It’s entirely subjective.
Obama promised fundamental transformation. This is part of it. Freedom of speech is sacrificed, and a new army of sexual harassment “specialists” will descend on America’s campuses to enforce the new dispensation.
Obama Administration Defines College Dating and Flirting as ‘Sexual Harassment’
Obama Administration Demands Unconstitutional Campus Speech Codes, Defines College Dating and Flirting as ‘Sexual Harassment’
Hans Bader
May 11, 2013
The Justice Department and the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights have now effectively defined dating and flirting as “sexual harassment,” in addition to demanding that colleges adopt unconstitutional speech codes.
The definition is found in a May 9 Title IX Letter of Findings and Resolution Agreement involving the University of Montana.
In a radical departure from Title IX jurisprudence, the federal government declares that “any” unwelcome sexual speech or other conduct is “sexual harassment,” regardless of whether it would offend a reasonable person, and regardless of whether it is severe, repeated, or pervasive.
In its findings, it rejected narrower definitions rooted in federal court rulings, declaring that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.’” (The federal government has also effectively mandated “unconstitutional speech codes at colleges and universities nationwide,” notes the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.)
By contrast, the Supreme Court has ruled that to constitute illegal sexual harassment, sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct must be severe and pervasive, create a hostile environment, and be “objectively offensive” to a “reasonable person.” See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). According to the Supreme Court, isolated instances of trivially offensive sexual speech are not illegal, and are not considered “sexual harassment” in even the broadest possible sense: that is, the “harassment” you are entitled to complain about under federal anti-retaliation laws, which allow employees to sue when they are disciplined for reporting what they in good faith believe to be sexual harassment, even if isn’t actually bad enough to be illegal. See Clark County School District v. Breeden (2001). If speech is not offensive to a reasonable person, it cannot even fall into the general category of “sexual harassment.”
The definition of “sexual harassment” that the federal government demands that the University of Montana adopt is far broader than the sexual harassment policies declared unconstitutionally overbroad by federal appeals courts in DeJohn v. Temple University, Saxe v. State College Area School District, and McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, which made clear that there is no “sexual harassment” exception to the First Amendment.
The University of Montana applied federal definitions of sexual harassment, that exclude trivially offensive conduct and things that do not offend reasonable people, in its college sexual harassment policy. The Justice and Education Departments took issue with this, saying that conduct, or isolated instances of speech on sexual topics, can be harassment even if “it is” not “objectively offensive”:
Sexual Harassment Policy 406.5.1 improperly suggests that the conduct does not constitute sexual harassment unless it is objectively offensive. This policy provides examples of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature but then states that “[w]hether conduct is sufficiently offensive to constitute sexual harassment is determined from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.” Whether conduct is objectively offensive is a factor used to determine if a hostile environment has been created, but it is not the standard to determine whether conduct was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and therefore constitutes “sexual harassment.” . . . sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” (Findings at pg. 9)
It also made very clear that this broad rule reaches speech — “verbal conduct” — not just physical conduct:
Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature7 and can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (Findings, pg. 4)
Findings (May 9 letter), at pg. 4, http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/um-ltr-findings.pdf
In short, sexual harassment is defined to include “any” speech or other verbal conduct even if it would not offend a reasonable person, but rather only is offensive from the subjective viewpoint of a hypersensitive person. Making a sexual or racial harassment policy entirely subjective makes it unconstitutionally vague on its face. See Dambrot v. Central Michigan Univ., 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995) (racial harassment policy void for vagueness where it required “subjective reference”); Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996) (voiding harassment policy as applied to professor’s speech on vagueness ground; policy must provide fair notice).
Banning all sexual speech that is offensive to any listener would effectively ban sex education and sexual humor, making every sex education class “sexual harassment” when it offends a squeamish student.
Some students are made uncomfortable by such topics: for example, sexual harassment charges were unsuccessfully brought after sex educator Toni Blake told a joke while demonstrating a condom. Unlike the Education Department, the courts have rejected the idea that such humor inherently constitutes “sexual harassment.” See Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Products, Inc., 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995) (students sued over comments in sex education class; court ruled that since sexual speech must be “severe” or “pervasive” and create “hostile environment” to constitute sexual harassment, the lawsuit should be dismissed; it ruled that sexual humor in the sex education lecture about “erection wear” and anal sex was not enough for liability, since a reasonable person would not have viewed the comments as intended to harass); Black v. Zaring Homes, 104 F.3d 822 (6th Cir. 1997) (jokes about “sticky buns” were not bad enough to constitute sexual harassment, despite being unwelcome.).
Defining “any” romantic overture or sexual speech as “harassment” based purely on subjective reactions has dire implications for dating. It defines a single, unrepeated, civil request to go out on a date as “sexual harassment” even if the requester never makes the request again after learning that it was “subjectively” unwelcome.
That may effectively ban dating (since no one is a mind reader, and the whole point of asking someone out on a date is because you don’t know before asking whether they would be interested without first asking). Such a de facto ban on dating violates freedom of intimate association. Even banning dating between certain people can violate freedom of intimate association; here, the definition would define all offers to go out on a date as potentially sexual harassment unless the offerer is omniscient. See Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539, 1544 (11th Cir. 1984) (appeals court ruled that freedom of intimate association was violated by restriction on public employee dating a single individual, the relative of a criminal suspect.).
Perversely, the government suggests that punishment may be required BEFORE a disciplinary hearing, reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland‘s “sentence first, verdict afterwards“:
a university must take immediate steps to protect the complainant from further harassment prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution. Appropriate steps may include separating the accused harasser and the complainant, providing counseling for the complainant and/or harasser, and/or taking disciplinary action against the harasser.
Letter of Findings (May 9, 2013) (boldface added), at pg. 7, http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/um-ltr-findings.pdf.
A passage on page 2 of the settlement may affect social conservatives. Its demand conflicts with Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), which struck down a harassment policy challenged by an Evangelical Christian because it forbade certain criticism of homosexuality. It implies that the same zero-tolerance standard that applies to sexual speech and dating requests also applies to speech about the transgendered or LGBT people:
The term “gender-based harassment” means non-sexual harassment of a person because of the person’s sex and/or gender, including, but not limited to, harassment based on the person’s nonconformity with gender stereotypes.
See pg. 2, Resolution Agreement (May 9, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/montanaagree.pdf.
While it defines a vast array of innocuous human speech and activity as “sexual harassment,” the federal government then sends contradictory signals about whether a university may have the discretion not to formally punish students for some of it, at least if it is not repeated. First, it states in footnote 11 of its Findings that “If the University is defining ‘sexual harassment’ as conduct that creates a hostile environment because a student or employee may face disciplinary consequences upon a University finding that sexual harassment occurred, then the University should clarify its discipline practices rather than define ‘sexual harassment’ too narrowly, which will likely discourage students from reporting sexual harassment until it becomes severe and pervasive.”
But then, on page 22, it condemns the the University of Montana for stating (in a verbatim quote, by the way, from the Education Department’s own 1997 definition of “sexual harassment”) in its university harassment policy that “conduct becomes sexual harassment when it is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive’to ‘unreasonably’ interfere with a person’s work or educational performance.” The federal government complains that “this is the standard for hostile environment — not the definition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and it says that not recognizing that sexual harassment could include non-severe conduct that does not offend a reasonable person supposedly violated the University’s duty to apply “the appropriate legal standards.”
This pressure to punish people for speech that does not offend a reasonable person, and is neither severe nor pervasive, casts a dark cloud over academic freedom and the ability to discuss and debate important topics that are offensive to some listeners.
The government’s attempt to define “sexual harassment” in purely subjective terms runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s admonitions that behavior which is not “objectively offensive,” and does not offend normal people, is not “harassment” at all, and is entirely beyond the purview of sexual-harassment law, even if it involves “intersexual flirtation.” See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998) (“The prohibition of harassment on the basis of sex requires neither asexuality nor androgyny in the workplace; it forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the “conditions” of the victim’s employment. ‘Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive-is beyond Title VII’s purview.’. . .We have always regarded that requirement as crucial . . . to ensure that courts and juries do not mistake ordinary socializing in the workplace-such as . . . intersexual flirtation-for discriminatory “conditions of employment.”), quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), citing Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986).
Arias Got What She Deserves
Arias Got What she Deserves
Jane Velez-Mitchell
May 8, 2013
I was outside the courthouse in a crowd of hundreds of people when the verdict of guilty was read to Jodi Arias.
When the verdict of guilty of first-degree in the murder of Travis Alexander came, the crowd erupted into cheers and applause. Not since the Casey Anthony trial have I seen such passion about a case or such hatred toward a defendant.
The viciousness of the crime paired with what the crowd believed was an offensive defense strategy sparked intense feelings.
Not only was Alexander brutally murdered, the defense tried to put him on trial. Alexander is not here to defend himself and the defense took advantage of that, dragging his name and reputation through the mud every step of the way.
For four months, the defense tried to paint Alexander as an abuser. As a sexual deviant. And they called him one of the worst things you can call a person: They accused him of being a pedophile.
These terrible claims and the horrific nature of the murder itself are why people felt so strongly that murder one needed to be given.
We will find out soon if Arias will be put on death row or if she will face life in prison. But all 12 jurors said that Arias premeditated this murder, and that leaves the door open for Arias to be sentenced to death.
Jodi Arias is guilty of First Degree Murder. Travis Alexander’s family will never completely feel closure or be able to fill the hole torn in their lives by his horrific murder. But hopefully today, they can at least feel that justice has been served. Maybe that can provide them with a small piece of solace.
Link: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/05/08/jodi-arias-guilty-jane-velez-mitchell-murder-trial-verdict
Military Sexual Assaults Spike Despite Efforts To Combat Epidemic
Military Sexual Assaults Spike Despite Efforts To Combat Epidemic
May 7, 2013
Sexual assaults occurred at an average of more than 70 per day in the United States military during 2012, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Reports of sexual assault in the military rose during October 2011 through September 2012 by 6 percent from the prior year. A total of about 26,000 service members said they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, nearly 7,000 more than in 2010, when about 19,300 members of the military reported inappropriate sexual contact.
The report released Tuesday by Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) follows the Sunday arrest of Lt. Col Jeffrey Krusinski, head of the Air Force SAPRO program, under allegations of sexual assault of a woman. Krusinski, arrested in Arlington, Va., has been officially removed from duty pending an investigation.
“We’re all outraged and disgusted over these very troubling allegations,” Hagel said in a Pentagon briefing Tuesday, announcing a SAPRO strategic plan for 2013 that aims to enhance commander accountability, improve response to victims, and assess the military justice system.
“We may very well be nearing a stage where the frequency of this crime and the perception there is tolerance of it could very well undermine [the mission],” Hagel warned. “That is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution, and it should be unacceptable to anyone associated with the U.S. military.”
The incident also coincides with the Pentagon’s high-profile effort to “reduce — with a goal to eliminate — sexual assault in the military,” according to a congressional briefing on the sexual assault report early Tuesday.
Pentagon press secretary George Little emphasized the Pentagon’s “zero tolerance” policy for sexual assault in a Monday release responding to Krusinski’s arrest.
The annual report — SAPRO’s ninth — compiles findings from the DOD FY12 Annual Report on Sexual Assault, the DOD Workplace & Gender Relations Surveys and the Centers for Disease Control’s national sexual violence survey. The military defines unwanted sexual contact as sexual crimes prohibited by military law, from rape to abusive sexual contact.
Of the unrestricted reports of sexual assault in fiscal year 2012, 35 percent were for abusive and wrongful sexual contact, 28 percent were for aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault, and 27 percent were for rape. Unrestricted reports can be investigated under the military justice process.
According to Tuesday’s report, of 1,714 alleged military offenders, commanders took action on 1,124, or 66 percent. This includes 594 cases in which the military initiated court martial proceedings, barely more than the 590 cases in which it was determined that command action was not possible or was declined altogether. For 388 of these, the DOD found “insufficient evidence of a crime to prosecute or unfounded;” for 196 cases, “victims declined to participate in justice system.”
Commanders determined sufficient evidence to take action against 66 percent, an increase from 57 percent in fiscal year 2009, according to the DOD. Of those whose court-martials wrapped up in FY 2012, 79 percent were convicted on at least one charge, while 25 percent were allowed a discharge or resignation instead of court-martial.
Only 3,374 cases of the estimated 26,000 sexual assaults were reported — a reporting rate of just under 13 percent for fiscal year 2012 for offenses ranging from rape to abusive sexual contact. In fiscal year 2011, the military received 3,192 such reports.
While Hagel noted that increased reports could indicate greater confidence in the military justice system, Maj. Gen. Gary Patton, director of SAPRO, said in the announcement of the report Tuesday afternoon that underreporting remains a major impediment to addressing the issue.
“It’s very clear that we have more work to do,” he said. “We have to eliminate this threat to the safety of our men and women in uniform.”
Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), co-chair of the House Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, said the startling statistics from the report, in conjunction with Krusinski’s arrest, indicate that there has been no progress on the issue of military sexual assault.
“The numbers show that sexual assaults are actually increasing, not decreasing, at a time when the leadership in Congress has made it a significant issue,” Turner told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “The arrest of the SAPRO officer is an absolute personal failure as well as a professional failure, and raises concerns about, is this irony, or just reflective of a significant cultural issue?”
Of the victims who did report an assault in FY 2012, Turner noted, some 62 percent felt they were revictimized or retaliated against for reporting their assault.
“When you have a culture that tries to hide the crime, it absolutely encourages it,” he said.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) introduced the Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013 Tuesday afternoon. The bill aims to provide victims of sexual assault with a Special Victims’ Counsel, expand the authority of SAPRO so that it can provide better oversight, and refer sexual assault cases to the general court martial level.
“When our best and our brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding that they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people,” Murray said in a statement sent to The Huffington Post. “However, it’s unconscionable to think that entertaining unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks is now part of that equation.”
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/military-sexual-assaults-2012_n_3230248.html
Sex in the School Library? Harvard’s Student Newspaper Weighs In
Sex in the School Library? Harvard’s Student Newspaper Provides Tips to Interested Student
Oliver Darcy
May 7, 2013
The official student newspaper at Harvard University provided a female student who is fantasizing about having sex in the school library, but desperate and clueless on how to find a sexual partner for the job, with some helpful advice on Sunday.
Harvard University’s student newspaper provided tips to a student looking for sex in the school library.
A young woman, using the pseudonym “suddenly horny,” wrote to The Crimson explaining she wanted “get it on in the stacks of Widener” as a final act before graduation, but mourned she had “no boyfriend and no prospects” to help fulfill the fantasy.
Crimson editors Sarah Erwin and Julia Ryan responded to her plea for help, noting in the newspaper’s online advice column “strategy is key to completing this task.”
Erwin and Ryan’s first piece of advice to the girl was to locate a past lover for the task.
“Past hookups: Find that guy from your freshmen entryway and tell him you are feeling ‘nostalgic.’ Or ‘suddenly horny,’” they wrote.
If that would not work, The Crimson recommended looking into “younger men,” adding “there are plenty of freshmen just a few feet from Widener.”
Finally, the student newspaper turned to providing comical advice, recommending librarians as potential partners for their “easy access” and searching “public records for those convicted of indecent exposure” for “self explanatory” reasons.
Nonetheless, sex in Harvard’s Widener library does not appear to be a new fad. In 2006 a student made headlines when she posted on Craiglist looking for a partner to have sex with her in the library.
Harvard University did not make a spokesperson available to Campus Reform in time for comment publication.
Ending a Relationship with an Abusive Parent, Child, or Sibling
Ending a Relationship with an Abusive Parent, Child or Sibling
Tara Palmatier
May 6, 2013
In our culture, family is sacred, well, maybe not as sacred as it used to be, but it’s still a cultural and psychological institution. As such, there are certain taboos attached to it.
For example, denigrating motherhood is taboo – fatherhood, not so much. Physical incest between family members is taboo. Emotional incest should be equally taboo, but let’s face it, our society – including mental health professionals and Family Court — often turns a blind eye when mothers emotionally incest their children by parentifying them, making them their surrogate spouses, confidantes, peers and emotional and physical caregivers. It is also taboo to break ties with one’s family, whether with a parent, child, sibling or grandparent, etc. Blood is thicker than water, but then again, so is bullshit.
Family may be the tie that binds, but it should not lock one into a permanent, gut-wrenching stranglehold of abuse, contempt, and financial, physical and emotional exploitation. Sharing genetic material is not a license to abuse a child, parent or other family member, carte blanche.
Sharing DNA means there is an obligation to take special care in your relationships with your family, not that you are obligated to tolerate a parent’s, sibling’s or child’s abuse because he or she swims in the same gene pool as you.
I have worked with many men and women, who have had to distance themselves, both emotionally and physically, and, in some cases, sever all ties from their parents, children and siblings after years of unrelenting and unrepentant abuse. These were not easy decisions for my clients who were wrought with guilt, anger, grief and other painful emotions.
The questions I ask in every case are, “If this person weren’t your mother or father or sister or brother or daughter or son, but were a colleague, acquaintance or friend and they treated you like this, would you have anything to do with them? Would you continue to turn the other cheek or would you cut them out of your life like a malignant tumor?”
When blood isn’t involved, it’s a no-brainer. You avoid abusive jerks, but when the abusive jerk is your mom or dad or your son or daughter, most people freeze like a deer caught in headlights at the thought of walking away. This is the aforementioned cultural taboo in full effect.
The emotional torment doesn’t stop after making the difficult choice to end a relationship with an abusive adult child, sibling or parent. Many individuals who make this painful, but rational and healthy decision are plagued with guilt, doubt and societal and familial pressure to maintain the relationship at any cost and in spite of the ongoing abuse. That’s when the Kumbaya Forgiveness Police (*thank you to whenthescapegoatquits for that expression) and well-intentioned, but clueless friends, other family members, pastors and many mental health professionals start the chorus:
But they’re your children. You only have one mother. You only have one father. Blood is thicker than water. Family is family. You have to forgive your family. What kind of a son or daughter doesn’t talk to their mom or dad? What kind of heartless monster won’t have anything to do with his or her children? I know your mother/father misses and loves you. She/he doesn’t understand why you won’t talk to him/her. No one will ever love you like your mother. As a parent, you should never give up on your children! Your children are your children forever.
I am not encouraging anyone to frivolously end a relationship with a young child, teen, adult child or other family member over minor transgressions or the garden variety, forgivable hurts that occur in all families. Severing ties with a family member is not something to be taken lightly and probably shouldn’t be done until you are either an adult (if you’re the child of an abusive parent) or until your children have reached the age where you can no longer intervene by getting them into effective therapy with an unbiased therapist who recognizes and knows how to treat parental alienation and manage an alienating parent who is hell-bent on poisoning children and destroying your child-parent relationship.
If your child is being alienated from you, you MUST do your best to intervene as soon as possible. The seeds of lifelong alienation can be sown in a very short time – like the time it takes to get a BS restraining order obtained against you under false pretenses dismissed, for instance. Or, while you’re supporting your family at work during the day while you’re still married, again, for instance.
It’s not unusual for otherwise healthy adults to have some bitterness during and shortly after the divorce process, which oftentimes spills out onto the children. Healthy reasonable adults realize that a child deserves both a loving mother and father, set aside their differences and get on with the business of co-parenting their children.
But there are many individuals who do not move past divorce bitterness and embark on lifelong campaigns to deprive their former partners of loving relationships with their children. Approximately 20% to 30% of divorces and custody disputes are considered high-conflict. It’s no surprise that this is approximately the same percentage of the population that suffers from some form of personality disorder. It is also a fact that both men and women engage in parental alienation, but alienation is much more effective when conducted by the custodial parent, of which 82% are mothers.
Parental alienation does not end at the age of 18. Alienated children often become lifelong foot soldiers in the alienating parent’s campaign of hatred and destruction. I suspect that, if some form of personality disorder is at play with the alienating parent, that it may become manifest in the alienated child – either through genetic heritability, modeling or both.
Whatever the underlying causes, it sets up the alienated parent, who is often the father, to become the emotional punching bag/disposable ATM for his ex and his children. There’s a bitter irony that a man, who makes the brave decision to end an abusive relationship with a cruel and sadistic and possibly crazy woman, then has his own children groomed to abuse him by proxy. It’s sick. It’s wrong. And it should be criminal and grounds for a permanent change of custody.
If you are facing this dilemma, whether you’re the parent of an alienated child or the adult child of one of these sadistic sick twists, here are some points and questions for you to consider when contemplating “divorcing” your kids, parents or siblings:
1. Is the family member in question an adult or a minor? If they’re a minor, are they old enough to know right from wrong? For example, a 14-year old should know that it is wrong to be deliberately disrespectful and cruel more so than a 3-year old child.
2. If the child is a minor, have you done your best to get them psychological help to undo the damage of the alienating parent?
3. Have you acknowledged, owned and tried to make amends for any mistakes or hurts that you have made in your relationship with the child or other family member?
4. If the child or family member is an adult, have you explicitly told them that their behavior is hurtful? In other words, have you tried to establish boundaries and rules of acceptable engagement?
5. If you have established clear boundaries, have you specified natural and meaningful consequences when they encroach your boundaries? For example, “I love you. You are my daughter, but it is unacceptable for you to insult me and my new wife, refuse to see me and then expect me to pay for your college tuition.” Or, “I love you. You are my son, but I will not continue to reach out to you if you continue to ignore me or treat me with disrespect.” Or, “You are my mother and I love you, but it is not okay for you to yell and scream at me about what a shitty daughter I am, how ungrateful I am and that no one cares about you. I am going to hang up when you act like that.”
6. Does your adult child, sibling or parent vilify and abuse you further for trying to establish healthy boundaries and limits? For example, do they think you’re being abusive, controlling, over-sensitive, etc., for wanting to be treated with basic kindness, consideration, respect and civility? Do they try to portray you as the “bad dad” or “bad child” or “bad sister or brother” for not wanting to tolerate their abuse?
7. Instead of honoring your reasonable requests to improve their behavior toward you, do they cry to anyone who will listen to them that there’s something wrong with you and that you’re the one who needs help?
If you answered yes to these questions, you probably have ample reason to consider going Low Contact or No Contact with your child, parent or other family member. Again, this is not an easy decision for most people and it may be necessary for you to work with a support professional in order to release yourself from the FOGgy (fear-obligation-guilt), psychological family bondage.
Since not all helping professionals are cut from the same cloth, you may want to screen a potential therapist for his or her views on these matters before you begin working with them. Anyone who encourages you to maintain an ongoing abusive relationship is best avoided and viewed as an abuse apologist and enabler – that goes for whether the person abusing you is an adult child, parent or spouse and whether or not they have a personality disorder. There is no excuse for abuse, including the excuse of a personality disorder.
Ending a relationship with someone who abuses you is often a healthy and necessary choice – even if that person is a family member. It is healthy to disconnect yourself from a family member who abuses you in the name of love and uses their privilege as parent, child, sibling, cousin or grandparent to do so. Although, there are many individuals (usually abuse enablers and apologists or people who are fortunate to have never had an emotional terrorist in their life) who will try to paint you as some kind of heartless, unnatural monster for doing so. In reality, it is the abusers who are unnatural and heartless because they are doing the psychological equivalent of cannibalizing their own flesh and blood.
Abuse is typically generational and cyclical. Abusive personalities rarely stop of their own accord. If you want it to stop, you will have to break the chain. Just remember, if you can put up with their abuse you are strong enough to distance yourself and put an end to it.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Rape Statistics
Lies, Damn Lies, and Rape Statistics
Ryan Fleming
April 26, 2013
Brown is in the midst of a pandemic. All across America, colleges are cesspools of forcible sex crimes, including rape, which make the college campus one of the most dangerous places for women. According to many activists and politicians, one in every four women will experience rape or attempted rape in their college career.
The problem is so severe that the federal government has intervened with the “Safe Campuses for Women” subsection in the Violence Against Women Act of 1993. Brown itself has set up a 24-hour support line and has a full-time staff member dedicated to sexual assault prevention, along with numerous programs in Health Services. Popular campus events such as Consent Day and the recent One Billion Rising are dedicated to tackling the issue.
Brown Daily Herald opinions columnist Cara Newlon recently wrote in her piece “Don’t Rape” that despite the fact that one in four coeds are victims of rape or attempted rape, and that one in 12 male students commit these crimes, people are not talking about the subject enough.
So why is no one talking about this widespread issue? One reason is that it is not widespread. The campus rape pandemic seems to be a theory based upon poor survey methodology and repeated lies.
Newlon and numerous other activists make the bold claim that one in every four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. This number is astonishing and no doubt eyebrow-raising. To put it in perspective, in the nation’s most violent city (Detroit), the total violent crime rate was 2.1 percent in 2012. That figure includes murder, rape, assault, and robbery. If the one in four figure shouted at feminist rallies is correct, the nation is willingly sending its daughters to places with a violent crime rate several times that of the most dangerous city in the country.
The number seems even more dubious when compared to statistics put forth annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau interviews a random sampling of nearly 150,000 Americans about their criminal victimization, and in 2009 and 2010 they determined that the occurrence of rape of women was 0.23 percent and 0.21 percent, respectively.
So with the figure in mind, it is prudent to see where the one in four statistic comes from. In 1985, Ms. magazine published a study by Mary Koss in which she surveyed over 3,000 college females nationwide asking them ten questions about sexual violence. When determining whether the female was a victim of rape, Koss did not explicitly ask if she had been raped; rather, Koss used her own criteria. From her survey, she determined that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.
However, the survey came with a curious caveat: when directly asked if they had been raped, only 27 percent of the women whom Koss had determined were victims of rape answered in the affirmative. So of the highly publicized (and already exaggerated) one- in-four statistic, 73 percent of those women did not even believe they were raped, and an astonishing 35 percent had intercourse with the alleged rapist again.
The discrepancy arose from a question that asked, “have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?.” While Koss determined that this was qualified as rape, the overwhelming majority of victims did not agree.
When held up to such scrutiny, Koss’s survey holds as much water as a sieve. If one looks at the actual numbers for sexual assault on college campuses, her results seem almost laughable.
Thanks to the Clery Act, universities in America make public all reported campus crimes. This allows anyone to look at every instance of reported crimes on the campus and, in particular, all incidents of sexual violence. I decided to take a look at the reported violent sexual crimes for Brown, and fortunately for women but perhaps disappointing for feminists, the result came nowhere near Koss’s figures. For the past three years, the average number of reported forcible sex offenses (which range from groping of private parts to penetration) was 8.66. The number varied from as low as seven to as high as 10. With an estimated 3,141 female undergraduates, 0.28 percent are victims of reported sexual violence each year. This is inconsistent with the one in four statistic, but on par with the national average.
I wondered if Brown was unique in avoiding the campus rape pandemic, and perhaps Consent Day and SlutWalk had managed to temper our desire to rape on College Hill, so I consulted statistics for Providence College and the University of Rhode Island. Their respective three-year averages were 0.08 percent and 0.18 percent. It seems that nowhere in Rhode Island are women raped as often as feminists maintain. So what is the problem with the myth of the campus rape pandemic? Even if women aren’t being violated as often as stated, what is the harm in raising awareness? Women are told they are going into college with aone in four chance of being raped, which is no doubt extremely terrifying. It makes the adjustment to college scarier than it needs to be, and it makes women fearful of any guy’s intentions. These absurd statistics make every man a potential rapist.
More dangerous, though, is that when these statistics came out, they frightened elected officials into giving universities vast authority in handling rape cases, thanks to Title IX and other documents like the recent “Dear Colleague” letter. This unreasonable amount of power bestowed on universities led to situations like the 2006 William McCormick case, in which Brown knowingly expelled a student for a rape that he did not commit.
Situations like that are unacceptable, and it is even more lamentable when they come about from perpetuated myths that people continue to shout at rallies without ever looking into the facts. So from now on, the “one in four” chant should be abandoned and replaced with the more appropriate, albeit less catchy, 1 in 400.
Link: http://brown-spectator.com/2013/04/lies-damn-lies-and-rape-statistics/
Woman Fabricates Assault ‘as a lesson to women . . . that an attack could happen to them’
Woman Fabricates Assault ‘as a lesson to women . . . that an attack could happen to them’
COTWA
May 3, 2013
A woman who told authorities that she had been attacked in the Campus Lodge apartment complex parking lot last week now has said she made it all up, according to Gainesville police.
Tanya Borachi, 22, recanted her story on Wednesday and told Gainesville Police Department detectives she fabricated the story “as a lesson to women in the area that an attack could happen to them,” according to a report.
Borachi now faces a charge of filing a false police report, a first-degree misdemeanor, according to GPD spokesman Officer Ben Tobias.
Police initially identified Borachi as a University of Florida student, but Tobias said Thursday she has not been enrolled at UF for about a year, according to the report.
Tobias said that may have played a role in her decision to fabricate the story of an attack. “Her family was expecting her to graduate this weekend,’’ he said.
Borachi told police that she had been assaulted around 1:50 a.m. on April 23 when she went to get some items from her car in the parking lot of the complex at 2800 Williston Road.
She said that a man dressed in black and wearing a black mask and gloves attacked her as she was getting out of her car.
Borachi said the man gagged her and tied her hands, but that she was able to escape by kicking the man in a vulnerable area, police reported. She said she then ran to her apartment, where her roommate untied her hands and removed the gag.
A torn shirt found at the scene was believed to have been used to tie and gag the woman, Tobias said at the time.
In a follow-up interview on Wednesday, after GPD Detectives Martin Honeycutt and Joe Mayo pointed out several inconsistencies in her story, she reportedly admitted making up the tale.
Detectives were skeptical of Borachi’s report after they realized she had not been truthful with them about several aspects of the case, Tobias said, but detectives with the sexual crimes unit and members of the special operations unit continued to work on the case.
Tobias said that Borachi gagged and bound herself, and that her roommate was not part of the scheme. “Her roommate was duped, too,’’ he said.
Susan Jennings, a representative of the company that handles security for Campus Lodge, said she was “relieved that it was a false alarm. This is a reminder of the importance of safety.”
Detectives will be filing a sworn complaint against Borachi, recommending charges of filing a false police report to the State Attorney’s Office. The charge carries a maximum fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year of jail time.
GPD may also request that Borachi repay the cost of the police resources used during the investigation, Tobias said. He said the amount is still being calculated.
The incident was reported just as law enforcement officers were investigating at least two other recent sexual attacks on female students. Borachi did not report being sexually assaulted during the attack, but investigators looked to see if the circumstances fit a pattern.
On Tuesday, police arrested a Gainesville man in connection with the rape of a female student at knifepoint in 2011, and said he is a “person of interest” in the April 15 armed burglary and sexual battery of a female UF student on Southwest 10th Street.
Andre Locus, 19, was arrested at 4427 NW 31st Ave. by GPD, assisted by the University of Florida Police Department and the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office.
Police said Locus, who has a criminal history involving theft and burglarizing an occupied dwelling, is being looked at in the April 15 sexual assault case based on similarities in the composite sketch provided by the victim and surveillance video.
Police have said they believe the man entered through an unlocked rear door and attacked the woman at gunpoint. He then took two MacBook Pro laptops, an iPhone and other personal items before leaving, police said.
GPD investigators said they had received forensic evidence on Monday that linked Locus to the April 2011 case. Police said the assailant in that case forced his way into a home in the 1200 block of Southwest First Avenue armed with a knife and raped a female student.
The rapist then stole her personal electronics and fled, police said.
When Locus was arrested, he had in his possession property that had been stolen last week from another occupied dwelling at 1123 SW First Ave., according to the report.
Also at large is the culprit in an attempted sexual battery on Jan. 24 in Northside Park at 5701 NW 34th St. A woman told police she was playing racquetball at about 7:30 p.m. and was attacked when she went to retrieve a ball that was hit over a wall. She was cut on the arm and thigh.
The Borachi case marks the second incident in recent months in which a female UF student has recanted a report of an attack.
In October, Sarah Lawrence, 20, told police she was walking near Weimer Hall on the UF campus around 9:30 p.m. when a man armed with a knife tried to sexually assault her.
UPD spokesman Maj. Brad Barber later said Lawrence admitted falsifying her story after detectives found inconsistencies in her account.
Detectives filed a sworn complaint against the woman accusing her of filing a false police report, Barber said.
Lawrence told The Sun that the incident was “a mess up and a bump in the road.”
“Something happened in my life, something got out of hand basically, and it didn’t have to be that way,” she said. “It became a bigger deal by itself, and it kept going, I guess.”
Link: http://www.cotwa.info/2013/05/woman-fabricates-assault-as-lesson-to.html
SUNY Prof Questions if ‘Sexual Assault’ Definitions Go Too Far
Prof Threatened Over Lecture Questioning the Political Correctness of the Term ‘Sexual Assault’
Katherine Timpf
April 24, 2013
A professor at SUNY Geneseo is facing threats for announcing plans to deliver a lecture on the rhetoric surrounding sexual assault awareness. One such threat is a suggestion that someone should sexually assault him.
A wall painted on the SUNY Geneseo campus for Sexual Assault Awareness Week.
“I think Dr. Theodore Fuckhead Everett should be assaulted sexually, then see how he feels about it,” reads a blog post requesting signatures for the petition, obtained in an email to Campus Reform.
The target professor, Dr. Theodore Everett, explained in a statement to 13WHAM News that his lecture, titled “Against ‘Sexual’ ‘Assault’ ‘Awareness,’” “of course” does not mean he is “against sexual assault awareness.”
“That’s precisely why the title has those three words separately in quotes,” he said. “My central concern is that the sexual assault awareness movement counts too many borderline cases, (for example, badgering somebody into letting you give them a kiss) as a true sexual assault … This diverts attention away from the truly damaging core cases of rape that everybody cares about and toward borderline cases that no one believes are equally important, even though they also should not happen.”
Student Sam White started a petition to the college’s president to condemn the lecture, which attracted 1,690 signatures.
Geneseo President Christopher C. Dahl sent an email to the student body acknowledging the petition, but stating that the college would allow the lecture to take place on Wednesday due to its commitment to “academic freedom.”
“The college’s administration cannot comment on a presentation that has not yet been given,” he added.
California Woman Found Guilty of Severing Estranged Husband’s Penis
California Woman Found Guilty of Severing Estranged Husband’s Penis
April 29, 2013
A Southern California jury has convicted a woman who was accused of drugging her estranged husband before severing his penis and tossing it in the garbage disposal.
Jurors found Catherine Kieu guilty Monday of charges of torture and aggravated mayhem for the July 11, 2011, attack.
Sentencing was scheduled for June 28.
During trial, the 60-year-old victim testified that his penis could not be reattached and that he felt as though he had been murdered.
Deputy District Attorney John Christl told jurors that Kieu, 50, drugged the man’s tofu with sleeping pills and screamed “You deserve it!” before attacking him with a 10-inch kitchen knife.
Kieu was jealous and angry about her husband’s plans to divorce her because he was seeing his ex-girlfriend, the prosecution said.
Audio of the incident was captured by a voice-activated recorder Kieu had hidden in the bedroom, Christl said.
The man, who is not being named by the AP because of the nature of the attack, married Kieu after they met at a gym but soon subjected Kieu to verbal and sexual abuse, Kieu’s public defender, Frank Bittar, said during trial.
Kieu had mental health problems caused by a childhood full of molestation and other trauma in war-torn Vietnam and her husband also constantly demanded sex in ways that caused her pain, Bittar said.
