and how would the accused prove he employed them?
Like I said, I can understand the motivation and the need for this effort. Yes, rape at colleges and universities are a problem. Yes, it happens all too often. But we don't get to use generalized statistics to prosecute individual cases. You don't get to take away people's rights in specific cases because lots of other people are doing bad things. That's why we have courts, the rule of law and the rules of evidence. The alternative is vigilante justice and mob rule.
"The indemnity against disciplinary action because the assaulted student was breaking the school's drinking policy is a no-brainer. It takes away one of the coercive means used currently by some administrators to dissuade formal reporting of sexual assault."
Yes, that's exactly the point. By creating the impossibility of irresponsible behavior by the accuser the weight of disciplinary action will fall all the more easily on the accused who is offered no means to refute the charge. It's a perfect kangaroo court.
If you're concerned with adjusting the behavior of college students pushing everyone around a drunk into a parental role is the wrong way to go about it. Especially when the person who has to shoulder those responsibilities is little more than a child himself.
"You seem more concerned about the chance of false reporting than of the acknowledged large problem of unreported sexual assaults and improperly investigated complaints."
This is an interesting sentence since I took the time to address the issue already. You can allude to ideological heresy all you like, but in the end you have not provided any way for the accused to make an affirmative defense. Nor does the law, and the authors of it should know better. Administrators aren't engaged in some sort of conspiracy to conceal rape statistics out of misogynistic motives, although their motives might be financial. They are on the horns of a dilemma whereby the parents of Mary may sue them for not keeping her safe while at the same time the parents of Johnny may sue them for false accusations and defamation of character. And it's all because there is insufficient evidence either way.
There is nothing wrong with teaching kids right social and moral behavior. Most colleges and universities have courses in ethics, philosophy, sociology, and religious studies. But like I said, partisans on both the left and the right attempt to rebrand basic human ideals for their own ideological ends, and that always ends badly. When the law is designed to defend ideology rather than justice horrible injustices result. This law is a fine example of that.
But maybe I'm wrong. The solution is an affirmative defense for the accused. I have already asked for one but I haven't seen one yet. I realize this is a protected group so I'm not going to crowd you for it any more. Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read