Phew. That would have been embarrassing if I weren't.

I know that was your intent. As has been said, not the best article to make that point with. I tend to dismiss any article from the Weekly Standard that's that long as not worth reading. Hasn't failed me yet.

Nevertheless, it is an important issue. Campus codes and the new California university consent law are pretty scary examples of due process being side-lined in the name of a greater good. Not sure how these people can call themselves liberals any longer.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I get it, and agree.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/16/6982559/yes-means-yes-ezra-klein-people-wrong

What are you trying to say? The California university law allows for people to be punished for sexual assault when what they did does not meet the actual legal definition of sexual assault. How is that justice?

And how is rape in the same category as plagiarism?

Ever since social ostracization on far shakier grounds has been okay. The California universities presumably have a right to do something like this, for whatever reason, and they have decided to exercise this to curb certain disciplinary issues that are running rampant on campuses. Semck said something about the police refusing to pursue the matter. Clearly, the police aren't going to do anything, maybe the university should. I mean, look at Britain. They have a fullblown crisis out of it since universities and police refuse to do anything.

I can't speak for any specific case and didn't even read the Weekly Standard article. But in general it could be that police aren't pursuing matters because nothing criminal in fact happened. Or at least that it cannot be proved that something criminal did. Why we would rather have university star chambers handling this issue is beyond me.

Because sexual assault on campus happens to be a university issue. I don't know why the police don't want to get involved. Since it's a rape case, I'll go with negligence of duty, they're good at that in rape cases. Anyway, some things aren't illegal, but damage the campus a lot. I can see why it seems draconian. It is. It might be excessive. But the university's are not doing anything you shouldn't expect them to.

But the California law and many of these student codes allows for a student to be expelled when they did not actually commit a sexual assault. That's the point. It lowers the burden of proof and expands the definition of the crime. Someone who in reality did nothing illegal can have their life destroyed by a kangaroo court. You really don't find this troubling?

The punishment is expulsion from the school, not time in jail. It seems that if the students violate the law or codes of conduct, they can face the penalties. There is no loss of liberty that I see. If a student doesn't agree with the laws or codes of the educational instutition, they don't need to matriculate in the first place.

Sure there's no loss of liberty. There are still the collateral consequences of being expelled and having one's name attached to the words "sexual assault" or "rape" forever. All when, in fact, nothing of the sort may have occurred. That should not be possible. It's manifestly unjust. It's inherently illiberal. How people can be OK with this is mind-boggling.