And in the Christian Science Monitor:
"Key among the federal findings at the University of Montana, where the university acknowledged it failed to properly address allegations of sexual assault against several football players, is the necessity to broaden the definition of sexual harassment to “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” or speech."
"Failed to properly address ...". Baloney.
However, none of that had anything whatsoever to do with "speech" on campus. This was an outrageous, and likely calculated, effort to pick out a University with a hapless President, make some wild and frankly idiotic accusations, get him to fold like a origami crane and ...
"To be sure, the new rules still require that sex crime allegations suggest either pervasive or severe acts or language, and still require an objective standard before allegations are upheld, according to the Department of Education’s letter to the University of Montana.
"But campus free speech advocates have balked at those explanations, saying the policy could have a chilling impact on social, professional, even political dynamics on US college campuses. Critics say any sexual topic, including flirtation, sex ed classes, or a discussion of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita,” could be deemed “unwelcome” and the basis for censure.
"Such fears aren’t theoretical, campus free speech advocates say, citing a professor at the University of Denver who was found to have sexually harassed students by talking about sexual taboos in American culture.
"“Unwelcome” speech has also been used in allegations of teachers creating a “hostile environment,” which apparently happened to a professor at Purdue University at Calumet who last year faced investigation for criticizing on Facebook the failure by moderate Muslims to condemn violence by Islamic extremists."
...
"The Department of Education probe of the University of Montana’s handling of rape allegations against football players found problems with both the university’s sex harassment policy and its implementation. Federal officials focused on police reports, for example, that suggested that one alleged victim simply “regretted sex” and that another one didn’t seem sufficiently upset, and smelled of alcohol."
There was no connection between the "sexual harassment policy" and any rape charges. The fact is, "the police" are, or at least were, bound to write down what they observe as part of their investigations.
"Smelled of alcohol" is no longer an appropriate observation if the complaining witness is female, but is perfectly fine if the driver of a car involved in an accident is male? Police officers are now bound, by social justice theory, to "not see" what they see?
She says things like "Oh, I don't know, it just didn't go like I had wanted," and the officer cannot summarize, "regretted sex?"
Notably, the DOJ didn't find what was in front of its face, that an extraordinarily high rate of false reports had been made, and that male students have little defense against them since false reports are not punished at all.
This is delusional stuff. This is no longer a "justice" system, this is turning any University into a Frankfurt School experiment whereby gender and position determines the disparate treatment of both male and female students, determines the "kind of justice" process applied to them, and attempts on a broad theoretical basis to assign guilt in advance on the basis of gender and irrespective of factual circumstance, and "factual circumstance" now includes expression of thought, and the opinion of the hearer, even if the hearer is eavesdropping on a conversation.
This is thought control gone wild.
And it happened at the University of Montana under the feeble collapse of Royce Engstrom and his complete failure to recall that Universities used to be places where people were educated to speak their minds, not persecuted for doing so.
These are the new puritans; under these policies, the University of Montana could not dare have Jack Kerouac, Lawrence Ferlingetti, Alan Ginsburg, or even Hunter S. Thompson on campus. And students that write such controversial things in their classes ... is the faculty now obligated to report them? Can they dare risk class presentations without advance censorship?
This is, of course, the end of Mark Twain in literature classes; the palpable offense of "Nigger Jim" is too overwhelming in this enfeebled, emasculated, preening culture of hyperattenuated feelings and causes.
“I doubt [the new sexual harassment policy] is intended to be fairly enforced,” writes civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer on Atlantic.com. “I doubt federal officials want or expect it to be used against sex educators, advocates of reproductive choice, anti-porn feminists, or gay rights advocates, if their speech of a sexual nature is ‘unwelcome’ by religious conservatives.”
“When people demand censorship of ‘unwelcome’ speech, they’re usually demanding censorship of speech that they find unwelcome,” Ms. Kaminer writes. “They usually seek to silence their political or ideological opponents, not their friends – all in the name of some greater good.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0518/Feds-rooting-out-unwelcome-speech-on-campus-But-what-is-that" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are parents really going to want to send their children to the University of Montana after THIS fiasco?
The University of Montana under Royce Engstrom no longer wants to prepare people for the "real world," it wants them to live, while here, in a world of fear and intimidation, presumptively to take it with them when they leave.
That man needs to go.
