Christina: Stuart Taylor is with me today and he is one of our nation's most distinguished
legal journalists.
He has a law degree from Harvard, where he graduated at the top of his class and served
as an editor at the "Law Review."
He's written for "The New York Times," the "National Journal," myriad of other prominent
news outlets.
His new book, co-authored with Brooklyn College professor, KC Johnson, documents an alarming
assault on justice and reason on our nation's campuses.
It's titled "The Campus Rape Frenzy."
Stuart, welcome to AEI.
Stuart: Wonderful to be with you.
And if I might make an editorial comment, I love your moniker, the Factual Feminist.
Christina: Yes, I am...
Stuart: We need more factual feminists.
Christina: Yes, we do.
Well, you are the deputy factual feminist because your book is so good.
It's so thorough.
It's an exposé of the campus rape frenzy.
Tell us about that.
What is it for those who may not know?
Stuart: Yes, well, driven largely by the Obama administration...although it's a phenomenon
that started in the '90s really...there's been a huge misleading frenzy, to the effect
that there's something called a rape culture on our campuses, that rape is rampant, that
it's an epidemic, that it's increasing, that the colleges don't care about it and won't
do anything for the victims.
And the Obama administration has driven this by aligning itself with left-wing academics,
by suddenly in 2011, on April 4th, 2011, proclaiming a whole bunch of decrees, the purpose of which
was to destroy the due process rights of young men in college who are accused by young women
in college...sometimes it's a man and a man or a woman and a woman...but in general, men
accused by women of sexual assault, although really it doesn't really have to meet the
definition of sexual assault to get you in trouble these days.
It's morphed into a comprehensive system of federally directed regulation of all sex on
campus.
Christina: Oh, my.
That's quite...
Stuart: Now this doesn't mean every time anybody does anything, it gets regulated.
But it potentially reaches just about the most ordinary consensual sex you can imagine.
If somebody decides, usually the woman, a day, a month, a year, two years later, "Gee,
I didn't like that.
I wish I hadn't done it," that's all.
The guy can get kicked out over that alone.
Christina: One of the things I've noticed is that the definition of sexual assault is
very elastic and it's constantly changing.
Now most people think of some kind of aggressive, violent attack or they think of rape.
But what does it encompass now when they use it?
What can a young man be brought up on charges for?
Stuart: Well, you've got to distinguish the criminal law from the campus situation.
Under the criminal law, the definition has expanded over the years but it's still pretty
reasonable.
If there's sex without consent...it doesn't even have to forcible in most states...if
there's sex without consent and the male is the initiator, as they usually presume, that
is rape.
If there's an unwanted touching, over the woman's objection, any intimate part, that
is sexual assault.
It might be a very small case, but it's sexual assault.
On campuses, on the other hand, if...and also I should say, in the criminal law, if the
woman is passed out drunk, that's rape.
On campus, she doesn't have to be passed out or drunk to make it rape.
She just has to be a little bit intoxicated.
It varies from place to place.
The federal government has not defined rape or sexual assault for purposes of the campuses,
but the campuses have defined it and they've done their definitions with the federal government
looking over their shoulder with the general attitude saying, "You'd better kick a lot
of people out because we know there's a lot of unpunished..."
So they define it very broadly and often when I say that almost all sex that goes on campus
is potentially within this, there are campuses where if the woman...it's usually the woman...much
later decides she didn't really wanna do it and she wishes she hadn't, even if she doesn't
claim that she resisted or said no or pushed...
Christina: But someone saw her drinking a margarita.
Stuart: Yeah, somebody saw her drinking a margarita, that will get you kicked out if
you're the young man at a lot of campuses and I could tell you stories, including the
Yale basketball captain who's been kicked out on stories like that.
Christina: I saw at one college, they had defined assault to include coercion.
And coercion means did anyone ever try to talk you into sex or tell you lies, manipulate
you in some way.
Now that might not be gentlemanly behavior, but we're not in the Victorian age and we
don't call that assault.
Stuart: Right.
Christina: But they're implying that it is punishable, as if it were a violation.
So this is also, people should understand that it's just, you send a young man to college
and any parent should warn him to be absolutely careful.
Now some people will say, "Well, that's good.
Maybe we should go back to an age where young men were taught to be protective of women."
And actually, in a way, I'm thinking maybe this is a reaction to the hook up culture,
where there was so much promiscuity.
Maybe this is sort of the liberals' way of bringing some moderation to the campus hook
up culture and they call it the rape culture.
But I think there's probably a better way to do it than setting up kangaroo courts.
Stuart: Yeah.
Especially since the same universities that are setting up the kangaroo courts are also
distributing condoms, sex manuals on how to have fun sex, encouraging rampant sex...
Christina: And doing nothing about the binge drinking.
Stuart: And drinking.
Doing nothing about the binge drinking and then after all the things the university helped
happen, happen and the woman complains later on, it's the man's fault and they go after
him.
Now sometimes...
Christina: What if they're both drinking?
They both have two glasses of wine, they have sex, and for whatever reason, she brings charges.
Can he show that he had the same amount and he could be exonerated or can he take her,
if he puts in the charge first, does he...
Stuart: Theoretically he could.
But not in the real world.
First, if she files a charge and the guy then says, "Well, then she did it, too," they will
often say, "Well, that's retaliation.
We're not gonna listen to that."
And the dean of students, Sue Wasiolek's her name, at Duke University, was testifying and
she was asked, "Well, what happens if both of them are drunk?"
And she said, "Well, in that case, it would be the fault of the male and he's a rapist
or whatever."
Now campuses aren't always quite as frank as that in saying what their attitude is,
but that's their attitude.
Christina: You know, you've described some very unsavory individuals, they sound to be.
I think there are probably a lot of campus Title IX officers and people that, they wanna
do the best but they're given a lot of misinformation, there's pressure from the government to hand
over guilty verdicts, and so they end up being part of something, these mock courts or these
kangaroo courts, without ever really thinking it through.
And where could they go without risk of losing their jobs?
So all the incentives are in favor of just going along with the system.
Stuart: Yeah, especially because they're reporting...I mean, the federal government is looking over
their shoulder.
They are appointed largely to appease the federal government by doing to the campus
males whatever the federal government seems to want them to do on a case by case basis.
And also, think for a minute...I'm sure some of them are great people...think for a minute,
who would want that job, knowing that you are an agent of the federal government in
all but name, you know, there for the purpose of administering biased judges against young
men and that's your job and that's your responsibility and you're gonna be in trouble if you don't
do that.
Who wants that job?
I don't think it's the type of person we want to be exercising that kind of power over our
young people.
Christina: Well, there they are.
We have this elaborate bureaucracy, these campus sort of sex apparatchiks marching around,
and what happens to people that oppose it, to dissidents, and anyone, a professor who
questions it, or a student who organized against it?
Stuart: Very few do.
But, for example, when the Yale basketball captain who I mentioned was railroaded out
of Yale based on a bogus charge of sexual assault or sexual misconduct or whatever they
called it, the basketball team rallied around him and they wore his number or something
like that.
They were hammered by the Yale administration, trashed by the women's center, attacked by
kind of a mob of activists, and unfortunately they could see that this was gonna end badly
for them and they basically backed off and apologized.
That's what usually happens and most people, including professors these days...we haven't
gotten to the threat to freedom of speech so called harassment that this administration
has increased and it was already there...but most professors, even tenured professors,
know perfectly well that if they speak out against this sort of thing, they're gonna
get picketed, they're gonna get attacked, there's gonna be a social media campaign against
them, the university's gonna be looking to whether to bring a Title IX charge against
them.
I know personally some professors who would just say, "You know, I could get," tenured
professors who say, "I could get pushed out of my job if I speak out against this."
Christina: Well, as you know, I've written about this myself.
I'm very alarmed, what's going on.
And in your book, you and KC Johnson make it clear that you're concerned about victims
of sexual assault.
Any reasonable, fair-minded person is.
But even at that level, what's happening on campus isn't helping assault victims.
It's just created this, as you say, a kind of moral panic and they're rushing to judgment
and it looks to me as though they're replacing our tradition of the presumption of innocence
with guilty because accused.
Stuart: Exactly.
Now I should make it clear, we hate sexual assault.
We hate rape.
We are very much champions of victims of them and we know that there's a lot of it that
goes on on campus, off campus.
Always has, probably always will.
But at least we'd like to reduce it.
What we oppose is injustice her.
Lots of people hate sexual assault.
They didn't need us to make that point.
What we see happening is a presumption of guilt, a rush to judgment, an effort to presume
that all males are guilty, if accused of anything they're guilty of, that when a woman's an
accuser, and to brand them rapists and to kick them out of college or suspend them.
In many cases, ruining lives, PTSD, suicide attempts, the whole bit.
The kinds of things you hear that happen to rape victims, and they do, also happen to
falsely accused young men.
Christina: Well, so someone argued that things are so bad on campus, there's this epidemic,
a plague of violence, and we need to take strong measures.
And while it's too bad that some innocent will suffer, overall, it's just better this
way all around if we have these strong measures.
What would you say to that?
Stuart: Two main points.
A, there's not an epidemic.
There's not a rape culture.
And B, this huge effort is not making things any safer for women.
Christina: Okay.
You say there's not a rape epidemic.
Explain that because people here, one in four, one in five women, will be...
Stuart: Right.
An epidemic suggests something that's huge and growing.
Now is it huge?
Well, I guess if it's always been huge, it's still huge.
There's way too much sexual assault and way too much rape.
But it's nothing like one in five.
At the time the administration acted, the rape rate on campus, the percentages, according
to best federal statistics, had plunged by more than half over the previous 15 years.
Plunged, not increased.
It's not increasing.
Some of the numbers are increasing lately because they've been basically tampered with
by...
Christina: Advocacy research.
Stuart: By advocacy research.
Let's take the one in five idea.
The best federal research bureaus, the justice statistics, which has been the best federal
crime research for many years, would tell you about 1 in 40, maybe 1 in 50, sexually
assaulted, maybe 1 in 100 raped.
Sexual assault would include a pat on the rear end.
It's technically a crime but there are degrees.
The way these surveys get to one in five, and the president of the United States has
embraced this number, is by phonying up the statistics.
First they get very small sample sizes, women motivated to complain tend to be the ones
who answer the samples.
Second, they define all kinds of activity that's perfectly legal, that's not thought
of commonly as sexual assault at all, and they define it as sexual assault.
You know, "Has anybody ever had sex with you when you had been drinking?"
"Has anybody ever had sex with you when you really didn't want them to, whether or not
you told them you didn't want to?"
And so forth.
And so there are all sorts of things.
And this is quite revealing, they never, these survey takers...and there are kind of a group
of them and they all do the same game and "The Washington Post" has done it and Pew
Research has done it and the American...you know, they never ask the people being surveyed,
"Have you been raped?
Have you been sexually assaulted?"
Because they know from history...
Christina: It yields a low number.
Stuart: Very low number.
You know, I hesitate whether to call these surveys highly misleading, which is an understatement,
or fraudulent, which might be an overstatement.
Somewhere in that spectrum.
Christina: But these numbers would make it seem...if we took them seriously, it would
mean that when a young woman enters the campus, Wesleyan or Brandeis or Stanford, she's at
as much risk as she would be, or more risk, than she would be in Detroit.
Or more than that, maybe in war-torn Congo.
I mean, these numbers are so high and yet people send their daughters to college and,
you know, who would send a child to college if you thought they had a one in four, one
in five chance of being victimized by a serious felony assault?
Stuart: Exactly.
Christina: You wouldn't.
Stuart: You know, the evidence that the administration and the colleges that jump on this bandwagon,
they don't take these numbers seriously themselves.
They use them as propaganda.
If they took them seriously, there would be cops all over the campus.
There would be security guards everywhere.
Christina: They wouldn't allow alcohol on campus.
Stuart: They would not allow coed dorms, let alone coed bathrooms.
There would be no alcohol on campus.
You know, maybe they'd go back to single sex schools.
They're not doing any of those things.
They're not doing anything that shows real seriousness.
It's all a big misleading panic that's...
Christina: It's a panic...Well, before we get to this, what is like to be a young man...or
it could be a young woman, I read some terrible cases of young women falsely accused as well.
But tell a typical case of, you know, a picture of what happens to a young man today when
accused on campus.
Stuart: Okay.
I'll give you a real case, not a hypothetical one.
And I can give you 40 probably, except my memory's...
Christina: Well, there are about 100 young men suing right now.
Stuart: Right, yeah.
Christina: And to read through these cases is to go to Kafka's trial, but go on.
Stuart: Here's a case at Amherst and one thing that's striking about this and somewhat unusual
is that the young who was ejected from Amherst on a charge of sexually assaulting a young
woman was in fact a victim of a sexual assault by the young woman.
That's what really happened and the evidence that proves it, text message evidence, was
readily available to the college if they had bothered to look for it.
Christina: Yeah, she was sending texts to her friend saying, "Oh, I just did that,"
and he had been passed out.
Stuart: Yeah, it starts with them making out in a very sexual way in front of other people
in some common area in the dorm and somebody says, "You know, why don't y'all go get a
room?"
So she takes the guy back to his room.
By her account, she was a little bit tipsy.
By all accounts, he was passed out drunk or very close.
She gave him oral sex.
For whatever reason, she wanted to.
It's not clear he was even aware this was happening.
He doesn't remember anything.
And then she sent him away and she called in another guy who she'd been flirting with
earlier in the evening and had more sex.
And then she began to feel bad because, "Oh, that first guy was my roommate's boyfriend.
My roommate's away, but she's gonna find out and it's gonna be very socially awkward with
our friends."
So she started telling people she'd been sexually assaulted.
She joined a feminist anti-rape group on campus and many, many, many months or a year later...I
think it was more than a year later...she actually filed a claim of sexual assault.
The investigation by the college was ludicrous.
Her testimony was incoherent.
The whole thing was a giant fraud and apparently driven by Amherst's fear that the federal
government would say they're not being tough enough on sexual assault.
And they kicked him out, he hired a lawyer, the lawyer asked around, "Anybody got any
text messages," got some text messages, and the text messages prove the facts that I've
just told you conclusively.
The guy took the facts back to the college, Amherst, and Amherst said, "Sorry, too late.
You're kicked out and it's final."
Christina: And he's kicked out.
Stuart: He's kicked out.
Christina: And marked as a predator.
And these people that got kicked out of college, they have a hard time getting into another
school.
And it's also devastating psychologically to be accused.
You're seen as a pariah.
I've read reports from psychologists, what it's like to treat falsely accused people.
Stuart: Exactly.
Christina: And it's just psychically devastating.
Stuart: And we have, too.
And there's two aspects worth mentioning.
One, these things are almost always done in secret.
Federal privacy laws and so forth, which means it's impossible usually until the case gets
into court...and this Amherst guy sued in court, which is how we know all the facts
we know...to know what went on.
And so the guy usually doesn't get on Google as a rapist, but everybody on the campus knows
who he was and the word gets around and there's a movement to put it on transcripts and when
he tries to apply to another college, they tend to turn him down.
And so it has a lifelong effect, potentially a horrible lifelong effect.
It leads to depression, it leads to post traumatic stress syndrome, it defeats career opportunities.
You know, it's often regarded by people who are anti-rape activists as, "Oh, well, the
guy just picks himself up and moves on."
No, he doesn't pick himself up and move on.
And I just should add, the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, has admitted
unwittingly that this has done absolutely nothing, all this, to reduce the number of
rapes on campus.
Christina: As far as I can tell, the numbers, even their advocacy studies, they've been
doing them for years, the numbers never change.
Now they're saying one in five and they still have studies that it's one in four.
Stuart: And what Biden recently said was, "It was 1 in 5 20 years ago."
And it's still 1 in 5.
Christina: Right.
Stuart: Okay, you can do the math.
It's done.
Your program, Mr. Biden, has done no good at all.
Christina: In your book, you cite the words of a congressman, Jared Polis from Colorado,
and he said, this is in a 2015 congressional hearing, "If there are 10 people who have
been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard, maybe 1 or 2 of them did it, it
seems better to get rid of all 10 people."
A congressman said that.
Now this...
Stuart: One would hope not for long.
Christina: We have this venerable legal principle, presumption of innocence.
Is it being replaced by guilty because accused?
Stuart: What this guy Polis said just takes one's breath away.
You know, you have to wonder if he was hallucinating.
The old Blackstone thing was, you know, "Better 10 go free who are guilty than 1 being imprisoned
who's innocent."
Christina: And there's a reason for that, that we have such a revulsion towards the
innocent being punished.
Because all of the machinery of the State comes down and they have resources and all
sorts of powers and the individual's alone.
And the cases we hear about are the ones that are brought to trial where the young man,
usually a young man, has the money to get a lawyer.
Think of all the cases we don't hear about.
Stuart: Yeah, you're right.
And all of this...
Christina: And so anyway, there are now judges that are looking at these cases and you've
cited them in the book.
They go through them and there was one judge in Massachusetts, I think he was looking at
a case at Brandeis, and he looked at it and he said that it reminded him of Salem, Massachusetts.
Stuart: It did.
Christina: And not the United States or America in 2015 or '16, whenever he said.
And you do see a lot of talk about Salem or sexual McCarthyism.
People talk about kangaroo courts.
And do you think that that's...having written this book, you've seen enough to agree with
those strong assessments.
Stuart: Very emphatically.
I would not have believed that so much injustice, committed by people with great credentials
or Ivy university people, committed for often cynical reasons or ideology, I would not have
believed that it was possible for this to happen in the United States until I became
immersed in the facts.
My co-author, KC Johnson, knows more about these cases than anyone alive and a lot of
the ones in the book, he's read all the court records, and you just read these cases and
you think, "How could this possibly have happened?"
And one way it happens is that, although the judge, Judge Saylor, in the Brandeis case
you mentioned was good and the three democratically appointed federal appeals court judges in
New York were good in that case, they basically...in another case, I think they basically said,
"This looks like discrimination against men.
What's going on?"
Not all judges are good on this.
Some judges, there were a couple of judges in California in an appeals court who heard
a case from the University of California, San Diego, where one of them said during the
argument, "This looks like a kangaroo court."
And then they upheld it.
And then they said, "Well, it's not our job.
We're just federal judges.
We're not supposed to tell disciplinary campuses what to do."
Christina: Yeah, I think they don't yet understand how much suffering and anguish is involved.
And it's because, yes, rape is a heinous crime and a victim of a rape suffers horribly.
But it's because it's such a serious crime that we have to be very careful about branding
someone as a sex predator, as a rapist, and we've lost that concern.
Now how did this happen?
Who are players?
Not that I don't have my own ideas, but in your book, you mention all sorts of, a kind
of axis of madness.
You have risk-averse administrators.
You have academic activists.
You have the federal government coming in.
And this whole sex bureaucracy that's built up in the campuses and it's all come together.
The media...
Stuart: Oh, boy, yes.
Christina: Wanting...let's talk, how has the media handled all this?
Because there should have been a book like this, "60 Minutes" should have been on this,
there should have been "Frontline" about, you know, witch hunts on our college campus,
and we really haven't seen that.
Stuart: The media have been shamelessly biased, "The New York Times" leading the pack.
Every time "The New York Times" ever writes about campus sex cases, as far as I've seen...I
might have missed one...but every one I've ever seen, they grotesquely distort the facts
to make it look absolutely clear that the male was guilty and the woman was pure and
virtuous and honest, even when the evidence is either much more conflicted or even when
it clearly proves the innocence of the male.
They did it in the Duke lacrosse rape fraud case in 2006.
Christina: Yes, "The New York Times" was horrible and after everyone was talking about this
travesty at Duke with the lacrosse team falsely accused, the "Times" was saying, "Well, no,
the case still makes sense."
Stuart: That's right.
Christina: No, it didn't make sense.
Why did, what's...
Stuart: And KC Johnson and I exposed in our Duke lacrosse book how bad they were and one
of their editors at some point said, "Well, we're gonna be more careful about these things,"
but they haven't improved a bit.
And they are not unrepresentative.
If you look at, you know, remember the "Rolling Stone" case, article about University of Virginia?
Christina: Well, yes, there's another example.
Stuart: Well, not only was "Rolling Stone" outrageous...and they're losing libel vases
now and basically it was a fraudulent article that they fell for...the entire media, they
printed this ridiculous claim by a woman that she had been gang-raped over broken glass
by seven or eight guys at the University of Virginia fraternity.
All of the evidence, it was implausible on its face.
Every bit of evidence that's ever emerged shows that it didn't happen.
And yet the news media as a group all credited immediately, raised the clamor, "This shows
we have a rape culture," and all through the process of it being proved false, you know,
kind of some of them quieted down a little bit, but none of them ever said, "We're sorry."
Except maybe "Rolling Stone," without really saying it seriously.
Christina: Right, and eventually there were some journalists working in the background,
at "Reason" and there was a blogger, what was his name?
Bradley?
Richard Bradley.
Stuart: Robby Soave, if I pronounced it right, at "Reason" and Richard Bradley, who was a
blogger, exposed it quite early, saying, "Wait a minute, this doesn't have..."
Christina: And they were just being good journalists who had a sense that something was amiss and
it didn't add up.
Stuart: And then the "Washington Post," which has by and large been part of the...
Christina: Hysteria.
Stuart: ...hysteria, they to their credit, the credit of one of their reporters, to be
exact, printed some facts that showed that it couldn't have happened the way the woman
said and the story fell apart.
And yet, not only did the national media never really set of the University of Virginia,
even the student body at the University of Virginia, more or less, all rushed to judgment,
too, and none of them ever changed their attitude, even as the facts were proved false.
Christina: Well, I've noticed that, that journalists just credulously repeat the false statistics
and they repeat stories.
For example, at Columbia University with mattress girl.
That was told from her point of view.
They didn't seem to be concerned that the young man had been found not responsible by
one or two tribunals, sex courts, on campus.
That didn't seem to matter.
And she was actually carrying out a vigilante action against him.
And she got class credit.
Or, you know, maybe credit towards her degree.
Stuart: She did.
Christina: And she was treated as a heroine by the media.
Stuart: And all the evidence isn't quite clear there.
One thing's very clear.
She was sending "I love you" emails to the supposed rapist weeks after the supposed rape.
Christina: Right, right.
Stuart: You know, she has no credibility and all and yet Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a
Democrat...
Christina: Oh, Senator Gillibrand is...
Stuart: ...took her to the 2015 State of the Union address and made her into a heroine.
Christina: Shouldn't Kirsten Gillibrand and the other legislators, everyone really, care
about due process?
What has happened to due process with these young people who are accused?
Do they get a lawyer?
Do they get to cross examine?
Do they have the right to, you know, once they're found innocent, they're not put on
trial again?
Or is it the reverse?
Stuart: The reverse.
And this takes me back to the Obama administration's very major role in this.
In the April 4th, 2011, directives, they dictated procedures for these cases.
And one was the lowest possible standard of proof.
Not clear and convincing, certainly not a preponderance of the evidence, 50.01%.
Another was you'd better not let these guys cross examine the women or let anybody cross
examine the women.
Christina: Because they'll be re-traumatized.
Stuart: Re-traumatized.
Right.
Christina: So they're presuming that she's a survivor and that he's the perpetrator.
Stuart: Yeah, and the relevance of that is, first, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said
cross examination is the best legal engine ever devised by the law for getting at the
truth.
They've said it more than once.
And we're talking about he said-she said cases often, where if you can't really test the
veracity of the woman, it's pretty much over.
The guy doesn't get to have a lawyer in the proceedings.
He doesn't get to see all the evidence that's gonna be used against him.
He doesn't get to see the evidence that's in his favor.
The procedures are all completely rigged to maximize the point of accusers and the people
who do the deciding, if there's a board, they're often coached by so-called trainers...
Christina: Oh, these trainers.
Stuart: ...to presume guilt.
Christina: And the trainers come in believing all of the advocacy statistics.
They believe that one in five is a victim of assault.
They believe that women never...or rarely lie.
There's another false statistic and you expose a number of them.
Stuart: Right.
The trainers at Stanford, for example, said, among other things, two things that don't
coexist well.
One is if the man's story is articulate and persuasive, that's a sign of guilt.
Christina: And if he's being too logical.
Stuart: If he's being a little bit...yeah, if he's too logical.
Christina: Right.
Stuart: If he's vague and kinda wanders around, why, that's a sign of guilt, too.
In other words, everything he says is a sign of guilt.
Christina: So they're using the lowest standard of proof.
They have no way to defend themselves, none of the usual means.
And the committee is just arbitrary.
It could be a librarian, it could be a dean, a couple of students.
They're the sex court.
They're not trained, except by these experts that come in.
And they will be told that women rarely lie.
Sometimes some of the materials say only in what, they cite a 2% of cases and that goes
back to a book in the '70s by Susan Brownmiller.
She just stated it, I don't think she had a source for that.
There is no source.
Stuart: She said she'd heard some judge said it based on some study that was never made
public.
But it's nonsense.
Christina: It's nonsense.
Stuart: Lots and lots of women are victimized and lots or lots of other women make it up
for various reasons or lie or...
Christina: And, you know, I think women sometimes lie about being raped, not because they're
women but because they're human beings.
Human beings sometimes lie, especially about sex.
There are many, many reasons we've seen already in the notorious cases, the Duke lacrosse
and the UVA case.
Stuart: Also on the campuses, with the administration pushing it...I'm thinking of a case called
Occidental and a woman named Danielle Dirks, who is a professor, a radical...
Christina: Very radical, very hard-line.
Heartless.
Stuart: A young woman who had had a drunken tryst with a young guy, two freshmen, and
she was complaining to her roommate or somebody like that, "Gee, he didn't call back."
It wasn't very good.
Somebody directed her to Danielle Dirks and Danielle Dirks said, "Well, you know, this
guy is like the typical campus rapist.
How do I know that?
Well, he's from a good family.
He was a high school valedictorian.
He had good grades and he was an athlete.
Well, those are the guys who are obviously guilty."
So that is the attitude that goes into a lot of the campus adjudications.
Christina: Gender profiling.
Stuart: Yeah.
And the one thing that the administrations have been pushing people to do is to have
a single person be the investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury.
You know, let's not put this in front of, say, a panel of students who might actually
find the guy innocent.
Let's make it very clear that he's totally at the mercy of somebody who's looking over
her shoulder...it's almost always a her, by the way...at the other hers in the Obama education
department who are saying, "You'd better bring us some heads."
Christina: I think that the...By the way, it's not only the Obama administration.
There are a number of Republicans who have joined with this campaign, this crusade, about
the campus rape culture and are very poorly informed.
It's unfortunately bipartisan.
However, I think that what led the legislators, as well as the journalists, originally they
were the academic feminist.
And this all started, I saw it happening way back in the last century, you had gender studies
professors who believe that American society is a patriarchy and that women are held down
and held back.
And then you had very radical figures like Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, who believe
that we were captive to a culture where rape was an instrument of oppression used by men
to keep women in their place.
It's part of the structure of society.
So they feel that we need to go outside the American legal tradition, which was after
all created by men invested in a violent patriarchy.
So they have no inhibitions about throwing aside due process and freedom of expression
and even punishing an occasional innocent person because they think they're dealing
with this patriarchal oppression so they don't care.
Now these ideas were half-baked and it's just a lot of twisted, paranoid theories that have
no basis in reality which almost anyone could say.
But if you challenge their theories, that just proves you don't understand them and
that proves that you're an apologist for the rape culture.
Somehow these theories, which were not taken seriously by anyone outside these sort of
esoteric departments in the academy, they've moved into the mainstream.
And suddenly I'm seeing them in women's magazines and I think it was the statistics, these false
statistic came to be believed, these dubious statistics, they got to a point where they
were beyond the reach of rational analysis.
So we do have the makings of this panic and do you see a way out of it?
Stuart: It is like the Salem witch trials and, in a different way, it's like the McCarthy
era and it's like the daycare scares of the 1990s.
Christina: Yeah, Satanic cults in daycare.
Stuart: Yeah, when babies were being thrown into streams beheaded and so forth, except
nobody could find the bodies.
Christina: And people believed it.
Stuart: People believed it.
And Catherin MacKinnon, who you mentioned, has been lionized by academic feminists.
I think one of her famous quotes is, "I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels
violated."
I think that's almost verbatim.
So this has become an ideology that's swept the campuses with huge expansion of gender
studies programs.
They're sort of in the business spreading this ideology.
And frankly because of the state of the campuses, it's hard for me to be at all confident that
we're ever gonna see the end of this.
Or at least see it anytime soon.
I hope that the new Trump administration...and I'm certainly not a pro-Trump person...but
I do hope that his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, if she's confirmed, and the rest of
his administration will do at least one very good thing for America, which is dismantle
this sex bureaucracy machinery, at least in the federal level, that the Obama administration
has created.
But that would only be a start, a little bit of a start on fixing this because the sex
bureaucracies in the universities, the feminist kind of biases in the universities, they've
swept over universities from coast to coast, with a few exceptions, and they're full of
ideas that the average American, if he heard them or she heard them, would consider laughable.
The average woman who considers herself a feminist would consider them laughable, but
because they're in the academic ghettos, they kind of persist.
Christina: Well, a lot of feminists have come out against this.
People like Wendy Kaminer and Janet Halley at Harvard.
Nadine Strossen, the former president of the ACLU.
They've been some of the most outspoken...
Stuart: Nadine wrote a very nice...
Christina: Nadine is fantastic.
Nancy Gerston, the...
Stuart: Gertner.
Christina: Gertner, sorry.
Nancy Gertner in Massachusetts.
They've been wonderful.
But they're not listened to.
Stuart: No, and Harvard Law School professors have been better than most academics.
Most academics have their head in the sand.
Twenty-eight Harvard Law faculty members signed a statement, an eloquent statement, denouncing
what the federal government was forcing Harvard to do, what Harvard in fact did, although
they got an exception made for the law school.
And very eloquent and, you know, these are pretty liberal folks and five of them, you've
mentioned three of four, but five...another that comes to mind is Betsy Bartholet...
Christina: Oh, she's been wonderful.
Stuart: ...are leading feminists.
Christina: Yes.
Stuart: And, you know, every serious civil libertarian I know and every feminist who
I respect, and I respect a lot of them, who've seen what's going on realizes how pernicious
this is, but it persists.
Christina: Well, maybe it's gonna take a famous academic feminist to find her son brought
up on charges and taken through a kangaroo court.
Or maybe it's going to...what will it take for, you know, I think back to France in the
Alfred Dreyfus case and Emile Zola writing "J'accuse," it was the most famous headline
of all time in newspaper and he accused, well, the French military, the press, everyone,
of taking part in convicting an innocent man.
And it just became a famous symbol of people becoming aware that we had committed just
this heinous injustice, all of us somehow were guilty and Zola conveyed that in "J'accuse"
and I see your book as possibly doing that.
I hope so.
I mean, I don't think anybody, any journalist that writes about the sexual assault on campus,
anybody on a committee, any dean, if they don't read this, I think it's malfeasance.
I mean, they're not doing their job.
You've done such a good job.
It's meticulous.
It's careful.
The tone.
All of it is really, really fine.
So let's hope it makes a difference because this can't go on.
Stuart: Well, having Factual Feminist on our side...
Christina: Oh, yes.
Well, I will do what I can.
I urge people to buy...
Stuart: It makes me feel much more optimistic than I would otherwise.
Christina: I'll do my best.
Let's stop the madness.
Stuart: Thank you.
Thank you so much for coming.
For more infomation >> THE VOICE - I put a spell on you - USA 2016 - Christina Aguilera - Duration: 5:07. 
For more infomation >> Emily Ashley Labradorite Bead Goldtone 36" Necklace - Duration: 6:55. 
For more infomation >> LORAC Grand Gala Cheek Duo - Duration: 2:48. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét