Guilty Until Proven Innocent
A man has sex with a woman. Based on the existing evidence, she initiated the sex. Not the man. Months later, she claims she was raped. The college that both attend say that the man is guilty until "He" can prove his innocence. This is precisely the opposite of the way in which our judicial system was intended to work. But, no matter, because woman are raped and men sometimes do the raping,
therefore, because the accused is a man, he must also be guilty. In an effort defend himself, the man produces verifiable emails, showing how his accuser consistently pursued him by making numerous, blatant sexual requests.
Does this change the college's mind? No. Because he is a man. And, as a man, he stands in as a proxy for all the men who rape woman. His actual guilt or innocence? Well, that's beside the point.
According to the college's judicial board, it doesn't matter that an actual rape never occurred. What does matter? That his female accuser feels like she was raped—as all women apparently must, living in a sexist, patriarchal culture. Group identity is the way in which guilt or innocence is determined under these circumstances. Not facts. Not evidence. But, the collective guilt or innocence of a person's group affiliation.
Thankfully, the man in question eventually received justice by appealing to our real judicial system. The fact that he could be expelled from college and branded a rapist, based on nothing more than a perceived sense of of right and wrong, coupled with gender and identity politics, is more than troubling, it's sick. That this happened at one of our most esteemed academies, makes it all the sicker.
Welcome to the progressive movement and its world-view.
It should be obvious, that this isn't your father's liberalism we're talking about. This is a whole other animal. JFK would be rolling in his grave.
Mark Magula
therefore, because the accused is a man, he must also be guilty. In an effort defend himself, the man produces verifiable emails, showing how his accuser consistently pursued him by making numerous, blatant sexual requests.
Does this change the college's mind? No. Because he is a man. And, as a man, he stands in as a proxy for all the men who rape woman. His actual guilt or innocence? Well, that's beside the point.
According to the college's judicial board, it doesn't matter that an actual rape never occurred. What does matter? That his female accuser feels like she was raped—as all women apparently must, living in a sexist, patriarchal culture. Group identity is the way in which guilt or innocence is determined under these circumstances. Not facts. Not evidence. But, the collective guilt or innocence of a person's group affiliation.
Thankfully, the man in question eventually received justice by appealing to our real judicial system. The fact that he could be expelled from college and branded a rapist, based on nothing more than a perceived sense of of right and wrong, coupled with gender and identity politics, is more than troubling, it's sick. That this happened at one of our most esteemed academies, makes it all the sicker.
Welcome to the progressive movement and its world-view.
It should be obvious, that this isn't your father's liberalism we're talking about. This is a whole other animal. JFK would be rolling in his grave.
Mark Magula