California Democrats Wish to Police College Bedrooms

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Democrats often criticize Republicans for attempting to put government in American bedrooms. With the preoccupation that social conservatives on the right have with homosexuality, contraception, and marriage, Democrats often have a point. However, big government Progressive Democrats are no less willing to police the bedroom when it fits their agenda. Democrat Party lawmakers in California are advancing S.B. 967, a bill which requires California college students to provide “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity. S.B. 967 has passed the California Senate by a vote of 27–9 and is now in the Assembly awaiting a vote. The bill is a reaction to a report that listed 55 schools which are under investigation by the United States Department of Education for allegedly mishandling sexual assault and harassment complaints by students. Four California schools were on this list.

S.B. 967 would require any post-secondary educational institute receiving states funds to adopt policies concerning “sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking” that include “an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant.” The key section of the bill concerning this “affirmative consent standard” reads as follows:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Another key element is that on a California college campus, the standard for establishing a sexual assault complaint is reduced by the bill to a preponderance of the evidence standard.

The first issue concerns what precisely constitutes “affirmative consent.” This issue involves the metaphysical question of what it is, the epistemological question of how the sexual actors know, and the practical question of how evidence is established. Alas, these questions will always be problematic for criminal charges of sexual assault. However, they become even more problematic here where the standard is merely that of preponderance of the evidence. The party who is a more convincing speaker, has a better advocate, or is simply more charismatic could win the day. When the education and reputation of college students is at stake, this makes it seem dubious whether due process is actually being satisfied.

If this bill becomes law, it could lead to the necessity of schools adopting official policies that are similar to Antioch College’s much lampooned 1991 policy. The basics of the failed Antioch College policy can be summarized as follows:

·         Consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity.

·         All parties must have a clear and accurate understanding of the sexual activity.

·         The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent.

·         The person(s) who are asked are responsible for verbally responding.

·         Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.

·         Use of agreed upon forms of communication such as gestures or safe words is acceptable, but must be discussed and verbally agreed to by all parties before sexual activity occurs.

·         Consent is required regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history, or current activity (e.g. grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity).

Sex is a private and intimate activity. It is not facetious to believe that S.B. 967 could lead to ridiculous contracts that must be signed by California college students who wish to engage in sexual activity. Why should the government be so involved in this sphere in the first place? Should the government be doing something that so demoralizes and degrades that which is so private and potentially so emotional? Is such a policy likely to prevent sexual assaults or is it more likely to create more false accusations which are difficult to defend against?

In the context of a college, a charge of sexual assault or the like is far more akin to a criminal charge than a civil matter. Despite the fact that criminal sanctions are not in play, a college is like a microcosm of society. And being labeled with such a charge is like being branded with a scarlet letter. Laws against sexual assault—whether criminal or institutional—must balance defending potential victims with defending the rights of the accused. It is part of the very social and legal fabric of the United States that it has chosen to err on the side of the rights of the accused. This in no way diminishes the importance of defending individuals against sexual assault, harassment, stalking, etc. It is precisely because these matters are so important that safeguards must be in place to defend the rights of the accused. American society is rightly more concerned with assuring the rights of the accused are completely safeguarded in the case of serious offenses such as murder, treason, rape, terrorism, etc. than in the case of minor offenses like jaywalking, shoplifting, or vandalism.

The key is to ensure that colleges respect those who file complaints for sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. When such complaints are made, the school in question should treat the person making the complaint with dignity and fully investigate the complaint in a professional manner. It may very well be that colleges should simply steward victims through the process of  making criminal complaints in such matters and avoid becoming involved. Colleges may be well-advised to stick to handling cheating, plagiarism, and other academic dishonesty matters and leave such serious criminal matters to law enforcement and the courts.

This does not require and should not involve the state moving into the bedrooms of college students. When the state begins to so collectivize people that it turns their most intimate expressions of humanity and selfhood into legalistic algorithms, then it is in the process of dehumanizing individuals and turning them into mere drones. If blowhard progressives and socially conservative moralists ever decide to compromise and develop bipartisan laws which satisfy both political correctness and the Christian fundamentalism, one day the government may literally have Orwellian telescreens in everyone’s bedroom, and government creeps may be voyeuristically watching us all.

Why Haven’t More College Liberals Become Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

Libertarian Republican Senator and 2016 presidential contender Rand Paul of Kentucky recently gave a speech on civil liberties at California’s notoriously liberal Berkeley. This prompts the question of why college liberals have not become libertarians. The Obama neo-progressives in the Democratic Party are on the wrong side of most issues that traditionally liberal college students care about.

1. War

College students in the United States have traditionally been anti-war. It was, of course, the universities and colleges of this nation which spearheaded the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Despite having been strangely—and prematurely—awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is not a man of peace. He has continued the War on Terror which he inherited from President George W. Bush. In fact, President Obama has escalated wars. He has continued the Afghanistan War. He sought unsuccessfully to continue the Iraq occupation, thwarting only by Iraq’s refusal to grant blanket immunity to American troops. President Obama has also waged war—er, “kinetic military action”—against Libya, conducted a bloody drone campaign in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, and zealously attempted to gin up a war with Syria. If traditionally liberal college students are still anti-war, then libertarianism with its axiom of non-aggression and its non-interventionism is the true doctrine of peace.

Perhaps the fact that there is not an active military draft is the reason that college students have seemingly become apathetic about war. If they cannot be drafted and their friends and relatives cannot be drafted, then perhaps it does not matter to them anymore. If volunteers are instead risking their lives in these wars, then maybe most college students just do not care. Though one would hope that these students do care about the innocent people who are suffering due to President Obama’s warmongering zeal. With the exception of President Jimmy Carter and unsuccessful candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Party has been a bloodthirsty war party since President Woodrow Wilson. It is unclear why college peaceniks have supported the progressive cause for so long given this violent streak of the party.

2. Civil liberties

Libertarians are champions of the Bill of Rights. While college students mostly seem to be indifferent to the Second Amendment, they have traditionally cared a lot about the First and Fourth Amendments. Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul support Constitutional rights over the growing despotism of the state. In contrast, President Obama smiles like a villain as he allows the NSA and other American spy agencies to violate the privacy rights of Americans and treat them like they are all criminals. The Democratic Party has long since stopped being the champion of civil liberties. So why do college students continue to support the party? Is it because President Obama is allegedly cool? Was he cool when he wore his “dad jeans” when throwing out a first pitch at a baseball game? Is he cool when he is on the golf course like any typical square politician? Is he cool when he allows the NSA to spy on everyone’s communications?

3. Drugs

It is no secret that many college students like to smoke an occasional bowl—or bong— of Mary Jane. Even those liberal college students who do not use drugs tend to disagree with the War on Drugs. Libertarians favor ending drug prohibition. The Democrats have had ample opportunity to end the War on Drugs, but they never do. President Obama has the power to pardon every single nonviolent drug offender languishing in federal prison. He has not. How can college students support a party whose leadership is okay with throwing people in cages like animals simply for using or selling drugs? Do they believe that these individuals deserve to be put in cages with murderers simply because they choose to use or sell substances which are like prescription drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes in many ways yet are not approved of by the powers that be? Do these college students believe that drug offenders should suffer just because the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries do not want the added competition? Really?

4. Race

Liberal college students have long opposed racism. “Color blindness” when it comes to race relations has long been practiced by these students. Just because the leader of the Democratic Party is black, it does not mean that the party is not racist. Continuing to prosecute the War on Drugs—which disproportionately harms minorities—should be evidence enough that the Democratic Party is racist. If it is not enough evidence, then the welfare state should provide more than enough evidence. The idea of the welfare state—as well as related programs like affirmative action—is that blacks and other racial minorities are not equal to whites. They simply cannot compete. Welfare programs make racial minorities and everyone else enrolled in the programs into dependent wards of the state. If these programs worked, then one would not expect poverty rates to be so high among blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The truth is that these programs do not work. Most likely, they were never intended to work. They were intended to make obedient and dependent citizens who will not dare question authority. In that regard, these programs are a success.

Libertarians, in contrast, support free market and economic opportunity. They support the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. They defend the natural rights of human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, etc. The same is true regarding gay rights. Libertarians do not believe that it is the business of government to worry about, let alone discriminate against, people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Democrats, in contrast, have only recently begrudgingly begun to support gay rights.

5. Economics

College students are inevitably anxious about their economic futures. They often carry a lot of debt for their educations. Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it is often imperative that college students be able to get well paying jobs to support themselves and pay for their loans. President Obama’s Neo-Progressive Democrats are crony capitalists who support the status quo. As long as their friends on Wall Street and in the “Green” sector do well, they care not about anyone else. In fact, the more people who fail economically, the more people who go onto welfare. The more people who are on welfare, the more people who are dependent on the government. Economic failure creates more potential voters who will support the Democratic Party.

Libertarians, on the other hand, favor ending the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending, cutting taxes, and cutting federal business regulations. These things will promote the growth of the economy. If college students want a bright economic future, then why are they not libertarians?