According to her public LinkedIn profile, Lulu Chang is an editorial intern at publications like Bustle, The National Memo, an opinions editor at The Dartmouth, Inc. (a Dartmouth student newspaper), and a member of Dartmouth’s Student and Presidential Committee Against Sexual Assault.

She also has a due-process-be-damned mentality concerning the wrongly accused on campus.

Would you be surprised to learn that she took numerous Gender Studies classes at Dartmouth? And would you further be surprised to learn that Huffington Post College published an article of hers in which she demonstrates an extreme antipathy to the notions of due process? Let’s review her article. She begins:

On Thursday, former Dartmouth student Parker Gilbert was cleared of all seven charges of rape leveled against him by a fellow student. I was at work when I heard the news, and I cried.

Why did Ms. Chang cry? Is it because she absolutely knew for a fact that Gilbert was guilty and was sad to see him “let off the hook”?

I mean, it’s not like she automatically assumed he was guilty based on nothing more than an accusation…right? Because if so, that wouldn’t look too good. Aren’t journalists supposed to have at least some sense of…you know…impartiality? Maybe not total impartiality, but at least a respect of the facts and the fact-finding process?

And let’s clarify that acquittal: a jury of six men and six women unanimously found the accused not guilty. Let’s also bear in mind that Lulu Chang is more than happy to publish the name of the man who was accused, but can’t bring herself to name the person who accused him. She’s more than happy to perpetuate a perpetual public poo-flinging at a man for no other reason than because he was accused.

I guess that’s what passes for being “gender sensitive” and “egalitarian” for some people nowadays. She continues:

As a student of Dartmouth, my first reaction was that of incredulity.

Oh, I’m not so sure that disbelief is your real problem, Ms. Chang. On the contrary: I strongly suspect that rushing to believe whatever you want – regardless of the facts – is the heart of your problem.

It was quickly replaced by rage, and then followed by fear.

Milk that contrived victimhood for all it’s worth, baby. Be sure to tell us all how you couldn’t come in to work the next day because you were so “devastated” and how you had to buy an extra deadbolt for your door. All because some man who was accused didn’t get his life wrecked like you thought he should, and for no other reason than because he was accused.

Last spring, Gilbert was accused of entering a fellow student’s room and sexually assaulting her while she was still asleep. During the trial, the prosecution claimed Gilbert raped the 19-year-old vaginally, orally, and anally.

I believe the key word here is “accused.” Not convicted. Just accused.

I wanted to know how Gilbert, who sent an email to the survivor following the alleged attack apologizing for his behavior, had been found innocent. I wanted to understand how, as the defense claimed, the incident had been nothing more than “clumsy, awkward, drunk college sex.”

It’s really quite simple, Ms. Chang: a jury of six men and six women found the evidence lacking. A hard concept for some of us, admittedly, but simple for most.

Also, is it just me or does Ms. Chang seem to be going about this the wrong way? In a free and just society that values human rights (one of which is due process), instead of asking people to present evidence to prove their innocence, aren’t we supposed to ask for evidence to prove their guilt? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work, not the other way around?

You’ve been accused of rape. Prove you didn’t do it!

That is very much her mentality. Note also that the jury here does not automatically equate drunk sex with rape, something many Feminists and campus bureaucrats do not agree with (and wreck the lives of their students accordingly).

As a member of Dartmouth’s Student and Presidential Committee Against Sexual Assault, I have dedicated much of my Dartmouth career to eliminating cases like these from our campus.

Something tells me Ms. Chang should be nowhere near a committee dedicated to investigating and adjudicating campus sexual assaults. Something tells me her “career” dedicated to “eliminating sexual assault” was really about doing everything in her power to rig up campus kangaroo courts and inflame campus hostility against human rights like due process.

And although the decision was not at all doled out by Dartmouth, it still feels like a blow. For every student of Dartmouth, I believe, this is personal.

Is it really, though? If someone doesn’t get railroaded based upon a mere accusation, are you really personally victimized?

In the past few weeks, Dartmouth has made tremendous strides in demonstrating that the administration takes sexual assault seriously, proposing for the first time, ‘mandatory expulsion in cases involving penetration accomplished by force, threat, or purposeful incapacitation.’

See, in theory I agree with expelling students if they have been both afforded substantive due process and been found guilty. But our modern educational institutions aren’t exactly familiar with such concepts. They’ve kind of “progressed” beyond that. You know, in that regressive kind of way.

And just in case you think any given university’s lack of a mandatory expulsion policy for sexual assault is evidence of a bias against sex-assault victims, ask how many also have a mandatory expulsion policy for making false accusations.

But for some, Thursday’s ruling feels like a step in the wrong direction. WISE, a non-profit organization that seeks to empower victims of domestic and sexual violence, released a statement following the decision:

Let’s see how wise WISE is. Here is the quote Lulu Chang gives us from them:

Today’s decision in the Dartmouth rape trial of Parker Gilbert is devastating and there is no doubt that it sends a terrible message to survivors of sexual assault. Something has got to change if we can allow a man who has no relationship with the victim to violate her in her own bed and face no consequences.

Hmm, it seems to me that if a group of people were truly wise they would be able to exercise discretion. And adopting a due-process-be-damned mentality is hardly representative of that.

Ms. Chang continues:

The decision was indeed “devastating,” and in the hours following the decision, I checked Facebook and Twitter to see if I could find any further information. Upon visiting these sites, I was overcome by a very different emotion: pride.

Note: when totalitarians beam with pride at the prospect of some social development, it’s usually a sign that something is very wrong.

When I logged onto Facebook, I found an incredible outpouring of support and love for the survivor. While there was outrage and disbelief, the majority of posts I read about the incident were words of gratitude, encouragement, and unparalleled kindness. While there were questions about the justness of the justice system, there were no questions about her bravery for reporting her alleged assault.

You see, Ms. Chang, you say the word “alleged,” but it doesn’t sound like you understand what it means. Let’s break it down now, nice and easy: alleged means that the accusation has not been proven. And unless you were actually there to witness the alleged rape (and you weren’t, were you?), the only thing we can actually prove is that you apparently don’t know what the word alleged means.

And by the way, a word about “kindness.” Genuine kindness is one thing, but pre-judging (which, by the way, is literally what the word prejudice means) someone on the basis of an accusation, and choosing to display your “kindness” in a one-sided fashion, is another. Let’s not forget how “kind” the white racists were to the poor white women who claimed they were raped by the evil black men.

Men who deserved to be railroaded because they “always got away with it.”

Here is a picture of Parker Gilbert hugging his mother when he learned that he was acquitted:

I wonder: is Lulu Chang capable of acknowledging the value of this form of kindness? Or is “kindness” just something that she likes to preach about only when it works in favor of the demographics she cares about?

This is the mindset of Feminists and most “sex assault victim advocates”: they really aren’t victim advocates. They’re just accuser advocates whose prime motivation is to inflict pain upon people who are accused. They’re not driven by “kindness,” because if kindness were in their nature they would give a damn about those whose lives are destroyed by wrongful allegations.

Not only would they be less quick to judge, they would speak out against false accusations and acknowledge that due process is not just a human right, it’s also a virtue.

These are the kinds of people that our “most prestigious” academic institutions are churning out on a regular basis. Lulu Chang is not an outlier. She is very representative of the kind of culture that ideologues in academia want to inflict upon the world.

Progress for human rights would not only require opposing and dethroning media mouthpieces like Chang, but also dismantling the misandry factories in academia – Gender Studies and the like – that produce them.