Note: this article and the images on it have been added to the key AVFMS article “The Face of Misandry in Academia: a Collection of Banners, Posters, and Other Visual Aids.”

A while ago I posted an article that talked about misandry in academia from the 1980s to the present day. In waltzed a few Feminists & Friends to argue that misandry prior to 2000 was irrelevant and not worthy of discussion because it was “in the past.” My point was that the culture that had created the kind of misandry in the 80s and 90s had not gone away; it had become entrenched in our educational institutions.

It has historic continuity, in other words. Far from irrelevant, such continuity makes that misandry all the more problematic and worthy of discussion.

And today we see history repeat itself. In 1990 a bunch of Feminists at Brown University wrote a “rape list” of men they accused of sexual assault on the bathroom stalls of the women’s restrooms on campus. And now in 2014 – a full twenty four years later – so-called “sex-assault victim advocates” (who have left all the telltale signs of being Feminists themselves) are doing the same thing at Columbia University, as you can see in the picture above.

According to The Columbian Lion:

[su_quote]The photos above show a list of four students, all of whom are Columbia undergrads. There were four distinct styles of handwriting, which suggests multiple authors. The names on the photos have been blacked out, out of respect for the judicial process. Unfortunately, we were unable to see the list for ourselves, as Facilities had recently scrubbed the walls of the bathroom stalls. According to our tipster, it had been less than 24 hours since the list had been written.[/su_quote]

Of course, the activists could theoretically be punished for graffiti. But then most universities are so afraid of making any public statements that run counter to rape hysteria that it’s questionable whether this will be investigated.

When the writing was scrubbed away the activists then decided to leave flyers in the bathrooms:

Also, here’s an alternative photo.

The sentence at the bottom is a huge red flag: “always make sure to have sober, enthusiastic, continuous consent.” Consent, of course, needs to be neither “enthusiastic” nor sober. There is indeed such a thing as passed-out-drunk rape, but there is no such thing as “tipsy rape” when consent hinges upon alcohol consumption.

The expanded definition of rape has all the telltale signs of Feminism, as it is Feminists who have historically been at the forefront of pushing the “enthusiastic consent” and “all drunk sex is rape and the man’s a rapist (even if both partners are drunk)” model.

I would say that the probability is very high that this is a group of Feminists running around falsely accusing several men of rape on campus, or accusing them with evidence that is nowhere near proportionate to the degree the claim requires. I can’t prove it, so I won’t pretend to make a definitive claim of someone else’s guilt. But that’s only because I’m using a higher standard of evidence in pronouncing the guilt of Feminists than they use in pronouncing the guilt of men.

One of the accused students wrote for Bwog, which describes itself as “an independent, student-run campus news site.” He was summarily fired just for being accused. You can read their public statement here. Take note of this passage:

[su_quote]On May 7, allegations that a member of our staff had violated Columbia University’s Gender Based Misconduct policy were brought to our attention by an anonymous tip. As a reiteration of our continued work against rape culture, we have taken steps to ensure that the makeup of Bwog’s staff, without question, reflects this.[/su_quote]

Note the publication’s parroting of the Feminist dogma of “rape culture,” even as they fire a man without question. That sounds a lot more like they are supporting a false rape culture to me, rather than fighting some kind of rape culture.

[su_quote]Accordingly, we asked this staffer to permanently and immediately resign from their position, and they agreed. Our decision does not reflect a position on the innocence or guilt of this former staff member, nor does it comment on, take a position on, support, implicitly or explicitly, any allegations of fact or law made against such person.[/su_quote]

I can’t describe the problems with this statement any better than Community of the Wrongly Accused did:

[su_quote]The import is as clear as it is chilling: the editors’ decision to dismiss the staffer had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, validity, or strength of the allegations lobbed at the staffer, or with the staffer’s guilt or innocence. The staffer deserves to be fired, the editors think, because of an unfounded accusation that the editors of Bwog haven’t been able, or haven’t bothered, to verify or confirm.[/su_quote]

I will disagree with COTWA on the last sentence here, however:

[su_quote]The fact is, the editors could have stood firmly against sexual violence while also upholding the staffer’s right to be treated fairly. The one has nothing to do with the other. It’s not an either/or proposition. In addition, the editors could have used the unfounded accusation as an occasion to affirm their fidelity to principles of fairness and due process. Instead, they kowtowed to the mob and gussied up their decision to fire the staffer by claiming ‘conflict of interest.'[/su_quote]

I don’t think they kowtowed to the mob. They are part of the mob. The part that has completed its long march through our institutions. And they were more than happy to sign their names for all the world to see at the end of their public statement. Their names are:

• • Sarah Faith Thompson, Editor-in-Chief
  • Claire Friedman, Managing Editor
  • Alexander Pines, Features Editor
  • Maud Rozee, Internal Editor
  • Jake Hershman, Publisher

The website Think “Progress” (boy, it’s getting harder and harder to justify that name) reported on this case as well. A lot of their regulars supported the flyers and the writing on the bathroom stalls. I suppose vigilante justice is “progress” to some people. And for the next step in our evolution to enlightenment: the stockade and the public hanging!

Jezebel.com weighed in on it. And Amy McCarthy (and what a fitting last name that is) over at The Bustle had this to say:

[su_quote]I’m typically not one for vigilante justice, but the student who fought back against the hushed culture of sexual assault at Columbia University by scrawling lists of names in bathroom stalls is my new hero.[/su_quote]

McCarthyism indeed!

[su_quote]Students have a right to feel safe on campus, and that means knowing whether or not the guy in their study group is a rapist. If one person is protected from a sexual predator by this brave, anonymous student’s bathroom graffiti, they’ve already done more to protect students on campus than Columbia University has. [/su_quote]

Yes, students have a right to feel safe from malicious lying women who point the finger at them, knowing full well a false accusation of sexual assault can easily wreck someone’s life. And they also have the right to be protected from sexual assault.

I also love McCarthy’s pairing of “brave” and “anonymous” to describe these activists. Yes, anonymously flinging felony accusations against people without evidence is so incredibly brave. So brave, in fact, that I feel more inspired than when I went to see the latest Captain America movie. Where would we be without heroes like these people?

Columbia University, by the way, has also fallen under the eye of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in the past for how they handle due process. Of course, virtually all universities mishandle due process issues anyway because they must comply with Department of Education directives that order them to use a ridiculously low standard of evidence. But Columbia was one of those that seemed interested in going the extra mile.

And let’s all keep in mind: it’s not like institutions of higher education have the investigative or prosecutorial power to make authoritative judgments on who is guilty of sexual assault, so any judgments they render are irrelevant.

Thankfully, however, there is some noticeable dissent in the comments sections at publications like Think “Progress,” Jezebel, and so forth. People are waking up to just how ridiculous these kinds of activists are. And what’s more, they are waking up to how bad universities are at handling sexual assault.

And not from the perspective of “universities are doing such a bad job so they need to ratchet down more draconian sexual misconduct policies.” No, they are doing it from the perspective of “hey university, where do you get off determining guilt in felony accusations?”

Universities have no business pronouncing judgment in felony sex-assault cases. Hand it off to the professionals – the police, the courts, and so forth. If you can’t win there after 50+ years of Feminist reforms, your case probably shouldn’t win anywhere.

Related:

• Discussion at r/Men’sRights