No sex for Duke Devils

The Duke Blue Devils had better remain chaste. As national champions, they are unable to have consensual sex with other students under Duke’s new “sexual misconduct” policy, warns the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). A person seen as “powerful” — such as a varsity athlete — may “create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion,” the policy states. For the “powerful,” it’s not just that “no” means no and silence means no. “Yes” means no too.

In addition, sex with someone who’s been drinking — not like that ever happens — is considered a form of rape because the policy considers any level of intoxication makes a student unable to consent to sex. FIRE, which is challenging the policy, writes:

Duke’s new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the “atmosphere” or because one or more students are “intoxicated,” no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations.

Even a couple who’ve engaged in consensual sex need explicit permission for every sexual act every time.

The policy will be impossible to enforce fairly or equitably, said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program. “As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime.”

About Joanne

Comments

  1. Cranberry says:

    Good to know we don’t need to put Duke on the list of schools to check out.

  2. Cranberry says:

    How does this policy compare to Antioch College’s “Sexual Offense Prevention Policy?” That ended well for Antioch… (sarcasm intended)

  3. Duke’s recruiting days are over.

  4. Tell me there is an April 1st date here somewhere on this fine piece of shark jumping.

  5. Well, according to this policy President Clinton raped Monica Lewinsky. When’s the trial?

  6. Mark Roulo says:

    “Well, according to this policy President Clinton raped Monica Lewinsky. When’s the trial?”

    Duke can’t just make up new laws, so President Clinton won’t be tried. Duke *CAN* expel the president from their campus if they wish.

    But … does anyone actually think the university administration will expel a talented basketball player for having sex with another student?

    -Mark Roulo

  7. Bill Leonard says:

    My, my. Another lawsuit waiting to happen. One likes to wish for a mechanism by which the idiots who create these policies can be canned out of hand.

    Stupidity such as this truly deserves to be on the short end of an expensive lawsuit.

    Bill

  8. Obviously women are such twits that they lack the mental capacity to freely decide to have sex or not. I eean why else would the enligtened facualty of Duke create anad adopt such a progressive policy?

  9. Richard Nieporent says:

    This new policy is not very surprising. The Leftist ideologues (Gang of 88) are still in charge at Duke.

  10. By “power” they appear to really mean “status,” since even the most successful athlete has no coercive power over anyone other than (maybe) another member of the team.

    Duke appears to have adopted the position that women are so mentally and psychologically weak that they are unable to exercise judgment when confronted with an attractive high-status male. It could be argued that this patronizing attitude itself creates a hostile climate for female students.

    Even if Duke’s sexist argument were correct, it would still be true that different women are attracted to different forms of status. Can you imagine the hearing in which Duke administrators attempt to determine whether the president of (say) that Drama Club possesses enough status to make him irresistable?

    Time to contribute some more $$$ to FIRE.

  11. Cranberry says:

    Imagine if the president of student government were to date the football team’s quarterback. Who’s oppressing whom? Aw, heck, they’re all guilty!

    It’s truly amazing there was no one with any common sense in the room when this policy was proposed.

  12. Mark S. says:

    As usual, F.I.R.E., completely misreads the Duke policy on sexual misconduct. If you actually read the policy it makes no mention of student athletes being in an inferred position of power.

    On the other hand, the policy includes a lot of good advice for anyone on campus.

  13. “As usual, F.I.R.E., completely misreads the Duke policy on sexual misconduct.”

    Of course, we all misread the Duke policy, Mark. (Stifle a laugh here.) That’s why FIRE is so successful in getting these institutions of indoctrination to drop these policies. Just another “private” institution run by government-funded, useful idiots.

  14. SuperSub says:

    Ultimately, this policy is nothing more than a pacifier for victim’s rights groups as it seems so vague that it can be applied (or not applied) in any case… there’s just too much wiggle room for administrators to play with.
    The sad thing is that even though the policy was probably written with the intent of not using it, some poor schmuck will be the victim of it when some group pressures the administration to use it, which is why FIRE is trying to get this thrown out now.

  15. Mark – “If you actually read the policy it makes no mention of student athletes being in an inferred position of power.”

    So, it explicitly mentions the President of the University? Teaching assistants?

    Oh, note that if the hypothetical athlete has had a couple of beers the woman is also guilty of rape. Cute, they rape each other.

  16. Eric Jablow says:

    I presume there are restrictions on the men’s lacrosse team too.

  17. So under this policy, could they have sex with each other?

  18. It’s nice to see that a university can tell adults who they can and cannot have sex with. Next thing you know they will start regulating speech……oops….too late!

  19. colagirl says:

    Well, this clinches it. If I ever have kids, I will never, *ever* send any of them to Duke University, *ever.* I don’t want my children placed in such a dangerous atmosphere, and I won’t contribute a cent to a *supposed* institution of higher learning that has such a f***ed up ethos.

  20. Demosthenes says:

    Mark S. seems to be enjoying the straw man he’s fashioned. Still…how about a little fire, Scarecrow?

    No one has said that the policy mentions athletes, as a class, as powerful people. But as the policy itself states, “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion” — meaning that the sex which follows is questionably consensual at best. Now let me see…I wonder if possibly, just possibly, member’s of the men’s basketball team might be perceived as particularly powerful after having won the national championship earlier this week?

  21. M. Scott Eiland says:

    I suspect a critical mass of Duke alumni have had a bellyfull of Brodhead’s “management style” and will be sending representatives to have a quiet chat with him, involving the mention of a long list of checks that will not be written to Duke this year, and basketball prospects who will be heading to Westwood and Kentucky instead of Duke. Maybe President Brodhead should consider updating his resume.

  22. “I presume there are restrictions on the men’s lacrosse team too”

    Fine print:

    “The men’s lacrosse team will receive the additional privilege of being permitted to be falsely accused and immediately presumed guilty (even if they have DNA evidence proving otherwise), in order to make up for the crime of belonging to the wrong ethnicity, status, class, and gender. The university will devote all of its considerable PR resources to insuring that they are thrown under the bus. Faculty participation is encouraged.”

  23. @David – By “power differential” they’re talking about “white privilege” and “male privilege”. These are concepts the Left uses to explain why equality under the law has not resulted in equality of outcome, and thus as justification to penalize white men.

  24. Letalis Maximus, Esq. says:

    The problem with “codes” like this (including, oh I don’t know, the ethics code of the U.S. Congress) is that they are intentionally written to give the organization enforcing them a plausible reason for doing, or not doing, anything in response to a given situation. For the organization, every hand that is dealt is a winner and therefore the discretion to be exercised depends solely upon the politics of a given situation.

    For example, it might be that a black basketball player cannot, by definition, be in a position of inferred power because he is black. A white lacrosse player, on the other hand….

    Well, you get the picture.

  25. T. Edwards says:

    All the more reason I’m taking my kid to U of Chicago and Hillsdale next month.

  26. superflunky says:

    as i recall knowledge is power, so don’t they also need an pre-coital intelligence test to verify that sex is not occurring betwixt the intellectually unequal…

  27. SuperSub says:

    Katie-
    They can only have sex with someone on the same team, because we all know that in college all sports are not equal… look at the funding.

  28. They’re just doubling down on the lacrosse “rape” hoax. See, the administration and the Gang of 88 weren’t wrong after all: according to the school’s policies, the stripper WAS raped! After all, not only were the men athletes, but they were paying her to dance. There’s your perception of power. And she probably had alcohol while she was there. So, as far as Duke is (retroactively) concerned, rape took place; it’s not their fault that the legal system is designed to sometimes let guilty people go free.

  29. Cranberry says:

    After the group of 88 statement during the lacrosse trials, how could any white athlete from the North think he would get a fair hearing?

  30. Don’t they realize that by making it easier for unstable girls and women to accuse men of assault, they make it harder for true victims?

  31. Actually the proles in “1984″ could do pretty much what they wanted. It was the outer party members who were always watched and controlled.

  32. This phenomenon is described most clearly in F. Roger Devlin’s essay “Sexual Utopia in Power”. He draws a clear analogy between the Sexual Revolution and the French Revolution.

    First, the old regime (= traditional Christian values) is mocked, then swept aside in favor of liberty (= have sex with anyone you want). When the promised utopia fails to arrive, the traitors (= date rapists) responsible must be eliminated. As more and more traitors are hunted down, a Reign of Terror (= Duke) emerges.

    Next comes Thermidor, the moment when the people realize that it’s all a scam. The Jacobin gang (= radical feminists) was overthrown an July 27, 1794, and the next day all its surviving leaders were guillotined. Thus ended the Reign of Terror.

  33. TheOldMan says:

    What if I’m the one who was drinking? Does that mean that she raped me? Or do we have to calculate the BAC levels to determine who did what to whom? This is way too complicated for me, I am so happy that I graduated 30+ years ago. Back then we just did what needed (well I thought it needed) to be done and had a good time.

  34. Richard Aubrey says:

    It might be difficult, in a given situation,to sort out the power discrepancies–does a female varsity cheerleader have more power than a JV tennis player, of either gender?–but that’s a feature, not a bug.
    The system can make up any old stuff they like to hammer the one they don’t like, irrespective of actual facts.
    This will be as arbitrary as anything universities have ever done, which is probably saying a whole lot.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JoanneLeeJacobs, AdamKissel. AdamKissel said: Of note: RT @JoanneLeeJacobs New blog post: No sex for Duke Devils http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/04/no-sex-for-duke-devils/ [...]

  2. [...] Under Duke’s idiotic politically correct sexual misconduct policy, the members of the national champion basketball team may not be able to have even consesual sex. The policy states that “powerful” people “create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion,” and, therefore, cannot have sex without it being a form of rape. I’m not kidding. [...]

  3. [...] Inadvertent rape? At Duke, “perceived power differentials” might negate consent [Popehat, Joanne Jacobs] [...]

  4. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by JoanneLeeJacobs: New blog post: No sex for Duke Devils http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/04/no-sex-for-duke-devils/

  5. [...] 8 04 2010 (1)  That sound you just heard is every 17-year old in the country taking a pencil and crossing “Duke” off their [...]