by Jon Sanders
Director of the Center for Food, Power, and Life, Research Editor, John Locke Foundation
The leading figure in the UNC system in the fight for free speech and academic freedom has taken on another important fight. UNCW criminal justice professor Mike Adams writes today about the very troubling new reporting practices forced on universities by the Obama administration, concerning allegations of sexual assault.
As Adams explains, the practices are extreme, and they are put in place to make it seems as if there is an “epidemic” of rape and sexual assault suddenly taking place on campus (aside: I wrote years ago how campus activists conflate rape with sexual assault to make it seem that “one in four” women are raped on campus) in order to sweep aside “widely accepted principles of due process” and
justify sweeping nationwide changes to the campus judiciary. These changes include holding quasi-rape trials on college campuses using a preponderance of evidence standard, instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also included in these changes is suspension of double jeopardy protection so that women can repeatedly try accused rapists until they achieve the desired result of conviction, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
Adams is not taking on this fight for his sake. Instead, it’s for the sake of someone who has already been victimized:
A UNC-Wilmington student previously disclosed to me that she had been a victim of a gang rape. There were three perpetrators. She was drugged but conscious when the assault occurred. After her boyfriend turned her over to his two friends to have sex with her while he held her down, they decided to take turns and alternate back and forth. While one penetrated, the other would alternately slap her and pour alcohol down her throat. She decided not to press charges and then began to regret her decision. That’s when she came to me.
It never occurred to me to violate her trust by disclosing her name to my department chair, the Dean’s office, or anyone else at this institution. I picked up the phone and called the district attorney in the jurisdiction where the attack took place. After I got him to agree to offer to meet with the victim I called her and urged her to accept the offer. She did. And she’s very glad she made the decision.
Now, my employer, UNC-Wilmington, and the federal government are telling me I have an obligation to divulge her name to university administrators. I am writing this brief column with my simple response:
You may both go straight to hell. If you are not religious (and therefore don’t believe in hell) then go to Cleveland, which is essentially the same thing.
I’m not complying with the law as interpreted by university officials. And I urge my fellow colleagues to do the same. If university officials are mistaken about the law then they need to correct their mistakes. If not, the law must be abolished. In short, our allegiance to the bureaucrat must always be overshadowed by our concern for the victim.
I hope Adams’ colleagues join him.