Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[Lennys Tap]

When people drink and drive people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex.  The more we can untangle alcohol and sex from each other the better off as a society I think we will be. That's why I think the most important part of the Dear Colleague Letter isn't about the conduct process. Its all the requirements for prevention education that universities now need to provide to students. That is where we will get the culture change that Eng was talking about.

This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.

[mu03eng]

I don't think that's the case at all.  Code of conduct violations aren't public information and don't have to be disclosed on a job application.  TAMU correct me if I am wrong, but I am not even sure schools would require you to disclose on a transfer application if you had a code of conduct issue.  It certainly would not be indicated on your transcript or something like that.

The only reason we knew about the USC one is because he is a football player and the girlfriend was very public with her objections.

I guess I was operating under the assumption that if you are expelled from a university that would be visible to other universities making it very difficult to attend another university. I'm kind of shocked that someone expelled at one university wouldn't have an obligation to report that to another university, but what do I know. If that isn't the case I withdraw my objection.

[Dr. Blackheart]

The duality of the justice systems creates the issues on these extreme cases with different burdens of proof. What MU had in place that caused the issues under Buzz was just a weaker version of the Title IX approach except that now there are trained, objective administrators in place.  A good progression but still flawed.

However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction.  In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD.  Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power.  The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.

Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.

[mu03eng]

The duality of the justice systems creates the issues on these extreme cases with different burdens of proof. What MU had in place that caused the issues under Buzz was just a weaker version of the Title IX approach except that now there are trained, objective administrators in place.  A good progression but still flawed.

However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction.  In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD.  Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power.  The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.

Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.

I thought of the MU case as well when reacting to this (but for the grace of God go us or whatever the quote is )

We'll never know, but I'd be curious if any of this was referred to the LAPD. I'd have a lot tougher time stomaching the result if an expulsion was determined to be warranted but it was not referred to criminal authorities. I get that prosecutors may not have enough to go on, but if it's worth of expulsion given the accusation, I'd think it worth of criminal investigation.

[MU82]

Bobby would grope himself ... if he could find it under all that blubber!

[mu03eng]

Bobby would grope himself ... if he could find it under all that blubber!

That is a condition that is not exclusive to Bobby 

[Golden Avalanche]

This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.

Depends on when you stop considering the impact of said encounter on their well being.

[Lennys Tap]

Depends on when you stop considering the impact of said encounter on their well being.

???

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.

Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

My intent wouldn't be to eliminate the code of conduct, but more closely align it with law enforcement in issues where alleged student misconduct would also be considered felony criminal behavior. Admittedly, I'm speaking out of my a$$ somewhat here as I'm neither a student compliance expert nor a legal expert (I've stayed at multiple Holiday Inns with no impact on my intelligence). However, I would point out two of your objections are very valid and I have the same concerns, but instead of wall papering over them with another layer of bureaucracy which creates special bubbles like campuses we should be working towards reforming the criminal justice system. Yes, Texas has horrible sex offense laws, we should fix that for the whole state, not just the kids who go to college. Additionally, this DA mentality of only charging if I can win needs to go away. People need to see the justice system working for them to make them feel like they are safe to report things, especially with sex based crimes.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.

One thing that needs to be said in this whole discussion is that the vast majority of the time I'm sure the student conduct system works and works well. I think your last sentence is extremely important for context of the discussion as a lot of the university student conduct system is intended to provide disciplined, learning environment where students can make mistakes and learn from them in a way that doesn't permanently impact them that the legal system might. It is easy to forget that when you see stories like the one I linked in juxtaposition with the on-going fiasco at  Baylor...one might conclude the system is broken when really that is something like 0.1% of the situations that the system has to deal with. 


**quick side note, there is no snark/sarcasm/pejoratives intended in any of my response, I simply am not smart enough to craft the same message with better/more useful words.

I can't find much to disagree with here except the bolded. As Sultan explained, an expulsion is nowhere near as damaging as a prison sentence of any kind. Expulsions are protected by FERPA, it doesn't affect your future job prospects, it doesn't affect your voting status, and you are free to enroll in another school the next day if you so choose. Plus, you have your freedom and all that.

I agree that the true path to positive change is by changing the law and changing the judicial system. Title IX does create "bubbles" of safety for college students. And honestly it does cause confusion and problems. Students who are taken seriously by universities than go to law enforcement expecting the same treatment. Instead they are told what happened to them isn't a sexual assault. That's devastating. It's not law enforcement's fault. They can only uphold the law as written. It causes confusion the other way too. People read stories like this one and say "these colleges are out of control! If the police didn't find any thing why are they suspending or expelling the kid? Damn SJWs!" What they don't realize is that violations of law and violations of student code are very different and they have different standards of proof. Just because the police don't press charges doesn't mean the accused is innocent.

A bit of tangent but I'll share. Every law enforcement officer I have met and worked with has expressed support and gratitude for Title IX offices. They recognize that the judicial system fails victims of sexual assault. They are happy that at least on campus victims have some reasonable chance at getting some justice for what happened to them. A vast majority of the cases my offices sees were sent to us by the local police. They want us involved and investigating.

I would love to see the world outside of campus change, and I think we are on our way. But until we get there, I am grateful that campuses are "ahead of the times" and look forward to the day when we are all on the same page.

[Lennys Tap]

Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.

So in your world a person who by his or her own free will ingests enough of a substance to make poor judgements isn't responsible for those poor judgements. Getting behind the wheel, having sex, knocking over a gas station, etc. Alcohol takes the rap, not the individual who freely over consumed it. Fantasyland.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I tend to disagree with you on this issue.  However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking.  While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about.  Thank you. 

Edited to add:  Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios.  Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case.  That's the reason this got me thinking.

I appreciate the edits. I honestly phrased it the way I did because I don't have the data to back up what you said. I assume your version is correct but haven't actually done the research to confirm it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So in your world a person who by his or her own free will ingest enough of a substance to make poor judgements isn't responsible for those poor judgements. Getting behind the wheel, having sex, knocking over a gas station, etc. Alcohol takes the rap, not the individual who freely over consumed it. Fantasyland.

No, you mixed things up. You included in your list actions where the drunk person is doing something to someone else. Choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing to knock over a gas station, etc. That's not what is happening in these cases. They are not choosing to have sex. Someone else who is sober or more sober than they are is choosing to have sex with them. They take away their choice. Even if the drunk person is initiating than the responsibility lies with the sober one to say no that is not ok. If they are drunk and they choose to force themselves on someone else, that is different.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction.  In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD.  Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power.  The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.

Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.

Why are you assuming that the police and DA aren't involved? They are responsible for investigating any violation of the law and universities are obligated to report any violations of the law they become aware of. They investigate the violation of the law while the university investigates violations of the student code. They are two very separate standards that don't say the same thing. Why would law enforcement be involved in the student conduct process.

The accused does have a means of appeal. Universities are obligated to have an appeal's process that is completely separate from the conduct process. If they don't like the appeal outcome they can seek appeal through the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.

[Lennys Tap]

No, you mixed things up. You included in your list actions where the drunk person is doing something to someone else. Choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing to knock over a gas station, etc. That's not what is happening in these cases. They are not choosing to have sex. Someone else who is sober or more sober than they are is choosing to have sex with them. They take away their choice. Even if the drunk person is initiating than the responsibility lies with the sober one to say no that is not ok. If they are drunk and they choose to force themselves on someone else, that is different.

If you can choose to commit robbery, murder or vehicular homicide "over the legal limit" you can choose to have sex.

If I'm drunk and you're sober and we rob a gas station are you the guilty one and am I the innocent victim? In your world, yes. Only the sober (or more sober) person is responsible for what we do together. Sorry, but I think that's crazy.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If you can choose to commit robbery, murder or vehicular homicide "over the legal limit" you can choose to have sex.

If I'm drunk and you're sober and we rob a gas station are you the guilty one and am I the innocent victim? In your world, yes. Only the sober (or more sober) person is responsible for what we do together. Sorry, but I think that's crazy.

No. You are getting mixed up again. Both people in your gas station example are choosing to do something to somebody else. They are forcing whoever is at the gas station to give them money. In these situations no one is forcing the sober person to have sex. They have full control and can say no at any time. The sober person is choosing to take advantage of the drunk person.

[Lennys Tap]

No. You are getting mixed up again. Both people in your gas station example are choosing to do something to somebody else. They are forcing whoever is at the gas station to give them money. In these situations no one is forcing the sober person to have sex. They have full control and can say no at any time. The sober person is choosing to take advantage of the drunk person.

One is either capable of and responsible for decisions made when over the legal limit or not. You can't have it both ways as that defies logic.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Why are you assuming that the police and DA aren't involved? They are responsible for investigating any violation of the law and universities are obligated to report any violations of the law they become aware of. They investigate the violation of the law while the university investigates violations of the student code. They are two very separate standards that don't say the same thing. Why would law enforcement be involved in the student conduct process.

The accused does have a means of appeal. Universities are obligated to have an appeal's process that is completely separate from the conduct process. If they don't like the appeal outcome they can seek appeal through the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.

The DA and Police moved on.  USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue. If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.

You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that.  But the duality of the burden of proof is the issue. The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX. 

Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later. It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain. The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.

You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

One is either capable of and responsible for decisions made when over the legal limit or not. You can't have it both ways as that defies logic.

Again Lenny, this isn't about any decision the intoxicated person made. This about the decision the sober or more sober person made to take advantage of someone while they were intoxicated. You may not like it but that is policy at every university that accepts federal funds (all but 4). And it is slowly becoming law everywhere. You are on the wrong side of history on this one.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The DA and Police moved on.  USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue.

Why is it an issue? You say this repeatedly but don't explain why. Do you have an issue with civil courts (which have the power to issue much harsher sanctions than universities) using a different standard of proof?

If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.

Actually that's not true. A DA is unlikely to move forward if the victim is unwilling to participate. You could have an entire room full of people saying that he beat the crap out of her and as long as she takes his side there is a good chance they will not move forward.

You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that. 

Thank you. But the rest of your post doesn't make it seem like you actually respect it.

The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX.

Again, you are incorrect. They have the ability to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education (as in where DeVos works, not some department at USC) who has the power to overturn decisions. Even if it were true, I'm not sure what your point is. Someone who appeals in criminal courts can only appeal with the US Judicial system. They go to a different court....just like appeals at an university goes to a completely different department separate from the conduct process.

Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later.

I agree with all of this. Which is why I would never advocate for a lower standard of proof in LEGAL cases. When someone's freedom or life is on the line, the highest level of due process is an absolute requirement.

It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain.

The issue at hand is both criminal and a conduct issue. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own standards of conduct for their students. This has been established in the courts many times over. Those standards can be set higher than criminal laws. USC is well within its rights to investigate and enforce its own code of conduct. Receiving  an education at USC is not a fundamental right. The place kicker signed a contract stating the he would abide by the university code of conduct. The university determined that he violated said contract. They have the right to assign appropriate sanctions as a result. The standard of proof is included in the contract btw.

The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.

Unless you have a copy of the university's investigation, I'm not sure how you can say that with such certainty. We have no idea what evidence the university uncovered. It could be exactly like the statement the lawyer put out said it was. If that's the case then, yes the university royally screwed up. Or this young woman could have put out the statement under duress because she was afraid that she was in for another beating. She might have told the university a completely different story during the investigation. And there are dozens of other possible scenarios in between. Without reading the report, I don't feel comfortable commenting one way or the other on this case. It is entirely possible there was a miscarriage of justice. That happens. It also happens in criminal courts on a daily basis. No justice system is perfect.

You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.

Some of this comes from my heart but most of it is years of experience and research on this topic. Dozens of court decisions and strong Jesuit lens of Christianity also helps. I might not be right about everything on this topic but I'm definitely not wrong. We can disagree on the path to a solution but if you deny that there's a problem or are unwilling to work towards a solution then you are wrong.

[StillAWarrior]

Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.

Respectfully, TAMU (and I really do mean that), here is where I think you struggle a little bit.  I'm torn about whether you are intentionally obtuse as to how people view this or you simply do not understand.  I don't expect you to agree, but it surprises me that it seems you simply do not seem to even acknowledge the other point of view.

I understand the distinction you're making between acting and being acted upon, but I do not find that persuasive.  Obviously, we can all understand and envision the situation where someone is so intoxicated that they are being acted upon.  Texas, apparently, defines that as being unconscious, but I absolutely agree that there are cases far short of that line where the victim is being acted upon.  But I know I start to struggle (and clearly a lot of others do as well) as the line shifts the other way.  I believe that many people who have had a couple of drinks -- quite possibly over 0.08 BAC -- are making conscious, rational decisions to act.  They are not just being acted upon, but are also acting.  Lenny is focusing on the action part; you are focusing exclusively on the being acted upon part.  But the real question here doesn't honestly relate to the act of having sex.  Rather, I think the question is about another act:  the act of consenting to have sex.

The act of consenting has consequences.  If you consented, you cannot then claim to have been sexually assaulted.  Obviously, the act of consent must be knowing and voluntary.  You obviously believe that once a certain level of intoxication has been established -- and even though BAC is typically not measured, it would appear that 0.08 is technically that level -- the victim cannot knowingly and voluntarily consent; intoxication negates that act.

But in many other contexts, intoxication does not negate actions/intent.  Being intoxicated generally is not a defense in crimes.  I trust that you understand that I'm not equating being a victim of sexual assault with committing a crime.  I am merely pointing out that except in pretty extreme cases, intoxication does not negate intent.  People get convicted of crimes all the time that have intent standards even though they were intoxicated or high.  Generally speaking, intoxication simply cannot be used to negate general intent (i.e., the intent to commit an act).  But in the context of sexual assault, intoxication is considered to negate general intent.  Interestingly, this is true even if the person admits to the intent and admits to having communicated the intent.  As I said, this apparent contradiction bothers some people.  Keeping this in the context of campus codes of conduct, on the one hand you have a situation where someone says, "I know you had four beers before you decided to spew hate speech, but that doesn't change anything."  On the other hand you have a situation where someone says, "Because you had four beers before you decided to consent to sex, that changes everything."

I know that this is a very complicated  and emotionally charted subject.  You've said a lot of things that have made me think and re-think about these issues.  From my perspective -- not that you have any reason to particularly care -- I think you'd make a much more compelling case on this specific issue if you'd acknowledge the contradiction in how these things are handled and make a case for why it's important to do so, rather than simply insist that it's not a contradiction.

[GGGG]

The DA and Police moved on.  USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue. If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.

You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that.  But the duality of the burden of proof is the issue. The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX. 

Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later. It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain. The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.

You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.

THIS ISN'T A LEGAL ISSUE!!!

It is a student code of conduct issue.  It does *not* need to meet the same burden of proof that the legal system does.   By enrolling in the school, the student AGREED to abide by the code of conduct and its system of oversight.

[Lennys Tap]

Respectfully, TAMU (and I really do mean that), here is where I think you struggle a little bit.  I'm torn about whether you are intentionally obtuse as to how people view this or you simply do not understand.  I don't expect you to agree, but it surprises me that it seems you simply do not seem to even acknowledge the other point of view.

I understand the distinction you're making between acting and being acted upon, but I do not find that persuasive.  Obviously, we can all understand and envision the situation where someone is so intoxicated that they are being acted upon.  Texas, apparently, defines that as being unconscious, but I absolutely agree that there are cases far short of that line where the victim is being acted upon.  But I know I start to struggle (and clearly a lot of others do as well) as the line shifts the other way.  I believe that many people who have had a couple of drinks -- quite possibly over 0.08 BAC -- are making conscious, rational decisions to act.  They are not just being acted upon, but are also acting.  Lenny is focusing on the action part; you are focusing exclusively on the being acted upon part.  But the real question here doesn't honestly relate to the act of having sex.  Rather, I think the question is about another act:  the act of consenting to have sex.

The act of consenting has consequences.  If you consented, you cannot then claim to have been sexually assaulted.  Obviously, the act of consent must be knowing and voluntary.  You obviously believe that once a certain level of intoxication has been established -- and even though BAC is typically not measured, it would appear that 0.08 is technically that level -- the victim cannot knowingly and voluntarily consent; intoxication negates that act.

But in many other contexts, intoxication does not negate actions/intent.  Being intoxicated generally is not a defense in crimes.  I trust that you understand that I'm not equating being a victim of sexual assault with committing a crime.  I am merely pointing out that except in pretty extreme cases, intoxication does not negate intent.  People get convicted of crimes all the time that have intent standards even though they were intoxicated or high.  Generally speaking, intoxication simply cannot be used to negate general intent (i.e., the intent to commit an act).  But in the context of sexual assault, intoxication is considered to negate general intent.  Interestingly, this is true even if the person admits to the intent and admits to having communicated the intent.  As I said, this apparent contradiction bothers some people.  Keeping this in the context of campus codes of conduct, on the one hand you have a situation where someone says, "I know you had four beers before you decided to spew hate speech, but that doesn't change anything."  On the other hand you have a situation where someone says, "Because you had four beers before you decided to consent to sex, that changes everything."

I know that this is a very complicated  and emotionally charted subject.  You've said a lot of things that have made me think and re-think about these issues.  From my perspective -- not that you have any reason to particularly care -- I think you'd make a much more compelling case on this specific issue if you'd acknowledge the contradiction in how these things are handled and make a case for why it's important to do so, rather than simply insist that it's not a contradiction.

Thanks, Warrior - better than I said it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

StillaWarrior, I appreciate the level headed response. I think you and Lenny are trying to say the same thing, but I can't tell when Lenny always resorts to insults and barbs. Thus my response isn't always elegant.

I think you do a good job of laying out what a lot of the confusion around this topic is. What I have been trying to communicate (possibly poorly) is that it does not matter what the decision of the incapacitated person is. What they are deciding to do is not a crime. Choosing to consent to sex with a sober person is not a crime. But a sober person (or more sober person) choosing to have sex with some who is incapacitated by alcohol is now against the rules at all universities that accept federal funds...and is starting to become law across the country. So while both of them may be making a decision that they can be held to, only one of them is deciding to do something that violates the student code of conduct.

That being said, the situation of someone being right around .08 BAC and enthusiastically consenting to sex and then changing their mind the next morning is so rare it can be considered a myth. If that is truly what happened 99% of those cases are never going to get reported to anyone and a majority of them would probably be fine with the activity that occurred. As we discussed before, when sex and alcohol combine usually no one gets hurt but people get hurt enough that I think it needs to be addressed. The vast majority of these (at least that I have seen) are ones where either one individual is well beyond the .08 mark or there were other forms of force or coercion used in addition to alcohol. The couple of cases I have seen where someone may or may not have been over .08 bac and we can establish that they did "consent" to sex, the accused has been found not responsible. Because while .08 is the theoretical line, the actual standard used is would a reasonable person been able to determine that the other person was incapacitated.

[Lennys Tap]

Again Lenny, this isn't about any decision the intoxicated person made. This about the decision the sober or more sober person made to take advantage of someone while they were intoxicated. You may not like it but that is policy at every university that accepts federal funds (all but 4). And it is slowly becoming law everywhere. You are on the wrong side of history on this one.

History? I don't think the history book has been closed on this issue. And as people become aware of how far out of whack this has gotten we'll see some common sense adjustments.

Sorry if I insulted you - didn't intend to - but I stand by my belief - the idea that a person with an ,08 BAC is incapable of consenting to have sex with anyone with a lower BAC doesn't make sense to me. And I'd be willing to bet my opinion is the majority one by a wide margin.