From SAVE Services:
SB-967 would require California students to give on-going "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" in order to have sex.
The bill sponsors admit they don't have a clue what this really means. But if Gov. Brown signs this bill, young adults might need to consult with legal advisors and notarize consent forms before engaging in sex.
Yes, this bill is absurd beyond belief. And it would lull potential victims into a false sense of security.
Contact Governor Brown today to tell him to VETO this flawed bill. Students deserve better than being forced to figure out a vague standard to avoid being convicted as rapists:
Call: (916) 445-2841
Email: click here
Let's define sexual assault meaningfully to protect its very real victims.
Thank you!
Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
They don't know what it means? What is this bullshit they don't know what it means. They grandstanded for this bitch and they don't know what it means. Bullshit,they voted for this bill they own this bill. Tell the Governor to veto this turkey.
Showing posts with label sb 967. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sb 967. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Lobby the Governor to veto SB 967
Let's join with the National Coalition For Men in urging California Governor Jerry Brown to to veto SB 967. This is the Hail Mary for us on this one. If we fail a lot of men on university and college campuses are in for a royal screw job. If that happens it will be lawsuits galore and let's see if SB 967's supporters are going to grandstand on that one.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Men shun women
Fallout from campus sexual assault hysteria: College men now suspicious of women
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.
At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.
This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.
Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.
Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.
“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”
Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.
Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.
“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”
William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.
“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”
Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.
“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”
Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.
“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”
Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.
“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”
Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.
Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.
Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).
I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.
“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.
We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.
And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.
Source
These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.
At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.
This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.
Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.
Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.
“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”
Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.
Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.
“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”
William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.
“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”
Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.
“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”
Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.
“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”
Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.
“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”
Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.
Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.
Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).
I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.
“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.
We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.
And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.
Source
These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.
SB 967 clears Legislature on way to the Governor
(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.
The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.
Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.
Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.
The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.
The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.
Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.
Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.
Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.
No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.
The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.
The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.
Source
This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.
The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.
Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.
Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.
The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.
The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.
Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.
Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.
Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.
No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.
The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.
The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.
Source
This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
SB 967 update
SB 967 has been amended again. I will give you the good,the bad and the ugly about these amendments:
The good: this amendment lost a sponsor and the word "women" was crossed out. The accuser can no longer be exempt from the anti-drinking rules on campuses.
The bad: it is more misandric allowing for more privileges given to women at the expense of men including third party reporting.
The ugly:a third party can turn you in on a sexaul assault,domestic violence and/or stalking complaint on and off campus. That's right. If this passes your college is no longer an institute for higher learning but a feminist inquisition out to crucify men for their alleged action(s)-regardless of where they took place. Just think: someone who doesn't like you can now swear out a complaint about you or they can do it just to be sadistic.
The rest of the amendment was just a semantic shell game and a waste of California tax dollars. I wonder how they feel about that.
This bitch is going to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education so let's let the Assembly members know where we stand.
The good: this amendment lost a sponsor and the word "women" was crossed out. The accuser can no longer be exempt from the anti-drinking rules on campuses.
The bad: it is more misandric allowing for more privileges given to women at the expense of men including third party reporting.
The ugly:a third party can turn you in on a sexaul assault,domestic violence and/or stalking complaint on and off campus. That's right. If this passes your college is no longer an institute for higher learning but a feminist inquisition out to crucify men for their alleged action(s)-regardless of where they took place. Just think: someone who doesn't like you can now swear out a complaint about you or they can do it just to be sadistic.
The rest of the amendment was just a semantic shell game and a waste of California tax dollars. I wonder how they feel about that.
This bitch is going to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education so let's let the Assembly members know where we stand.
Friday, June 6, 2014
SB 967 goes to the California Legislature
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
It's gone from the California Senate to the California Assembly. We need to contact the Assembly and the Governor and let them know we oppose this misandric monster.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
It's gone from the California Senate to the California Assembly. We need to contact the Assembly and the Governor and let them know we oppose this misandric monster.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
SB 967 is back
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/23/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.)
(May 23).
FILE : SEN SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 05/27/2014
ITEM : 6
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
It looks like new life has been breathed into this Frankenstein's monster of a bill. We've got to act fast. We need to contact the Assembly,the Senate and the Governor. I was wondering when they would try something and now here it is.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/23/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.)
(May 23).
FILE : SEN SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 05/27/2014
ITEM : 6
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 05/23/2014
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 02 PASS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
It looks like new life has been breathed into this Frankenstein's monster of a bill. We've got to act fast. We need to contact the Assembly,the Senate and the Governor. I was wondering when they would try something and now here it is.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
SB 967 is stalled-for now
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Placed on APPR. suspense file.*
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
*SUSPENSE FILE
A bill or set of bills, with a fiscal impact, set aside in Appropriations Committee by a majority of Members present and voting. These bills may be heard at a later hearing.
Source
It's been put off for awhile. Congrats to all who wrote on behalf of all men,not just college age men,to be free of feminist oppression. You did good give yourselves a pat on the back. Cyber high 5's to everyone who did their part. We need to keep an eye on this bill just in case someone is stupid enough to try and revive this Frankenstein's monster of a bill back to life we will be ready again. Not just to fight SB 967 but all misandric bills that come before legislatures and congresses worldwide. The Men's Rights Movement will be a force to reckon with.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Placed on APPR. suspense file.*
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
*SUSPENSE FILE
A bill or set of bills, with a fiscal impact, set aside in Appropriations Committee by a majority of Members present and voting. These bills may be heard at a later hearing.
Source
It's been put off for awhile. Congrats to all who wrote on behalf of all men,not just college age men,to be free of feminist oppression. You did good give yourselves a pat on the back. Cyber high 5's to everyone who did their part. We need to keep an eye on this bill just in case someone is stupid enough to try and revive this Frankenstein's monster of a bill back to life we will be ready again. Not just to fight SB 967 but all misandric bills that come before legislatures and congresses worldwide. The Men's Rights Movement will be a force to reckon with.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
SB 967 UPDATE
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 7.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 04/07/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Current status of SB 967,California's answer to the Federal "Dear Colleague" directive. If you are unfamiliar with SB 967 click here. Time to act is now. Go to the California government's links by clicking on the preceding link.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 7.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 04/07/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Current status of SB 967,California's answer to the Federal "Dear Colleague" directive. If you are unfamiliar with SB 967 click here. Time to act is now. Go to the California government's links by clicking on the preceding link.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Good news
From SAVE Services:
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
In a MAJOR VICTORY for us, the Dept. Of Education has backed off their Affirmative Consent proposal.
The proposal (partners would be expected to give their explicit consent to sex every step along the way) is silly, yet potentially dangerous. We asked you to oppose it, and you did. Thank you.
Together, we made a difference. On April 2, the DED released its new proposal, and guess what is missing! That's right: Affirmative Consent.
Congratulations!
But we're not done yet.
Even though the committee didn't recommend including the "Dear Colleague" letter's preponderance of evidence standard as part of the rule, it's still a concern. Please ask DED Secretary Arne Duncan to replace the "preponderance of evidence" standard (51%) with "clear and convincing" (70-80%) level of proof.
Email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Thanks!
teri
PS. If you live in California, contact your lawmakers to oppose SB 967. It's an Affirmative Consent bill!
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Can you help us grow? Please share this e-lert.
This is indeed good news. Time to start writing Arne Duncan and tell him to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is what the criminal courts use. Or better yet just turn the cases over to the criminal courts. After all they are the ones best suited to handle these cases. Not a bunch of faculty members and students who look at a rape kit and say:"I have no idea what I'm looking at". Not only that but judges in criminal courts are more impartial than those on some college or university board that may be influenced by the opposition. Affirmative Consent would have brought this monstrosity to life and that may still happen in California if SB 967 becomes law. If SB 967 becomes law it could spread to your state so opposing it now would be the best thing or face it later.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Fight the Affirmative Consent Madate
The U.S. Dept. of Education has proposed that college students who engage in sex will have to follow Affirmative Consent requirements...or they will be considered rapists!
That lead to a bill in California that would mandate students give their consent on a repeated basis before and throughout the sex act...or they will be considered rapists!
A college in Ohio adopted Affirmative Consent in the 1990's prompting national ridicule. The idea was even lampooned on Saturday Night Live.
Yet...it's baaaaack: www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-consent
Ask your elected officials to Oppose the Dept. of Ed. Affirmative Consent Mandate...before everyone on campus is considered rapists!
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Find your Lawmakers: usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
That lead to a bill in California that would mandate students give their consent on a repeated basis before and throughout the sex act...or they will be considered rapists!
A college in Ohio adopted Affirmative Consent in the 1990's prompting national ridicule. The idea was even lampooned on Saturday Night Live.
Yet...it's baaaaack: www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-consent
Ask your elected officials to Oppose the Dept. of Ed. Affirmative Consent Mandate...before everyone on campus is considered rapists!
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Find your Lawmakers: usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Monday, March 10, 2014
Update on SB 967
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing March 19.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN EDUCATION
HEARING DATE : 03/19/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
This puppy is coming up for a hearing on March 19,2014. So that means the time to move against this bill is now. If you are a California resident then let your elected officials in the Assembly and Senate know that you're opposed to this bill. If you are not a resident of California notify the leaders of both chambers and let them know your disgust for SB 967 and that you'll avoid spending money in California. Also let the Governor know that you want him to veto this bill. If you live outside California then let him know you won't be spending money in California because of SB 967.
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/07/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing March 19.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN EDUCATION
HEARING DATE : 03/19/2014
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
This puppy is coming up for a hearing on March 19,2014. So that means the time to move against this bill is now. If you are a California resident then let your elected officials in the Assembly and Senate know that you're opposed to this bill. If you are not a resident of California notify the leaders of both chambers and let them know your disgust for SB 967 and that you'll avoid spending money in California. Also let the Governor know that you want him to veto this bill. If you live outside California then let him know you won't be spending money in California because of SB 967.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
FIRE denounces SB 967
FIRE Statement on California “Affirmative Consent” Bill
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Protest misandric bill SB 967
Law proposal will increase access to sexual assault justice
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)