Christina Hoff Sommers & Stuart Taylor: College rape culture & the death of due process | VIEWPOINT

Christina Hoff Sommers & Stuart Taylor: College rape culture & the death of due process | VIEWPOINT

October 8, 2019 10 By Stanley Isaacs


Christina: Stuart Taylor is with me today
and he is one of our nation’s most distinguished legal journalists. He has a law degree from Harvard, where he
graduated at the top of his class and served as an editor at the “Law Review.” He’s written for “The New York Times,” the
“National Journal,” myriad of other prominent news outlets. His new book, co-authored with Brooklyn College
professor, KC Johnson, documents an alarming assault on justice and reason on our nation’s
campuses. It’s titled “The Campus Rape Frenzy.” Stuart, welcome to AEI. Stuart: Wonderful to be with you. And if I might make an editorial comment,
I love your moniker, the Factual Feminist. Christina: Yes, I am… Stuart: We need more factual feminists. Christina: Yes, we do. Well, you are the deputy factual feminist
because your book is so good. It’s so thorough. It’s an exposé of the campus rape frenzy. Tell us about that. What is it for those who may not know? Stuart: Yes, well, driven largely by the Obama
administration…although it’s a phenomenon that started in the ’90s really…there’s
been a huge misleading frenzy, to the effect that there’s something called a rape culture
on our campuses, that rape is rampant, that it’s an epidemic, that it’s increasing, that
the colleges don’t care about it and won’t do anything for the victims. And the Obama administration has driven this
by aligning itself with left-wing academics, by suddenly in 2011, on April 4th, 2011, proclaiming
a whole bunch of decrees, the purpose of which was to destroy the due process rights of young
men in college who are accused by young women in college…sometimes it’s a man and a man
or a woman and a woman…but in general, men accused by women of sexual assault, although
really it doesn’t really have to meet the definition of sexual assault to get you in
trouble these days. It’s morphed into a comprehensive system of
federally directed regulation of all sex on campus. Christina: Oh, my. That’s quite… Stuart: Now this doesn’t mean every time anybody
does anything, it gets regulated. But it potentially reaches just about the
most ordinary consensual sex you can imagine. If somebody decides, usually the woman, a
day, a month, a year, two years later, “Gee, I didn’t like that. I wish I hadn’t done it,” that’s all. The guy can get kicked out over that alone. Christina: One of the things I’ve noticed
is that the definition of sexual assault is very elastic and it’s constantly changing. Now most people think of some kind of aggressive,
violent attack or they think of rape. But what does it encompass now when they use
it? What can a young man be brought up on charges
for? Stuart: Well, you’ve got to distinguish the
criminal law from the campus situation. Under the criminal law, the definition has
expanded over the years but it’s still pretty reasonable. If there’s sex without consent…it doesn’t
even have to forcible in most states…if there’s sex without consent and the male is
the initiator, as they usually presume, that is rape. If there’s an unwanted touching, over the
woman’s objection, any intimate part, that is sexual assault. It might be a very small case, but it’s sexual
assault. On campuses, on the other hand, if…and also
I should say, in the criminal law, if the woman is passed out drunk, that’s rape. On campus, she doesn’t have to be passed out
or drunk to make it rape. She just has to be a little bit intoxicated. It varies from place to place. The federal government has not defined rape
or sexual assault for purposes of the campuses, but the campuses have defined it and they’ve
done their definitions with the federal government looking over their shoulder with the general
attitude saying, “You’d better kick a lot of people out because we know there’s a lot
of unpunished…” So they define it very broadly and often when
I say that almost all sex that goes on campus is potentially within this, there are campuses
where if the woman…it’s usually the woman…much later decides she didn’t really wanna do it
and she wishes she hadn’t, even if she doesn’t claim that she resisted or said no or pushed… Christina: But someone saw her drinking a
margarita. Stuart: Yeah, somebody saw her drinking a
margarita, that will get you kicked out if you’re the young man at a lot of campuses
and I could tell you stories, including the Yale basketball captain who’s been kicked
out on stories like that. Christina: I saw at one college, they had
defined assault to include coercion. And coercion means did anyone ever try to
talk you into sex or tell you lies, manipulate you in some way. Now that might not be gentlemanly behavior,
but we’re not in the Victorian age and we don’t call that assault. Stuart: Right. Christina: But they’re implying that it is
punishable, as if it were a violation. So this is also, people should understand
that it’s just, you send a young man to college and any parent should warn him to be absolutely
careful. Now some people will say, “Well, that’s good. Maybe we should go back to an age where young
men were taught to be protective of women.” And actually, in a way, I’m thinking maybe
this is a reaction to the hook up culture, where there was so much promiscuity. Maybe this is sort of the liberals’ way of
bringing some moderation to the campus hook up culture and they call it the rape culture. But I think there’s probably a better way
to do it than setting up kangaroo courts. Stuart: Yeah. Especially since the same universities that
are setting up the kangaroo courts are also distributing condoms, sex manuals on how to
have fun sex, encouraging rampant sex… Christina: And doing nothing about the binge
drinking. Stuart: And drinking. Doing nothing about the binge drinking and
then after all the things the university helped happen, happen and the woman complains later
on, it’s the man’s fault and they go after him. Now sometimes… Christina: What if they’re both drinking? They both have two glasses of wine, they have
sex, and for whatever reason, she brings charges. Can he show that he had the same amount and
he could be exonerated or can he take her, if he puts in the charge first, does he… Stuart: Theoretically he could. But not in the real world. First, if she files a charge and the guy then
says, “Well, then she did it, too,” they will often say, “Well, that’s retaliation. We’re not gonna listen to that.” And the dean of students, Sue Wasiolek’s her
name, at Duke University, was testifying and she was asked, “Well, what happens if both
of them are drunk?” And she said, “Well, in that case, it would
be the fault of the male and he’s a rapist or whatever.” Now campuses aren’t always quite as frank
as that in saying what their attitude is, but that’s their attitude. Christina: You know, you’ve described some
very unsavory individuals, they sound to be. I think there are probably a lot of campus
Title IX officers and people that, they wanna do the best but they’re given a lot of misinformation,
there’s pressure from the government to hand over guilty verdicts, and so they end up being
part of something, these mock courts or these kangaroo courts, without ever really thinking
it through. And where could they go without risk of losing
their jobs? So all the incentives are in favor of just
going along with the system. Stuart: Yeah, especially because they’re reporting…I
mean, the federal government is looking over their shoulder. They are appointed largely to appease the
federal government by doing to the campus males whatever the federal government seems
to want them to do on a case by case basis. And also, think for a minute…I’m sure some
of them are great people…think for a minute, who would want that job, knowing that you
are an agent of the federal government in all but name, you know, there for the purpose
of administering biased judges against young men and that’s your job and that’s your responsibility
and you’re gonna be in trouble if you don’t do that. Who wants that job? I don’t think it’s the type of person we want
to be exercising that kind of power over our young people. Christina: Well, there they are. We have this elaborate bureaucracy, these
campus sort of sex apparatchiks marching around, and what happens to people that oppose it,
to dissidents, and anyone, a professor who questions it, or a student who organized against
it? Stuart: Very few do. But, for example, when the Yale basketball
captain who I mentioned was railroaded out of Yale based on a bogus charge of sexual
assault or sexual misconduct or whatever they called it, the basketball team rallied around
him and they wore his number or something like that. They were hammered by the Yale administration,
trashed by the women’s center, attacked by kind of a mob of activists, and unfortunately
they could see that this was gonna end badly for them and they basically backed off and
apologized. That’s what usually happens and most people,
including professors these days…we haven’t gotten to the threat to freedom of speech
so called harassment that this administration has increased and it was already there…but
most professors, even tenured professors, know perfectly well that if they speak out
against this sort of thing, they’re gonna get picketed, they’re gonna get attacked,
there’s gonna be a social media campaign against them, the university’s gonna be looking to
whether to bring a Title IX charge against them. I know personally some professors who would
just say, “You know, I could get,” tenured professors who say, “I could get pushed out
of my job if I speak out against this.” Christina: Well, as you know, I’ve written
about this myself. I’m very alarmed, what’s going on. And in your book, you and KC Johnson make
it clear that you’re concerned about victims of sexual assault. Any reasonable, fair-minded person is. But even at that level, what’s happening on
campus isn’t helping assault victims. It’s just created this, as you say, a kind
of moral panic and they’re rushing to judgment and it looks to me as though they’re replacing
our tradition of the presumption of innocence with guilty because accused. Stuart: Exactly. Now I should make it clear, we hate sexual
assault. We hate rape. We are very much champions of victims of them
and we know that there’s a lot of it that goes on on campus, off campus. Always has, probably always will. But at least we’d like to reduce it. What we oppose is injustice her. Lots of people hate sexual assault. They didn’t need us to make that point. What we see happening is a presumption of
guilt, a rush to judgment, an effort to presume that all males are guilty, if accused of anything
they’re guilty of, that when a woman’s an accuser, and to brand them rapists and to
kick them out of college or suspend them. In many cases, ruining lives, PTSD, suicide
attempts, the whole bit. The kinds of things you hear that happen to
rape victims, and they do, also happen to falsely accused young men. Christina: Well, so someone argued that things
are so bad on campus, there’s this epidemic, a plague of violence, and we need to take
strong measures. And while it’s too bad that some innocent
will suffer, overall, it’s just better this way all around if we have these strong measures. What would you say to that? Stuart: Two main points. A, there’s not an epidemic. There’s not a rape culture. And B, this huge effort is not making things
any safer for women. Christina: Okay. You say there’s not a rape epidemic. Explain that because people here, one in four,
one in five women, will be… Stuart: Right. An epidemic suggests something that’s huge
and growing. Now is it huge? Well, I guess if it’s always been huge, it’s
still huge. There’s way too much sexual assault and way
too much rape. But it’s nothing like one in five. At the time the administration acted, the
rape rate on campus, the percentages, according to best federal statistics, had plunged by
more than half over the previous 15 years. Plunged, not increased. It’s not increasing. Some of the numbers are increasing lately
because they’ve been basically tampered with by… Christina: Advocacy research. Stuart: By advocacy research. Let’s take the one in five idea. The best federal research bureaus, the justice
statistics, which has been the best federal crime research for many years, would tell
you about 1 in 40, maybe 1 in 50, sexually assaulted, maybe 1 in 100 raped. Sexual assault would include a pat on the
rear end. It’s technically a crime but there are degrees. The way these surveys get to one in five,
and the president of the United States has embraced this number, is by phonying up the
statistics. First they get very small sample sizes, women
motivated to complain tend to be the ones who answer the samples. Second, they define all kinds of activity
that’s perfectly legal, that’s not thought of commonly as sexual assault at all, and
they define it as sexual assault. You know, “Has anybody ever had sex with you
when you had been drinking?” “Has anybody ever had sex with you when you
really didn’t want them to, whether or not you told them you didn’t want to?” And so forth. And so there are all sorts of things. And this is quite revealing, they never, these
survey takers…and there are kind of a group of them and they all do the same game and
“The Washington Post” has done it and Pew Research has done it and the American…you
know, they never ask the people being surveyed, “Have you been raped? Have you been sexually assaulted?” Because they know from history… Christina: It yields a low number. Stuart: Very low number. You know, I hesitate whether to call these
surveys highly misleading, which is an understatement, or fraudulent, which might be an overstatement. Somewhere in that spectrum. Christina: But these numbers would make it
seem…if we took them seriously, it would mean that when a young woman enters the campus,
Wesleyan or Brandeis or Stanford, she’s at as much risk as she would be, or more risk,
than she would be in Detroit. Or more than that, maybe in war-torn Congo. I mean, these numbers are so high and yet
people send their daughters to college and, you know, who would send a child to college
if you thought they had a one in four, one in five chance of being victimized by a serious
felony assault? Stuart: Exactly. Christina: You wouldn’t. Stuart: You know, the evidence that the administration
and the colleges that jump on this bandwagon, they don’t take these numbers seriously themselves. They use them as propaganda. If they took them seriously, there would be
cops all over the campus. There would be security guards everywhere. Christina: They wouldn’t allow alcohol on
campus. Stuart: They would not allow coed dorms, let
alone coed bathrooms. There would be no alcohol on campus. You know, maybe they’d go back to single sex
schools. They’re not doing any of those things. They’re not doing anything that shows real
seriousness. It’s all a big misleading panic that’s… Christina: It’s a panic…Well, before we
get to this, what is like to be a young man…or it could be a young woman, I read some terrible
cases of young women falsely accused as well. But tell a typical case of, you know, a picture
of what happens to a young man today when accused on campus. Stuart: Okay. I’ll give you a real case, not a hypothetical
one. And I can give you 40 probably, except my
memory’s… Christina: Well, there are about 100 young
men suing right now. Stuart: Right, yeah. Christina: And to read through these cases
is to go to Kafka’s trial, but go on. Stuart: Here’s a case at Amherst and one thing
that’s striking about this and somewhat unusual is that the young who was ejected from Amherst
on a charge of sexually assaulting a young woman was in fact a victim of a sexual assault
by the young woman. That’s what really happened and the evidence
that proves it, text message evidence, was readily available to the college if they had
bothered to look for it. Christina: Yeah, she was sending texts to
her friend saying, “Oh, I just did that,” and he had been passed out. Stuart: Yeah, it starts with them making out
in a very sexual way in front of other people in some common area in the dorm and somebody
says, “You know, why don’t y’all go get a room?” So she takes the guy back to his room. By her account, she was a little bit tipsy. By all accounts, he was passed out drunk or
very close. She gave him oral sex. For whatever reason, she wanted to. It’s not clear he was even aware this was
happening. He doesn’t remember anything. And then she sent him away and she called
in another guy who she’d been flirting with earlier in the evening and had more sex. And then she began to feel bad because, “Oh,
that first guy was my roommate’s boyfriend. My roommate’s away, but she’s gonna find out
and it’s gonna be very socially awkward with our friends.” So she started telling people she’d been sexually
assaulted. She joined a feminist anti-rape group on campus
and many, many, many months or a year later…I think it was more than a year later…she
actually filed a claim of sexual assault. The investigation by the college was ludicrous. Her testimony was incoherent. The whole thing was a giant fraud and apparently
driven by Amherst’s fear that the federal government would say they’re not being tough
enough on sexual assault. And they kicked him out, he hired a lawyer,
the lawyer asked around, “Anybody got any text messages,” got some text messages, and
the text messages prove the facts that I’ve just told you conclusively. The guy took the facts back to the college,
Amherst, and Amherst said, “Sorry, too late. You’re kicked out and it’s final.” Christina: And he’s kicked out. Stuart: He’s kicked out. Christina: And marked as a predator. And these people that got kicked out of college,
they have a hard time getting into another school. And it’s also devastating psychologically
to be accused. You’re seen as a pariah. I’ve read reports from psychologists, what
it’s like to treat falsely accused people. Stuart: Exactly. Christina: And it’s just psychically devastating. Stuart: And we have, too. And there’s two aspects worth mentioning. One, these things are almost always done in
secret. Federal privacy laws and so forth, which means
it’s impossible usually until the case gets into court…and this Amherst guy sued in
court, which is how we know all the facts we know…to know what went on. And so the guy usually doesn’t get on Google
as a rapist, but everybody on the campus knows who he was and the word gets around and there’s
a movement to put it on transcripts and when he tries to apply to another college, they
tend to turn him down. And so it has a lifelong effect, potentially
a horrible lifelong effect. It leads to depression, it leads to post traumatic
stress syndrome, it defeats career opportunities. You know, it’s often regarded by people who
are anti-rape activists as, “Oh, well, the guy just picks himself up and moves on.” No, he doesn’t pick himself up and move on. And I just should add, the vice president
of the United States, Joe Biden, has admitted unwittingly that this has done absolutely
nothing, all this, to reduce the number of rapes on campus. Christina: As far as I can tell, the numbers,
even their advocacy studies, they’ve been doing them for years, the numbers never change. Now they’re saying one in five and they still
have studies that it’s one in four. Stuart: And what Biden recently said was,
“It was 1 in 5 20 years ago.” And it’s still 1 in 5. Christina: Right. Stuart: Okay, you can do the math. It’s done. Your program, Mr. Biden, has done no good
at all. Christina: In your book, you cite the words
of a congressman, Jared Polis from Colorado, and he said, this is in a 2015 congressional
hearing, “If there are 10 people who have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood
standard, maybe 1 or 2 of them did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people.” A congressman said that. Now this… Stuart: One would hope not for long. Christina: We have this venerable legal principle,
presumption of innocence. Is it being replaced by guilty because accused? Stuart: What this guy Polis said just takes
one’s breath away. You know, you have to wonder if he was hallucinating. The old Blackstone thing was, you know, “Better
10 go free who are guilty than 1 being imprisoned who’s innocent.” Christina: And there’s a reason for that,
that we have such a revulsion towards the innocent being punished. Because all of the machinery of the State
comes down and they have resources and all sorts of powers and the individual’s alone. And the cases we hear about are the ones that
are brought to trial where the young man, usually a young man, has the money to get
a lawyer. Think of all the cases we don’t hear about. Stuart: Yeah, you’re right. And all of this… Christina: And so anyway, there are now judges
that are looking at these cases and you’ve cited them in the book. They go through them and there was one judge
in Massachusetts, I think he was looking at a case at Brandeis, and he looked at it and
he said that it reminded him of Salem, Massachusetts. Stuart: It did. Christina: And not the United States or America
in 2015 or ’16, whenever he said. And you do see a lot of talk about Salem or
sexual McCarthyism. People talk about kangaroo courts. And do you think that that’s…having written
this book, you’ve seen enough to agree with those strong assessments. Stuart: Very emphatically. I would not have believed that so much injustice,
committed by people with great credentials or Ivy university people, committed for often
cynical reasons or ideology, I would not have believed that it was possible for this to
happen in the United States until I became immersed in the facts. My co-author, KC Johnson, knows more about
these cases than anyone alive and a lot of the ones in the book, he’s read all the court
records, and you just read these cases and you think, “How could this possibly have happened?” And one way it happens is that, although the
judge, Judge Saylor, in the Brandeis case you mentioned was good and the three democratically
appointed federal appeals court judges in New York were good in that case, they basically…in
another case, I think they basically said, “This looks like discrimination against men. What’s going on?” Not all judges are good on this. Some judges, there were a couple of judges
in California in an appeals court who heard a case from the University of California,
San Diego, where one of them said during the argument, “This looks like a kangaroo court.” And then they upheld it. And then they said, “Well, it’s not our job. We’re just federal judges. We’re not supposed to tell disciplinary campuses
what to do.” Christina: Yeah, I think they don’t yet understand
how much suffering and anguish is involved. And it’s because, yes, rape is a heinous crime
and a victim of a rape suffers horribly. But it’s because it’s such a serious crime
that we have to be very careful about branding someone as a sex predator, as a rapist, and
we’ve lost that concern. Now how did this happen? Who are players? Not that I don’t have my own ideas, but in
your book, you mention all sorts of, a kind of axis of madness. You have risk-averse administrators. You have academic activists. You have the federal government coming in. And this whole sex bureaucracy that’s built
up in the campuses and it’s all come together. The media… Stuart: Oh, boy, yes. Christina: Wanting…let’s talk, how has the
media handled all this? Because there should have been a book like
this, “60 Minutes” should have been on this, there should have been “Frontline” about,
you know, witch hunts on our college campus, and we really haven’t seen that. Stuart: The media have been shamelessly biased,
“The New York Times” leading the pack. Every time “The New York Times” ever writes
about campus sex cases, as far as I’ve seen…I might have missed one…but every one I’ve
ever seen, they grotesquely distort the facts to make it look absolutely clear that the
male was guilty and the woman was pure and virtuous and honest, even when the evidence
is either much more conflicted or even when it clearly proves the innocence of the male. They did it in the Duke lacrosse rape fraud
case in 2006. Christina: Yes, “The New York Times” was horrible
and after everyone was talking about this travesty at Duke with the lacrosse team falsely
accused, the “Times” was saying, “Well, no, the case still makes sense.” Stuart: That’s right. Christina: No, it didn’t make sense. Why did, what’s… Stuart: And KC Johnson and I exposed in our
Duke lacrosse book how bad they were and one of their editors at some point said, “Well,
we’re gonna be more careful about these things,” but they haven’t improved a bit. And they are not unrepresentative. If you look at, you know, remember the “Rolling
Stone” case, article about University of Virginia? Christina: Well, yes, there’s another example. Stuart: Well, not only was “Rolling Stone”
outrageous…and they’re losing libel vases now and basically it was a fraudulent article
that they fell for…the entire media, they printed this ridiculous claim by a woman that
she had been gang-raped over broken glass by seven or eight guys at the University of
Virginia fraternity. All of the evidence, it was implausible on
its face. Every bit of evidence that’s ever emerged
shows that it didn’t happen. And yet the news media as a group all credited
immediately, raised the clamor, “This shows we have a rape culture,” and all through the
process of it being proved false, you know, kind of some of them quieted down a little
bit, but none of them ever said, “We’re sorry.” Except maybe “Rolling Stone,” without really
saying it seriously. Christina: Right, and eventually there were
some journalists working in the background, at “Reason” and there was a blogger, what
was his name? Bradley? Richard Bradley. Stuart: Robby Soave, if I pronounced it right,
at “Reason” and Richard Bradley, who was a blogger, exposed it quite early, saying, “Wait
a minute, this doesn’t have…” Christina: And they were just being good journalists
who had a sense that something was amiss and it didn’t add up. Stuart: And then the “Washington Post,” which
has by and large been part of the… Christina: Hysteria. Stuart: …hysteria, they to their credit,
the credit of one of their reporters, to be exact, printed some facts that showed that
it couldn’t have happened the way the woman said and the story fell apart. And yet, not only did the national media never
really set of the University of Virginia, even the student body at the University of
Virginia, more or less, all rushed to judgment, too, and none of them ever changed their attitude,
even as the facts were proved false. Christina: Well, I’ve noticed that, that journalists
just credulously repeat the false statistics and they repeat stories. For example, at Columbia University with mattress
girl. That was told from her point of view. They didn’t seem to be concerned that the
young man had been found not responsible by one or two tribunals, sex courts, on campus. That didn’t seem to matter. And she was actually carrying out a vigilante
action against him. And she got class credit. Or, you know, maybe credit towards her degree. Stuart: She did. Christina: And she was treated as a heroine
by the media. Stuart: And all the evidence isn’t quite clear
there. One thing’s very clear. She was sending “I love you” emails to the
supposed rapist weeks after the supposed rape. Christina: Right, right. Stuart: You know, she has no credibility and
all and yet Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat… Christina: Oh, Senator Gillibrand is… Stuart: …took her to the 2015 State of the
Union address and made her into a heroine. Christina: Shouldn’t Kirsten Gillibrand and
the other legislators, everyone really, care about due process? What has happened to due process with these
young people who are accused? Do they get a lawyer? Do they get to cross examine? Do they have the right to, you know, once
they’re found innocent, they’re not put on trial again? Or is it the reverse? Stuart: The reverse. And this takes me back to the Obama administration’s
very major role in this. In the April 4th, 2011, directives, they dictated
procedures for these cases. And one was the lowest possible standard of
proof. Not clear and convincing, certainly not a
preponderance of the evidence, 50.01%. Another was you’d better not let these guys
cross examine the women or let anybody cross examine the women. Christina: Because they’ll be re-traumatized. Stuart: Re-traumatized. Right. Christina: So they’re presuming that she’s
a survivor and that he’s the perpetrator. Stuart: Yeah, and the relevance of that is,
first, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said cross examination is the best legal engine
ever devised by the law for getting at the truth. They’ve said it more than once. And we’re talking about he said-she said cases
often, where if you can’t really test the veracity of the woman, it’s pretty much over. The guy doesn’t get to have a lawyer in the
proceedings. He doesn’t get to see all the evidence that’s
gonna be used against him. He doesn’t get to see the evidence that’s
in his favor. The procedures are all completely rigged to
maximize the point of accusers and the people who do the deciding, if there’s a board, they’re
often coached by so-called trainers… Christina: Oh, these trainers. Stuart: …to presume guilt. Christina: And the trainers come in believing
all of the advocacy statistics. They believe that one in five is a victim
of assault. They believe that women never…or rarely
lie. There’s another false statistic and you expose
a number of them. Stuart: Right. The trainers at Stanford, for example, said,
among other things, two things that don’t coexist well. One is if the man’s story is articulate and
persuasive, that’s a sign of guilt. Christina: And if he’s being too logical. Stuart: If he’s being a little bit…yeah,
if he’s too logical. Christina: Right. Stuart: If he’s vague and kinda wanders around,
why, that’s a sign of guilt, too. In other words, everything he says is a sign
of guilt. Christina: So they’re using the lowest standard
of proof. They have no way to defend themselves, none
of the usual means. And the committee is just arbitrary. It could be a librarian, it could be a dean,
a couple of students. They’re the sex court. They’re not trained, except by these experts
that come in. And they will be told that women rarely lie. Sometimes some of the materials say only in
what, they cite a 2% of cases and that goes back to a book in the ’70s by Susan Brownmiller. She just stated it, I don’t think she had
a source for that. There is no source. Stuart: She said she’d heard some judge said
it based on some study that was never made public. But it’s nonsense. Christina: It’s nonsense. Stuart: Lots and lots of women are victimized
and lots or lots of other women make it up for various reasons or lie or… Christina: And, you know, I think women sometimes
lie about being raped, not because they’re women but because they’re human beings. Human beings sometimes lie, especially about
sex. There are many, many reasons we’ve seen already
in the notorious cases, the Duke lacrosse and the UVA case. Stuart: Also on the campuses, with the administration
pushing it…I’m thinking of a case called Occidental and a woman named Danielle Dirks,
who is a professor, a radical… Christina: Very radical, very hard-line. Heartless. Stuart: A young woman who had had a drunken
tryst with a young guy, two freshmen, and she was complaining to her roommate or somebody
like that, “Gee, he didn’t call back.” It wasn’t very good. Somebody directed her to Danielle Dirks and
Danielle Dirks said, “Well, you know, this guy is like the typical campus rapist. How do I know that? Well, he’s from a good family. He was a high school valedictorian. He had good grades and he was an athlete. Well, those are the guys who are obviously
guilty.” So that is the attitude that goes into a lot
of the campus adjudications. Christina: Gender profiling. Stuart: Yeah. And the one thing that the administrations
have been pushing people to do is to have a single person be the investigator, prosecutor,
judge, and jury. You know, let’s not put this in front of,
say, a panel of students who might actually find the guy innocent. Let’s make it very clear that he’s totally
at the mercy of somebody who’s looking over her shoulder…it’s almost always a her, by
the way…at the other hers in the Obama education department who are saying, “You’d better bring
us some heads.” Christina: I think that the…By the way,
it’s not only the Obama administration. There are a number of Republicans who have
joined with this campaign, this crusade, about the campus rape culture and are very poorly
informed. It’s unfortunately bipartisan. However, I think that what led the legislators,
as well as the journalists, originally they were the academic feminist. And this all started, I saw it happening way
back in the last century, you had gender studies professors who believe that American society
is a patriarchy and that women are held down and held back. And then you had very radical figures like
Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, who believe that we were captive to a culture where rape
was an instrument of oppression used by men to keep women in their place. It’s part of the structure of society. So they feel that we need to go outside the
American legal tradition, which was after all created by men invested in a violent patriarchy. So they have no inhibitions about throwing
aside due process and freedom of expression and even punishing an occasional innocent
person because they think they’re dealing with this patriarchal oppression so they don’t
care. Now these ideas were half-baked and it’s just
a lot of twisted, paranoid theories that have no basis in reality which almost anyone could
say. But if you challenge their theories, that
just proves you don’t understand them and that proves that you’re an apologist for the
rape culture. Somehow these theories, which were not taken
seriously by anyone outside these sort of esoteric departments in the academy, they’ve
moved into the mainstream. And suddenly I’m seeing them in women’s magazines
and I think it was the statistics, these false statistic came to be believed, these dubious
statistics, they got to a point where they were beyond the reach of rational analysis. So we do have the makings of this panic and
do you see a way out of it? Stuart: It is like the Salem witch trials
and, in a different way, it’s like the McCarthy era and it’s like the daycare scares of the
1990s. Christina: Yeah, Satanic cults in daycare. Stuart: Yeah, when babies were being thrown
into streams beheaded and so forth, except nobody could find the bodies. Christina: And people believed it. Stuart: People believed it. And Catherin MacKinnon, who you mentioned,
has been lionized by academic feminists. I think one of her famous quotes is, “I call
it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” I think that’s almost verbatim. So this has become an ideology that’s swept
the campuses with huge expansion of gender studies programs. They’re sort of in the business spreading
this ideology. And frankly because of the state of the campuses,
it’s hard for me to be at all confident that we’re ever gonna see the end of this. Or at least see it anytime soon. I hope that the new Trump administration…and
I’m certainly not a pro-Trump person…but I do hope that his education secretary, Betsy
DeVos, if she’s confirmed, and the rest of his administration will do at least one very
good thing for America, which is dismantle this sex bureaucracy machinery, at least in
the federal level, that the Obama administration has created. But that would only be a start, a little bit
of a start on fixing this because the sex bureaucracies in the universities, the feminist
kind of biases in the universities, they’ve swept over universities from coast to coast,
with a few exceptions, and they’re full of ideas that the average American, if he heard
them or she heard them, would consider laughable. The average woman who considers herself a
feminist would consider them laughable, but because they’re in the academic ghettos, they
kind of persist. Christina: Well, a lot of feminists have come
out against this. People like Wendy Kaminer and Janet Halley
at Harvard. Nadine Strossen, the former president of the
ACLU. They’ve been some of the most outspoken… Stuart: Nadine wrote a very nice… Christina: Nadine is fantastic. Nancy Gerston, the… Stuart: Gertner. Christina: Gertner, sorry. Nancy Gertner in Massachusetts. They’ve been wonderful. But they’re not listened to. Stuart: No, and Harvard Law School professors
have been better than most academics. Most academics have their head in the sand. Twenty-eight Harvard Law faculty members signed
a statement, an eloquent statement, denouncing what the federal government was forcing Harvard
to do, what Harvard in fact did, although they got an exception made for the law school. And very eloquent and, you know, these are
pretty liberal folks and five of them, you’ve mentioned three of four, but five…another
that comes to mind is Betsy Bartholet… Christina: Oh, she’s been wonderful. Stuart: …are leading feminists. Christina: Yes. Stuart: And, you know, every serious civil
libertarian I know and every feminist who I respect, and I respect a lot of them, who’ve
seen what’s going on realizes how pernicious this is, but it persists. Christina: Well, maybe it’s gonna take a famous
academic feminist to find her son brought up on charges and taken through a kangaroo
court. Or maybe it’s going to…what will it take
for, you know, I think back to France in the Alfred Dreyfus case and Emile Zola writing
“J’accuse,” it was the most famous headline of all time in newspaper and he accused, well,
the French military, the press, everyone, of taking part in convicting an innocent man. And it just became a famous symbol of people
becoming aware that we had committed just this heinous injustice, all of us somehow
were guilty and Zola conveyed that in “J’accuse” and I see your book as possibly doing that. I hope so. I mean, I don’t think anybody, any journalist
that writes about the sexual assault on campus, anybody on a committee, any dean, if they
don’t read this, I think it’s malfeasance. I mean, they’re not doing their job. You’ve done such a good job. It’s meticulous. It’s careful. The tone. All of it is really, really fine. So let’s hope it makes a difference because
this can’t go on. Stuart: Well, having Factual Feminist on our
side… Christina: Oh, yes. Well, I will do what I can. I urge people to buy… Stuart: It makes me feel much more optimistic
than I would otherwise. Christina: I’ll do my best. Let’s stop the madness. Stuart: Thank you. Thank you so much for coming.