Affirmative Consent in Post-Secondary Education Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Windjammer, don't you mean fail? I see way more Nays than Ayes.

As for the reasonable doubt wording... why? I mean, I understand it is very hard to prove cases of rape or assault, but it's hard to prove anything. The standard exists because, as a country, we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Not "suspected mostly guilty." I don't know what the balance is, but "50%+1 evidence" isn't fair either.

[Talleyrand]

NAY

[Associate Justice PiT]

Windjammer, don't you mean fail? I see way more Nays than Ayes.

As for the reasonable doubt wording... why? I mean, I understand it is very hard to prove cases of rape or assault, but it's hard to prove anything. The standard exists because, as a country, we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Not "suspected mostly guilty." I don't know what the balance is, but "50%+1 evidence" isn't fair either.

     I would point out that you are talking about applying criminal standards to deal with criminal accusations. If anything is unfair, it's treating very serious crimes as if they were internal university matters in the same fashion as cheating on an exam.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, one could argue that these institutions also have a responsibility to address very serious issues like these that happen on their premeses.

And yes, I am invoking criminal standards, but only because I believe the principles behind them are applicable here. You can't kick someone out of school based on a suspicion.

[DemPGH]

As to Hagrid's amendment, ehh, I don't know. Ongoing permission throughout whatever people are choosing to do is problematic, standards of evidence are still problematic, the kind and quality of legitimate accusations are probably still problematic . . . I'm just uneasy about it.

[Lief 🗽]

This isn't a criminal matter. No one is being sent to jail. It's much more comparable to a civil matter, where the standards are much lower. "Preponderance of the evidence" doesn't mean 50% +1 of the evidence; it means looking at both stories and deciding which one is more likely to have happened. This is the "standard" used by school administrations in other disciplinary matters; why should rape cases suddenly have a much, much higher standard before the student is punished? If a school administration believes that one of their students is more likely than not a rapist, then they should be able to eject them from the school. The safety of other students is what is paramount here.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

DemPGH, consent is not "asking for permission." Affirmative consent seems to give off that vibe, but I think "consent" on its own is a bit more open to interpretation and manifests in different forms.

As for the standard of evidence... Being kicked out of school for suspected rape carries almost as much baggage as being found guilty and sent to jail. I would rather this bill not speak at all on the standard of evidence than force schools to adopt the preponderance of evidence standard, which, let's face it, could be problematic.

[Cranberry]

This version, while certainly an improvement, does not put away with my general problem with this bill - I simply do not think we should tackle this problem the way as is proposed in here, through a radical, nationwide "micromanaging" of every little detail of the process of intimacy, if I may say so in a very dumb choice of words. It is thus the spirit of this bill I do not support, and since this amendment does not alter this, I couldn't really see myself supporting this bill as a final version in any instance.

[Lief 🗽]

I would rather this bill not speak at all on the standard of evidence

I would be okay with this.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Senator Cranberry, a vote for the amendment does not require a vote for the final version.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

After hearing from a few colleagues, I choose to offer the following amendment once the one we're currently voting on fails. I know it doesn't change much, but I do think it changes the tone of the bill and makes "consent" slightly more palatable.

The next steps, for me, will involve making the penalties less severe for non-compliant institutions and, potentially, removing the government from trying to leverage the disciplinary process whatsoever. They're big changes though, so I'd rather do them one at a time. Plus, I don't know how much of the bill would actually be left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I really think that the 'consent must be ongoing' language is going to open up a major can of worms that might result in problems once it gets to the implementation stage, fwiw.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I really think that the 'consent must be ongoing' language is going to open up a major can of worms that might result in problems once it gets to the implementation stage, fwiw.

I agree. In something related to issues as delicate as this, language REALLY matters. Herein lies the problem, as far as I can see, with what Senator Hagrid is proposing. It does recognise that some situations are ambiguous (or perceived as such), however, recognising it introduces elements subjectivity into the Bill.

[Cranberry]

Senator Cranberry, a vote for the amendment does not require a vote for the final version.

Sure, still, I'd not support this version if it were a final version, that's what I wanted to say.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really think that the 'consent must be ongoing' language is going to open up a major can of worms that might result in problems once it gets to the implementation stage, fwiw.

I agree. In something related to issues as delicate as this, language REALLY matters. Herein lies the problem, as far as I can see, with what Senator Hagrid is proposing. It does recognise that some situations are ambiguous (or perceived as such), however, recognising it introduces elements subjectivity into the Bill.

How can it not be subjective, though? Consent should be ongoing throughout a sexual activity. So I guess the only solution is to define consent.

[windjammer]

Aye: TNF,
Nay: Lief, Blair, Polnut, DemPGH, Talleyrand
Abstain: Cranberry, Windjammer, Cris,Hagrid,

TNF amendment has failed to be adopted.

Senators have 36 hours to object on Hagrid's amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I really think that the 'consent must be ongoing' language is going to open up a major can of worms that might result in problems once it gets to the implementation stage, fwiw.

I agree. In something related to issues as delicate as this, language REALLY matters. Herein lies the problem, as far as I can see, with what Senator Hagrid is proposing. It does recognise that some situations are ambiguous (or perceived as such), however, recognising it introduces elements subjectivity into the Bill.

How can it not be subjective, though? Consent should be ongoing throughout a sexual activity. So I guess the only solution is to define consent.

That's my point ... It's a really not easy concept to grapple with in this context. Unless you're some kind of monster, you KNOW if consent is given and withdrawn but it is situational. Which is my concern.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

But since we're just asking in that particular section that universities promote consent, how is that a problem?

I would be okay with removing our involvement in the disciplinary process entirely as well, just so it's more of a "soft" kind of push.

[windjammer]

Hagrid's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay, let's try to tackle the problem area another way. I've changed the ongoing consent part. Could it be considered agreeable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

That looks good.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That looks good.

It's certainly better.

[windjammer]

Okay, let's try to tackle the problem area another way. I've changed the ongoing consent part. Could it be considered agreeable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, it was a suggestion, not an amendment. But since people seem okay with it, I'll go ahead and put it through as an amendment.

[windjammer]

Okay, let's try to tackle the problem area another way. I've changed the ongoing consent part. Could it be considered agreeable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 36 hours to object.

Senators have 36 hours to object.