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

[Lief 🗽]

Respectfully, I don't know where my fellow senators are getting this "May I" at every step requirement from. That's not what affirmative consent means and that's certainly not what the language of this legislation calls for, as I read it. Like Comrade-Senator Blair, I object to the amendment.

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

I really don't understand this amendment. Nothing about these two sentences should be controversial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is wrong with this language? This seems like common sense to me, and removes the ambiguity of "well she didn't say no..." situations. This puts the burden on the person initiating sex to make sure the other person actually wants to have sex. Rape victims "shutting down" (rather than struggling or fighting back) when they are assaulted is actually a very common thing, and often used to attack the credibility of the rape victim. This should not be controversial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suspect this second sentence is the more controversial one. A lot of people have been saying that it requires people to constantly ask "May I" at every step of sexual encounter. I frankly don't see how you can read it as that. Affirmative consent can be given in many other ways than the super-formal, quasi-contractual "May I insert my penis? Yes, you may" strawman presented, both verbally and non-verbally. All this sentence means is that both parties should feel comfortable with the entire sexual encounter, and that either party can say "no, I'm not comfortable with this" at any point.

[Lief 🗽]

I am okay with most of the amendment, except for the change to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. I would not support any legislation that requires colleges to use such an impossibly high standard.

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

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

I would be okay with this.

[Lief 🗽]

I support this bill and will vote for it if it's come to a final vote.

[Lief 🗽]

Most of this amendment is okay, but like Senator Blair I don't know why we would get rid of the funding part, especially because we've given schools considerable leeway to implement these policies in a way they think best fits their culture, needs, institutions, etc. If even after this the school still refuses to implement some version of the policy, then I don't think there's any problem with cutting their funding.

Thus, a reluctant NAY.

[Lief 🗽]

Hm, yeah it seems like I misread the amendment. I change my vote to AYE.

[Lief 🗽]

Aye