Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley Ph.D, The Denial of Due Process May Bankrupt Universities

October 25, 2015

due processBy Gordon Finley

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.With now literally hundreds of editorials and op-eds taking positions both pro and con on California’s SB 967 – as well as the broader issue of “affirmative consent” for sexual relations — it is virtually certain that the California legislature will pass and send to Governor Brown’s desk SB 967 in the coming week. The bill is titled: “Student safety: sexual assault.”Writing as a faculty member of more than four decades in four universities, it is tragically clear that this campus rape crusade bill presumes the veracity of accusers (a.k.a. “survivors”) and likewise presumes the guilt of accused (virtually all men).  This is nice for the accusers – both false accusers as well as true accusers — but what about the due process rights of the accused?Critically, and the reason why men are winning very substantial lawsuits against universities, is that the fact that the current campus rape crusade explicitly denies men fundamental due process rights such as the right to a lawyer, the right to cross-examine, and the right to evidentiary standards (clear and convincing evidence) appropriate to the consequences for the accused. Simultaneously, the campus rape crusade provides every conceivable aid and assistance to the accusers to prosecute the accused. This would be difficult to describe as “fair.”If the ideologically tainted advocates in the administration, in Congress, and on campus continue this crusade against male students, it is possible that colleges and universities – as well as taxpayers — will be spending more money on administering these laws and on lawsuit pay-outs than on instruction.  Further, and as more and more men win due process denial lawsuits (this is a slam dunk because the denial of due process for the accused explicitly is written into the laws) the rate of such lawsuits will grow exponentially.The solutions are to drop the fraudulent “1 in 5″ campus rape claims of the administration, return to the definition of “Forcible Rape” (rather than “affirmative consent”) for sexual assault, and prosecute crimes that are ranked second only to murder in the criminal justice system which is trained and designed to investigate and prosecute them.

In deciding whether to sign or veto SB 967, the guiding principle should be that which is engraved above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Governor Brown, I urge you to veto SB 967 and send it back to the legislature with the request that any future laws regarding sexual misconduct provide equal protection and full due process to both California’s sons and daughters.

Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Florida International University. His faculty web site is:

due process

Please, never vote for any politician who supports legislation votes to deny due process (right to a fair hearing).

One Response to NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley urges Governor Brown not to sign SB 967 which denies due process to college students accused of sexual assault

  1. California Love: Only Yes Means Yes For Sexual Consent on October 15, 2014 at 3:01 AM

    […] and that this level of consent could be difficult to prove in court. In an August editorial, the National Coalition for Men, based on San Diego, described the bill as the “campus rape crusade bill,” which “presumes […]

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to NCFM Adviser Gordon Finley Ph.D, The Denial of Due Process May Bankrupt Universities

  1. Paul Neubauer on October 26, 2015 at 5:04 PM

    The trivial amounts the universities are at risk for because they expelled students who were accused of sexual impropriaty will not bankrupt them. The huge loses incured by universities from suits by women who made accusations are their worry. These awards are usually two orders of magnitude greater than what the expelled student can generate. So the trend will be to expel the student and take those meager lega spats as a cost of doing business. When the expelled student can successfully sue for 2-10 millioin then, maybe, the institutions will resond.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.