Good day all. I’ve been sitting on this one for a couple of weeks. It seems that University of Missouri, best known for it’s professors threatening student journalists. Not satisfied with that, they’ve decided to back up and try jumping the shark a second time.
Now Mizzou has decided that if a tall man asks out a short woman, it should be considered Sexual Misconduct. Here are the details from The Daily Wire:
Getting up the courage to ask someone out on a date can already be nerve-racking, but now that college campuses have completely gone off the deep end, that fear will be intensified. Today’s crazy comes from — unsurprisingly — the University of Missouri (Mizzou), best known for torpedoing its enrollment rates after campus protests led a professor to threaten a student journalist.
And what is the idiocy that these morons have come up with?
An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.”
Excuse me, but in general, men are taller than women. Of course, a little thing like facts is something the Moonbats have a great deal of trouble comprehending.
For years, we have been told that one must receive “affirmative consent” before anything of a dating or sexual nature takes place. Critics of such policies, such as this reporter, have often wondered what would happen if the mere ask is unwanted, does that also constitute sexual harassment or assault?
Now we appear to have our answer: Yes
Is it any wonder that American Women are having trouble finding a nice guy? What man would want to take the risk of asking out a potential girlfriend if he’s going to be attacked and thrown out of school if she says no? Now you may be wondering what brought on this latest bit of idiocy. As always, there is an answer, usually involving a Special Snowflake.
When a Mizzou official was questioned regarding a case where a black male Ph.D. candidate at the school asked out a white female fitness trainer, she bizarrely suggested that the fact that the male student was larger than the female student gave him “power over her” and violated school policy.
The Daily Wire previously reported on the case in July. The male student, whom The Daily Wire will refer to as John Doe, asked out the female fitness instructor, who will be identified as Jane Roe.
Boy, Jane Roe gets around. When we last heard from her, she was going to the Supreme Court to get an abortion.
She said she was busy but discussed with him possibly going out later that month.
That sounded promising.
Two days later, she told him to “stop making romantic advances toward her,” according to John’s lawsuit against Mizzou. Despite not wanting to date him, Jane asked John to keep taking her to dance classes.
Excuse me? She said no, but said she wanted him to continue taking her classes? Let me guess, he was paying for these classes and she was interested in his money, right?
John did this, and later asked Jane to recommend some YouTube videos to help him improve his dancing. She suggested private lessons but told him she didn’t teach privately. She then, according to John’s lawsuit, avoided him for the next week.
Ok, I think I’m beginning to see a trend here, and not a nice one in regards to this “woman.”
On October 14, 2016, John wrote Jane a three-page letter “apologizing for being awkward around her, expressing sincere feelings for her, and asking [her] what if anything she wanted from Plaintiff,” his lawsuit said.
So he tried to do the right thing, and wanted to make sure that there were no misunderstandings between them. Pity he ran into a militant Feminazi.
Cathy Scroggs, who was Mizzou’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs when the incident involving John and Jane occurred, was asked during a recent deposition if the accusation against John satisfied the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another. Scroggs responded, “I think he was perceived as having power over her.”
She was further questioned as to the “nature of [John’s] power over her.” The interviewer asked if it was just John’s “size” that contributed to that “power.”
Scroggs responded: “His physical size.”
Now, the reason this ended up in court was due to the Moonbats suspending the male student. Why was he suspended? Oh you are going to LOVE this one. According to the earlier story in the Daily Wire:
An African-American graduate student at the University of Missouri was suspended after asking a white woman on a date. He had been previously accused of sexual misconduct, but was found not responsible. He claims an administrator told him during the first investigation that he “looked like someone who might commit sexual assault.” He was never accused of sexual assault.
So basically, the school looked at this man, and so nothing more then a “Rape Happy Negro.” How nice and progressive of them. Reading through the story, these CommuNazis running Mizzou covered all the bases when dealing with “John Doe.” From what I’m seeing, the only thing missing was the school administrators wearing white robes with pointed hats and burning a cross in front of the administration building. It looks like a judge agrees with this.
Mizzou attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, but U.S. District Court Judge Brian C. Wimes upheld many of John’s claims, including claims that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights in sending his dance instructor that letter, the school’s policy against stalking was too vague, part of his due process claims, and his race-related claims.
Getting back to the original story, Scroggs continued doing a nice deep hole for herself and the university.
So while most people would assume “power or authority” refers to a professor or other superior’s relationship with a student, Scroggs indicated that literally being larger than another person and asking them out could be an unfair sexual situation.
The stupidity of Mizzou continued to deepen during the depositions and hearings.
Andy Hayes, Mizzou’s Assistant Vice Chancellor for Civil Rights & Title IX, suggested that if someone were confused about whether they had “a legitimate purpose” for asking someone out on a date, they could call his office for clarification, but they might not get a definite answer.
The questions in the deposition make fascinating reading and are a nice window into what passes for the minds of the Moonbats running the University of Missouri. I’m not going to bother reposting them here, you can go over and read them yourself.
So, students need to have a “legitimate purpose” for asking someone out on a date, and if they don’t know if they’re legitimately asking someone out, they can call the school’s Title IX office to find out.
Again, the questions and answers in the deposition show what a politically correct idiot this jughead is. Call the office and you won’t get a straight answer, let alone a consistent one.
So, a student who seeks clarification about whether they have a “legitimate purpose” in asking someone out may get different answers from different people, any number of which could lead to him being found responsible for sexual misconduct, as John was.
Allow me to supply a reason men ask women out, (Or vice versa). Sex. We all want it and that is why you ask a member of the opposite sex out on a date. You’re hoping to “Get lucky.” Of course, using force, threats or intimidation is dead wrong, but from what I’ve read here, none of that happened. I suspect that the university may decide to seek a settlement. Personally, I hope that “John Doe” doesn’t take it and instead hammers them into the ground. Since this is a State college, maybe a massive financial hit will wake up the legislature and get them to actually see what the taxpayer’s money is buying.
Thatisall
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
