California's Affirmative Consent Law Round-Up

Photo: Feministing.com

On Sunday, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB967 into law, a bill passed by the California state legislature last month, that implements "affirmative consent" as a standard for universities investigating alleged sexual assaults on campus. Here are some of the most helpful, insightful reactions to this law and what it means for the state, students, and potential victims.

Amanda Marcotte, writing for Slate's XX blog, defends the bill against misrepresentation that is scaring some would-be supporters off:

The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters. It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint. And all it does is help the disciplinary board craft its line of questioning to get to the important facts.

Maya Dusenbery of Feministing gives the bill a very enthusiastic hell yes:

This paradigm shift has been a long time coming and is desperately needed. The idea that mutual desire, not the mere absence of "no," should perhaps be the standard for an activity that’s generally agreed to be pretty fun hardly seems radical.

Activist Sofie Karasek told Katy Murphy of the San Jose Mercury News that she believes the bill will have a sweeping cultural effect:

It does change the cultural perception of what rape is...There's this pervasive idea that if it's not super violent then it doesn't really count.

One dissenter, Gordon Finley of the National Coalition for Men, argued that the bill presumes the guilt of the accused:

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.

What do you think?