The editorial board at UCLA’s Daily Bruin is all in favor of the 2014 “affirmative consent” law — which requires that consent “be ongoing throughout a sexual activity” — even though, you know, humans don’t actually act this way.
“Recent research findings on how college students perceive and give consent,” the board writes, “seems [sic] to show that affirmative consent is not a reality in many college students’ sexual lives.”
Regardless, the Golden State “must uphold its affirmative consent law as a legal standard for evaluating sexual assault cases effectively.”
Jason Laker, a San Jose State University professor who researched consent in college students’ sexual activities in order to formulate better policies to prevent sexual coercion and violence, criticized the affirmative consent law for excluding students who are introverted and less likely to ask for or voice consent when engaging in sexual activity. He also added that in his and his research partner’s interviews with students, they found that people give nonverbal social cues to indicate their consent, and that in some instances, students verbally give consent, but only after coercion.
MORE: Affirmative-consent can create ‘sexually hostile’ environment
However true Laker’s observations are, affirmative consent in California has helped clear the haziness that surrounds sexual assault cases. By mandating the “yes means yes” policy, it is much easier for California law enforcement officials and judges to evaluate sexual assault cases and make less ambiguous, yet more ethical rulings.
They go on to reiterate that “unambiguous consent” is unrealistic, but nonetheless the courts cannot “protect individuals […] without such a standard of comparison.”
But like what? The law doesn’t overcome the “he said/she said” scenario. How could it?
The editors do concede the law could be improved, but don’t offer any ideas. Here are a couple quick suggestions:
First, make sure the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, as is the basis in basic criminal law; second, include language so the law’s (consent) requirements do not potentially implicate one party (or both) in something like sexual harassment.
MORE: Sexual-consent bill finally signed into California law
MORE: ‘Affirmative consent’ gets thumbs down in national poll
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
IMAGE: Blue Sky Image/Shutterstock
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.