The possibility isn’t exactly hidden and there is already a school policy against having sex while drunk.
No there isn't.
He took a chance that the woman he was having sex with wouldn’t press charges and he was wrong.
As she likewise did, although she was right. He didn't have anyone pressuring him to call consensual sexual activity rape and so he didn't. Neither did she until she was pressured into it.
There is no reason he could not have waited until morning to sober up, call her and talk to her.
There was no reason she could not have waited until the morning to sober up, call him and talk to him. Instead she went to his room. Everything that applies to him equally applies to her. If he sexually assaulted her then she sexually assaulted him.
Instead he texted her to come over after the initial activity was over because he knew that he could get laid because she was so drunk.
I assume you have a source for this last part? Nowhere in any of the documents I've seen, including the official complaints and investigations, is it ever alleged that he targeted (for lack of a better word) her because she was drunk.
He was thinking with his “little head” and made a poor decision.
Indeed, he thought when a woman said yes, having shown the ability to send text messages (including to one of her friends saying how she was about to have sex), sneak out of her own room (something she was proud of), make it to his room and then engage in sexual intercourse that "yes" actually meant "yes". As it turned out, that was a terrible decision. Apparently "yes" actually means "yes until I regret it in the morning and get pressured into claiming I was sexually assaulted."
He probably also thought that seeing as he was as drunk as her the conclusion would be... as the police found... that it was drunken consensual sex between adults. Not that she would be pressured into calling it rape and he would be targeted because he "fitted the profile" of a rapist, that profile being... and I kid you not... that he had a high GPA, was part of a sports team, a valedictorian and came from "a good family".
The dangerous precedent people are discussing here is that a woman has to live with his poor decision, while he receives the pleasure and can continue to do so again.
So because she regretted it the morning after it becomes rape and sexual assault?
I find this disturbing that men become so frightened when alcohol makes a woman unable to consent.
And I find it utterly disturbing that we can ignore a woman's consent or pretend she doesn't mean what she says on the basis that she's had a bit to drink. Reread the evidence and then reread the list Kylie linked to and I quoted on guidelines that someone is too drunk to consent. She touches on maybe two of them at most.
Picking up random people in a bar is dangerous.
He didn't pick up a random person at a bar. If anything she picked him up.
Women have had to worry about the dangers for decades. So, I am sorry to say that the men now have to be a little more discerning and careful when drinking and picking out sexual partners.
He didn't pick her out. She picked out him. He then asked her to return and she did. She went to the room of a clearly intoxicated man (who fits just as many as the "too drunk to consent" guidelines as she does) who she'd already "picked up" (to use colloquial terms) and engaged in sexual activity with for the purposes of having sex and had sex with him. If I knew a girl was drunk... apparently too drunk to consent... waited for his friends to leave (as she did), went to her room and then had sex with her, wouldn't I be liable for sexual assault? Why the double standard?
As for the reverse situation, many rape cases were dropped because a woman brought a man back to her apartment. Hell, many rape cases are dropped because of what she was wearing. So maybe we need to pull back a moment to place the amount of rape cases that are thrown out, dropped or not considered due to things like who invited who over and such.
I'm not sure I see the point here. Is it that because something bad happens we should make sure more bad things happen to "even it out"?
I did not say she is blameless Andy. She made a poor decision, but the school is not going to expel a rape victim. Also he never filed a complaint against her for sexual misconduct. So he can hardly expect her to be expelled for reporting him.
1) According to the college she didn't
make a decision. That's the point.
2) The only reason she's a rape victim and not a rapist is because she complained first. Everything that condemns him also condemns her.
So he can hardly expect her to be expelled for reporting him.
So the college is made aware of the actions of a sexual predator on the campus and doesn't investigate but instead expels the victim?
If he sexually assaulted her then she sexually assaulted him. If one is to be expelled the only fair result is to expel them both. Hiding behind a "well, one complained and one didn't" not only gives a perverse incentive to report every bout of sexual activity where alcohol has been consumed as a sexual assault (to cover your own ass) but it also allows the college to bury its head in the sand when it does come to sexual assault. By its own standards the college is allowing a sexual predator to remain at the college, free to strike again. And as the college staff member who pressured the Jane Doe into making the complaint makes clear, the college's view is that sexual predators are normally repeat offenders. From what information we have she came from a good family, she had a high level of academic achievement and she was sporty... all of which also indicate she's a rapist according to the college.