Yesterday, Saifullah Khan was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault. He had been charged with having sex with a woman who was too drunk to give consent. He claimed that the sex they had was consensual. Only afterward, he claims, did she rewrite the narrative of their encounter.

In light of this legal verdict, Khan’s lawyer said that Yale should readmit Khan after he was suspended in November 2015, three days before his arrest. The lawyer, Norm Pattis, said the University should “right that wrong” and welcome Khan back into the community.

Readmitting Khan would be a grievous mistake, as using legal standards of “not guilty” do not apply in a private community like Yale. Legal acquittal does not mean “innocence.” It does not mean that Khan did not engage in deeply dubious sexual conduct. It just means that a jury could not find that this sexual behavior was, to their eyes, rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Fortunately, a courtroom and a college community have different standards of proof. Here, the question is not, “Is this person absolutely guilty?” Instead, the question is more, “Has this person acted in such a way that their right to continued participation in our community is forfeit?”

To my eyes, the answer to the second question is, resoundingly, “Yes. His place here is forfeit.” Our University system requires a “preponderance of evidence” in the formal proceedings of the University-Wide Committee, which is our most trial-like approach to handling sexual misconduct and assault. A preponderance of evidence is the idea that, more likely than not, one person violated another.

There is certainly a preponderance of evidence that the sex that happened after the Halloween show in 2015 falls far outside the realm of appropriate. For unlike our legal system, Yale considers consent to be more than just “not rape.” Instead, Yale’s definition of consent is “positive, unambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in specific sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter.”

The alleged victim threw up several times and had to leave the Halloween Show, thus demonstrating that she was too intoxicated to give consent that was unambiguous. She could not walk unaided. She could not use her key unaided. She threw up again after they returned to her room. They struggled in sex and she had bruises from the encounter the next day. To all reasonable eyes, this is a portrait of someone too drunk to give positive, unambiguous, voluntary and continued consent. And it does not measure up to standards of consent laid out by Yale in its bylaws.

This line of reasoning can often lead conservatives to argue inflated ideas of false accusations, claiming that women “cry rape” unjustly. This is bogus. It comes from inflated fears of vindictive women suffering from a certain type of modern hysteria. No person with the best sexual intentions would have sex with someone that drunk, and no person with the best sexual intentions would struggle with someone they are having sex with to the point of bruising. Men can easily avoid being accused of assault by simply not assaulting women or being in situations that are ambiguous. Women say they are raped when they experienced something that felt like a serious violation. They do not say that they were raped simply because they want to ruin someone’s day.

The sex described between Khan and the alleged victim represents a disturbing failure to recognize another person’s interiority and understand how one’s own actions impact the livelihood of other people. The fact that Khan continued to participate in and initiate sex shows, at the very minimum, critically bad judgment and an overwhelming selfishness. Individuals who approach sex — one of the most vulnerable and intimate things we do — with such cavalier malice should be unwelcome at Yale.

Furthermore, it is unacceptable at Yale to put alleged victims on trial rather than alleged rapists, as the defense attempted to do. Khan’s lawyers commented on her Halloween costume and asked why she had not been dressed more modestly. After the trial, they dismissed this interaction as an “experiment.” This is a semi-eloquent version of “she was asking for it,” a misogynistic tactic that men habitually use to silence women who have experienced sexual violence by blaming them for their own assaults. The clothes women choose to wear are never invitations for assault, and rape is never a sexual experiment gone awry.

This problem extends far beyond the bounds of this one man or this one night. Just because the courts have found this example of sexual misconduct one in which the participant was “not guilty” does not mean it is acceptable or that Khan is innocent. He is not. And he — along with everyone else found to have a preponderance of evidence of sexual misconduct — should not be allowed back on our campus.

Amelia Nierenberg is a senior in Timothy Dwight College. Her column runs on alternate Thursdays. Contact her at amelia.nierenberg@yale.edu .

  • Penny Alvarez

    This opinion piece is riddled with cacophonous Red Scare-like alarmism. Not to mention it unfairly attacks an INNOCENT man for crimes he DID NOT commit. In fact, one might even say there’s some defamation contained by implying he did something a court of law has now ruled he did not do.

    I would caution Nierenberg and all YDN reporters to be careful how far they let the far left control news coverage. Maybe a few lawsuits will clear that up.

    • Linda C

      lol I didn’t know being against rape = a position of the far left

      • Rowenna

        It isn’t. Conservatives are against rape too.

        I wish I could say I didn’t know that being against false accusations was just a conservative position… but I did know it and people like you remind me daily.

        My guess is you would start kicking and screaming the moment you are accused of something you didn’t do… but we must believe the accuser right because due process doesn’t matter to you.

    • Don Barrett

      There is nothing “left” in this diatribe. The positions taken by the “#metoo” movement and pseudo-left groups working as the conduit of this reactionary witch-hunt politics shaped and crafted by the Democratic party have nothing to do with the fundamental defense of the rights of the working class to due process, presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and an equal and egalitarian political voice.

      The goal, of course, is the eradication of these rights in preparation for ever-more authoritarian forms of government. Some “left”.

      Those of us who consider their left positions somewhat more historically footed reject strongly this move — and also the red-baiting used by a section of its opponents, whose credentials as supposed advocates of democratic rights deserve their own scrutiny.

      The World Socialist Web Site has replied to Nierenberg’s editorial. I think their article is a useful left contribution to this conversation, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

      http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/14/yale-m14.html

  • James Galullo

    Before you re-try Mr. Khan, lets take a look at the “preponderance of evidence”. First of all the complainant did not throw up several times, she’s only corroborated once in Woolsey Hall. Her level of intoxication was questionable since over the period of time in question it wasn’t really that much (2) fingers of rum twice and (1) finger of bourbon. This is supported by her own witness that saw her and waved her into the YSO show after asking her if she was OK which she replied twice, yes. The video (close-up) of their walk from Woolsey to Trumbull College shows her walking unaided and smiling with approximately 15 minutes before her entry way is swiped by Mr. Khan. The complainant allowed Mr. Khan access to her room (3) times that night. Mr. Khan also on the obvious direction of the complainant, to go check on her friend whom both Mr. Khan and the friend testified they did not know each other. The bruises were not credible since they seemed much too old. The costume was introduced by the prosecution, not the defense. The complainant under cross examination told Yale Health requesting Plan B, that the sex was “consensual”. Nobody knows what happened in that room but them. Objectively Yale has done tremendous damage to this kid. My candid suggestion is allow Mr. Khan back in to complete his undergraduate studies and receive his degree. The complainant received hers.

    • Sam

      Plus the other male DNA in her anal swab put paid to her lie of not having sex for the prior 6 months. In contrast, the prosecution couldn’t find anything untruthful in Mr. Khan’s testimony. Like UVA’s Jackie, she escapes the consequences of her lies under the cover of anonymity while the male victims are exposed to public scrutiny. This is a shameful travesty.

  • habitualjoker

    There’s no detail that makes his guilt more obvious than her vomiting. Only someone really messed up would want to have sex with someone who just threw up, for a multitude of reasons…

  • habitualjoker

    A minor point: the chorus of Trump-supporting women who make the same sorts of excuses for Khan might be invisible to you, but do be aware that they’re there. It’s misogynists in general who make that argument, not only misogynistic men.

    • Rowenna

      Aren’t those ‘Trump supporting women’ the ones you accuse of Islamophobia?

      Guess its difficult for someone who does not understand principle to get their head around the idea of conservatives following principle.

      • habitualjoker

        I never accused anyone of Islamophobia. Whose comment are you responding to?

  • KS

    A jury found him NOT GUILTY…shame on you.

  • ourfoundingfathers

    “using legal standards of not guilty do not apply in a private community”. “Legal acquittal does not mean innocence”. So there exists in her world a judge behind the judge, who can “fix” any legal results that doesn’t fit her agenda. The “victim” has no responsibility here; no accountability for getting drunk. She gets toasted, and anything that happens in Amilia’s world is his problem. This writer exemplifies why our colleges have become cesspools of extreme fanatics.

  • James Hamilton Turner

    All well and good, but the fact remains that he hasn’t yet been found guilty by a UWC tribunal, and these matters should be permitted to run their course. “Amelia Nierenberg thinks he did it” is not grounds for refusal of reinstatement.

    Now that he’s been found not guilty, this case raises many interesting questions that I don’t think anyone really knows the answers to. Can he sue Yale for reinstatement? (Corollary: What was the original method of his suspension? An emergency suspension by the president?) Can someone who has failed in a criminal case bring a UWC case against someone, two-and-a-half years post facto? What was the nature of the quasi-collusion between the YPD and the Yale general counsel that resulted in the initial mistrial, and how does that affect the matter going forward? Is the preponderance of evidence standard even still in effect, now that DeVos has withdrawn the Dear Colleague letter?

    Then there’s a separate point about the nature of guilt. I do think that being found “not guilty” should absolve someone of bearing the social onus of culpability. That’s the bargain we make when we accept the legitimacy of the justice system (which you might well not, of course), and it’s important for the sake of social stability. The notion of “innocent before proven guilty” is not something that should be consigned to the courtroom alone — it is, in my mind, a critical and positive social ethic. I’m 95 percent certain Khan raped her. But it couldn’t be proven in a court of law — the only places where these matters should be litigated — and as such he should be reinstated and accorded the treatment we would offer to any regular member of society. Our personal biases should not affect that.

    (A larger, and more interesting, issue is that rape cases make progressives forget all their normal rhetoric about the evil and depravity of the carceral state and so on, but that’s something for a different time.)

  • Pam L.

    You are rewriting the facts revealed during the trial. Because of the comments about the trial that are written by female students and alumni, I suggest it is in the interest of any parent, whose son is considering applying to Yale, to just “say no.” That should satisfy those who continue to believe that young college women do not falsely accuse young college male students of sexual misconduct, as well as those who do not believe that a finding of innocent by a jury in a criminal trial should be tossed in the trash. Wow, Yale students really believe they are above the law. The preponderance of evidence in the Yale disciplinary process makes it extremely easy for anyone to accuse another person of anything. Good thing the hysteria of the Salem witch hunts is over. The fact that YDN continues to delete comments favoring Mr. Khan shows the cowardice of the YDN to show opposing views.

  • Pam L.

    You are rewriting the facts revealed during the trial. Because of the comments about the trial that are written by female students and alumni, I suggest it is in the interest of any parent, whose son is considering applying to Yale, to just “say no.” That should satisfy those who continue to believe that young college women do not falsely accuse young college male students of sexual misconduct, as well as those who do not believe that a finding of innocent by a jury in a criminal trial should be tossed in the trash. Wow, Yale students really believe they are above the law. The preponderance of evidence in the Yale disciplinary process makes it extremely easy for anyone to accuse another person of anything. Good thing the hysteria of the Salem witch hunts is over. The fact that YDN continues to delete comments favoring Mr. Khan shows the cowardice of the YDN to show opposing views.

  • Boott Spur

    The crux of the reasoning is thus — when the law does not lead us to the outcome we desire, we may construct one more to our liking.

  • Dios

    Wow! I invite Ms Nierenberg to consider getting ALL the facts before taking pen to paper. The prosecutor and the defense chose the jurors, therefore in agreement with the jury’s decision 1000% based on the facts. It is scary to believe that Ms Neirenberg can come up with what she wrote without looking at all the evidence, testimonies provided, etc. Had she done so, she would have known EXACTLY why the allege accuser threw up in her room, which by the way had nothing to do with alcohol. Objectivity and fact finding is lacking in your article. You are better than this piece you just wrote. Don’t be a puppet for FAKE News. Dare to prove you have the courage to lead journalism/story telling with truth even if the truth is not what you want to hear.

  • Dittersdorf451

    Given the sorry record of Yale University in the Patrick Witt case, the Jack Montague case, and the recent case involving possible collusion between two complainants, the author’s trust in Yale’s ability to adjudicate sexual misconduct is…misplaced. The author also fails to acknowledge that the accuser sent the accused off to find condoms on the evening in question. Nor does the author mention the misconduct which resulted in a mistrial.

  • Saph

    Yep. The vomiting is the clincher- if you’re hurling up your guts, you’re too drunk to consent to sex.

    Don’t readmit him.

    • Bob

      Food poisoning. Choking on a penis. A virus. Many things induce vomiting.

    • Doc1943

      “Too drunk to consent to sex”
      You have identified the problem and in doing so suggested a very reasonable solution. If one is unable to consent to sex due to alcohol intoxication, then
      it follows that anyone who is intoxicated and has sex has been raped.The school should pass a simple rule stating that anyone who has sex while intoxicated is expelled. Both parties to the event will be expelled . This is somewhat harsh but easier to adjudicate. If you drink dont drive. If you drink.dont f…k. Catchy slogan . Rape accusations should decline immediately.

  • Louis DelVecchio

    The fact the author thinks that a preponderance of evidence (>50%) and beyond a reasonable doubt (>80%-90%) is an egregious character flaw. You are a merely a columnist and you come off as if you are a rebel leading a fight to knock this man’s life in any way you can.
    I urge you to recenter and look at the merit of your motivations before you try to produce something useful to society.

  • Brixton

    The life of the law has not been logic, but victim shaming.

  • Matt Wideman

    Innocent until proven guilty. He was innocent while he was being accused and he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. You don’t get to reinvent the wheel because you don’t like the outcome of the case. “Due Process” is inconvenient for anyone who isn’t being accused. UNTIL YOU ARE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T DO. I didn’t see in your article the fact that the Yale police hid evidence from the defense or that they colluded with the college administrators in their investigation .

    • Dios

      Mr Wideman, I came back to this article to make the exact same statement you so eloquently made. Amelia Nierenberg wants to circumvent our laws to infect it with her definition of how the law should be because she said so. Unethical/Unprofessional of Ms N and YDN. People like Ms Nierenberg are part of the problem that is creating the monster of “cry wolf” that will hinder real victim, will make significantly more difficult REAL VICTIMS to be believed. This is not journalism, this is mind-numbing and desensitizing where REAL Victims will not have any Justice. Mindsets such as Ms Nierenberg’s allowed to spew her venom is not only dangerous but irresponsible of YDN to employ her. When REAL Victims are not being believed, a lot of fingers will be pointed back to Ms Nierenberg and YDN for their irresponsible, bias and simply demented reporting.

      Dear Mr Nierenberg and YDN, choosing to cherry pick the evidence to support a narrative that is popular is not reporting, it is criminal. I challenge you to be part of the solution, report it ALL or just stay away from a story that clearly is beyond your abilities.

  • B. McLeod

    “Alleged victim” would have been better before the verdict. Now, “asserted but never to be proven victim” would be better, or simply “accuser,” which is most accurate.

    Forgotten in this account is any mention of the mistrial initially declared because of the collusion between Yale’s administration and campus police, which was exposed by extremely untimely disclosures on the day testimony was to begin.

    It must be frustrating to the zealots in the mindless mob that, no matter how they put their thumbs on the scale, due process sometimes gets its day. In court.

  • Juan Diaz

    The accuser remains anonymous, yet Mr. Khan’s name has been driven through the mud. This constant victimization of women and demonization of men is the real problem in our society. A jury has ruled that Mr. Khan is not guilty. Justice has spoken. Yale should reinstate Mr. Khan.

    • Father Nelson

      AND identify the “victim”.

  • Dios
  • David M. Nieporent

    Ms. Nierenberg is correct that a university or other private entity (or even a public entity in a non-criminal context) is not required to use the same “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof as the criminal justice system. (A classic example is OJ Simpson, acquitted of murdering his ex-wife but found liable for it in civil court.)

    But… even with a lower standard of proof, one still needs to employ evidence and have actual rules, not just say, “Well, I don’t like the guy; he seems like a jerk.” The fact that the accuser threw up does not mean that she was unable to give consent. And the fact that she gives a certain version of events does not mean that this version is true. (For example, the jury, according to quotes in the NYT, rejected the idea that she couldn’t walk unaided.) And how the accuser “feels” is just not the standard in any context.

    And of course the “women don’t lie” is a canard. Women are people. (I’m pretty sure that’s been a consistent message of feminism for centuries.) People lie. All the time. For all sorts of reasons, good and bad.

    • ldffly

      “And of course the ‘women don’t lie’ is a canard. Women are people.
      (I’m pretty sure that’s been a consistent message of feminism for
      centuries.) People lie. All the time. For all sorts of reasons, good
      and bad.”

      If Yale had maintained even a semblance of its Calvinist roots, the students, faculty and administrators would not have to be reminded of this basic truth. They would already know this.

  • Liam McDonald

    It seems disingenuous that your argument is, Legal acquittal does not mean “innocence.”

    That’s exactly what it means. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is a societal choice not a legal requirement. Mr Khan was found “Not Guilty” so his innocence remains intact.

    To think otherwise would enable anyone, for any reason, to be able to destroy any other person through mere accusation.

  • dr steve brule

    Ms. N, do you just write this stuff because you have to meet a quota in order to keep your reputation?

    You should seek some outside sources.
    Innocent… until… PROVEN… guilty

    • Sam

      And the fundamental right to due process!

  • Steve Brown

    It is no accident Yale and its propaganda organ the Yale Daily News continues publish articles that are preying on the insecurities of youth and promoting mob justice. Its prefered method is the use of psuedo intellectual verbage, pseudo psychology and and an absence of logic quite beneath even the likes of Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan. Yale concludes that the junking legal protections developed over hundreds of years to be progressive and in the public good. This is of course far from the truth and harks back to the Wild West, to Jim Crow and vigilantism when capitalism was free to exercise any excess in the name of profits. The ending of democractic rights, legal protections and freedom of speech are the main targets of this and the #MeToo campaigns spear- headed man haters and opportunists. Not a wimper from them about defending the rights of the poor women, or of opposing the crimes against immigrant families or opposition to world war being prepared by both D’s and R’s.

  • Tom Peters

    A socialist response criticising this article can be found on the World Socialist Web Site. It correctly describes the demand for Khan to be banned as an attack on basic democratic legal rights. It’s a kind of vigilantism that has more in common with the far right than anything progressive. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/14/yale-m14.html

    • Rowenna

      You seem to have a misunderstanding of the political spectrum (understandable if you are mostly exposed to leftist ideology via the education system and media).

      The ‘far right’ believes in identity politics and big government – two key points which conservatives and the ‘right’ do not share but that are shared with the left. The difference in identity politics between the ‘far right’ and left is just a matter of who is in power – the principle underlying identity politics is the same regardless of which identity group you cheer for.

      So the ‘far right’ are actually just a different version of the left and share nothing of significance with conservatives.

      Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility which by nature means limited government. There is considerable overlap between conservatism and Christianity because the values of conservatism are based on Christianity – that is not to say all conservatives are Christian (many aren’t) but the value system is shared. Christianity does not support vigilantism at all – Jesus taught that vegence belonged to the Lord and that His followers should love even their enemy.

    • Bob

      That was an excellent opinion piece you linked too. I have to admit I’m a little shocked such a reasonable piece is on a socialist website. 😉

      You may find this account of the trial interesting because its author sat through the entire trial and interviewed several jurors after the verdict. She notes that the accuser frequently used common victim activist terminology to avoid answering questions on cross-examination. Claims that that she was in and out of consciousness during the alleged assault; her memories were “fragmented;” that she was “traumatized” and “in a state of shock.”

      https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43043/

  • James Galullo

    Yale administration will move its bet over…..Mr. Khan will be taken back. Prediction.

  • Maximus300

    Based on the observations of people who have no interest in the outcome and who actually sat through the trial, including two jurors, it is apparent that the accuser lied about the interactions with the accused. Physical evidence also showed that she was not intoxicated to the point of incapacity. Seems like a case or either morning after regret or she decided to “get” the accused after he rejected her. Fortunately, the author of this piece is not the arbiter of what constitutes sexual misconduct. “Always believe the accuser” is not a reasonable standard based in reality. Proving credibility is a requirement to be believed. I do not know what life in the Yale bubble is like, but based on this authors description it is not based in reality. Hopefully it is just the author and not Yale.

  • Andrew Squigmann

    “Readmitting Khan would be a grievous mistake, as using legal standards of “not guilty” do not apply in a private community like Yale. Legal acquittal does not mean “innocence.””

    Thank you for revealing the intellectual standards of your average, immature, shrieking, fascistic harpy that attends Yale. God help the real world when you enter it, you entitled ignorant shrew.

  • Andrew Squigmann

    Did you sleep through high school government class and still get accepted into Yale? I pray you are not going to law school.

  • Andrew Squigmann

    Please don’t ever go to law school, you fascistic little harpy.

  • dkm3414

    Did Ms. Nierenberg sit through the entire trial and ‘rightly’ come to the decision to ‘forfeit’ Mr. Khan’s earned privilege to study at Yale. No, she did not.

    But Ms. Nierenberg surely reminds us of the braying accusers, who read the facts through the spectrum of their anger with campus sexual politics (rightly so), and immaturely make the fatal mistake of stepping into facts, they not know.

    Indeed Mr. Khan has earned his right to continue his education at Yale. Those of you in the Yale community need to look inward at your own behaviors in this matter and help him reclaim the Yale life he had before you let the jackals out.

  • halcrawford

    Ms. Nierenberg demands that Yale must address the question, “Has this person acted in such a way that their right to continued participation in our community is forfeit?”

    Even if one were to endorse such a tribal notion at Yale, how would you answer the question regarding the accuser? She has demonstrated multiple falsehoods in her accusations against Kahn. Even if one were to conclude that rape did indeed occur (and I am of the belief that since the accuser had to lie to reinforce her stories about his guilt, I’m skeptical of the actual act), her own character now stands on trial in the Yale “community.” If Kahn doesn’t deserve to remain within Yale’s hallowed halls, then certainly neither does his accuser.

  • skeptical1776

    There is something incredibly creepy and repulsive about Ms. Nierenberg. She reincarnates the “judges” of the Salem “witches”, the Grand Inquisitors of the dark Middle Ages, the secret police of Stalin. The German denouncers of defenseless Jewish people hiding in cellars.

    Sending them to death camps with the certainty of a pathological self-assurance.
    Most emphatically, Amelia Nierenberg IS the moral equivalent of IRMA IDA ILSE GRESE.

    The only difference is that Amelia Nierenberg engages in evil because of her vocation, not because anybody pushed her.

  • skeptical1776

    Let’s cancel the judicial process altogether.

    Let’s proclaim Amelia Nierenberg, the progeny of a long line of Kapos, as our Supreme Leader who will decide guilt and innocence for us all.

  • Nancy Morris

    Preponderance of the evidence? What appears below is from REASON Magazine, who interviewed a female alternate juror who said the evidence convinced her not just that there was a “reasonable doubt” of Khan’s guilt, but instead PROVED TO HER THAT KHAN IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT:

    Elise Wiener [is] a 56-year-old mother of three who served as an alternate juror in the case, who says she would have eagerly voted to acquit Khan if given the chance.

    “It just didn’t add up,” Wiener tells me. “I think he’s innocent, I think he doesn’t deserve this, and I think it’s sad.”

    Wiener didn’t get to attend the jury’s deliberations, but she sat through the entire trial, evaluating all the evidence the prosecution presented. She came away quite convinced that there was little to support the accuser’s story.

    “It was like George Orwell, like 1984, where you’re looking at [the evidence], and they’re saying it’s the complete opposite of what it looked like,” said Wiener. ….
    Two key pieces of evidence were supposed to establish Khan’s guilt. The first was surveillance footage of Khan and the accuser walking to her dorm. According to the prosecution, this footage showed Khan dragging an unwilling victim. But that’s not what Wiener saw.

    “She was strolling with him with a big grin,” said Wiener. “And that was supposed to show that she was in a drunken stupor, and she was being dragged by him?”
    The video footage, according to Wiener, simply didn’t support the prosecution’s argument.

    Then there were the text messages. As The New York Times characterized them:
    After Mr. Khan left, the victim said, she looked through her phone and found that he had sent messages to her friends on her behalf the night before, declining their invitations to meet up after the show.

    Such a specifically deceitful act would indeed make Khan’s guilt seem more likely. The problem—unacknowledged by The Times—was that the prosecution could present no evidence that Khan had sent those messages instead of the accuser.
    “There’s no evidence that it was him,” said Wiener. “It’s just not evidence, it’s conjecture.”

    I asked Wiener why the accuser would make up such a story—why she would go to such lengths to punish Khan. Wiener saw a couple of possibilities. One was that she woke up revolted with herself for having slept with Khan. The other, more benign explanation is that she really had convinced herself she hadn’t consented to sex. In either case, Wiener felt the evidence simply wasn’t in her favor.

    Other jurors apparently reached the same conclusion, according to The Times:

    The juror who spoke anonymously said that the panel had not focused on the banter or on Mr. Pattis’s suggestion that the woman’s Halloween costume had been too sexy. Instead, the jurors focused on evidence like security camera footage that showed the complainant and Mr. Khan walking back to her dorm room. The complainant had testified that the footage showed her so drunk that she was unable to support herself, her leg dragging behind her.

    “We looked at and we looked at and we looked at that video of them walking,” the juror said. “We could not see her leg dragging. We could not see her eyes shut. We could not see what she said.”

  • SGT Ted

    Amelia Nierenberg is little more than a fascist. A Feminazi, if you will.

  • 20155

    The strange thing about a story like Saif’s is that what is decided in the courtroom doesn’t necessarily reflect all of the information out there.

    Saif and I were in the same very broad social circle. I have no clue whether he committed a crime that night. However, based on how his actions have affected friends of mine, he has been involved in some morally questionable sexual behaviors, though not criminal in these instances. There had also been rumours going around about Saif and sexual misconduct for years before he was arrested (none of which involved my friends, so I can’t verify these).

    It is generally a pretty terrible idea to judge someone off rumours, but there is no denying that Saif was in murky water for various incidents before he was arrested. As a consequence, I can see how many Yalies who have inside information could have been inclined to think he was guilty despite the case against him in court being weak.

    Based on what happened to people I know many years ago, yes, I am inclined to think Saif is guilty of misconduct (even if not in this specific case). I may be wrong, and I really hope I am. But I can definitely see the frustration that current students feel, especially as they (rightly or wrongly) believe they have more information than what entered the judicial system.

    • James Galullo

      Those opinions are subjective prejudicial and hearsay that’s why the judge denied the motion from the prosecution to allow those people to testify. Micro-Aggression is not sexual misconduct. There nothing more than opinions and hearsay and should not be allowed in as witness testimony during whatever internal Yale process is going forward with Mr. Khan. In effect Yale would be putting their hands on the scale where the preponderance of evidence would be weighed against the defendant. Has Yale factored in that this whole thing might’ve been manufactured by the complainant?

    • NealK

      You’re so brave to come forward with this information and not use your name.

    • Father Nelson

      You’re beyond ridiculous and delusional.

  • Bobby Obvious

    Huh, “She could not walk unaided. She could not use her key unaided.” If you really believe that, why not show the video? SHOW THE VIDEO!

    Why not show print the commentary of the female alternate juror who said, “I think he’s innocent, I think he doesn’t deserve this, and I think it’s sad.”
    “She was strolling with him with a big grin. And that was supposed to show that she was in a drunken stupor, and she was being dragged by him?”
    The video footage, according to Wiener, simply didn’t support the prosecution’s argument.

  • dueprocess

    For a far more reasoned and accurate rendition of the evidence, jurors’ reasoning, and the issue itself, please see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-yale-rape-trial-isnt-over-yet/article/2012035

  • ThirteenthLetter

    >Legal acquittal does not mean “innocence.”

    Yeah, it kind of does.

    • Viola Lee

      No, it does not. The verdict is phrased as “not guilty” as opposed to “innocent.” A “not guilty” verdict is not proof of innocence.

      • skeptical1776

        ..

      • skeptical1776

        ..

      • Father Nelson

        You’re ridiculous.

      • Andrew Squigmann

        Innocence is presumed. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Anyone with a halfway decent eighth grade education could tell you that, you moron.

  • Father Nelson

    Ms. Nierenberg is the typical overweight, unattractive, unintelligent, “humanities” student who will have a very difficult time finding gainful employment as a ridiculous, irrational, delusional social justice warrior.