Dear Commons Community,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has three articles today covering the “Yes Means Yes” legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California that explicitly requires colleges and universities that receive state funds to define consent in students’ sexual encounters in terms of “yes means yes” rather than the traditional “no means no.”

Mr. Brown’s signing of the “affirmative consent” bill ushers in a new era in the debate about how to curb sexual assaults on college campuses.

A 2007 study by the National Institute of Justice found that one in five women will be sexually assaulted in college. Congress, state lawmakers, and activists have recently been applying intense pressure on colleges to compel them to strengthen their policies against sexual assault.

At California colleges, students must ensure they have the affirmative consent of their partners at the beginning of a sexual encounter and maintain that consent throughout the activity. The law states that consent “can be revoked at any time.” The absence of “no,” the law says, is insufficient to indicate consent.

The bill’s supporters, who include activists who this month delivered a petition to Mr. Brown’s office urging him to sign the bill, have hailed the measure as an important step in clarifying the standard colleges should use in investigating sexual-assault cases. Some critics have warned, however, that the law tramples on the due-process rights of accused students.

Further details on this legislation an be found at:

http://chronicle.com/article/California-Shifts-to-Yes/149057/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

http://chronicle.com/article/What-California-s-New/149059/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

http://chronicle.com/article/How-Yes-Means-Yes-Already/149055/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Paul Krugman’s column in today’s New York Times posits that political balance rests on a foundation of ignorance, in which the public has no idea on how the superrich live and manipulate the system to their advantage. He points out that while there is overwhelming support for higher minimum wages, and a majority favors higher taxes at the top, confronting extreme inequality hasn’t been an election-winning issue. He further comments:

“Does the invisibility of the very rich matter? Politically, it matters a lot. Pundits sometimes wonder why American voters don’t care more about inequality; part of the answer is that they don’t realize how extreme it is. And defenders of the superrich take advantage of that ignorance. When the Heritage Foundation tells us that the top 10 percent of filers are cruelly burdened, because they pay 68 percent of income taxes, it’s hoping that you won’t notice that word “income” — other taxes, such as the payroll tax, are far less progressive. But it’s also hoping you don’t know that the top 10 percent receive almost half of all income and own 75 percent of the nation’s wealth, which makes their burden seem a lot less disproportionate.”

The Heritage Foundation if just the tip of the spin iceberg that the superrich use to influence public and voter opinion. There are hundreds of other foundations, institutes, lobbying groups, and PACs (i.e., American Enterprise Institute, NRA, Koch Brothers) focusing attention away from issues of inequality. The Tea Party has lots of grassroots support but is funded largely by big money interests.  In sum, the superrich have figured out how to control information to large segments of American society and in the process influence many of the day’s issues and debates.

Tony