California defines “yes” in student sex bill

September 29, 2014

yes_logoCalifornia Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that creates new rules for college students in the state who engage in sexual activity. [LA Times]

The new law defines sexual consent as an “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” It states that lack of resistance or silence does not equate consent, and that students cannot achieve consent when one is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol.

The restrictions apply to all universities in California, public or private, that receive state-funded financial aid.

Democratic state senators Kevin de Leon and Hanna Beth Jackson authored the legislation. They introduced the bill after accusations surfaced of universities improperly investigating sexual assault allegations.

Kevin Rice


It mandates university policies that allow universities to discipline students (i.e., expel, etc.) for conduct that does not necessarily reach the standard of CRIMINAL conduct.

You need to understand the difference between CRIMINAL and ADMINISTRATIVE (CIVIL) to understand what the law does. It mandates a whole new hierarchy of CIVIL “prosecution” against students. It is designed to “go after” students that did not commit a crime by making them susceptible to being investigated, disciplined and/or expelled for non-crimes.

It’s the difference between an arrest for a crime and being fined by the city for leaving your trash cans out. In the latter case, you have no criminal protection and are guilty until proven innocent.

The law STRIPS students of their criminal protection rights:

(1) to be convicted by a jury of their peers

(2) to face their accuser

(3) “beyond reasonable doubt”

(4) most important: innocent until proven guilty

INSTEAD, it creates a CIVIL process where CIVIL standards apply:

(1) “preponderance of the evidence”

(2) not an offense against the state—instead, an “offense” against the university

(3) not jail time—instead, discipline or expel

(4) no jury—instead, a board of academics

(5) no protection against “inadmissible” evidence or search/seizure


This law continues a long practice of eroding our rights against criminal prosecution, replacing CRIMINAL procedures with ADMINISTRATIVE/CIVIL procedures.


Wow! When did we need the government to define the meaning of “YES”? I’m pretty sure that if there is a dispute between persons regarding sexual conduct/contact/rape/molestation or harassment, local/county & state law enforcement, as well as our legal system are prepared to address this. By signing a law that defines sexual consent dose nothing to prevent or prove consent in a he said she said event.


Let’s face the facts. Our legislators are embarrassing.