I&#x27;ll provide the text original to me from my other comment here as well:<p>When you can be found to have committed sexual assault over the top of your &quot;victim&quot;&#x27;s vociferous assurance that nothing of the kind happened, you need to read the sexual assault policy as if it will only ever be used to justify finding you responsible for sexual assault, because that is the case. Where there is ambiguity in the policy, it is fair to read it as if any formal proceeding will interpret it as far as is possible in favor of the accuser (or farther). And in the Minding the Campus report, 18 of 55 schools were found to have policies involving no stated threshold at all, while using language that is deliberately weaker than the legal standard for rape. At those schools, you are vulnerable to a claim of rape if the girl has had any amount of alcohol, just as you&#x27;re vulnerable to a claim of rape <i>by campus administration</i> if the girl had nothing to drink, maintains an ongoing relationship with you, and makes the formal statement that you never raped her at any point.<p>If you want to appeal to the idea that vague policies are benign as long as they&#x27;re applied reasonably in practice, then (a) this is a deeply misguided approach to a justice system, specifically designed to allow persecution on flimsy grounds of anyone disfavored, and (b) the facts are clear that, as applied, college sexual assault policies are being used to convict boys who have done nothing wrong. As cited in Emily Yoffe&#x27;s article, one higher education insurer found that of the sexual-assault-related claims it paid from 2006 to 2010, 72% went to men suing their school for railroading them.