Kavanaugh Lynching: Campus Rape-Culture Hysteria Invades America
Print Friendly and PDF

When Christine Blasey Ford accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape, she, her Leftist lawyers and her crackpot supporters demanded that the typical procedures for getting at the truth be turned upside down. This has shocked normal Americans. But it just means that Campus Rape-Culture Hysteria has escaped the asylum and is now invading America.


  • First, Ford backers didn’t want her to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, abrogating Kavanaugh’s right to face his accuser and permitting her to avoid supporting her accusations.
  • Then they wanted Kavanaugh to testify first, which would force Kavanaugh to answer her cloudy charges before he heard them.
  • Third, Kavanaugh would have to prove his innocence because when it comes to rape, we must believe the accuser.

Recent Campus Rape-Culture atrocities make it clear where these ground rules came from.

  • After the 2006-2007 Duke Rape Hoax, President Richard Brodhead did not fire the professors and administrators who lied about the lacrosse players. Duke’s Board of Trustees did not fire Brodhead. Instead, it rewarded him. Not a single one of the Duke faculty or bureaucrats who joined in the witch hunt was so much as reprimanded.

Never happenedBut the Duke Rape Hoax was also a Main Stream Media failure. The editors and reporters who made the real victims into household names and destroyed their lives, refused to name the real perp, career criminal Crystal Gail Mangum, now a convicted murderess. [Media Faulted In Duke Case, by Nick Madigan, The Sun, April 12, 2007]  As far as I have been able to determine, not one of those crooked newsmen was fired either. Indeed, in recent years, some fake newsmen have even sought to revive the Duke Rape Hoax!

But then two white men, Richard Bradley and Steve Sailer, asked the obvious questions. Then came The Washington Post, to its credit, and the hoax fell apart. [‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle, by T. Rees Shapiro, January 8, 2016]

The “rapists” didn’t exist. Coakley made up the whole thing to get the attentions of a boy. She too escaped punishment—and the media still hide her identity because she was a sex-crime “victim.” (It became public thanks to Charles C. Johnson—see Meet the divisive blogger who says he outed Rolling Stone’s ‘Jackie’, By Terrence McCoy, WaPo, December 9, 2014.)

Campus rape hoaxes, which parallel campus race hoaxes go back at least to the late 1970s. But they took off in the early 1990s, and then again after the Duke Rape Hoax. Here’s how readily these claims trip off the tongue of a “victim”—at a 1979 campus Christmas party at SUNY Stony Brook, a cute coed, accompanied by her boyfriend, told me that she had been gang-raped, but hadn’t known until a mutual friend explained it. How is that possible?

  • In 2014, two coeds at Northwestern University, undergraduate Yoona Ha, and graduate student Lauren Leydon-Hardy, claimed falsely that philosophy professor Peter Ludlow violated them three years earlier. They then went after the self-proclaimed feminist professor, Laura Kipnis, who documented and further exposed their hoax.

That story: In 2015, Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis wrote two essays on campus sexual paranoia for the Chronicle of Higher Education—including the Ludlow case—which were greeted by a firestorm of condemnation and marches by campus feminists. [Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe, February 27, 2015] But Kipnis also inspired many letters from heterosexual men destroyed by these Title IX inquisitions. Subsequently, Kipnis published a book on the controversy: Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus.

Kipnis traced the problem to Title IX, a section of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act added in 1972. it forbids “discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.” In 2011, President Barack Obama turned Title IX into a weapon. Through his Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, he ordered universities to transform themselves into criminal justice agencies, in effect resulting in the persecution of innocent, white heterosexual men for non-existent rapes.

Obama’s Office of Civil Rights decreed that the threshold of guilt would no longer be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard for a criminal trial, but instead “a preponderance of evidence,” the standard for a civil trial. The idea was to radically increase the percentage of “convictions.”

Did it ever!

Kipnis reported that Title IX officers are typically man-hating feminists, each serving as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. The verdict is virtually always “Guilty!”

Simultaneously, a criterion for sexual “consent” has been imposed on campuses that was a national laughingstock when originally introduced at Antioch College in 1991. Called “affirmative consent,” it requires a man to get explicit permission before making his move to touch, kiss, or make love to her. According to the new dispensation, every heterosexual man older than 30 is a rapist.

How to justify wild notions like affirmative consent, which effectively proscribe heterosexual liaisons and turn the presumption of innocence upside down? With the Campus Rape-Culture myth! This holds that 20 percent of coeds suffer completed or attempted rape during college, and that just 2 percent of rape accusers make false accusations. The real rape number: more like 1 in 200. The real false accusation rate: more than 40 percent. Kipnis traced the fakestats to Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 screed, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.

College “legal” proceedings had already become an outrage before Obama, with no right to:

  • the defendant’s presumption of innocence;
  • face one’s accuser;
  • cross-examine her;
  • see the “evidence” against one;
  • tape-record proceedings, or
  • even be represented by a lawyer.

See where this is going?

Which brings us back Ludlow. Yoona Ha (a Korean immigrant) accused Ludlow of forcing alcohol on her and groping her, insinuating that he’d raped her (“sexually assaulted”). When Lauren Leydon-Hardy, a Canadian citizen, heard Ha’s charges, she accused Ludlow of rape, or “non-consensual sex.” Both initiated secret Title IX campus actions and public, federal, Title IX-based lawsuits. Ha also sued Ludlow using the Illinois Gender Violence Act [Yoona Ha v. Nw. Univ., Casetext, Nov. 13, 2014.]

Unusually, Northwestern did not uphold Ha’s charge of “sexual assault,” but its Title IX administrator did rule that Ludlow was guilty of “sexual harassment” and issued a set of draconian punishments. Ludlow resigned during his termination hearings.[ Another Harasser Resigns, By Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed, November 4, 2015]

But then Kipnis contacted Ludlow. He shared thousands of text messages showing that both girls initiated contact with him, inviting him out to cultural events or lunch.

Leydon-Hardy’s lawsuits asserted that she and Ludlow had sex only twice, both times after drinking, with one time being “nonconsensual.” But in fact Leydon-Hardy and Ludlow had been lovers for almost three months, a secret she kept from Northwestern administrators and the courts.

Ludlow gave Kipnis 2,000 text messages that proved the affair. Leydon-Hardy had spent a few nights a week at Ludlow’s apartment, and drove his car. He dreamed of marrying her.

But Leydon-Hardy was juggling two lovers. Her boyfriend in Boston didn’t know about Ludlow, but Ludlow knew about him. Eventually, she dropped Ludlow, and married the other man.

Kipnis’ theory: a strapped Ha needed the money from a frivolous Title IX lawsuit to pay her pricey tuition, while Leydon-Hardy needed to hang a rape charge on Ludlow to pacify her jealous husband. Feminist professors, Kipnis wrote, aggressively encouraged both students. 

Leydon-Hardy also published a dishonest op-ed about her case in Huffington Post under her own name, but without revealing that she was the “victim.” [What’s A President to Do?: Trampling Title IX And Other Scary Ideas by Lauren Leydon-Hardy, Huffington Post, Updated June 5, 2015.]

Yoona Ha lost her Title IX lawsuit against Northwestern, but she’s still there as a journalism graduate student.

Peter Ludlow lost his Title IX lawsuit against Northwestern for gender discrimination and defamation, and against NU Vice President Alan Cubbage and Lauren Leydon-Hardy.

However, that is the case in which “Leydon-Hardy” was identified by name by federal District Court judge Sara L. Ellis as Ludlow’s lover and antagonist:

“Ludlow and Leydon-Hardy had a consensual, romantic relationship from approximately October 2011 to January 2012”. [Ludlow v. Northwestern University et al, Justia, August 28, 2015]

Leydon-Hardy has initiated secret Title IX actions and federal Title IX lawsuits (as “Jane Doe”) against everybody. Before her rape hoax against Ludlow, she’d initiated an action against a young male friend from school. She then sued Ludlow and Northwestern separately.

After Kipnis’ first Chronicle of Higher Education essay, Leydon-Hardy and another anonymous classmate initiated a Title IX action against Kipnis. This inspired Kipnis to write a second Chronicle of Higher Education essay. Leydon-Hardy’s grounds were that Kipnis had described her as “litigious,” and Kipnis’ first essay constituted “retaliation”. [My Title IX Inquisition, by Laura Kipnis, May 29, 2015]

When Kipnis’ book was published, Leydon-Hardy anonymously sued Kipnis and her publisher, Harper Collins, in federal court for defamation, public disclosure of private facts, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [Female Student Who Initiated Title IX Witch Hunt Against Laura Kipnis Is Now Suing Her, by Robby Soave, Reason, May. 18, 2017] On March 6, 2018, federal district judge, John Robert Blakey, rejected Kipnis and Harper Collins’ petition to dismiss Leydon-Hardy’s suit.[Doe v. HarperCollins Publisher, LLC, Leagle.com, March 6, 2018]

Leydon-Hardy is mounting a contradictory defense. Truth is an absolute defense against charges of defamation. The facts are in the text messages. But Leydon-Hardy is suing to suppress them, claiming invasion of privacy.

Where that lawsuit will end is anyone’s guess, but Kipnis counts six frivolous Title IX actions and lawsuits by Leydon-Hardy so far. But who knows how many she has filed? She wages legal war as “Jane Doe.”

And get this: One of Leydon-Hardy’s philosophy classmates at Northwestern, now at Yale Law School, is named Kathryn Pogin. Aside from trying to discredit Kipnis with letters to the Chronicle of Higher Education, she is one of the activists leading the charge against Kavanaugh at Yale Law School. [Hundreds Of Yale Students Protest Kavanaugh, Demand Investigation by Nina Golgowski, Huffington Post, Sept. 25, 2018].

Leydon-Hardy is still at Northwestern, as a Ph.D. student in philosophy. Her victim, Peter Ludlow, whom she has rendered unemployable, moved to Mexico, where it is cheaper to live.

Now we can guess where Christine Blasey Ford got the idea for her war on Brett Kavanaugh. She’s been in university—or as I call it, antiversity—her entire adult life

This is the tyranny that Ford, feminist Cultural Marxists, Congressional Democrats and their MSM adjunct, seek to impose on us all.

Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.

Print Friendly and PDF