Knepper went on CBS’ Good Morning America to debate the column. And . . . he sounds pretty reasonable and elaborates on his argument on about the same grounds as I thought he was going for. He points out that in his most inflammatory quote “any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex,” he deliberately chose the word ‘indicate’ as opposed to actually giving consent to point out how the situation looks to an observer. He specifically states that if, at any time, a girl says ‘no,’ and the man has sex or attempts to have sex with her, it is undeniably and absolutely rape. And, again, with his point that the lines of sex are blurry and verbal, affirmative consent is rarely given (see ‘COL Student’ and his seventy-dozen sex romps, above), context is key here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/american-rape-column_n_520630.html

Again, I think he’s overstating the case — he says that there are ‘thousands’ of false date rape claims, though I’d certainly question that over any appreciable reasonable period of time. And he discounts the fact that most real rape cases don’t even get reported, which is a far worse issue. His final comment comparison about how, as a gay guy, he wouldn’t walk around in the rural Deep South late at night holding hands with a male partner compares to date rape sounds, well, exactly like “She was asking for it,” which is an abhorrent return to blaming the victim — but more importantly, it’s not his original point. His point wasn’t women that go to parties, drink and head back to dorms with guys deserve to be raped, his point was that women who do go to parties, drink and head back with guys and allow themselves to engage in sex with guys even if they (internally) don’t want to should not be considered date rape, since there was no way for the guy to know that there was a lack of consent.

You asked “why do college newspapers only publish inflammatory or centrist authors?” The answer: because with the PC police now out in full force—at Georgetown and elsewhere—any author who is not “centrist” is automatically seen as “inflammatory.” Any time an author steps outside the bounds of pre-approved topics and positions, it becomes “racist,” “sexist,” “divisive,” “hurtful,” “insulting,” etc., etc., etc.

I don’t blame the papers for who they print. I blame the readers who, based on their own lack thinness of skin, assume that anything they disagree with must be somehow “inflammatory.”

Also, I 100% agree with both Matt and COL Student. Those are two uniquely well-written Vox comments.