Political consultants extended the presidential campaign season to 4 years, 24/7, 365 days each year in order to increase not only their earnings, but also their control over what the candidates say and think. They dictate the policies and positions of the candidates. This should have been clear after the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. Both times the Republican candidates should have won but for their campaign advisers.
Then there are consultants hired by local, state and federal governments, and even corporations to select leaders, and to create guidelines for programs and public policies.
Many of the consultants are academics, professors, researchers, etc. It is common knowledge that police, FBI agents, politicians, lawyers and doctors are corruptible. Lawyers and journalists are exposed as having intimate financial incentives from crime families or individual criminals. It is more difficult for ordinary civilians to believe that psychiatrists can be employed by the same criminal organizations. So the next question is why not academics? Why are they never employed by criminal organizations? Do any of the above mentioned professionals have access to the law enforcement apparatus? Police, FBI etc? So why not also to the criminal organizations as doctors, lawyers and journalists do?
Thus these "academic" studies, which are cited as the basis for public policy and for congressional committees to write laws, must be scrutinized. The objective of this specific law by the Education Department is to exercise control over student sex lives. The police already have extensive training and resources to prosecute crimes against women. Thwarting due process protections and thinking that college administrators with no experience or training in law no less criminal law will adjudicate criminal complaints in a rational manner raises the question what could go wrong? Here is an example.
[From article]
A college professor’s research on campus sexual assault that was used by the Obama administration to justify sweeping action on college sexual assault has been called into question in a pair of articles published by Reason magazine.
David Lisak, a retired psychology professor who taught at the University of Massachusetts Boston, has for years been regarded as one of the top academic experts on the matter of sexual assault on campus.
[. . .]
The biggest problem with Lisak’s work? While it’s a landmark study in the understanding of campus sexual assault, the data wasn’t actually about campus sexual assault at all. Lisak didn’t gather the data himself, but instead used data collected during four other studies conducted by masters and doctoral students at the school who passed out surveys to male passerby on the campus. The surveys themselves weren’t focused on the matter of sexual assault, and on top of that nothing was done to ensure those taking the survey were college students.
Not only that, but UMass-Boston, where these surveys were handed out, is a commuter school with no on-campus housing and a high proportion of non-traditional and part-time students. The average age of respondents to the surveys Lisak relied upon was 26 years old (one-fifth were over 30), with ages ranging from 18 to 71. According to one former student who helped collect the data, a high proportion of respondents were from working-class backgrounds and many were first-generation college students. The survey asked them about their general behavior, not how they acted on-campus or around other students.
In other words, Lisak’s supposedly systematic research into rape on campus was simply based a series of surveys given to men who happened to be passing around a single atypical college during a certain span of time.
“There is not a single statement in the paper about assaults taking place on or near a campus; there is not a single reference to the campus environment,” LeFauve writes.
LeFauve’s own research raised even more questions about Lisak’s methodology. Lisak claimed he conducted follow-up interviews with most of those he classified as serial predators, a claim LeFauve found suspicious because, when Lisak conducted his work in 2002, the data was several years old and much of it had been collected anonymously. When asked how he’d managed to interview these people, Lisak hung up on LeFauve without giving an answer. If Lisak is being at all deceitful about how he conducted his study, it would throw the reliability of the entire paper into doubt.
[. . .]
The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Lisak to see if he has a response to Reason’s criticism, and has not received a reply.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/major-study-on-campus-sex-assault-debunked/
Major Study On Campus Sex Assault Debunked
Blake Neff, Reporter
8:11 PM 07/28/2015
