What is this? The 17th largest by enrollment in the USA. This is pretty big stuff. As an Ohioan, this will cast a cloud over one of the better party schools in the nation that many friends of mine attended.

It's one thing to separate church and state, but to allow state to influence sexual relations is a recipe for uproar and disaster. Casual sex is essentially a crime. "Um, the sex occurred detective because she grabbed my cock and started deep-throating it, here open your mouth I'll show you what I mean."

What creates psychopaths that walk into movie theaters, schools, et al and open fire? Bullshit like this is a big catalyst, or will be anyways I predict.

(09-13-2014 06:46 PM)Ingocnito Wrote:  What is this? The 17th largest by enrollment in the USA. This is pretty big stuff. As an Ohioan, this will cast a cloud over one of the better party schools in the nation that many friends of mine attended.

It's one thing to separate church and state, but to allow state to influence sexual relations is a recipe for uproar and disaster. Casual sex is essentially a crime. "Um, the sex occurred detective because she grabbed my cock and started deep-throating it, here open your mouth I'll show you what I mean."

What creates psychopaths that walk into movie theaters, schools, et al and open fire? Bullshit like this is a big catalyst, or will be anyways I predict.

Wikipedia has it as third in enrollment behind Arizona State and the University of Central Florida. I agree with the rest of your post, though.

I'm not a lawyer, but several posts raise the specter of selective prosecution as I understand it.

Quote: In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both "(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent." Id. at 475 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 1992). The impermissibly discriminatory purpose or motive must imply "that the decision-maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because or, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. The identifiable group is typically a race, religion, or group of persons exercising a constitutional right." Gutierrez, 990 F.2d at 476 (citations omitted).

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_r...v00138.htm

(09-13-2014 06:04 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 03:43 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There is a simple solution:

All men should boycott universities with draconian policies like these. Let them become all-girl- & homosexual- schools. They will feel an impact in their wallets alright and the girls won't like that either, since usually they are the ones unable to live without male presence.

When we decide on which university all men will be boycotting, let me know, man.

I'll enroll immediately, hehehe.

I am considering enrolling in some for-interest medical studies at a university in Kiev and I am not expecting any rape-laws put in place. Heh. The pussy is of course an added bonus, but they do offer English Courses and many students are flying from different countries to study there. I wonder why?