"when feminists demanded that every man accused of rape be punished"
Where did you get this idea? That sounds like precisely the type of exaggerated nonsense that fuels things like the Men's Rights movement in the first place.
Where did you get this idea? That sounds like precisely the type of exaggerated nonsense that fuels things like the Men's Rights movement in the first place.
In one case, the court said the accused was not provided any information about the factual basis of the charges against him, was not able to examine the evidence supporting the victim's statements and was not allowed to appear before the panel deciding his case.[1]
In another case, the court found that the university violated the accused's due process rights by presuming his guilt ahead of a hearing, not allowing the accused student access to witnesses and evidence, and informing a hearing panel of his guilt instead of letting the panel reach its own conclusion.[1]
In some cases they were even punishing people who were proven innocent, because the tribunals refused to hear evidence proving their innocence.[2]
We saw this attitude again in the Kavanaugh hearings, when feminists were demanding that Kavanaugh's nomination be denied because of unproven allegations.
As Hillary put it, accusers "have the right to be believed", which she later clarified as: every accuser "should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence". In other words, the accused should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
1: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/14/several-stude...
2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/campus-sexual-assaul...