Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

The Legal Limits of ‘Yes Means Yes’

By Paul H. Robinson January 10, 2016
The Legal Limits of ‘Yes Means Yes’ 1
Alex Williamson for The Chronicle

Debate grows over the use of “yes means yes” as a sexual-consent policy on college campuses. As opposed to “no means no,” which directs sexual initiators to halt their advances if the other person struggles or says to stop, “yes means yes” or “affirmative consent” states that sexual initiators have to actually get consent from the other person before proceeding to the next step. California and New York have recently mandated such policies, yet many people oppose them. Carol L. McCoy, a chancery-court judge in Nashville, last summer overturned a decision by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a student under such a policy, holding that it had violated due process.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Debate grows over the use of “yes means yes” as a sexual-consent policy on college campuses. As opposed to “no means no,” which directs sexual initiators to halt their advances if the other person struggles or says to stop, “yes means yes” or “affirmative consent” states that sexual initiators have to actually get consent from the other person before proceeding to the next step. California and New York have recently mandated such policies, yet many people oppose them. Carol L. McCoy, a chancery-court judge in Nashville, last summer overturned a decision by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a student under such a policy, holding that it had violated due process.

On one side of the debate are those unhappy with the culture on many campuses that seems to allow men to bully women into intercourse, putting the burden of ambiguous situations entirely on the woman. In this culture, ambiguity is taken as a green light.

On the other side are those who see the affirmative-consent rule as a violation of the basic principles of American criminal justice. As Nadine Strossen, a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, recently noted: “These affirmative-consent rules violate rights of due process and privacy. They reverse the usual presumption of innocence. Unless the guy can prove that his sexual partner affirmatively consented to every single contact, he is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct.”

While these two sides may seem to be in irresolvable conflict, they are not. The public discussion about affirmative consent seems to have mixed two quite different issues. Most criminal-law theorists would point out that there is a crucial difference between what they would call in legal jargon an ex ante rule of conduct — that is, telling people beforehand what the law requires of them — and an ex post principle of adjudication — setting the rules by which a violation of the rules of conduct is to be judged.

I think there is little dispute about the value of “yes means yes” as a rule of personal conduct understood beforehand by both parties; the only dispute is whether it is an appropriate standard to determine liability and punishment if those rules are violated.

A criminal law that earns moral credibility with the community is one that has the power to persuade people to internalize its norms.

We ought to all agree that there is value in colleges’ promoting “yes means yes” as the proper means by which students deal with one another. That announcement and its regular public affirmation can help change the culture. What is doing the work here is not the occasional disciplinary case litigated out of the public eye, but rather the student body, men and women both, seeing that others accept the “yes means yes” standard as proper conduct. Indeed, the unanimity that one can get in support of “yes means yes” as a proper rule of conduct will do more toward securing the needed cultural shift than the divisive debates now going on, which serve only to generate opposition and confusion.

The source of disagreement — what people are objecting to — is not affirmative consent as the announced rule of proper conduct, but rather as the rule of ex post adjudication, that is, as the standard by which alleged violations are to be tried. One can readily understand the fears. Opponents of affirmative consent say it impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

Some people, though, are not willing to take a win by having affirmative consent accepted as the rule of proper conduct. They insist that unless the rule is used to determine liability and punishment, then it has no teeth.

But this tension exists in every aspect of criminal law with regard to every prohibited offense. For example, the criminal law’s rules of conduct prohibit causing another person’s death. Does it undercut that prohibition if we acquit someone who causes another person’s death accidentally under circumstances in which a reasonable person might have done the same?

Ambiguity is taken as a green light in the current college culture.

Modern American criminal law has almost always chosen to require not only proof of the harm — causing another’s death, or having intercourse when the partner is not in fact affirmatively agreeing — but also to require that there was some minimum level of culpability or blameworthiness in the defendant.

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, it is this aspect of criminal law — its commitment to imposing liability only when there is sufficient personal blameworthiness — that has given it the moral prescriptive power that it has. The criminal law that punishes without regard to blame loses moral credibility with the community it governs and is discredited and ignored. A criminal law that earns moral credibility with the community is one that has the power to persuade people to internalize its norms.

Ironically, it is the reformers seeking to change existing norms — such as the norms of sexual consent on college campuses — who would most benefit from a criminal law that has earned moral credibility. It is their reform efforts that are most injured when the law’s credibility is damaged by using affirmative consent as a standard when determining guilt.

The most promising path to changing the culture of sexual consent on college campuses is to adopt and regularly reaffirm “yes means yes” as the rule of proper conduct, but to reject it as the principle of adjudication.

Paul H. Robinson is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the co-author, with Sarah Robinson, of Pirates, Prisoners, and Lepers: Lessons From Life Outside the Law (Potomac Books, 2015).


Questions or concerns about this article? Email us or submit a letter to the editor.

A version of this article appeared in the January 15, 2016, issue.
Read other items in Read More About 'Yes Means Yes'.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin