Facebook board member who donated to Donald Trump after sexual misconduct allegations wrote a 1995 book that attempted to discredit date rape

When Mark Zuckerberg defended board member Peter Thiel’s $1.25m donation to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign this week, the Facebook CEO emphasized that support of the candidate did not necessarily constitute “accepting sexual assault”.

But part of Thiel’s 1995 book The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus suggests that he may sympathize more with Trump – who has recently been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by several women – than with his victims.

The PayPal co-founder attempted to discredit the idea of date rape – he wrote that the definition of rape had been erroneously expanded to include “seductions that are later regretted”. He also suggested that the movement to combat it on college campuses was motivated by animosity toward men.

A timeline of Donald Trump's alleged sexual misconduct: who, when and what Read more

News of Thiel’s sizable donation set off a round of criticism, with many members of the tech industry calling for Thiel’s removal from positions of influence. Though Thiel has supported Trump’s candidacy since the summer, the billionaire did not donate any money to the campaign until 15 October, just three days after a deluge of sexual assault complaints were levied against the candidate.

Thiel plans to “address the controversy” in a speech later this month, according to the New York Times.

In the book, co-authored with Thiel’s fellow Stanford and PayPal alumnus, David O Sacks, the pair discuss a 1991 case in which a 17-year-old Stanford freshman alleged that she had been raped in a dorm room while intoxicated:

“Although [the alleged perpetrator] was clearly guilty of serving alcohol to an underage woman and taking advantage of her resulting lack of judgement, there was no sexual assault ... Understandably, however, the woman regretted the whole incident afterwards.”

Thiel and Sacks also took issue with Stanford’s policy on sexual assault, which said that “sexual assault by force or coercion, including deliberate coercion through use of drugs or alcohol, is absolutely unacceptable at Stanford University”.



But Thiel and Sacks wrote:

“It is ludicrous to believe that anyone who had been forcefully violated would not know it and bear physical marks.”

They added:

“But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later. Under these circumstances, it is unclear who should be held responsible. If the alcohol made both of them do it, then why should the woman’s consent be obviated any more than the man’s? Why is all blame placed on the man?”

The real victims of the movement to end sexual assault, the authors suggest, are the men:

“The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’.”

The book, published in 1996, is a lengthy critique of campus culture at Stanford University, which both authors attended. The pair lambaste various institutional changes, including themed housing and support centers for racial minorities, courses in African American history and ethnic, gender and sexuality studies, the expansion of benefits to same-sex couples, sex education for undergraduates, and other reforms they argue comprise an anti-western “multiculturalism”.

On diversity, the pair wrote:

“Real diversity requires a diversity of ideas, not simply a bunch of like-minded activists who resemble the bar scene from Star Wars.”

Among the authors’ complaints is the “deteriorat[ion]” of the freshman curriculum to include Nobel peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchú’s biography, I, Rigoberta Menchú, and Zora Neale Hurston’s novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God.

They took particular aim at new academic fields, such as a class studying the social movements of the 1960s or one on representations of gay and lesbian sexuality:

“The passionate hatred of men, the utopian demands for an elimination of all gender differences, the (totally inconsistent) demands for a uniquely female perspective, and the belief in widespread gender discrimination are the core of the new gender studies curriculum.”

Peter Thiel donated big to Trump. Why does the tech world still embrace him? | Katie Zhu Read more

Thiel and Sacks also argue that racism is largely imaginary – the result of overreacting to “unintentional slight[s]” – and that people of colors’ insistence on talking about racism is the cause of any remaining racial tension in western society.



“As paradoxical as it may seem, the extreme focus on racism has become the source of acrimony, as multiculturalists charge whites with more evanescent and intangible forms of racism, such as ‘institutional racism’ or ‘unconscious racism’. As a result, the awareness of racism, once the main hope for ending racial division, today has become a major cause of debate and friction.”

Thiel expressed some regrets about the book in a 2011 New Yorker profile, saying that he wished he had never written about an incident in which future PayPal executive Keith Rabois stood outside the home of a university staff member and shouted, “Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of Aids!” – an action intended to provoke discussion of free speech.

In the book, the widespread anger at Rabois is compared to the Salem Witch trials, George Orwell’s 1984, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Thiel told the New Yorker that he now has a “much more nuanced” understanding of identity politics, including the belief that women, gays and black people have “meaningfully different” experiences.

Thiel did not address his writing on sexual assault to the New Yorker, however, and he did not respond to a query from the Guardian.