Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[Mutaman]

And given that you can't legally be held to a contract you signed while above .08,

This must be some Milwaukee thing. 

[GGGG]

     is there a difference?  well, when we are talking about rape, let's add assault, maybe kidnapping.  these are some heavy duty violations of ones privacy to put it mildly.  if any of these occurred to a loved one, i want the best investigation.  if i need eye surgery-i don't want just any doctor-i want an eye doctor(ophthalmologist) for example. 

You don't seem to understand something.

No one is suggesting that the police shouldn't be investigating rape.  No college believes that a rape investigation is outside the local police jurisdiction and that the college should have jurisdiction. 

What Title IX requires is that colleges have rules against sexual violence in place and a process to enforce those rules.  What people don't understand is that while local legal authorities may decide not to prosecute an alleged offender in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean that their actions did not violent the school's rules.  Hell, an alleged offender could be deemed not-guilty in a court of law and STILL be found in violation of the school's rules.

Colleges and universities have all sorts of rules that they enforce, some of which result in the student being expelled, that aren't in violation of the law.

[Lennys Tap]

This is patently false. #Lies.

I can find you dozens of examples where contracts were voided because one party was intoxicated.

Dozens, sure. But your original position was that .08 invalidated contracts, period. Everything I've read says that just isn't so. Generally speaking they are upheld in spite of one of the parties being legally (or obviously) intoxicated - as long as the intoxicated person got that way of his or her free will the chance that the contract will be invalidated are slim. So if you use the same standard for consent, .08 shouldn't get one off the hook for making a decision that is regretted at some later time.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Dozens, sure. But your original position was that .08 invalidated contracts, period. Everything I've read says that just isn't so. Generally speaking they are upheld in spite of one of the parties being legally (or obviously) intoxicated - as long as the intoxicated person got that way of his or her free will the chance that the contract will be invalidated are slim. So if you use the same standard for consent, .08 shouldn't get one off the hook for making a decision that is regretted at some later time.

If that is the impression I gave I apologize. I was saying there is a legal precedent for judgement being nullified due to intoxication, not that it is nullified period. I also wouldn't categorize the chances as slim.

[Jay Bee]

If that is the impression I gave I apologize. I was saying there is a legal precedent for judgement being nullified due to intoxication, not that it is nullified period. I also wouldn't categorize the chances as slim.

And given that you can't legally be held to a contract you signed while above .08, it seems there is some precedent for no longer being held responsible for a form of consent at that level of intoxication.

C'mon dude. Admit you were wrong (and then doubled-down against me). You didn't give "an impression", you made a false claim for purposes of trying to bolster a silly argument. You're better than this.

"GIVEN" that you can't be legally held to a contract you signed while above .08... that's what you claimed... that's patently false and completely silly.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

C'mon dude. Admit you were wrong (and then doubled-down against me). You didn't give "an impression", you made a false claim for purposes of trying to bolster a silly argument. You're better than this.

"GIVEN" that you can't be legally held to a contract you signed while above .08... that's what you claimed... that's patently false and completely silly.

I was wrong to phrase it that way. When I am sitting on the crapper and surfing through scoop I don't give much thought to the phrasing of my posts. I know what I was trying to convey but did it poorly.

As I've said several times in this thread, I am open to moving the theoretical line but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It seems like everyone agrees that waiting until unconsciousness is too far but most here seem to think .08 is too low....but no reason has been given for .08 is too low other than what basically amounts to "because I said so." There has to be a line and has to be based on alcohol's physical impact on the body and not on personal opinion.

[Mutaman]

I also wouldn't categorize the chances as slim.

I'd categorize them as none. But hey i'm open minded- how about a citation?

[Mutaman]

If that is the impression I gave I apologize. I was saying there is a legal precedent for judgement being nullified due to intoxication, not that it is nullified period. I also wouldn't categorize the chances as slim.

Now we gone from a contract being "nullified" to an actual judgment. is that what happens when a lawyer tries a case while intoxicated? How about merely hung over?

[B. McBannerson]

To the first bolded, people think situations keep repeating themselves. The truth is, they don't have all the information and make assumptions. That's not to say that misapplications don't happen, because they do. Just like any other justice system. It can stand to be improved but the baby does not need to be thrown out with the bathwater.

To the second, we already discussed this previously but domestic violence victims often lie to protect their abusers. This is well established by research and cases that happen every day. I would be happy to provide you with both. There are many reasons why victims protect their abusers ranging from fear of retaliation to an honest to goodness belief that the abuse was somehow their fault and they deserved it. I would also argue that the reflex reaction is NOT to believe a survivor of sexual assault. Our reflex reaction is to scrutinize and question. When I investigate cases of sexual assault I usually have dozens of witnesses lining up to give character references for the accused. The accusers are usually all alone.

To the last bolded, it's possible. We are all waiting to see what DeVos' DOE will do on this topic. I applaud her for meeting with both victims and accused students to get insight. My impression of DeVos herself is that she supports the universities and what they have been doing with Title IX. But some of the people around her don't feel the same way. One of them had to publicly apologize for her recent comments on sexual assault which is concerning. I personally don't see them making any major rollbacks but they are definitely going to stop the momentum on the topic. An administration with a leader that has been publicly accused multiple times of sexual assault loosening regulations of sexual assault on campus wouldn't have the best optics. There are changes I would like to see to Title IX so I'm open to the idea of DeVos issuing a new DCL dependent on what the changes are.

Change is coming, announced yesterday

https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-devos-prepared-remarks-title-ix-enforcement

[jsglow]

Another article:

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/devos-pledges-to-restore-due-process-1504825847

[GGGG]

Change is coming, announced yesterday

https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-devos-prepared-remarks-title-ix-enforcement

Yep.  We are moving backwards as a society in so many ways under this administration.

[jsglow]

Yep.  We are moving backwards as a society in so many ways under this administration.

Your opinion brother not universally shared.

[GGGG]

Your opinion brother not universally shared.

Undoubtedly.  But someday history will treat this era with the derision it deserves. 

[B. McBannerson]

You can see the future?  How about we wait and see what happens.  The goal in this one is to apply due process equally which isn't happening currently.  Why is that problematic?

[GGGG]

You can see the future?  How about we wait and see what happens.  The goal in this one is to apply due process equally which isn't happening currently.  Why is that problematic?

It's not a court of law.  Constitutional due process is not the standard that should be applied.

[B. McBannerson]

I prefer to see how it shakes out.  Much like DACA a few days ago.  In 2011 the previous POTUS, a former constitutional law professor, said POTUS has no authority to do DACA.  In 2012, in an election year, did it anyway.  It's unconstitutional.

Now, this led to the rescinding this week and much anger, etc.  My prediction, Congress will be forced to act and actually do something which is the proper legal way to do this and the Dreamers will get a better shake on this as will the American taxpayers and the rule of law will be in place, rather than kicking it down the road.

Maybe I am too optimistic, we will find out eventually.  Title IX enforement has some considerable issues hat have been discussed here by some practicing it as their career.  It has areas that need to be addressed, for all sides.  I'm going to wait and see what the changes are and how they are deployed before getting to wound up. 

[B. McBannerson]

It's not a court of law.  Constitutional due process is not the standard that should be applied.

Well, some legal minds disagree on that statement.  The problem many see is lives are being severely altered by decisions by people at universities that may not be appropriate and can follow that person for the rest of their life.  That is concerning.

Feels like we over rotated to the point where too many are assumed guilty because of their gender.  Perhaps a correction is due.

[Golden Avalanche]

Your opinion brother not universally shared.

As someone who is on top of the social pyramid, I for one am ecstatic that my unjust persecution and the constant discriminatory behavior against me is being peeled away. I've been held down for far too long.

[GGGG]

Well, some legal minds disagree on that statement.  The problem many see is lives are being severely altered by decisions by people at universities that may not be appropriate and can follow that person for the rest of their life.  That is concerning.

Feels like we over rotated to the point where too many are assumed guilty because of their gender.  Perhaps a correction is due.

I am not saying that every college or university has handled it well.  However the idea that Constitutional due process should be the standard for student conduct hearings is ridiculous.  That same standard isn't used for employment decisions.  Yet those decisions are life altering and can follow a person for the rest of their life.

The fact is that colleges and universities have a right to determine who makes up their student body.
 (Within certain legal parameters of course.)  They also determine codes of conduct and a process for which the code is applied.  Students consent to that when they are enrolled.

A student cannot be jailed for a violation of that code.  They cannot be fined.  Their violation isn't public information.  In fact, it is protected by law.  In other words, they are not being denied "life, liberty or property," so therefore the 5th Amendment due process should not be applied.

Yes, they can be expelled.  And then they can go elsewhere. 

[mu03eng]

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

Interesting article from the Atlantic on the topic. Consider me in the court of we needed to overcorrect on campuses to make them safer, but we have over overcorrected (so to speak) and need to reign in the process and application of the process a little bit.

Especially interesting in the article given the conversations we've had in this thread is the discussion around false allegations. Basically, the statistics saying less than 5% of cases are false reports could be accurate but they aren't necessarily scientifically based so ultimately we really don't know.

[Pakuni]

I'm just glad the men in this country are finally getting a fair shake.

Sultan is correct that there have been some instances of colleges handling things poorly. They should be admonished and provided with the resources and help they need to conduct such proceedings better.
On the other hand this, to use a tired cliche, seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Seriously, is anyone here naive enough to believe the Betsy DeVos or anyone else in the Trump Administration gives two poops about how schools handle sex assault accusations? This is them throwing more red meat to their alt-right base, many of whom are the same dopes who occupy the "men's rights" movement and believe there's an epidemic of false rape claims out there. Let's not forget, this is a policy created with the help of a education  department that appears to have the attitude that 90 percent of campus rape claims amount to "we were both drunk."

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Y'all aren't paying attention. The threat that DeVos made is that she is going to rescind the Dear Colleague Letter from 2011...and if she honors her "end of the rule of letter" statement than no replacement Dear Colleague Letter will be issued. This does NOT change the law. It merely takes away guidance about the law. It leaves the decision up the universities how to interpret Title IX which will only create more confusion. Some schools may enact stricter processes. Some may go back to the way things were before where sexual assaults were routinely covered up and dismissed. Most will continue on as if nothing happened.

Those of you championing this as a move for due process are simply wrong. It's stripping away due process, for both accused and accuser.

If a replacement Dear Colleague Letter is drafted, than maybe it will address some of the due process concerns, but that's a huge if. Though I'm curious what due process concerns people think will actually get addressed. The most common complaints I hear are "the police should be handling this" (which they do) but that isn't going to change. The 2nd most common complaint is the standard of proof which I don't think is going to change either. Unless they really want to set up a system where violations of sexual misconduct use a separate higher standard of proof than all other violations on campus.

Honestly, I think this is the Republicans pandering to their base. I don't think a new DCL will be drafted but they will point out how they rescinded something from the Obama era and talk about how big of a win it was. This could end up being a good thing because when a new administration takes over with someone who actually understands this topic they can issue a new DCL with even stronger guidance than the 2011 one that fixes some of the issues that are present.

If a new DCL is issued with new guidance I will be open to it. There are issues that need to be addressed. I am skeptical that DeVos is the one to successfully give them. I don't know if she is incompetent, ignorant, or deliberately dishonest, but she flat out lied about some of the requirements of Title IX in her statement yesterday. It is terrifying to me that the woman in charge of the Department of Education is either so unfamiliar with this law that she doesn't understand its requirements or that she would deliberately lie to score political points. I honestly don't know which one is a worse sin.

 

[jsglow]

The change that I think might be in the offing will be lawsuits filed against universities for 'overreach' in individual cases.  I'm kind of in Eng's camp that the original correction might have evolved into an over-correction. I suspect that civil litigation will facilitate any 'swing' deemed necessary and appropriate.

[4everwarriors]

Undoubtedly.  But someday history will treat this era with the derision it deserves.

Waitin' on 2008-2016 judgment wit same taughts, hey?

[tower912]

Allreddy vewd az da gud auld daze, ai'na.