Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[Lennys Tap]

This isn't  the argument Jamie made when the accused played for Buzz. 

Chico will write volumes in defense of an ideal/principle - but for him those ideals/principles don't apply to Buzz or his players.

[MU82]

TAMU, thanks for your many outstanding posts about this subject. It really helped clarify a few points for me. This will make things worse for everybody before it makes things better.

As for chicos ... well ... let me tell y'all what it's like, being male, middle-class and white. I got shyte runnin' through my brain, it's so intense that I can't explain. All alone in my white-boy pain, shake your booty while the band complains.

[Jockey]

Yes, stacking the deck.  Stuart Taylor, former NY Times and Baltimore Sun reporter in conjunction with KC Johnson, professor at Brooklyn college who wrote one of the more damning books on the Duke Lacrosse case.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html

Yes, stacking the deck.

So, you people are constantly talking about the media and hoe they lie and publish fake news?

Yet, to prove a point, you go to the media that you say are liars. Wow.

[jsglow]

One other thing about no contact orders that I don't think is commonly known. In the vast majority of cases when a no contact order is given, it is given to both parties. Part of equitable treatment for both. The accused can't contact the accuser, but the accuser also can't contact the accused. I've seen cases before where accusers are sanctioned because they violated the no contact order. The one thing that might "stacked" against the accused in this aspect is that if they have some area where they overlap such as they live in the same dorm or have the same class, it is usually the accused that gets moved. I can understand both sides of the argument. It sucks that a false accusation could potentially force someone to temporarily move or switch classes. But I also don't think its right because someone in your dorm assaulted you, you have to move.

The interim accommodations required in these cases sometimes makes people upset because all that's required is an accusation. They claim there's no due process but that's how it works in the criminal justice system too. Someone doesn't have to be convicted for a restraining order to be put into place. A restraining order can be issued after a judicial review just like a no contact order can be issued after a university review.

Yeah, I'm not worked up by that. After you have an incident like that, asking the accused to switch English sections and moving from McCormick to Mashuda isn't a big deal.  Look, back in the day you just switched Wells St. bars because 'that guy' or 'that girl' hung out there.

[Pakuni]

Yes, stacking the deck.  Stuart Taylor, former NY Times and Baltimore Sun reporter in conjunction with KC Johnson, professor at Brooklyn college who wrote one of the more damning books on the Duke Lacrosse case.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html

Yes, stacking the deck.

Citing the Duke lacrosse case as evidence that the deck is stacked against men is akin to citing the OJ case as evidence the criminal justice system is stacked against whites.

Though, let the record reflect Chico's has now twice cited affiliation with the New York Times as evidence of credibility.

[B. McBannerson]

So no comments on all of your studies being from 20+ years ago.

Not all of my studies were that I'm aware of.  The book I linked, which you didn't comment on  , has very recent studies and examples from post 2011.  You said the studies were debunked, is there evidence of this or do I take you at your word? I'm happy to do that, but believe what I provided from a Harvard law grad, former NY Times reporter is a well vetted book.

Just yesterday Charles Payne was reinstated on the news after finding that sexual assault charges against him were bogus.  It's unfortunate for women that are actually sexually assaulted have to deal with others that are making false accusations.  The concern of many of us is if colleges are truly giving fair balance to the evidence, or going in with the idea that a tilt.  Your comments in this response continue to make believe deck is stacked to a degree.  When you say above that the evidence does not have to be high, that's problematic.  That leads me to believe that he said vs she said, she has a built in advantage before the process starts.

Over 100 cases thus far schools have been sued for wrongfully kicking out men and in most of those cases, the schools have lost or settled. 

Is your advice to universities "pretend that battered women's syndrom doesn't exist?"

No, but I'd also like to have multiple professional members of the criminology / psychiatry field make that determination since so much is at stake.  Otherwise a Title IX administrator can always default to that response, which is scary.

Your second example is actually an example of how the decks were stacked against accusers before 2011. The vast majority of universities use the preponderance of the information standard for all cases (not just sexual violence), it is considered a best practice in the field.

I agree, but believe we have over rotated to far, which is what I said from the start.  Who decided it was best practice and why?  How are you going to protect against those that are lying for revenge and ruining the lives of those people?  Do their rights count equally? It feels like they don't, that the err of caution goes to the "victim" when that person may, in fact, not be a victim at all.  Do you disagree?

Is that the only way you think the deck is "stacked"? Because if its just one thing, then I think a simple update to the 2011 guidance would be appropriate. But what I have been sensing is that you want to throw the whole system out and start over.

I never said throw it out, in fact I said we have over rotated.  Some common sense needs to come back into this and some more protections for the accused so we aren't having people expelled, generating lawsuits, not allowing people to graduate from school and potentially ruining their career paths because of claims that were malicious, false, and vengeful.

Again, this is a really tough subject and I commend you for trying to handle a tough role. I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for more fairness.

[B. McBannerson]

well it better, as this usc case is exhibit A, B, C and D.  the other case usc facked up(read-ruined another guys life) was also represented by boermeester's attorney, mark hathaway.  boermeester is 2 classes shy of graduation and usc tried to keep he and katz from contacting each other, directly or indirectly? seriously?

  so much wrong here

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20640113/judge-stays-usc-trojans-expulsion-matt-boermeester

You should read this about their Title IX enforcement officer.  I will let the readers comment, but these are the person's own words.  Somewhat unbelievable.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/usc-title-ix-official-campus-rape

Article publishes her words, but more importantly asks whether USC is adequately prepared to handle these cases.  When someone like this is saying this about an appeal, one wonders what justice or due process the young man has.

[B. McBannerson]

This continued use of males have it so bad, or whites have it so bad, an odd defense.  Isn't this about justice and getting things right?  Aren't we supposed to get these things right, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity?  Isn't that the goal, or am I missing something?

Feels like what happened 150 years ago is tied into this based on some responses?  Or what happened 10 years ago, or even yesterday.  What's past is past, the goal should be to always get it right.  Should it not?

[GGGG]

This continued use of males have it so bad, or whites have it so bad, an odd defense.  Isn't this about justice and getting things right?  Aren't we supposed to get these things right, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity?  Isn't that the goal, or am I missing something?

Feels like what happened 150 years ago is tied into this based on some responses?  Or what happened 10 years ago, or even yesterday.  What's past is past, the goal should be to always get it right.  Should it not?

Right.  That is now going to be more difficult.

[rocket surgeon]

You should read this about their Title IX enforcement officer.  I will let the readers comment, but these are the person's own words.  Somewhat unbelievable.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/usc-title-ix-official-campus-rape

Article publishes her words, but more importantly asks whether USC is adequately prepared to handle these cases.  When someone like this is saying this about an appeal, one wonders what justice or due process the young man has.

amazing read!!  is usc's "title IX coordinator" related to barbara steisand??  obviously a frustrated bureaucrat unhappy with what life has brought her.  anyone who still uses that line-"don't you know who i am" should not be in any position to rule on anyone.  as a matter of fact, maybe gretchen's comments should be made to be very public so they may know a little bit more about her or were those comments taken out of context?

why do some here fear the duke lacrosse case?  that should never be forgotten and should become a landmark case for all those aspiring to be one of them ""Does that college motherunnatural carnal knowledgeer know who I am?" title IX directors

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not all of my studies were that I'm aware of.

In your first post yes. You posted three statistics that jumped out at you. As I explained one was from a 1985 study, one was from a 1994 study (based on data gathered between 1978 and 1986), and one was from a 1997 study that has since been updated repeatedly. So the most recent numbers you quoted were from 20 years ago. It makes me wonder if you actually check where numbers come from or just post them if they support your agenda.

The book I linked, which you didn't comment on  , has very recent studies and examples from post 2011.

You mentioned one of the authors worked for the New York Times so I assumed it was fake news 

I didn't comment on it because I haven't had time read it in the past 24 hours. I am currently reading all of Dr. Jackson Katz' various works and studies because we are bringing him to campus next week and I want to be able to discuss his research with him while I have the chance. I'll add your book to the list. Though it seems like the New York Times doesn't appreciate their former employee: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/books/review/two-books-explore-the-furor-over-rape-on-campus.html. The reviewer pans the book you mentioned....and he praised a book by Laura Kipnis!

If you wouldn't mean, please post some of the works cited from that book. I know they go into depth on some specific cases where they believe (and may be correct) that due process wasn't followed. But again you have to be careful with those. One, only one side of the story can be told. Two, it is very dangerous to pick a handful of cases where things didn't go right and then try to generalize it while ignoring the thousands of cases where it went right.

You said the studies were debunked, is there evidence of this or do I take you at your word? I'm happy to do that, but believe what I provided from a Harvard law grad, former NY Times reporter is a well vetted book.

No. If you go back to my post I explain exactly how the cases were debunked. If you read the studies that you cited you will see the research methods that I described. I also explained what was wrong with those research methods. I believe you will be able to see the concerns unless you believe all of the following: a) cops from the late 70s and early 80s in a small rural Midwestern town were good judges of when a sexual assault report was false b) polygraphs are accurate c) there isn't a reasonable chance that female air force officers in the 80s recanted their stories because of pressure from their superiors and d) what was considered a sexual assault in the 70s and 80s is the same as it is now in 2017.

And again, I would appreciate if you would supply the works cited list from this book. I would like to see how well vetted it is.

When you say above that the evidence does not have to be high, that's problematic.  That leads me to believe that he said vs she said, she has a built in advantage before the process starts.

Why? The burden of proof rests with the university. The cases don't start at 50% for the accuser, 50% for the accused. They start at 100% for the accused and 0% for the accuser. The university must produce enough evidence to tip that to at least 50.1% for the accuser. I don't think the standard of proof needs to be any higher because the sanctioning power of university is limited. Do you also have an issue with civil courts? They use the same standard of evidence but can assign much worse penalties than a university can. All that being said, I am open to the idea of moving to the "clear and convincing" standard of evidence, provided that is being used in ALL conduct cases at the university. The idea that those accused of sexual violence should enjoy a higher standard of evidence than students of all other conduct violations is both immoral and preposterous.

Over 100 cases thus far schools have been sued for wrongfully kicking out men and in most of those cases, the schools have lost or settled. 

Can you point me to the ones where the schools lost? There were a couple with rulings that partially favored the accused but its mostly settlements. Which shouldn't be a shock. We live in litigious society and it is much cheaper for universities to settle outside of court than it is to fight, even if they feel they can win the case. Want a quick buck? Sue a university. I had a case at a previous institution where a student sued the university for evicting her "emotional support" guinea pig from a residence hall. I put emotional support in quotation marks not because I don't believe in emotional support animals but because this young woman was never diagnosed with anything, never was prescribed an emotional support animal, never filled out the required paperwork to have an emotional support animal on campus, was offered the paperwork to register the guinea pig as an emotional support animal (she declined), and she never called it an emotional support animal until 6 months after it died and over a year after it had been evicted. The university settled for several thousand dollars.

No, but I'd also like to have multiple professional members of the criminology / psychiatry field make that determination since so much is at stake.  Otherwise a Title IX administrator can always default to that response, which is scary.

I don't think even the criminal justice system regularly has "multiple members of the criminology/psychiatry field make that determination"....and there is so much more at stake there. You are also making the assumption that universities don't have people who are trained in these areas. I can't speak for all universities but I have received extensive training on the nuerobiology of trauma victims and have contributed to research on the topic.

And if a Title IX administrator ever used "battered woman syndrome" as the only justification for a finding of responsibility I would be the first one to be calling for their job.

I agree, but believe we have over rotated to far, which is what I said from the start.  Who decided it was best practice and why?  How are you going to protect against those that are lying for revenge and ruining the lives of those people?  Do their rights count equally? It feels like they don't, that the err of caution goes to the "victim" when that person may, in fact, not be a victim at all.  Do you disagree?

I never said throw it out, in fact I said we have over rotated.  Some common sense needs to come back into this and some more protections for the accused so we aren't having people expelled, generating lawsuits, not allowing people to graduate from school and potentially ruining their career paths because of claims that were malicious, false, and vengeful.

I do disagree. The only two areas that I would point to as "slanted toward the victim" is that when interim accommodations are put into place, it is the accused who is inconvenienced if there is some overlap like sharing a class or living in the same dorm. Well I can see how this is unfair I would also say that it is reasonable. The second is that there is specific language in the DCL about providing information about support services (counseling, legal services, women's resource center, etc) to accusers but not to the accused. It has since become a best practice to supply information on these to accused as well.

You also have to keep in mind that I am talking about systems not people. I am 100% positive that there are Title IX administrators that have a bias against accused students. I am also 100% positive that there are Title IX administrators that have a bias against accusers. We should work to make sure these people have their biases corrected or are removed from having any decision power in a student's case. I feel the same way about police officers. I am 100% sure that there are police officers with biases against people of color. I would like to see those individuals educated or removed. But that doesn't mean that I think the entire police force is corrupt.

I also want to talk about the idea of "ruining people's lives." I firmly believe that I have never ruined someone's life. I also firmly believe that being found responsible for sexual misconduct can only ruin your life if you let it. The worst thing I can do to a student is expel them (and I say I but I am only a small part of the decision process). And while I can't speak for other universities I can tell you that the amount of expulsions that I have seen in my half decade at TAMU is in the single digits despite having seen accusations in the triple digits (before anyone gasps keep in mind this over a 5 year period at university of over 60,000). Many of these stories would have you believe that universities are expelling students left and right but its simply not true. These records are protected by FERPA, they don't appear on background checks, and in most cases it only delays their graduation rather than cancels it. Impactful? Absolutely. Life ruining? I suppose it depends on your definition, but only if you let it.

Again, this is a really tough subject and I commend you for trying to handle a tough role. I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for more fairness.

Thank you. Though I don't "try" I do handle a tough role. I am very good at my job and so are most of the men and women that I call colleagues and peers. There are those in a small minority who are not good who need to be better trained or removed, just like there are in any profession.

I think fairness is an admirable goal. I have my own ideas about things that should be changed in the guidance and am more than happy to have the conversation about how to make this system better. Because we should always be striving to make it a closer to perfect system.

But please understand. What Secretary DeVos threatened to do isn't about improving the system or fairness. All she threatened to do was to strip the guidance on this topic away, leaving it up to individual universities to interpret how Title IX applies to sexual assault. Universities, accusers, accused...everyone will suffer as a result.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You should read this about their Title IX enforcement officer.  I will let the readers comment, but these are the person's own words.  Somewhat unbelievable.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/usc-title-ix-official-campus-rape

Article publishes her words, but more importantly asks whether USC is adequately prepared to handle these cases.  When someone like this is saying this about an appeal, one wonders what justice or due process the young man has.

So I actually took the time to read the report contained within the article. A few things going on here:

1. We have no proof that the Title IX Coordinator said what this person claimed other than their word.
2. If the words were said, we don't know what the context for them was. While I have never had a "hot mic" situation like the one described here, I have definitely said those words privately after a hearing. I have seen students, both accused and accuser, make extremely arrogant, rude, and disrespectful statements/demands to people involved with their case. We should be respectful no matter who the person is but some of these statements were made to people who are part of the university president's cabinet. I once had a student tell the Dean of Students that she needed to "sit down and shut up."
3. Hot mic issue aside, I do have concerns about USC's process if the article correctly details them. While technically they are still in compliance of Title IX, I would say the practice of a "hidden panel" is very much bad practice. As is having investigators issue opinions on their report. The role of the investigator is meant to be a neutral recorder of facts. They can weigh in on the credibility of various witnesses when appropriate, but not on what the outcome of the hearing should be. Most schools have also moved to a multi-investigator system.
4. California is an affirmative consent state. By state law, all universities must use an "affirmative" definition of consent. This means that the burden is on the initiator to obtain specific verbal consent before proceeding. It leaves little to no room for the possibility of non-verbal consent. While I like the spirit of affirmative consent, I have some concerns about practical application. But again, this is a state law that USC must comply with so they have very little control over the situation.
5. Hiring an attorney and a private investigator to go after your ex-girlfriend BEFORE she files a complaint is not a good look.
6. Assuming the written report is correct, I would have likely found him responsible too given that California is an affirmative consent state. The complainant's story stayed consistent through several months of documented conversations and even witnesses that were current friends of the respondent seemed to support the story. The respondent himself admitted repeatedly to "crossing the line physically." Unless this was a long con and the complainant planned to continue dating this guy for months before breaking up with him and then later accusing him of sexual misconduct, I can see no reasonable explanation for why she would text him the following day and accuse him of using physical force.
7. Without having met the respondent, it seems that he knows he did something wrong that night, but I also believe that he truly believes that the wrong thing he did didn't rise to the level of a sexual assault.
*Disclaimer, this is all based on one read through of the report.

To summarize, I would say this student has some legitimate complaints about the process, though it is technically compliant. If he were to sue I would advise USC to settle and to update some of their processes to be in line with researched "best practices." However, I would also say that this is likely not a case of an innocent being falsely accused.

[B. McBannerson]

amazing read!!  is usc's "title IX coordinator" related to barbara steisand??  obviously a frustrated bureaucrat unhappy with what life has brought her.  anyone who still uses that line-"don't you know who i am" should not be in any position to rule on anyone.  as a matter of fact, maybe gretchen's comments should be made to be very public so they may know a little bit more about her or were those comments taken out of context?

why do some here fear the duke lacrosse case?  that should never be forgotten and should become a landmark case for all those aspiring to be one of them ""Does that college motherunnatural carnal knowledgeer know who I am?" title IX directors

I'm not sure why some shirk from the Duke Lacrosse case. I have zero doubt in my mind if those guys were guilty, these same people would never let anyone forget the Duke Lacrosse case.

The bigger point is that there have been over 100 cases brought against schools and in the majority of them the school has lost in court or settled because of injustices done to the accused.  We have rotated to far, need to remember there are multiple parties involved and fairness should be the paramount goal. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not sure why some shirk from the Duke Lacrosse case. I have zero doubt in my mind if those guys were guilty, these same people would never let anyone forget the Duke Lacrosse case.

Two reasons. The first is the obvious. Because it is one of a very small minority of cases where things went wrong. It is irresponsible to hold that up as a model when it is not representative of the vast majority of cases. It can be a cautionary tale and should be taken into account but not help up as generalizable to all cases.

Second is a little less obvious. All the Duke LAX case showed is that there are some terribly corrupt DAs out there. The young woman in the case had a nutjob lawyer who lied and cheated in an attempt to make his case. That does not mean that those men didn't do something terrible to that young woman that night. My former supervisor worked in Raliegh at the time of the case and was involved with the case. People often make the mistake of thinking not guilty = innocent.

And no, the Duke LAX would not be held up as an example if the decision went the other way. There are already 1000s of other examples that can be used.

The bigger point is that there have been over 100 cases brought against schools and in the majority of them the school has lost in court or settled because of injustices done to the accused.  We have rotated to far, need to remember there are multiple parties involved and fairness should be the paramount goal.

Again, you should know that a settlement (which is almost of all of your cases that were "lost or settled") doesn't prove anything. It is cheaper to settle outside of court than fight it even if you are going to win.

And your numbers got me thinking. If the number of lawsuits is "over 100" I assume that means that the number is between 100-200, probably closer to 100. Let's call it 150. How many cases of sexual violence do you think have been handled by all universities governed by Title IX (all but 4 of them in the US) since 2011? 50,000? 100,000? 125,000? I don't have an exact number but it's at least 50,000. So using those numbers (which I think is being generous to your side of the argument) that means exactly .003% of cases have resulted in a lawsuit being generated. I think most criminal justice courts and hospitals would love it if only .003% of the cases they took on ended up in lawsuits. Aren't you the guy who says that because 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins mascot (per one poll) that it shouldn't be changed? But if universities get it wrong .003% of the time, then we have "over-rotated."

Fairness is the ultimate goal. Students accused of sexual assault enjoy more due process than a student accused of any other conduct violation. Which brings up a good question. If due process is the issue, why is sexual violence being singled out? Why aren't people protesting students that are getting sanctioned for drugs, alcohol, academic dishonesty, regular assault, etc? Those cases have even less due process because Title IX grants extra protections to those accused of sexual violence that other accused students don't have. It makes one wonder if the due process argument is actually secondary and the real issue is that people can't come to term with their sons and daughters (mostly sons) committing acts of sexual violence.

[MU82]

Aren't you the guy who says that because 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins mascot (per one poll) that it shouldn't be changed? But if universities get it wrong .003% of the time, then we have "over-rotated."

TAMU, my friend, you are on a roll!

Keep using facts and logic. Eventually it might sink in to the fact-averse set.

(Then again, recent polls have showed huge groups of people who actually believe that reverse discrimination is a bigger problem than racial discrimination, so there is no hope for some.)

[Lennys Tap]

And your numbers got me thinking. If the number of lawsuits is "over 100" I assume that means that the number is between 100-200, probably closer to 100. Let's call it 150. How many cases of sexual violence do you think have been handled by all universities governed by Title IX (all but 4 of them in the US) since 2011? 50,000? 100,000? 125,000? I don't have an exact number but it's at least 50,000. So using those numbers (which I think is being generous to your side of the argument) that means exactly .003% of cases have resulted in a lawsuit being generated. I think most criminal justice courts and hospitals would love it if only .003% of the cases they took on ended up in lawsuits. Aren't you the guy who says that because 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins mascot (per one poll) that it shouldn't be changed? But if universities get it wrong .003% of the time, then we have "over-rotated."

Authorities (whether they be police departments or Title IX officers) start with the benefit of the doubt. Add to that many of their cases are pretty clear cut, so only a very small % of the cases handled by them will be found to problematic. That doesn't, though, mean that the way either the police or title IX administrators do their business doesn't need scrutiny and at some level be subject to reform.

[CTWarrior]

Two reasons. The first is the obvious. Because it is one of a very small minority of cases where things went wrong. It is irresponsible to hold that up as a model when it is not representative of the vast majority of cases. It can be a cautionary tale and should be taken into account but not help up as generalizable to all cases.

I don't know how you can say with any certainty that only a very small minority of cases went wrong.  I think all the numbers about false accusations are basically at best educated guesses and more likely less than that.  I'd be surprised is the actual false accusation rate is as low as 2% and much more surprised if it were as high as 41%.  For whatever percentage of the cases that are simply he-said, she-said without witnesses, unless the accusation is backed up by eyewitnesses to the actual event (or physical evidence), there is no way of know what percentage of the cases are false accusations, particularly if both sides stick to their story. 

People on both sides of any issue these days tend to throw out statistics (which tend to be extrapolated guesses) to bolster their argument and tend to believe whichever ones support their position. 

I think it works both ways.  Many rapists get away with it and sometimes innocent men have their lives or at the very least their reputations ruined.  I don't envy you your responsibilities dealing with these incidents, TAMU.

[rocket surgeon]

'Aren't you the guy who says that because 90% of Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins mascot (per one poll) that it shouldn't be changed? But if universities get it wrong .003% of the time, then we have "over-rotated."

   wait a second!  so you are going to equivocate a poll re: a sports team nickname and universities getting it wrong and the ruining of young adult men's lives?  those poor native american and white guilt snowflakes i believe it's more than .003%, but when you read about the cases they have facked up, they aren't that hard.  if they would allow BOTH sides to present their cases FAIRLY and without BIAS, when we read about them AFTER they've ruined a dude's life, it's too late.  walking thru life worried about your ethnicity being "abused"?  i'll take seeing my swiss heritage being splashed all over a jersey, a hat, etc. any day and twice on sundays

   

   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Authorities (whether they be police departments or Title IX officers) start with the benefit of the doubt. Add to that many of their cases are pretty clear cut, so only a very small % of the cases handled by them will be found to problematic. That doesn't, though, mean that the way either the police or title IX administrators do their business doesn't need scrutiny and at some level be subject to reform.

I don't think anything I have said disagrees with what you have said here. Scrutiny and being subject to reform is required of any profession. You'll even notice that when Chicos presented an article with a case that he found concerning I offered my opinion and criticized the university's process. The point I was making here was that Chicos was trying to us a big number of "over 100 cases" to make it seem like there is an epidemic of universities being sued for violating people's due process. While its true that there have been over 100 cases since 2011, its also true that they account for .003% or less of cases heard during the same time period.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't know how you can say with any certainty that only a very small minority of cases went wrong.  I think all the numbers about false accusations are basically at best educated guesses and more likely less than that.  I'd be surprised is the actual false accusation rate is as low as 2% and much more surprised if it were as high as 41%.  For whatever percentage of the cases that are simply he-said, she-said without witnesses, unless the accusation is backed up by eyewitnesses to the actual event (or physical evidence), there is no way of know what percentage of the cases are false accusations, particularly if both sides stick to their story. 

In this case, I was not talking about false reporting. I was talking about universities abusing due processes. In the Duke LAX case (which was in the criminal courts), a moron DA lied, cheated, and falsified evidence in an attempt to win his case. I can say with certainty that the behavior exhibited by that DA is not representative of the vast majority of these cases.

People on both sides of any issue these days tend to throw out statistics (which tend to be extrapolated guesses) to bolster their argument and tend to believe whichever ones support their position. 

I want to challenge your use of "extrapolated guesses." The statistics are based on scientific studies that have been conducted by professionals in the field. You are right to be critical however. You should never just accept a statistic as true, always question where it comes from and how the researcher arrived at it and is the number being used in the correct context. Otherwise you post on article that was written last week but cites sources from the 80s and early 90s.

I think it works both ways.  Many rapists get away with it and sometimes innocent men have their lives or at the very least their reputations ruined.  I don't envy you your responsibilities dealing with these incidents, TAMU.

I already challenged the notion of ruining lives but I also want to challenge the notion of ruining reputations. These records are sealed, protected by FERPA. They do not appear on background checks. They do not appear on transcripts. Employers can't find out about them. The only people who know the outcome of the case are the accused and the accuser. Theoretically, an accuser could tell the world that his/her rapist was found responsible but I don't know of any cases where that has happened. I know a few where the rapist was found not responsible and the accused decided to tell people about it. Most of the time when a case becomes publicized, it is because the accused chooses to tell people about it. And in my experience most people the accused tells become part of the "my friend was false accused" crowd rather than ruining their view of that person.

An accusation can theoretically ruin someone's reputation but a university can't (and shouldn't) stop students from making accusations. The conduct process itself is so wrapped in confidentiality that it is very limited ability to damage reputations.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

   wait a second!  so you are going to equivocate a poll re: a sports team nickname and universities getting it wrong and the ruining of young adult men's lives?  those poor native american and white guilt snowflakes i believe it's more than .003%, but when you read about the cases they have facked up, they aren't that hard.  if they would allow BOTH sides to present their cases FAIRLY and without BIAS, when we read about them AFTER they've ruined a dude's life, it's too late.  walking thru life worried about your ethnicity being "abused"?  i'll take seeing my swiss heritage being splashed all over a jersey, a hat, etc. any day and twice on sundays

No I wasn't equating the two and you know that. Let me ask it another way. If someone told you that police officers had "over-rotated" and their evidence was that .003% of arrests led to lawsuits, how seriously would you take that?

As for the rest of you post, if you would provide specifics on how you feel universities don't "allow BOTH sides to present their cases FAIRLY and without BIAS" I would be happy to address your concerns.

[rocket surgeon]

No I wasn't equating the two and you know that. Let me ask it another way. If someone told you that police officers had "over-rotated" and their evidence was that .003% of arrests led to lawsuits, how seriously would you take that?

As for the rest of you post, if you would provide specifics on how you feel universities don't "allow BOTH sides to present their cases FAIRLY and without BIAS" I would be happy to address your concerns.

  1) i still have trouble believing it's only .003%, but your example w/police is well taken

  2) specifics-for lack of a better term other than being lazy, i'll pass.  but, it just seems the cases they have messed up look to have all of those things missing-both sides, fairly and without bias.  i can understand many of the cases submitted can be challenging.  however, the cases that have really harmed individuals reputations do not look to be very complicated and imho, should have been thrown out before it got to the point they did-usc, mattress girl, amherst college 2012 to name a few.  all they had to do was be honest and do the right thing-i am referring to the investigations

[Golden Avalanche]

2) specifics-for lack of a better term other than being lazy, i'll pass.  but, it just seems the cases they have messed up look to have all of those things missing-both sides, fairly and without bias.  i can understand many of the cases submitted can be challenging.  however, the cases that have really harmed individuals reputations do not look to be very complicated and imho, should have been thrown out before it got to the point they did-usc, mattress girl, amherst college 2012 to name a few.  all they had to do was be honest and do the right thing-i am referring to the investigations

That's not being lazy. It's being purposefully evasive about your evidence which you want to avoid so you can hide the ignorance you rely upon to put forth idiotic conclusions. 

[rocket surgeon]

That's not being lazy. It's being purposefully evasive about your evidence which you want to avoid so you can hide the ignorance you rely upon to put forth idiotic conclusions.

just being honest goldi.  i have a lot of respect for tamu and i am enlightened with his knowledge here more than it may across.  this is what tamu does, it's his world, his profession and he's an MU dude so that carries a lot of weight and deserves my respect.  all i'm saying is that intellectually, i struggle some with how these investigations are accomplished. 

as for doing more due diligence to come up with some specifics to bolster my case-i'll just say "uncle"  it's not like we are having knock down drag 'em out on this-it's ok, it is what it is.  i don't think any less of tamu just because i may have some doubts about something.  if it were that important, i would take the time to look some more stuff up, but frankly, after a long monday at work, it's football R & R getting ready for a long tuesday-that's all

'lanche-you really seem fired up about this-'ey?  so much so that ya gotta pepper your comments with personal attacks?  there's got to be some on this board who can help you out with those inner demons.  disagreements don't have to be "idiotic" and/or "ignorant" 

[mu03eng]