Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[B. McBannerson]

Without pointing out the obvious mistakes above, a fundamental fact you are not grasping here is that these hearings are not, nor are they intended to be, criminal law proceedings. And yet you demand they be operated as such. Not happening.

The criminal justice system is set up primarily to protect the rights of the accused. That's why the standard of proof is so high. That's why legal representation is guaranteed. That's why we have all sorts of strict laws governing the collection of evidence, how charges can be brought, when someone can be detained, how evidence can be presented in court, etc.
This, of course, makes a ton of sense. In the criminal system, someone's freedom is at stake, as well as their money and their future prospects.

Unlike the criminal justice system, the college disciplinary system is not - nor should it be - about protecting the rights of the accused. It's about protecting the rights and safety of ALL students. This means justice and fairness for the accuser matters every bit as much as for the accused. It means protecting the safety of all students from having a potential rapist on campus matters at least as much as protecting a single student from being disciplined unfairly. It means the accused has no procedural rights above and beyond the accuser.
This should seem obvious. Nobody is losing their freedom in these proceedings. Nobody is ending up with a criminal record. Nobody is being deprived of their rights. Nobody is being publicly declared a rapist.
The worst possible outcome is that a kid can no longer attend the university of his/her choice.

As such, the standard of proof in these hearings is appropriately a preponderance of evidence. This is the same standard that's applied in most civil proceedings. If you're involved in a lawsuit over a fender bender, chances are the standard will be the preponderance of evidence. If you and your business partner have a falling out and go to court over who controls what assets,  chances are the standard will be the preponderance of evidence.
It is the standard "standard" in non-criminal court matters. There's nothing untoward about it being used in an administrative proceeding, as you seem to imply.

This was signed by 25 current and three retired members of the law school faculty. To put that in perspective, Harvard Law School currently has 359 faculty members. Which means 93 percent of the faculty chose not to sign it. That doesn't automatically make the stated concerns irrelevant or unfounded, but you're being misleading by stating "this is the Harvard Law faculty." It's not. It's a small number of faculty members.

I grasp it fine.  What people want is a fair system in which their lives aren't ruined because due process shortcomings exist by having such low standards.  Kids records are ruined, they aren't allowed to graduate from their colleges, they are kicked off teams, they have to explain to future employers what happened, all because the way this is processed is so flimsy.  I grasp it fine. It's unfortunate what is happening to people wrongfully accused.

[B. McBannerson]

This is misleading. The standard of evidence for all other conduct violations at over 90% of schools was preponderance of evidence. This was put into place to keep schools from having a separate higher standard for sexual assault cases.

This isn't true. Students accused of sexual assault are allowed to have lawyers (something that students accused of other crimes aren't allowed to have). The lawyer simply cannot speak for the student. The lawyer can be in the room and tell the accused student exactly what to say and the student is allowed to parrot that back. The words just need to come from the student and not directly from the attorney. So this is an area where students accused of sexual assault enjoy MORE due process than any other kind of accused student.

This isn't true either. Investigations of both on and off campus incidents are still conducted by law enforcement and may also be investigated by university investigators. There is nothing about the university process that impedes law enforcement for conducting investigations.

What I believe you are trying to say is that language was added to ensure that universities were investigating cases that don't occur directly on campus....which is what has always been done. Part of the student's contract with the university is that they are always representing the university and thus bound by the student code of conduct. They can be held accountable to the student code even if they are not on campus. Universities have always had an obligation to investigate conduct violations committed by their students that occur on their campus and anywhere they have a "nexus." A nexus is any location within a certain radius of campus, a location known to be occupied by specific university students (i.e. a fraternity house off campus), or while on school-sponsored travel. This has ALWAYS been the case. What the language in the dear colleague letter ensured was that some universities were shirking this responsibility because they didn't want to handle it. There were even cases where the university investigated underage drinking at an off campus house, but refused to investigate a sexual assault that happened at the same party.

I'm not sure what "(Incidentally, this reversed prior policy and should have mandated public notice and comment)" is referring to. Universities are bound by the Jeanne Clery Act and have mandated public notice and comment.

Finally, even if this was true, why would it be stacking the deck? This has nothing with due process, it is a reminder of where universities have jurisdiction. Unless you are saying that the deck is stacked because now they can't get away with it if they're off campus.

By investigating and hearing cases fairly as outlined by the DCL. We are required to keep documentation of everything. That is how we show our results. There is no quota as you seem to imply. Again, we are just as likely (if not more likely) to be held accountable by the DOE if we are not giving the accused proper due process.

The Harvard professors weren't commenting on the DCL. They were commenting on Harvard's policies specifically, which I agree "over-rotated" as you put it. Some of their concerns were valid, some weren't. Many, including these professors don't understand that this is NOT a legal process. It is an educational student conduct process. Attorney generals of 20 different states urged DeVos to leave the guidance untouched. You will find lawyers on both sides of this conversation.

It should be and right now there is more due process for sexaul assault cases than any other case on college campuses.

Change is coming but not the change you want. DeVos will strip the guidance and leave it up to the universities. Everyone will suffer as a result.

We all get it isn't a legal process.  We are saying it SHOULD BE.   It is impacting lives and does have legal consequences, which is why so many of these cases have ended up in court. 

Yes, you will always find lawyers on both sides of the equation.  Just as you claiming my statements aren't true I can find many articles saying it is true, it all depends on how one views things and interprets them.  Legal representation, being an example. If the lawyer can't speak for the client in the process and can only prep, that isn't much of any representation, for example.

[GGGG]

I grasp it fine.  What people want is a fair system in which their lives aren't ruined because due process shortcomings exist by having such low standards.  Kids records are ruined, they aren't allowed to graduate from their colleges, they are kicked off teams, they have to explain to future employers what happened, all because the way this is processed is so flimsy.  I grasp it fine. It's unfortunate what is happening to people wrongfully accused.

It's always unfortunate for people to be falsely accused.  It is more unfortunate that sexual assault occurs on college campuses.  Too bad you really only seem to care about the former.

[GGGG]

We all get it isn't a legal process.  We are saying it SHOULD BE. 

That is so stupid.  Insanely stupid.

Student code of conduct violations should be a legal process?  Dumb.

[B. McBannerson]

Let the lawsuits continue.  150 since 2011 and more on the way.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/expelled-for-sex-assault-young-men-are-filing-more-lawsuits-to-clear-their-names/2017/04/27/c2cfb1d2-0d89-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.3216f8c814a7

“The new standard of proof, coupled with the media pressure, effectively creates a presumption in favor of the woman complainant,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge, who is now a Harvard law lecturer, wrote in the American Prospect in 2015. “If you find against her, you will see yourself on ‘60 Minutes’ or in an investigation [into federal civil rights] where your funding is at risk. If you find for her, no one is likely to complain.”

“Now judges are digging deeper,” said Brett Sokolow, a lawyer who is president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management. “They are losing trust in the good faith that colleges had when addressing these situations. And that’s a very dangerous position for colleges.”

[GGGG]

Let the lawsuits continue.  150 since 2011 and more on the way.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/expelled-for-sex-assault-young-men-are-filing-more-lawsuits-to-clear-their-names/2017/04/27/c2cfb1d2-0d89-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.3216f8c814a7

“The new standard of proof, coupled with the media pressure, effectively creates a presumption in favor of the woman complrightnt,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge, who is now a Harvard law lecturer, wrote in the American Prospect in 2015. “If you find against her, you will see yourself on ‘60 Minutes’ or in an investigation [into federal civil rights] where your funding is at risk. If you find for her, no one is likely to complain.”

“Now judges are digging deeper,” said Brett Sokolow, a lawyer who is president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management. “They are losing trust in the good faith that colleges had when addressing these situations. And that’s a very dangerous position for colleges.”

You always wanted to go back to the good ole days Chicos! 

Between Charlottesville and making easier to rape on campus, you've got your wish!!! 

[rocket surgeon]

These records are protected by the Family Education Records Privacy Act (FERPA). The university cannot speak a word about the outcome to anybody other than those who have an "educational need to know." A person's reputation cannot be damaged via the university system.

The cases you have heard of are because the accused student later chose to make their story public because they didn't agree with the process or the outcome. They had the option to not make anything public and no one would have any idea who they are.

An accusation has the possibility of damaging someone's reputation, that is true. But universities don't accuse students....other students accuse students. Those accusations would happen regardless of what the university did. Unless your suggesting that universities should discourage students from reporting sexual assaults.

You are throwing blame at the wrong people.

  ok, but it is the university's process that has in many cases wrongly accused the student which gives the student(on either side) reason to take it to the next level which causes it to go public.  if the university's process were fair, which is the whole reason this has become a topic, there would be no need to discuss.  discussion and debate is healthy and is necessary to make sure the checks and balances are in place.  if there needs to be improvement, it should and will be implemented.  until the scales are balanced, there is going to be questions.  how?  fewer lawsuits over turning the cases.  eventually people are going to start to question the spending of their money(tuition or otherwise) on lawyers and settlements.  quite possibly by declining enrollment and/or donations-note how missouri and a few others have suffered some of this since the infamous campus uprisings.  parents want to know their kids are going to be treated fairly

  sully-you either need to open up your mind or quit being obtuse-no one is for the rape of anyone.  you are effectively trying to shut down a civil and legitimate debate because you don't like some of the authors or you are so afraid some changes may be forthcoming in a policy you seem to be very protective of.  rape is a very violent and life changing event that needs to be punished harshly.  by saying 4/5 is for rape and making references to charlottesville are uncalled for and are attempts to end the conversation akin to calling someone a racist-projection much? 

[Pakuni]

I grasp it fine.  What people want is a fair system in which their lives aren't ruined because due process shortcomings exist by having such low standards.  Kids records are ruined, they aren't allowed to graduate from their colleges, they are kicked off teams, they have to explain to future employers what happened, all because the way this is processed is so flimsy.  I grasp it fine. It's unfortunate what is happening to people wrongfully accused.

No, Chico's, your responses here prove quite clearly - beyond a reasonable doubt, even - that you don't grasp it at all.
Case in point: You claim these are "low standards" and believe these disciplinary matters should be treated as legal procedures.
And yet these are the same standards judges, juries and hearing boards are lawfully required to follow in the large majority of legal matters in this country.

You're not looking for fairness and you wouldn't know due process if it smacked upside your head. You're looking for a system rigged in favor of the accused. You want alleged rapists in quasi-civil school disciplinary proceedings to be given the rights of a criminal defendant (while, of course, not facing criminal consequences). That's preposterous.

I'd take your alleged concerns about fairness and justness a little more seriously if just once you'd express an ounce of concern about the fairness and justness for the victims of sexual assault.
Yeah, the extremely rare cases in which people are wrongly accused and get kicked out of school are unfortunate. That will remain true regardless of the standard. It's even more unfortunate - and far more common - when a sex assault victim watches his or her rapist go unpunished because of a system that places a nearly impossible burden on them to prove their victimhood.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

We all get it isn't a legal process.  We are saying it SHOULD BE.   

What? That would be entirely inappropriate and I'm pretty sure you are the only one saying it. Universities have no capacity to enforce laws and law enforcement has no capacity to enforce student conduct violations. One system is punitive, the other is educational.

It is impacting lives and does have legal consequences, which is why so many of these cases have ended up in court. 

What legal consequences does this have if an accused is found responsible? It doesn't go on any public record. It doesn't show up on background checks. What are your referring too?

Let the lawsuits continue.  150 since 2011 and more on the way.

Again, 150 out of at least 50,000. Probably over 100,000. You are talking about less than .003% of cases generating lawsuits. Stop trying to pass off 150 as a huge number.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/expelled-for-sex-assault-young-men-are-filing-more-lawsuits-to-clear-their-names/2017/04/27/c2cfb1d2-0d89-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.3216f8c814a7

“The new standard of proof, coupled with the media pressure, effectively creates a presumption in favor of the woman complrightnt,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge, who is now a Harvard law lecturer, wrote in the American Prospect in 2015. “If you find against her, you will see yourself on ‘60 Minutes’ or in an investigation [into federal civil rights] where your funding is at risk. If you find for her, no one is likely to complain.”

“Now judges are digging deeper,” said Brett Sokolow, a lawyer who is president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management. “They are losing trust in the good faith that colleges had when addressing these situations. And that’s a very dangerous position for colleges.”

Having had a hand in finding dozens of accused students not responsible for sexual assault with exactly zero media scandals, I can confidently say that the choice isn't between siding with the accuser or ending up on 60 minutes. In fact, I have found we are much more likely to attract negative attention if we side against the accused. I respect the judge's opinion but I don't find it to be accurate.

There are bad individuals in the Title IX roles. They need to be trained better or removed. Just like there are bad police officers, bad teachers, bad politicians, bad businessmen, and bad Direct TV employees. Don't mistake an episodic issue for a systematic one.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I grasp it fine.  What people want is a fair system in which their lives aren't ruined because due process shortcomings exist by having such low standards.  Kids records are ruined, they aren't allowed to graduate from their colleges, they are kicked off teams, they have to explain to future employers what happened, all because the way this is processed is so flimsy.  I grasp it fine. It's unfortunate what is happening to people wrongfully accused.

What records are ruined? Their private educational record which stays sealed and doesn't follow them to a new university?

Going to a specific college and representing the university on a team is a privilege. They are free to go to another university to graduate or play for collegiate teams.

Explain to employers what happened? "I transferred." Explained.

It is unfortunate when people are wrongfully accused. Fortunately, they are a tiny sample of the population and only tiny amount of them are found responsible. I am curious if your passion for saving the wrongfully accused extends to the thousands of innocent men and women serving time in our prisons. Or the students found responsible for other conduct violations that aren't sexual assault. Why is it only these wrongfully accused who are getting attention?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

  ok, but it is the university's process that has in many cases wrongly accused the student which gives the student(on either side) reason to take it to the next level which causes it to go public.

Again, the university process doesn't have anything to do with the accusation. That is entirely on the student making the accusation. Universities can't even acknowledge if a student is involved with the conduct process. The only way to stop false accusations from ruining someone's reputation as you put it is to convince people to stop making accusations in the first place. Which would be colossally stupid.

if the university's process were fair, which is the whole reason this has become a topic, there would be no need to discuss.  discussion and debate is healthy and is necessary to make sure the checks and balances are in place.  if there needs to be improvement, it should and will be implemented.  until the scales are balanced, there is going to be questions. 

Rocket, you keep saying the process is unfair but you refuse to even say how you think its unfair. I can't answer you if all you are going to do is make broad generalizations without offering any substance. That would be like me screaming "the police and courts are unfair" and sticking to my opinion without offering anything to back it up.

how?  fewer lawsuits over turning the cases.  eventually people are going to start to question the spending of their money(tuition or otherwise) on lawyers and settlements.  quite possibly by declining enrollment and/or donations-note how missouri and a few others have suffered some of this since the infamous campus uprisings.  parents want to know their kids are going to be treated fairly 

Can you point to these lawsuits over turning cases? Please. Any one will do. As Chicos has brought up repeatedly there have been 150 lawsuits brought in the last 6 years. Out of a conservative estimate of 50,000 cases in that time span. If .003% or less of cases is generating lawsuits, we're not spending that much on lawsuits. Parents do want to know their kids are being treated fairly, which as I have explained, they are. They also want to know that their kids are safe and not sharing a campus with a serial rapist. Universities have an obligation to serve both needs.

no one is for the rape of anyone 

I'm not entirely convinced that is true. People who protest this usually stick to due process arguments, but its curious to me that they only focus on sexual violence when universities hear cases ranging from noise violations to murder with even less due process (because again, those accused of sexual violence get extra due process compared to any other student). I think the more central issue most people have is that they don't agree with universities' definitions of rape and consent. There are some who believe that unless the person is screaming no and fighting for their life or a weapon is involved than it is not rape. There are some who believe that if someone is drunk to the point of falling down then they are still good to give consent. There are some who believe that someone isn't at fault if their partner says yes but then changes their mind but they continue on anyway. There are those who believe that if someone freezes in fear and the other person just takes what they want without asking then that is ok. They would definitely not categorize themselves as "pro-rape" but they would be ok with many things that fit the universities' definition of rape.

[rocket surgeon]

  ok, the best way i think i can convey my point is this-let's substitute murder for rape just for my purpose here.  would you want a usc case, a mattress girl case, an amherst college case outcome where the dudes clearly did not have a fair shake.  if this were a murder trial, the outcomes seem to take on a whole different urgency.   when you read the evidence they had in front of them. evidence that was ignored or taken out of context or out of timeline, etc you have to feel for the wrongly accused   regardless of how seemingly few of these cases which are mishandled, someone's life is messed up big time. many of these are "no-brainers".  rape victims/accusers have been known to use sexual assault as a power grab, a cover-up, payback for lover scorned.  the penalties for both rapists and faux rape victims should be harsh as they cast doubts on the legitimate ones.  would most agree that one unjustly tried case is one too many just as  a wrongful death penalty case would be the same?

         

[GGGG]

  ok, the best way i think i can convey my point is this-let's substitute murder for rape just for my purpose here.  would you want a usc case, a mattress girl case, an amherst college case outcome where the dudes clearly did not have a fair shake.           

Why do you keep making the assumption that the guy didn't get a fair shake in the USC case? 

And stop comparing criminal trials to campus disciplinary hearings.  They are not the same thing because the accused does not meet the same consequences.

[Pakuni]

  ok, the best way i think i can convey my point is this-let's substitute murder for rape just for my purpose here.  would you want a usc case, a mattress girl case, an amherst college case outcome where the dudes clearly did not have a fair shake.  if this were a murder trial, the outcomes seem to take on a whole different urgency.   when you read the evidence they had in front of them. evidence that was ignored or taken out of context or out of timeline, etc you have to feel for the wrongly accused   regardless of how seemingly few of these cases which are mishandled, someone's life is messed up big time. many of these are "no-brainers".  rape victims/accusers have been known to use sexual assault as a power grab, a cover-up, payback for lover scorned.  the penalties for both rapists and faux rape victims should be harsh as they cast doubts on the legitimate ones.  would most agree that one unjustly tried case is one too many just as  a wrongful death penalty case would be the same?

         

Rocket .... nobody here wants an innocent person punished, and I'm pretty sure no one here (even Chico's, I think) wants to see a rapist unpunished. Let's just toss those straw men aside, OK?

The ongoing problem with your arguments (and Chico's, to some extent) is your tenuous grip on the facts.
You have repeatedly cited cases in the criminal justice system (Duke lacrosse, the USC student) as evidence of faults with the school discipline process.
You have claimed people have had their public reputations ruined when, in fact, their identities have not been disclosed (Amherst College).
You have claimed that innocent men have been found guilty and had their lives messed up by college disciplinary panels when they were in fact cleared (the guy accused by 'mattress girl').
In Chico's case, he simply shows a woeful misunderstanding of the process, the law and the consequences actually faced. Oh, and he seems to think being made to transfer "destroys" one's life, but being raped, not so much.

I'm wondering if you'd be better served learning what's actually occurred in these cases, instead of what you think you may have heard on Fox News, before commenting. Who knows, you might have a different outlook with the benefit of a little knowledge.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

  ok, the best way i think i can convey my point is this-let's substitute murder for rape just for my purpose here.  would you want a usc case, a mattress girl case, an amherst college case outcome where the dudes clearly did not have a fair shake.  if this were a murder trial, the outcomes seem to take on a whole different urgency.   when you read the evidence they had in front of them. evidence that was ignored or taken out of context or out of timeline, etc you have to feel for the wrongly accused   regardless of how seemingly few of these cases which are mishandled, someone's life is messed up big time. many of these are "no-brainers".  rape victims/accusers have been known to use sexual assault as a power grab, a cover-up, payback for lover scorned.  the penalties for both rapists and faux rape victims should be harsh as they cast doubts on the legitimate ones.  would most agree that one unjustly tried case is one too many just as  a wrongful death penalty case would be the same?       

Couple of things Rocket.

First, in the mattress girl case that you keep bringing up the man was found NOT responsible. The university sided with him. So if you are using this as an example of a false accusation (which we don't know to be true), than this case shows that the university got it right.

Second, you keep writing as if the accused in the USC, mattress girl, and Ahmerst College cases were innocent. What evidence do you have for this?

Third, you keep writing that the "dudes clearly didn't have a fair shake" and that these cases were "no-brainers" but continue to not give any examples about how they weren't given a fair shake or how they were no brainers. I'm happy to respond to your concerns but you don't give any. Honestly, it seems like you have just decided you are against something without doing any research on it.

Fourth, if people truly agreed that "one unjustly tried case is too many" than we would shut down the legal system. Zero innocents being found responsible/guilty should be the goal that we strive for (but unfortunately never reach). It is why we should constantly be trying to improve any disciplinary process. But it is always going to happen. We need to keep that rate low, but it is no reason to throw out a system. But the university conduct process does not have the same calling that the criminal system has. We have a calling to be fair to all students (accused, accuser, and the campus community) and to be educational

Finally, repeat after me. The-University-conduct-system-is-NOT-a-legal-process. There is no comparison between a murder trial and and a hearing for a violation of the student code of conduct. We are not potentially removing somebody's freedom or fining them thousands of dollars or sentencing them to death. We are at most saying "you can no longer go to our school but you can go to another one." Most of the time we are saying either "you will need to take a semester or two off but you can come back to our school, or go to another one right away if you'd like" or "you are on probation until you gradate."

Sometimes I wonder if this has become so politicized just because the Obama administration championed it. Or if its that people on the right have an inherent distrust of universities.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Rocket .... nobody here wants an innocent person punished, and I'm pretty sure no one here (even Chico's, I think) wants to see a rapist unpunished. Let's just toss those straw men aside, OK?

The ongoing problem with your arguments (and Chico's, to some extent) is your tenuous grip on the facts.
You have repeatedly cited cases in the criminal justice system (Duke lacrosse, the USC student) as evidence of faults with the school discipline process.
You have claimed people have had their public reputations ruined when, in fact, their identities have not been disclosed (Amherst College).
You have claimed that innocent men have been found guilty and had their lives messed up by college disciplinary panels when they were in fact cleared (the guy accused by 'mattress girl').
In Chico's case, he simply shows a woeful misunderstanding of the process, the law and the consequences actually faced. Oh, and he seems to think being made to transfer "destroys" one's life, but being raped, not so much.

I'm wondering if you'd be better served learning what's actually occurred in these cases, instead of what you think you may have heard on Fox News, before commenting. Who knows, you might have a different outlook with the benefit of a little knowledge.

Well said Pakuni though I am going to challenge the bolded a bit (not the part about Chicos specifically). I think one of the main reasons many are uncomfortable with the university process is because universities hold their students to a higher standard on this topic than the law does. Their definition of sexual assault is different from many people's. So while no on would categorize themselves as "wanting to see a rapist go unpunished" many would want to see someone who committed an act that is sexual assault or rape by the university definition go unpunished.

I watched a colleague of mine defend her dissertation the other day. She presented some fascinating research. She found that current college students have a much better understanding of consent and why it is needed than students did even 5 years ago. Specifically she found that most of the students in her study expressed both a need and a desire for verbal consent and that it was important (and to some mandatory) before any sexual action could occur. She is planning to publish and this is only a first study. Her work will eventually go a long way towards clarifying how society's views on consent and sexual assault have shifted as the movement to end sexual assault on campus continues. We are a long way from it but if her research continues to trend in this way it could mean that we have much safer and respectful world in the future when it comes to the bedroom (or wherever you like to get it on). I compare it to seat belt laws. Many thought they were ridiculous and even unlawful when they were first introduced. But now the majority of the youngest generation would never dream of not buckling up.

[StillAWarrior]

Well said Pakuni though I am going to challenge the bolded a bit (not the part about Chicos specifically). I think one of the main reasons many are uncomfortable with the university process is because universities hold their students to a higher standard on this topic than the law does. Their definition of sexual assault is different from many people's. So while no on would categorize themselves as "wanting to see a rapist go unpunished" many would want to see someone who committed an act that is sexual assault or rape by the university definition go unpunished.

Why, oh why, am I wading into this thread again?

I think one thing that troubles people is the difference between the theoretical and reality of campus sexual assault cases.  Understand that I am aware that there are outliers on both sides of the issue that are held up as straw men, and I really don't want to get involved in those.

As you have explained, in a theoretical sense, someone who is at 0.08 BAC could be viewed as incapable of consenting to sex -- no matter how enthusiastically she appears to consent.  You have also explained that, in reality, the standard basically is whether the accused knew or should have known that the person was too intoxicated to consent.  I have  a serious problem with the theoretical.  I don't have that much of a problem with what you -- the most knowledgeable person I know on this issue -- have explained to me is standard in reality.  I'm generally inclined to accept that your statement as to how these things are generally adjudicated is far more common than the outliers we've all seen.

[jsglow]

I think the more central issue most people have is that they don't agree with universities' definitions of rape and consent.

Absolutely the heart of the matter here TAMU and thanks for bringing it up.  It's easy to stipulate that things like robbery and murder are 'crimes'.  Nobody disagrees with that.  But lots of folks disagree with the line for 'sexual assault'.  Knife held to the throat, sure.  Easy.  .081% without my paperwork in triplicate as I've often teased you about?  Many well meaning folks would say that's not sexual assault but is 'real life'.  And that doesn't make those people immoral.  It just makes them folks with a different well meaning point of view worthy of consideration as we all grope toward a more enlightened future.

[Pakuni]

I think the more central issue most people have is that they don't agree with universities' definitions of rape and consent.

Absolutely the heart of the matter here TAMU and thanks for bringing it up.  It's easy to stipulate that things like robbery and murder are 'crimes'.  Nobody disagrees with that.  But lots of folks disagree with the line for 'sexual assault'.  Knife held to the throat, sure.  Easy. .081% without my paperwork in triplicate as I've often teased you about? Many well meaning folks would say that's not sexual assault but is 'real life'.  And that doesn't make those people immoral.  It just makes them folks with a different well meaning point of view worthy of consideration as we all grope toward a more enlightened future.

Have you ever heard of a person being prosecuted, either criminally or administratively, in a case involving an otherwise consenting accuser with a .081 BAC and not having written consent in triplicate?
I don't see the benefit of creating non-existent, hyperbolic hypotheticals and citing them as examples of instances where decent people could disagree.

[Pakuni]

Why, oh why, am I wading into this thread again?

I think one thing that troubles people is the difference between the theoretical and reality of campus sexual assault cases.  Understand that I am aware that there are outliers on both sides of the issue that are held up as straw men, and I really don't want to get involved in those.

As you have explained, in a theoretical sense, someone who is at 0.08 BAC could be viewed as incapable of consenting to sex -- no matter how enthusiastically she appears to consent.  You have also explained that, in reality, the standard basically is whether the accused knew or should have known that the person was too intoxicated to consent.  I have  a serious problem with the theoretical. I don't have that much of a problem with what you -- the most knowledgeable person I know on this issue -- have explained to me is standard in reality.  I'm generally inclined to accept that your statement as to how these things are generally adjudicated is far more common than the outliers we've all seen.

Could you elaborate on this further?

[MU82]

It just makes them folks with a different well meaning point of view worthy of consideration as we all grope toward a more enlightened future.

Nice usage of "grope"!

[Lennys Tap]

It is unfortunate when people are wrongfully accused. Fortunately, they are a tiny sample of the population and only tiny amount of them are found responsible. I am curious if your passion for saving the wrongfully accused extends to the thousands of innocent men and women serving time in our prisons. Or the students found responsible for other conduct violations that aren't sexual assault. Why is it only these wrongfully accused who are getting attention?

This wasn't addressed to me but I would like to comment. My concern (and passion for) for the "thousands of innocent men and women serving time in our prisons" is real. That despite all the protections afforded the accused (presumption of innocence, due process, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) those in power (frequently?) get it wrong and successfully prosecute the innocent gives me great pause. And (to me at least) it seems logical that if you take away (among other things) due process and lower the bar to a 50.1% likelihood of guilt the percentage of innocents being found otherwise would skyrocket. I'm not concerned with noise violations and other minor things, but the process for adjudicating serious accusations troubles me - that said, I'm grateful that fair and dedicated people like yourself are doing the best you can, but I'm fearful that all in positions of power might not be as even handed.

[StillAWarrior]

Could you elaborate on this further?

TAMU has said as much more than once in this thread, I believe.

[rocket surgeon]

ok tamu-good discussion-my intentions were never to doubt your knowledge of your profession.  i believe my concerns are not mine alone, but questions will always remain as to whether or not it can do better.  that is the beauty of debate.  right now, it seems to be the best we have, but that doesn't mean we cannot or should not ever question the process.  once we know everything, it's time to go home, eyn'a?

   it's a complicated and delicate process you are involved in.  you've demonstrated you're command of the subject quite well and i do appreciate that.  i know more now than i knew yesterday

i'll just hang up and listen

   

[MU82]

And speaking of false accusations ...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article174356951.html?#emlnl=Afternoon_Newsletter

When Mecklenburg County leaders acknowledged that two health clinics did not notify women about abnormal Pap smears, they insisted the failures were caused by one nurse.

But an investigation by the North Carolina Board of Nursing has found no wrongdoing by Natalie Nicholson and cast blame on “systemic” problems in the county’s Health Department.

So they tried to scapegoat one poor nurse when it was something that had been an ongoing problem for years. Typical.