MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on July 07, 2017, 06:08:11 PM
-
It seems a lot of old long-time coaches cannot "get out" with their reputations intact? Joe Pa, Bobby Bowden, Jim Calhoun, Bo Ryan, Rick Pitino.
Jim Boeheim, you're on the clock.
John Calipari, you're after him.
--------------------------
Washington (AP) -- The FBI and the U.S. Army investigated complaints from four women that Hall of Fame basketball coach Bob Knight groped them or touched them inappropriately during a visit to a U.S. spy agency in 2015, an investigation that concluded a year later without charges, The Washington Post reported Friday.
One of the women, whose name The Post did not disclose, told the newspaper that Knight groped her on the buttocks shortly before he gave a speech to staffers at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at its headquarters in Springfield, Virginia. The woman also filed a discrimination complaint against the NGA and the Defense Department in which she claimed she was pressured to drop the matter, The Post reported.
An attorney representing Knight, James Voyles, acknowledged to The Post that FBI agents interviewed Knight at his home in Montana last year and said the investigation was dropped shortly thereafter.
"There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations," Voyles said, adding that the FBI agents "reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period."
-
It seems a lot of old long-time coaches cannot "get out" with their reputations intact? Joe Pa, Bobby Bowden, Jim Calhoun, Bo Ryan, Rick Pitino.
Jim Boeheim, you're on the clock.
John Calipari, you're after him.
--------------------------
Washington (AP) -- The FBI and the U.S. Army investigated complaints from four women that Hall of Fame basketball coach Bob Knight groped them or touched them inappropriately during a visit to a U.S. spy agency in 2015, an investigation that concluded a year later without charges, The Washington Post reported Friday.
One of the women, whose name The Post did not disclose, told the newspaper that Knight groped her on the buttocks shortly before he gave a speech to staffers at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at its headquarters in Springfield, Virginia. The woman also filed a discrimination complaint against the NGA and the Defense Department in which she claimed she was pressured to drop the matter, The Post reported.
An attorney representing Knight, James Voyles, acknowledged to The Post that FBI agents interviewed Knight at his home in Montana last year and said the investigation was dropped shortly thereafter.
"There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations," Voyles said, adding that the FBI agents "reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period."
Boeheim still has his reputation?
-
Knight is also famous for saying something along the lines of "If you're going to get raped you might as well relax and enjoy it." Not one of my favorite human beings and if these allegations are true, that only cements it.
-
Boeheim still has his reputation?
said he was on the clock.
But Bernie Fine and vacating 2013 suggests he'll end of like the rest of them.
-
Bobby Knight still has a reputation?
He was always a pig, and a horrible human being. I mean, he was caught on film effen chokin' a kid! Among his many affronts to humanity.
If he couldn't coach, he'd have been in jail a long time ago. He coulda shared a cell with Latrell Sprewell, and they coulda choked each other all day and night.
-
Bobby Knight still has a reputation?
He was always a pig, and a horrible human being. I mean, he was caught on film effen chokin' a kid! Among his many affronts to humanity.
If he couldn't coach, he'd have been in jail a long time ago. He coulda shared a cell with Latrell Sprewell, and they coulda choked each other all day and night.
Lay off Spree man, P.J. Had that coming.
-
Lay off Spree man, P.J. Had that coming.
right cuz spree had a family to feed, eyn'er?
-
right cuz spree had a family to feed, eyn'er?
Damn straight.
-
Not a fan of Knight by any means but we should be fair here, especially when anyone is headlined with a serious matter/crime. Being investigated is far different than being charged. Apparently there was nothing there. This has the appearance of a smear.
-
Not a fan of Knight by any means but we should be fair here, especially when anyone is headlined with a serious matter/crime. Being investigated is far different than being charged. Apparently there was nothing there. This has the appearance of a smear.
I wouldn't say that. To me, it has the appearance of something inappropriate or boorish that isn't necessarily serious enough to prosecute.
-
Teal, right?
-
Well yeah, we don't know. Only people who were there do. But I don't see any evidence that this is a smear attempt as was suggested.
Evidently there wasn't a great deal in the way of evidence period.
-
I think there are a couple things we can all agree on here:
1. Bobby Knight is one of the greatest coaches the game of basketball has ever seen. For all you young'uns out there who never saw peak-Indiana, his teams moved the ball with the best of them and could defend. Watching his teams dismantle the likes of the Fab 5 was a joy. (And that 1993 IU team IMO would have won the national championship had not Alan Henderson blown out his knee.)
2. That is the only positive thing I can say about Bobby Knight.
-
Evidently there wasn't a great deal in the way of evidence period.
I don't think you can say that either. Look at the accusations made. What would you charge Knight with if they were true? None of them rise to the level of a criminal sexual assault anywhere in the country. You could maybe argue criminal assault but I don't think many DAs would take the time to prosecute a minor case like this. Most likely this would be a civil case if anything. I could have missed it, but I don't remember anyone saying that this was a criminal investigation, just that the FBI interviewed Knight about the incident.
Lack of charges does not necessarily mean innocence, common misconception.
-
Evidently there wasn't a great deal in the way of evidence period.
Hopefully, this isn't an attempt to defend Knight's view of women.
-
Not a fan of Knight by any means but we should be fair here, especially when anyone is headlined with a serious matter/crime. Being investigated is far different than being charged. Apparently there was nothing there. This has the appearance of a smear.
You need a reputation that is in good standing when accusing the principals of engineering a smear campaign.
Unsure how people like you comb the follicles with the tin foil on top.
-
Evidently there wasn't a great deal in the way of evidence period.
Showing yet again that folks have no understanding of the meaning of the concept of "evidence".
A statement by a witness such as an eyewitness testimony, based on personal knowledge or observation, is "evidence". Indeed it is is strong enough to be called "direct evidence".
-
His abilities as a coach are unimpeachable, but he's a bully down to his core.
Frank DeFord's profile of him in Sports Illustrated in '81 is a classic piece of sportswriting, and demonstrates both well: https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/01/14/rabbit-hunter-frank-deford-bobby-kight-si-60.
-
Interesting that Knight's attorney didn't deny it.
-
Alright I'll try to bring this back to Knight story.
-
nm
-
Interesting that Knight's attorney didn't deny it.
“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations,” said James Voyles, an Indianapolis lawyer who represents Knight. The FBI agents, he added, “reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period.”
All we have is what the media reported and decided to publish. Unless someone here has a full transcript of everything his attorney said. We don't receive full access, only what the media publishes for us to view.
Investigation dropped. No evidence of wrongdoing
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Report-FBI-investigated-claims-that-Bob-Knight-11273772.php
-
“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations,” said James Voyles, an Indianapolis lawyer who represents Knight. The FBI agents, he added, “reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period.”
All we have is what the media reported and decided to publish. Unless someone here has a full transcript of everything his attorney said. We don't receive full access, only what the media publishes for us to view.
Investigation dropped. No evidence of wrongdoing
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Report-FBI-investigated-claims-that-Bob-Knight-11273772.php
almost like a "reputable" news organization mistaking a parody tweet for real news...now that would never happen because, whoopsie...they did it again...
http://gizmodo.com/new-york-times-falls-for-that-fake-north-korea-twitter-1796634858
-
“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations,” said James Voyles, an Indianapolis lawyer who represents Knight. The FBI agents, he added, “reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period.”
All we have is what the media reported and decided to publish. Unless someone here has a full transcript of everything his attorney said. We don't receive full access, only what the media publishes for us to view.
Investigation dropped. No evidence of wrongdoing
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Report-FBI-investigated-claims-that-Bob-Knight-11273772.php
Eh.....I don't think you can say this either. No evidence of wrongdoing implies that Knight was a complete angel and these women are making up wild stories (which could be true). Much more likely IMHO is 1. That there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing (no DA is going after Bobby Knight without video evidence and a signed confession). 2. There was evidence of wrongdoing but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense (based on the accusations it sounds a lot more like a civil case). 3. The FBI investigation was internal not criminal. There may have be no interest by anyone in pressing charges but the FBI still has follow up on any case of alleged sex discrimination in its workplace (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination). They invited Coach Knight and thus could be held responsible for his actions while he was their guest.
There is also the less likely but still possible scenario of some big fish somewhere up the chain telling the investigators to drop it. I don't think that's the case here, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
The bottom line is that we have no idea what happened. Only the people who were present do. Given the enormous reputational, career, emotional, and even physical risk it takes to report someone for sexual harassment....and given Coach Knight's previous comments regarding sexual assault....I'm inclined to believe that something inappropriate happened between him and these women. Obviously, that's not nearly enough evidence for any sort of action to be taken against him in a criminal court. But it is enough evidence for this internet bum to have an opinion about it.
-
I think there are a couple things we can all agree on here:
1. Bobby Knight is one of the greatest coaches the game of basketball has ever seen. For all you young'uns out there who never saw peak-Indiana, his teams moved the ball with the best of them and could defend. Watching his teams dismantle the likes of the Fab 5 was a joy. (And that 1993 IU team IMO would have won the national championship had not Alan Henderson blown out his knee.)
2. That is the only positive thing I can say about Bobby Knight.
2. Watching his 1976 team dismantle one of the best Marquette teams ever was very painful, but the 1976 Indiana University team was one of the best teams ever. They were incredible.
3. Watching a young Bobby Knight's team defeat Marquette in 1973 at Memorial Gym in Nashville was painful but also illustrative of the kind of coach he was -- VERY GOOD!!!
-
Eh.....I don't think you can say this either. No evidence of wrongdoing implies that Knight was a complete angel and these women are making up wild stories (which could be true). Much more likely IMHO is 1. That there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing (no DA is going after Bobby Knight without video evidence and a signed confession). 2. There was evidence of wrongdoing but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense (based on the accusations it sounds a lot more like a civil case). 3. The FBI investigation was internal not criminal. There may have be no interest by anyone in pressing charges but the FBI still has follow up on any case of alleged sex discrimination in its workplace (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination). They invited Coach Knight and thus could be held responsible for his actions while he was their guest.
There is also the less likely but still possible scenario of some big fish somewhere up the chain telling the investigators to drop it. I don't think that's the case here, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
The bottom line is that we have no idea what happened. Only the people who were present do. Given the enormous reputational, career, emotional, and even physical risk it takes to report someone for sexual harassment....and given Coach Knight's previous comments regarding sexual assault....I'm inclined to believe that something inappropriate happened between him and these women. Obviously, that's not nearly enough evidence for any sort of action to be taken against him in a criminal court. But it is enough evidence for this internet bum to have an opinion about it.
Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?
-
Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?
Why are you inclined not to believe this? Is there a past history of lying with these four women and basketball coaches?
I am inclined to believe because statistically claims of sexual assault are true 92 to 98% of the time depending on the study you read. While possible, it is very rare for someone to make up a sexual assault claim. I don't know of any history of sexual assault with Coach Knight but as I mentioned in the first couple of posts he had made some comments in the past that leads me to believe that he has a very dismissive view of the impact of sexual assault. Again, this isnt even close to enough evidence for a criminal case. But it is more than enough for a random guy on the internet to have an opinion. (Especially when the random guy does Title IX investigations for a living).
-
“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations,” said James Voyles, an Indianapolis lawyer who represents Knight. The FBI agents, he added, “reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period.”
All we have is what the media reported and decided to publish. Unless someone here has a full transcript of everything his attorney said. We don't receive full access, only what the media publishes for us to view.
Investigation dropped. No evidence of wrongdoing
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Report-FBI-investigated-claims-that-Bob-Knight-11273772.php
False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.
What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior
-
False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.
What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior
Stop with the logic and common sense, already.
-
Eh.....I don't think you can say this either. No evidence of wrongdoing implies that Knight was a complete angel and these women are making up wild stories (which could be true). Much more likely IMHO is 1. That there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing (no DA is going after Bobby Knight without video evidence and a signed confession). 2. There was evidence of wrongdoing but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense (based on the accusations it sounds a lot more like a civil case). 3. The FBI investigation was internal not criminal. There may have be no interest by anyone in pressing charges but the FBI still has follow up on any case of alleged sex discrimination in its workplace (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination). They invited Coach Knight and thus could be held responsible for his actions while he was their guest.
There is also the less likely but still possible scenario of some big fish somewhere up the chain telling the investigators to drop it. I don't think that's the case here, but it is well within the realm of possibility.
The bottom line is that we have no idea what happened. Only the people who were present do. Given the enormous reputational, career, emotional, and even physical risk it takes to report someone for sexual harassment....and given Coach Knight's previous comments regarding sexual assault....I'm inclined to believe that something inappropriate happened between him and these women. Obviously, that's not nearly enough evidence for any sort of action to be taken against him in a criminal court. But it is enough evidence for this internet bum to have an opinion about it.
I don't think it implies he is an angel, only they don't have any evidence of wrongdoing.
His comments 25 years ago mean he might have done it? Words = actions? That is a dangerous jump in my opinion.
Don't we have an example currently with Charles Payne being accused of sexual assault that is falling apart rapidly because her story doesn't add up?
-
False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.
What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior
OK, I can buy into your first part, but you lose me with your more likely to believe part. Very dangerous leap. Rolling Stone still paying the price. Some studies suggest up to 10% of sexual assault claims are false. Not an insignificant number. The number unreported sexual assaults is significantly higher, most people recognize this. The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice? Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy? Not sure any of us will know.
My original reply to you was his attorney's lack of a denial. Do you still believe this after the quote provided? Do we know everything his attorney said when one considers the media doesn't provide everything, only what they decide is fit to print?
-
I am inclined to believe because statistically claims of sexual assault are true 92 to 98% of the time depending on the study you read.
I'm calling BS on your studies. Many (most?) of these encounters are behind closed doors and come down to he said/she said. I don't think it's remotely possible to make a determination of who is being truthful in WAY more than 8% (let alone 2%!) of these cases.
-
I don't think it implies he is an angel, only they don't have any evidence of wrongdoing.
But it doesn't imply that. They have evidence. They have 5 witnesses who said he did it. That is evidence. We also have no idea what other evidence may or may not have been turned up. You can say not enough evidence. Or you can say no evidence of any criminal act. But you can't say no evidence any wrongdoing. He could have absolutely done the things the women accused him of and not have criminal charges pressed.
His comments 25 years ago mean he might have done it? Words = actions? That is a dangerous jump in my opinion.
Words don't equal action. But they do speak to character. And they can be red flags for possible escalation to action. Men who commit acts of violence against women usually express opinions, comments, and humor that reflect that willingness to inflict violence before they escalate to violence. As I've said repeatedly that's not evidence for a court of law. But for a random guy on the internet to have an opinion? Its a factor.
Don't we have an example currently with Charles Payne being accused of sexual assault that is falling apart rapidly because her story doesn't add up?
I haven't been following the Payne case but a quick google search didn't seem to reveal anything about the case falling apart. Even if it is, am I allowed to bring examples of the 92 to 98% of cases that are true? For every false accusation (and not all of the claimed false accusations are actually false) there are 9 to 10 legitimate accusations. Again, that doesn't matter in a court of law. But in court of public opinion, why would you automatically jump to the side of the accused especially when that stats don't support him?
The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice? Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy? Not sure any of us will know.
You are only giving two of the less likely options. The more likely options as I stated before are (not in any particular order):
1. Not enough evidence. DAs only take on cases they think they can win. Unless there's video evidence (or children are involved), sex crimes are the hardest to prove. You need overwhelming evidence for DAs to move forward with charges.
2. There was wrongdoing but not a criminal act. Look at the accusations. What he is being accused of is NOT criminal sexual assault in any state that I am aware of. But that doesn't mean that what he is accused of isn't wrong. This kind of case would most likely be settled in civil court.
3. This wasn't a criminal investigation. I could have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone state that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation. It just said they interviewed him in Montana. It is likely that the four women weren't even pressing charges against but still reported what happened to the FBI. The FBI would then be mandated to do their own internal investigation of the accusations which would involve interviewing Knight. Unless charges are pressed, the FBI has no ability to hold Knight accountable, so there would be no reason for them to contact Knight again. I could be wrong, but if charges were pressed, I don't think the FBI would be the ones handling the case.
-
I'm calling BS on your studies. Many (most?) of these encounters are behind closed doors and come down to he said/she said. I don't think it's remotely possible to make a determination of who is being truthful in WAY more than 8% (let alone 2%!) of these cases.
Well the Department of Justice conducted one of them, the FBI another. So you'll need to take it up with them. There are dozens of others from less well known organizations that came to the same conclusion. All the ones I have seen fall into that 92-98% range though 4to5 references one that is 10%, I haven't seen that one personally.
To clarify what a false accusation is it is a situation where either: 1. the sexual act in question was fabricated or 2. consent was given for the activity but the complainant then lied about it later.
I'll give one example of something not covered by a false accusation. If someone makes an accusation but it ends up not meeting the legal definition of sexual assault. In Texas, you can have sex with someone under the influence up until the point that they are unconscious. If someone accuses someone of sexual assault because they were extremely drunk but not unconscious, that is not a false report. That is someone not understanding the law. This is an extremely common occurrence. The laws on this in many states are sorely in need of updating.
What % of sexual assault reports do you think are false accusations? If you have studies that show something different I would be happy to read them.
-
4to5, you asked me
Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?
I gave you my answer. I also asked you in response Why are you inclined not to believe this? Is there a past history of lying with these four women and basketball coaches?
I am curious as to your answer. I would understand a neutral "We have no idea what happened, we shouldn't jump to conclusions in either direction. But you seem to (and please correct me if I'm wrong) be leaning towards the side of Knight is innocent. What evidence is there that makes you inclined to believe that these four women (and one man) are lying and Knight is telling the truth?
-
Well the Department of Justice conducted one of them, the FBI another. So you'll need to take it up with them. There are dozens of others from less well known organizations that came to the same conclusion. All the ones I have seen fall into that 92-98% range though 4to5 references one that is 10%, I haven't seen that one personally.
To clarify what a false accusation is it is a situation where either: 1. the sexual act in question was fabricated or 2. consent was given for the activity but the complrightnt then lied about it later.
I'll give one example of something not covered by a false accusation. If someone makes an accusation but it ends up not meeting the legal definition of sexual assault. In Texas, you can have sex with someone under the influence up until the point that they are unconscious. If someone accuses someone of sexual assault because they were extremely drunk but not unconscious, that is not a false report. That is someone not understanding the law. This is an extremely common occurrence. The laws on this in many states are sorely in need of updating.
What % of sexual assault reports do you think are false accusations? If you have studies that show something different I would be happy to read them.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are saying that between 2-8% of claims can be PROVEN to be false, that sounds about right. Of course that doesn't even remotely suggest that 92-98% can be PROVEN to be true. In a great deal of these cases (30,40,50%? I honestly don't know) the truth of the accuser or the accused simply can't be ascertained. Ergo, the figures you cite are at best misleading.
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are saying that between 2-8% of claims can be PROVEN to be false, that sounds about right. Of course that doesn't even remotely suggest that 92-98% can be PROVEN to be true. In a great deal of these cases (30,40,50%? I honestly don't know) the truth of the accuser or the accused simply can't be ascertained. Ergo, the figures you cite are at best misleading.
Well if you want to go by only the % that can be proven in court then only 2% of cases are true. Beyond a reasonable doubt is simply too high of a standard to reach in sexual assault cases without video evidence. But that is the standard that needs to be used in criminal cases.
The 92 to 98% number refers to cases where the complainant isn't lying about the assault. Something they perceived as a sexual assault occurred. There are a million reasons why after that why the accused might not be found guilty.
The important takeaway is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things, especially in sexual assault cases.
-
Well if you want to go by only the % that can be proven in court then only 2% of cases are true. Beyond a reasonable doubt is simply too high of a standard to reach in sexual assault cases without video evidence. But that is the standard that needs to be used in criminal cases.
The 92 to 98% number refers to cases where the complrightnt isn't lying about the assault. Something they perceived as a sexual assault occurred. There are a million reasons why after that why the accused might not be found guilty.
The important takeaway is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things, especially in sexual assault cases.
So in 2-8% of the cases the accuser is proven to be lying. Something happened and they perceive it as sexual assault. And, according to you, in 2% of the cases (I think you're low here) the accused (assuming he or she denies that sexual assault took place) is proven to be lying. That leaves 90-96% of the cases where (according to your stats) neither party is "lying", where it becomes he said/she said. My common sense tells me that in most (what % I have no idea) of these cased the accuser is more believable than the accused, but it also tells me that in some portion of the 90-96% of the cases in which a "liar" cannot be determined the accused is the more likely to be misremembering some of the facts. But what it really says is that your original statement is, at the very least, misleading.
-
Lenny, you are all over the map here. I'll try to break it down and respond.
So in 2-8% of the cases the accuser is proven to be lying.
2-8% (depending on the study) intentionally accuse someone of sexual assault knowing a sexual assault didn't occur.
Something happened and they perceive it as sexual assault.
In 92-98% of accusations (depending on the study). They believe in their heart of hearts that the person they are accusing sexually assaulted them.
And, according to you, in 2% of the cases (I think you're low here) the accused (assuming he or she denies that sexual assault took place) is proven to be lying.
Not in 2% of accusations. In 2% of sexual assaults. The 98% also includes sexual assaults that go unreported.
That leaves 90-96% of the cases where (according to your stats) neither party is "lying", where it becomes he said/she said.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The 2% conviction rate and the 2-8% false reporting rate don't go together. They are two separate stats. And if they did 90-96% of those involved would not "wouldn't be lying." In a significant % of those, the accused would be lying. It is possible that neither said is "lying." Two people could have the same experience and one could view at as a sexual assault while the other thinks it was consensual sex. That doesn't mean an assault didn't occur.
It is also possible that one or both are intentionally or unintentionally lying about pieces of the case. People are human. Accused people lie about details to make themselves seem more innocent....even if they actually are innocent. Accusers lie about details to make their case seem stronger....even if the person they are accusing did do the crime.
My common sense tells me that in most (what % I have no idea) of these cased the accuser is more believable than the accused
I think you are dead wrong about this. There is a massive bias against people who accuse someone of sexual assault.
but it also tells me that in some portion of the 90-96% of the cases in which a "liar" cannot be determined the accused is the more likely to be misremembering some of the facts.
The liar cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to convict, you must be 99% sure that someone is guilty. That is very hard to reach in these cases. Take the Knight example. I am obviously a sympathizer and I don't like Knight. Even with that, I am maybe 65% sure that he sexually harrassed those women. If this was a criminal case and all I had was the information we know, I would vote not guilty without a second thought. Wouldn't even need to break for lunch.
But what it really says is that your original statement is, at the very least, misleading.
If "92-98% of accusations are true" is too misleading for you, I will repharse. 92-98% of accusations are genuine. Meaning the accuses in their heart of hearts believes that the person they accused committed a sexual assault against them.
General disclaimer, all the studies and stats I have been using this conversation are about sexual assault. Knight is accused of sexual harassment. Similar but different.
-
OK, I can buy into your first part, but you lose me with your more likely to believe part. Very dangerous leap. Rolling Stone still paying the price. Some studies suggest up to 10% of sexual assault claims are false. Not an insignificant number. The number unreported sexual assaults is significantly higher, most people recognize this. The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice? Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy? Not sure any of us will know.
My original reply to you was his attorney's lack of a denial. Do you still believe this after the quote provided? Do we know everything his attorney said when one considers the media doesn't provide everything, only what they decide is fit to print?
Oh, come on. Rolling Stone?
These two instances are in no way similar. A complete red herring on your part.
But speaking of things that are"dangerous," dangerous is citing one irrelevant and not comparable case as a means to discredit any potential assault victim. I'm not a fan of those who cry "rape culture" at everything, but when people trot out things Rolling Stone or Duke to discredit women, I can at least see where they're coming from.
No, the feds weren't out to get anyone here. Did you bother to read the Washington Post story? They investigated and decided - properly, it seems to me - that while Knight's behavior was inappropriate, it didn't rise to a criminal offense. Hence, they essentially let him off with a warning:
"The case was presented to U.S. Attorney Dana Boente for a final decision. Boente, however, instructed the FBI to interview Knight first to see whether he would say anything incriminating or possibly confess, the federal law enforcement official said.
Failing that, the law enforcement official said, the FBI agents were told to send a message to Knight that if there were any more complaints he could be arrested."
This is not the same, as you keep wrongly implying, as the feds saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing or they found no reason to pursue.
-
The liar cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to convict, you must be 99% sure that someone is guilty. That is very hard to reach in these cases.
Nonsense. 99% certainty is not what beyond a REASONABLE doubt means - you're confusing reasonable doubt with beyond a shadow of doubt. Using your definition our prisons would be nearly empty.
-
Lenny, you are all over the map here. I'll try to break it down and respond.
In 92-98% of accusations (depending on the study). They believe in their heart of hearts that the person they are accusing sexually assaulted them.
If "92-98% of accusations are true" is too misleading for you, I will repharse. 92-98% of accusations are genuine. Meaning the accuses in their heart of hearts believes that the person they accused committed a sexual assault against them.
What one believes occurred "in their heart of hearts" does not constitute veracity or lack thereof. I'm sure that many of the accused also believe "in their heart of hearts" that no sexual assault occurred.
"Genuine" is accurate. Truth isn't.
-
Nonsense. 99% certainty is not what beyond a REASONABLE doubt means - you're confusing reasonable doubt with beyond a shadow of doubt. Using your definition our prisons would be nearly empty.
Are you sure? What is the percentage then? I have always been taught that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is 99% and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" was 100% (i.e. there is indisputable video evidence)
This was the first thing that came up from a quick google search:
https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/
those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.
-
Are you sure? What is the percentage then? I have always been taught that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is 99% and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" was 100% (i.e. there is indisputable video evidence)
This was the first thing that came up from a quick google search:
https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/
The thing of it is, there's no clear legal definition - at least in terms of percentage - of "reasonable doubt" and there are differences in how juries are instructed from state to state. Juries are often told that reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt, but beyond that each individual juror decides what reasonable is for him or her.
So, it can mean 99 percent to TAMU and 85 percent to Lenny, and neither would be wrong.
Here's the standard instruction used in federal courts:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
-
What one believes occurred "in their heart of hearts" does not constitute veracity or lack thereof. I'm sure that many of the accused also believe "in their heart of hearts" that no sexual assault occurred.
"Genuine" is accurate. Truth isn't.
As I mentioned, there are many cases where both parties feel like they are telling the truth. They merely have different definitions of what a sexual assault is or what consent is. Usually this plays out in favor of the accused because most state definitions of sexual assault are woefully out of date IMHO. Though I will say that I am confident that every student I have had a hand in finding responsible for sexual assault knew that they had done something wrong. Many, most even, wouldn't define what they did as sexual assault but they knew they did something they shouldn't have. Trying to comprehend that their actions constituted a sexual assault is a moral dissonance that most cannot come to terms with.
Heart of hearts does constitute veracity in this instance. Those survivors were sexually assaulted. It may not have risen to the legal definition of sexual assault, but someone still had sex with them (or performed a sexual act) when it was unwanted and without their consent. Just because it didn't raise to the legal definition of sexual assault doesn't mean that the survivor isn't just as traumatized and victimized as someone whose case did meet the legal definition. I've mentioned before, in Texas, you can have sex with someone who is throwing up, pissing themselves drunk as long as they are still conscious. Legally, they are not a victim but something awful still happened to them. There was a case (I think it was North Carolina) where a woman had a pole shoved into her rectum. The court ruled that it was not a sexual assault because at the time the law did not mention anything about sodomy with inanimate objects. Legally, she was not a victim of sexual assault but she was still victimized. There are states where you don't have to define what sex you are consenting to. So if you consent to sex thinking it will be vaginal and someone instead forces anal sex on you, you consented and therefore are legally not a victim. I think this has been updated in every state now, but for a long time sexual assault was defined by many states as a man attacking a woman. Therefore if you were a man who was assaulted by another man, a man assaulted by a woman, or a woman assaulted by another woman, legally you were not considered a victim of sexual assault. These are the more extreme instances but a majority of these cases revolve around alcohol (i.e. how drunk is too drunk), someone assuming consent (i.e.well we were kissing so I assumed I could have sex with them but didn't ask) and relationships (i.e. that's my husband/wife/significant other/f-buddy, I don't need their consent). The legal standards in these cases are very high in most states but that doesn't mean that the accuser hasn't been traumatized by the accused's actions.
The point that I have been trying to make, is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things. People point to cases where accusations are made but no charges are filed and say that means that the accused is innocent and the accuser was lying. That could absolutely be true. But there are dozens of reasons why someone could commit a terrible action against another human being but not be brought to justice.
Now, while I don't agree with all the laws, they are the ones we have. People can't be held to a different standard then what is written down. And beyond a reasonable doubt is the only acceptable standard when someone's freedom is on the line. But the fact that around 98% of sexual assaults go unpunished (total, not just ones that get reported) is a problem. We have to find ways to improve this process. Fortunately, people smarter than anyone here (myself included) are working on that.
And again, we've been talking about sexual assault. Knight is being accused of sexual harassment.
-
The thing of it is, there's no clear legal definition - at least in terms of percentage - of "reasonable doubt" and there are differences in how juries are instructed from state to state. Juries are often told that reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt, but beyond that each individual juror decides what reasonable is for him or her.
So, it can mean 99 percent to TAMU and 85 percent to Lenny, and neither would be wrong.
Here's the standard instruction used in federal courts:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
Agree that "reasonable doubt" is in the eye of the beholder, but if judges instructed juries to acquit if they thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that the defendant wasn't guilty conviction rates would plummet. That kind of certainty is rare.
-
Oh, come on. Rolling Stone?
These two instances are in no way similar. A complete red herring on your part.
But speaking of things that are"dangerous," dangerous is citing one irrelevant and not comparable case as a means to discredit any potential assault victim. I'm not a fan of those who cry "rape culture" at everything, but when people trot out things Rolling Stone or Duke to discredit women, I can at least see where they're coming from.
No, the feds weren't out to get anyone here. Did you bother to read the Washington Post story? They investigated and decided - properly, it seems to me - that while Knight's behavior was inappropriate, it didn't rise to a criminal offense. Hence, they essentially let him off with a warning:
"The case was presented to U.S. Attorney Dana Boente for a final decision. Boente, however, instructed the FBI to interview Knight first to see whether he would say anything incriminating or possibly confess, the federal law enforcement official said.
Failing that, the law enforcement official said, the FBI agents were told to send a message to Knight that if there were any more complaints he could be arrested."
This is not the same, as you keep wrongly implying, as the feds saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing or they found no reason to pursue.
I am not trying to discredit all women. It was a perfectly acceptable example of women claiming sexual assault that didn't happen. No need to extrapolate that it is disparaging or discrediting all women, it isn't.
There are wrongful claims made by men and women.
If what Mr. Knight did was sexual assault, then the US Attorney didn't do the right thing by dropping it. Makes these women look like they made a claim that wasn't worthy of consideration and may prevent future women from coming out to make claims. How is that a good thing, unless the there were tremendous inconsistencies or holes that would not lead to anything being done. I suspect the latter.
-
Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.
Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.
TAMU, thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html)
-
Interesting read eng. I think that's what many of us have been complaining about with respect to Title IX.
-
Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.
Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.
TAMU, thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html)
Interesting read. Wish I could say I was surprised.
-
Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.
Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.
TAMU, thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html)
So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?
Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?
And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?
-
Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.
Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.
TAMU, thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html)
Just remember that one side can talk and the other cannot.
-
So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?
Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?
Conversely, if the facts presented are correct, no one else witnessed it as not horsing around (i.e. only one person witnessed it as some sort of assault). And the level of assault was such that the only action that was taken was to tell someone else who told the AD. No police were called, etc.
And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?
So we're ok with doubting the victim? So unknown person witnessed something and that means that even the victim should be doubted? And I have no idea what the victim is allowed to do and on what timeline from a public statement standpoint. Perhaps there was an appeals process, that took until now to resolve and she didn't want to jeopardize the outcome by speaking publicly. It would be a pretty remarkable jedi mind trick to get someone who was a victim to hire a lawyer and public speak out as a not a victim (not impossible, just seemingly unlikely)
-
Just remember that one side can talk and the other cannot.
Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.
-
Facts twisted to fit the preferred narrative. Pretty simple, painfully obvious.
-
columbia settles their lawsuit with paul nungesser over the "mattress girl" fiasco. that was a story, while it was ongoing, had me 2nd guessing the title IX thing big time. if i was an attorney, paul nungesser's position was red meat. so who pays the bill? might as well put it in the student funds, right under b-ball season tix, ayy'na?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/14/columbia-settles-mattress-girl-settles-lawsuit/
-
Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.
But that doesn't mean she's telling the truth.
Yeah, I do think USC likely over-extended on this, but you are very likely not going to ever hear why they ruled how they did.
-
But that doesn't mean she's telling the truth.
? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.
-
? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.
I am making the assumption that other witnesses aren't corroborating her account and that is the basis of USC's decision. It might well be the wrong one. None of us know.
-
I am making the assumption that other witnesses aren't corroborating her account and that is the basis of USC's decision. It might well be the wrong one. None of us know.
Maybe the newspaper account (which specifically says a witness, not witnesses) isn't true, but why would you assume that?
-
Maybe the newspaper account (which specifically says a witness, not witnesses) isn't true, but why would you assume that?
Assume that the witness didn't corroborate her account? Because I have no other idea why he would be be dismissed. I mean, why would they kick a guy out of school if both the alleged victim and the witness said he didn't do anything wrong? My guess is that the witness testified that he saw something much more severe than the alleged victim testified to.
-
Assume that the witness didn't corroborate her account? Because I have no other idea why he would be be dismissed. I mean, why would they kick a guy out of school if both the alleged victim and the witness said he didn't do anything wrong? My guess is that the witness testified that he saw something much more severe than the alleged victim testified to.
Sorry I misunderstood you.
But it's much easier for a "witness" to misinterpret something he THINKS he sees with no context. The alleged victim has gone to great lengths to assure anyone willing to listen that she wasn't assaulted and is not afraid of her alleged assailant. Isn't it clear evidence of bias when the Title IX folks try to twist arms and create victims?
-
Sorry I misunderstood you.
But it's much easier for a "witness" to misinterpret something he THINKS he sees with no context. The alleged victim has gone to great lengths to assure anyone willing to listen that she wasn't assaulted and is not afraid of her alleged assailant. Isn't it clear evidence of bias when the Title IX folks try to twist arms and create victims?
I don't know what it is clear evidence of since I have no idea what USC based their decision upon.
Most "Title IX folks" I have dealt with don't try to twist arms or create victims. I do know that a lot of them feel inadequate to the task at hand.
-
I don't know what it is clear evidence of since I have no idea what USC based their decision upon.
Most "Title IX folks" I have dealt with don't try to twist arms or create victims. I do know that a lot of them feel inadequate to the task at hand.
Well, unless the journalist is lying or the person who claims that she at no time was anything resembling a victim is lying I think a fair person could conclude that USC didn't let facts interfere with their preferred narrative.
-
Apparently, Pete Rose couldn't keep his schmeckel in its garage, hey?
-
Well, unless the journalist is lying or the person who claims that she at no time was anything resembling a victim is lying I think a fair person could conclude that USC didn't let facts interfere with their preferred narrative.
Or maybe it was just a poor decision where they weighed the testimony of the witness more than they should have. No reason to assume the motivations were around some "narrative."
-
Or maybe it was just a poor decision where they weighed the testimony of the witness more than they should have. No reason to assume the motivations were around some "narrative."
Sorry, but if the "poor decision" included trying to convince a non victim that she was a victim (as the non victim clearly alleges) it means the "poor decision" was made well before the investigation was concluded. That's evidence of bias, an agenda or a preferred narrative. All essentially the same thing.
-
Sorry, but if the "poor decision" included trying to convince a non victim that she was a victim (as the non victim clearly alleges) it means the "poor decision" was made well before the investigation was concluded. That's evidence of bias, an agenda or a preferred narrative. All essentially the same thing.
Bias maybe. But bias does not mean agenda. Bias could be a sign of incompetence as much as anything.
-
Bias maybe. But bias does not mean agenda. Bias could be a sign of incompetence as much as anything.
We'll agree to disagree. To me, when decision makers approach those decisions with bias it's evidence of an agenda.
-
Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.
Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.
TAMU, thoughts?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html)
Without actually reading the report I can't really comment one way or the other. It is possible this was a miscarriage of justice. Much more likely in my opinion is that this is a battered woman who has decided to defend her abuser. Hardly an uncommon occurrence. USC would have to have the most incompetent Title IX office in history if they truly suspended someone with no evidence other than one third hand account from a neighbor and no complaint from the complainant. If I had to guess, I would say the young woman in this situation revealed a lot more during the investigation than she is admitting to now. And that's really the problem with these stories. One side is allowed to say whatever they want and the university can't say anything because of privacy laws.
-
Facts twisted to fit the preferred narrative. Pretty simple, painfully obvious.
The preferred narrative at universities is that sexual violence never occurs on campus. It would have been very much in their interest to let this case go away. It is certainly possible that justice was misapplied but your fear of universities looking to expel innocent people for sexual violence is a myth.
-
? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.
This isn't what I said at all. We don't believe the victim automatically. We start at 0% and the burden of proof is on the university. We must get from 0% in our belief all the way to a preponderance of the information (50.1%). The fact that multiple studies show that only 3% - 8% of accusations end up being false reports is a separate set of facts that has no bearing on the disciplinary system.
-
So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?
Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?
And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?
How do we know it took 6 months? Do you know the location and time of day to suggest there should have been someone else around?
Isn't the bigger question why are Title IX offices doing these investigations and not law enforcement? Why are Title IX offices seemingly the end all, be all instead of law enforcement?
http://thebiglead.com/2017/07/31/girlfriend-of-dismisssed-usc-kicker-says-title-ix-office-stereotyped-her-put-words-in-her-mouth/
-
Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.
I don't know what to tell you Eng. Domestic violence is a funny thing. I once met a victim at the hospital after they were sent there by their boyfriend with a broken arm and several broken ribs. She told me that her and her boyfriend had gotten into a fight and he had beaten her senseless. A little over a month later, she was screaming at me and told me I was ruining her life because my investigation had led to her boyfriend being expelled. They had stayed together and apparently all had been forgiven.
The woman from the story above was not an isolated incident. Honestly, I see more domestic violence cases where the abused (usually a woman) defends their abuser (usually a man) or at least pleads for leniency than I do ones where the abused participates against their abuser. There are many reasons for this and I would be happy to supply some research and anecdotals on why abused often defend their abuser.
If the statement by the young woman is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth than USC royally screwed up. If it had been my case, I wouldn't have let it proceed past investigation much less bring it through the conduct process. I don't know anyone personally at USC but I can't imagine that they are that incompetent. Its possible, but it is very likely that there is a lot more to the story than what is being shared. Without seeing the report it is impossible to know. But I understand why a reasonable person would have the opinion that USC screwed up.
-
Isn't the bigger question why are Title IX offices doing these investigations and not law enforcement? Why are Title IX offices seemingly the end all, be all instead of law enforcement?
Who said law enforcement isn't investigating? University investigations go on in addition to and concurrently with law enforcement, not instead of. Universities aren't investigating and enforcing violations of law. They are investigating and enforcing violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there. Law enforcement is free to and usually does investigate as well, but they are looking for violations of the law which is very different from violations of the student code of conduct. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own rules and they can be different from state law. Students sign contracts agreeing to abide by these rules when they enroll at the school.
-
This isn't what I said at all. We don't believe the victim automatically. We start at 0% and the burden of proof is on the university. We must get from 0% in our belief all the way to a preponderance of the information (50.1%). The fact that multiple studies show that only 3% - 8% of accusations end up being false reports is a separate set of facts that has no bearing on the disciplinary system.
When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.
The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?
-
When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.
The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?
While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.
I think the problem is that instead of addressing this cultural process in a "focused" manner, government has shoe horned it into the Title IX legislation and it's created a sub-optimal solution. It's not for lack of good intent.
-
I don't know what to tell you Eng. Domestic violence is a funny thing. I once met a victim at the hospital after they were sent there by their boyfriend with a broken arm and several broken ribs. She told me that her and her boyfriend had gotten into a fight and he had beaten her senseless. A little over a month later, she was screaming at me and told me I was ruining her life because my investigation had led to her boyfriend being expelled. They had stayed together and apparently all had been forgiven.
The woman from the story above was not an isolated incident. Honestly, I see more domestic violence cases where the abused (usually a woman) defends their abuser (usually a man) or at least pleads for leniency than I do ones where the abused participates against their abuser. There are many reasons for this and I would be happy to supply some research and anecdotals on why abused often defend their abuser.
If the statement by the young woman is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth than USC royally screwed up. If it had been my case, I wouldn't have let it proceed past investigation much less bring it through the conduct process. I don't know anyone personally at USC but I can't imagine that they are that incompetent. Its possible, but it is very likely that there is a lot more to the story than what is being shared. Without seeing the report it is impossible to know. But I understand why a reasonable person would have the opinion that USC screwed up.
My position isn't necessarily that USC screwed up, but that this one seems awfully difficult to understand a logical conclusion that gets the kicker kicked out. You are correct, we don't have the whole story, and I am assuming that the girlfriend is telling the truth but that's probably a cultural blindspot on my part as I don't know any domestic abuse victims (at least that I know about).
But this story is one of the reasons I'd be concerned about the overall process, simply because this is a culture change on campus that needs to take place and I'm not sure the way we are going about it will effectively make that change.....especially when you look at this story compared to something like the Baylor stories.
-
While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.
Sadly the pendulum only pauses briefly in the middle and "overcorrecting" is what those in power do reflexively. Advocacy wins at the expense of justice. Nothing new.
-
Sadly the pendulum only pauses briefly in the middle and "overcorrecting" is what those in power do reflexively. Advocacy wins at the expense of justice. Nothing new.
Cmon...
You really have no idea what is going on here and you make wide, sweeping allegations like this?
-
Cmon...
You really have no idea what is going on here and you make wide, sweeping allegations like this?
Speaking in general terms.
-
This is a great conversation probably worthy of a thread. Otherwise somebody might end up thinking that Bobby Knight beat up the USC kicker's girlfriend (or maybe didn't). And so it goes.
-
When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.
The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?
a) Has no bearing on the disciplinary process. All crimes have very low false reporting rates. Most people who report ANY crime are telling the truth. Anyone in law enforcement or the judicial system can tell you that. That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof needs to be met, at both universities and the courts.
b) Everyone frequently lies. Abusers. Abused. Witnesses. It happens no matter who we are interviewing. Why would we give special treatment to one side? We need to balance all the facts and determine a witnesses credibility, just like any other investigation.
c) Who the hell said this? Students accused of Title IX violations enjoy more due process than students accused of any other violation.
d) Who said sex with .08 BAC automatically means the male is guilty? Someone is responsible but it is not always the male. I know this one makes you uncomfortable but .08 is the point where we as a culture have decided that someone is no longer capable of making rational decisions. Someone cannot legally be held to a contract that they sign while intoxicated. Consent is a verbal contract.
50.1% isn't as low of a bar as you think. Most cases I investigate do get sent through the conduct process but once they are there only a little more than half are actually found responsible. Which if I we follow national statistics that means there are a lot of responsible students who are walking away without any consequences.'
Also, as an investigator my beliefs don't have a bearing on the outcome of the conduct process. My role is to interview those involved and compile a summary of the information (evidence). I do not comment on whether or not I think the person is responsible or not, I simply record the evidence. I do recommend whether or not the case should be brought to a conduct panel or dismissed outright but they don't have to take my recommendation. Investigators don't take part in the actual conduct panel that is taken care of by the conduct staff and three randomly assigned (but trained) panel members.
-
a) Has no bearing on the disciplinary process. All crimes have very low false reporting rates. Most people who report ANY crime are telling the truth. Anyone in law enforcement or the judicial system can tell you that. That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof needs to be met, at both universities and the courts.
b) Everyone frequently lies. Abusers. Abused. Witnesses. It happens no matter who we are interviewing. Why would we give special treatment to one side? We need to balance all the facts and determine a witnesses credibility, just like any other investigation.
c) Who the hell said this? Students accused of Title IX violations enjoy more due process than students accused of any other violation.
d) Who said sex with .08 BAC automatically means the male is guilty? Someone is responsible but it is not always the male. I know this one makes you uncomfortable but .08 is the point where we as a culture have decided that someone is no longer capable of making rational decisions. Someone cannot legally be held to a contract that they sign while intoxicated. Consent is a verbal contract.
50.1% isn't as low of a bar as you think. Most cases I investigate do get sent through the conduct process but once they are there only a little more than half are actually found responsible. Which if I we follow national statistics that means there are a lot of responsible students who are walking away without any consequences.
I don't know that's true TAMU. We as a nation have stated that's the threshold where one shouldn't drive. You yourself have said the consent threshold in Texas is something pretty close to pass out drunk.
-
While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.
I think the problem is that instead of addressing this cultural process in a "focused" manner, government has shoe horned it into the Title IX legislation and it's created a sub-optimal solution. It's not for lack of good intent.
There was a time where people thought the government mandating seatbelts was an overcorrection. But people got used to it and the younger generation grew up with it and now it is a no brainer that you should wear a seatbelt. That's how culture changes. The government sets a standard, its messy at first and people push back. But then they get used to it and the younger generation grows up knowing that was always the standard.
While there are parts of Title IX that can absolutely be improved, I don't think there has been an overcorrection at all. The Dear Colleague letter of 2011 honestly didn't change much. It just reminded universities that it has a responsibility to fairly investigate and respond to accusations of sexual assault. It didn't really change any definitions or make something sexual assault that wasn't sexual assault before. In fact, the only things that really changed were that it added more layers of due process to both complainants and accused. The biggest difference is that the DOE is actually following up on complaints and holding universities accountable.
If there are specific parts about Title IX that you think are an overcorrection I'd be happy to try and speak on them. But saying Title IX is an overcorrection is so big I wouldn't know where to start.
-
I don't know that's true TAMU. We as a nation have stated that's the threshold where one shouldn't drive. You yourself have said the consent threshold in Texas is something pretty close to pass out drunk.
Keep reading. I didn't say it was where we decided a person could no longer consent to sex. Its where we've decided you can't drive and where you can't be held to a contract that you signed. Personally, I'm flexible on the .08 standard. There are scientific arguments for why it could be higher or lower. Honestly, a few BAC points isn't going to matter because no one is being breathalyzed. Its always going to be about whether or not a reasonable person should have known the person was incapacitated.
And the standard in Texas is that they most have lost consciousness. The person could be vomiting uncontrollably and pissing themselves drunk but as long as they are conscious and they don't say no or try to resist than it is not a sexual assault. That's how far the law has to catch up in some states.
-
I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned. But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.
If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate. I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.
Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.
-
I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned. But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.
If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate. I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.
Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.
Glow, I think you'll find your guesstimate to be pretty regionally dependent. I also have no hard evidence for this, but having traveled all over in the US the drinking culture that would vote with you (as would I) is going to be the deep South, the northern plains and the Midwest+ Kansas (I don't care what anyone says, Kansas isn't in the midwest). West coast is going to be at a much lower agreement level with you as well as a lot of the northern original colonies (except Boston, holy s%^t they drink a lot). I think the overall agreement level is going to be closer to 50/50.
-
There was a time where people thought the government mandating seatbelts was an overcorrection. But people got used to it and the younger generation grew up with it and now it is a no brainer that you should wear a seatbelt. That's how culture changes. The government sets a standard, its messy at first and people push back. But then they get used to it and the younger generation grows up knowing that was always the standard.
While there are parts of Title IX that can absolutely be improved, I don't think there has been an overcorrection at all. The Dear Colleague letter of 2011 honestly didn't change much. It just reminded universities that it has a responsibility to fairly investigate and respond to accusations of sexual assault. It didn't really change any definitions or make something sexual assault that wasn't sexual assault before. In fact, the only things that really changed were that it added more layers of due process to both complrightnts and accused. The biggest difference is that the DOE is actually following up on complaints and holding universities accountable.
If there are specific parts about Title IX that you think are an overcorrection I'd be happy to try and speak on them. But saying Title IX is an overcorrection is so big I wouldn't know where to start.
Me being inarticulate as usual I think. My argument is not really that Title IX is an overcorrection itself, as an overcorrection is in order. As you point out, you don't change culture by going just where you want it, you do have to overcorrect to a certain degree (any fair argument is bunk since no one promised us fair in life).
My issue with Title IX is that it feels to me (as a wildly unqualified person) that it is an inefficient means by which to correct. The fact that it is a redundancy to the criminal system bothers me, as well as that it is a creation of another level of bureaucracy to be managed and navigated. I'd feel much more comfortable if campus were responsible for creating a safe place to report and then tied their punishment system when criminal matters are concerned to whatever the outcomes of the criminal process is.
Don't get me wrong, it's probably the best way to go right now and we can't judge the process simply by handpicked outcomes that seem wrong, but I do think if we were serious about this sort of stuff we would address it in totality with a revamp of the whole system.
-
Glow, I think you'll find your guesstimate to be pretty regionally dependent. I also have no hard evidence for this, but having traveled all over in the US the drinking culture that would vote with you (as would I) is going to be the deep South, the northern plains and the Midwest+ Kansas (I don't care what anyone says, Kansas isn't in the midwest). West coast is going to be at a much lower agreement level with you as well as a lot of the northern original colonies (except Boston, holy s%^t they drink a lot). I think the overall agreement level is going to be closer to 50/50.
Let's bet two beers on that eng! Who knows, you might end up with a little bro for #nored!
-
I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned. But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.
If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate. I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.
Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.
Like Eng said, its very regionally dependent. And the area that would probably have the highest level of disagreement is our home region of the midwest. I had no idea how big the drinking culture was at Marquette until I started working for other universities. I thought a big football schools like Utah and TAMU would be party city but I'm pretty sure most of the students would clutch their pearls and faint if they saw how we partied at Marquette. I think that plays into a lot of how we view this question.
More importantly, I don't really care what peoples' opinions are. There was a time when the popular opinion was the Earth was flat (Kyrie still believes!) and slavery was cool. I care what be can be justified with science. And the reality is that our decision making ability is significantly impaired at .08 BAC. There are other thresholds that you could argue (.04, .10, etc) and I'm open to having that discussion. I like the .08 standard because its one that most people understand (or think they understand) and because the symmetry with written contracts and consent being a verbal contract. But again it doesn't matter, because no one is being breathalyzed. Its always going to be about whether a reasonable person should have known their partner was incapacitated.
When people drink and drive people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex. The more we can untangle alcohol and sex from each other the better off as a society I think we will be. That's why I think the most important part of the Dear Colleague Letter isn't about the conduct process. Its all the requirements for prevention education that universities now need to provide to students. That is where we will get the culture change that Eng was talking about.
-
I'd feel much more comfortable if campus were responsible for creating a safe place to report and then tied their punishment system when criminal matters are concerned to whatever the outcomes of the criminal process is.
See I don't feel comfortable with this at all. Universities have the right to set their own standards for their students' behavior. And law enforcement does not have the capacity to handle both violations of the law and violations of the student code of conduct. If you get rid of the student code of conduct then you would have to use whatever the state laws were on some of these issues. That means that in Texas, if someone you cared about was so drunk that they didn't know where they were much less what they were doing, someone could have sex with them and walk away with no consequences. I don't care what the law says, that is not right. Plus the judicial system is not set up well to handle sexual assault cases. A vast majority of sexual assault accusations that are brought to the police don't result in charges being filed. Its not because there's no evidence it's because DAs will only bring charges when they are certain that they can win a case. And with a beyond reasonable doubt standard and often little evidence other than statements from the complrightnt and the accused, no DA is going to take that case. All it takes is one juror to think "she was asking for it" and the case is over. Plus, criminal trials can take months, even years to complete.
Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student), we have an obligation to to take on any case regardless of the likelihood of the student being found responsible, and we have an obligation to complete cases within 60 days (though we [and the students] can request extensions when warranted). Also, while the media focuses on students who were expelled, that is only used in the most heinous of cases. Cases where we truly believe the student is a predator who is a danger to others. We have a host of other sanctions at our disposal that focus on education and helping the student. Law enforcement can only offer punitive sanctions, that is not appropriate for an educational environment.
-
So a question for you TAMU. Does a university have the ability to exercise a self determined standard with respect to internal discipline procedure? In other words, could (not would) TAMU have the 'right' to dismiss a student for 'sexual assault' because his partner had one beer and was 'unable' to grant consent? (I'm purposefully trying to be extreme.) Or more reasonable, could a TAMU Eagle set policy and simply codify .08% on your campus because you think it the appropriate threshold? I know all students are always bound by the standards of conduct and that the threshold of proof can be lower than in a criminal case but what I'm trying to do here is discuss a university's ability to operate independent of a third party check.
I need to go back to review that Paul Nungesser case because there must be a line where the university faces liability with respect to disciplinary measures. Interesting legal principle.
-
So a question for you TAMU. Does a university have the ability to exercise a self determined standard with respect to internal discipline procedure? In other words, could (not would) TAMU have the 'right' to dismiss a student for 'sexual assault' because his partner had one beer and was 'unable' to grant consent? (I'm purposefully trying to be extreme.) Or more reasonable, could a TAMU Eagle set policy and simply codify .08% on your campus because you think it the appropriate threshold? I know all students are always bound by the standards of conduct and that the threshold of proof can be lower than in a criminal case but what I'm trying to do here is discuss a university's ability to operate independent of a third party check.
I need to go back to that review that Paul Nungesser case because there must be a line where the university faces liability with respect to disciplinary measures. Interesting legal principle.
Yes and no. Universities have the right to set their standards within reason. If a student thinks the standard set is unreasonable they could file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. The OCR would then determine whether or not the standard was reasonable per Title IX.
-
Yes and no. Universities have the right to set their standards within reason. If a student thinks the standard set is unreasonable they could file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. The OCR would then determine whether or not the standard was reasonable per Title IX.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks.
-
See I don't feel comfortable with this at all. Universities have the right to set their own standards for their students' behavior. And law enforcement does not have the capacity to handle both violations of the law and violations of the student code of conduct. If you get rid of the student code of conduct then you would have to use whatever the state laws were on some of these issues. That means that in Texas, if someone you cared about was so drunk that they didn't know where they were much less what they were doing, someone could have sex with them and walk away with no consequences. I don't care what the law says, that is not right. Plus the judicial system is not set up well to handle sexual assault cases. A vast majority of sexual assault accusations that are brought to the police don't result in charges being filed. Its not because there's no evidence it's because DAs will only bring charges when they are certain that they can win a case. And with a beyond reasonable doubt standard and often little evidence other than statements from the complrightnt and the accused, no DA is going to take that case. All it takes is one juror to think "she was asking for it" and the case is over. Plus, criminal trials can take months, even years to complete.
My intent wouldn't be to eliminate the code of conduct, but more closely align it with law enforcement in issues where alleged student misconduct would also be considered felony criminal behavior. Admittedly, I'm speaking out of my a$$ somewhat here as I'm neither a student compliance expert nor a legal expert (I've stayed at multiple Holiday Inns with no impact on my intelligence). However, I would point out two of your objections are very valid and I have the same concerns, but instead of wall papering over them with another layer of bureaucracy which creates special bubbles like campuses we should be working towards reforming the criminal justice system. Yes, Texas has horrible sex offense laws, we should fix that for the whole state, not just the kids who go to college. Additionally, this DA mentality of only charging if I can win needs to go away. People need to see the justice system working for them to make them feel like they are safe to report things, especially with sex based crimes.
Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student)
I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.
Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student), we have an obligation to to take on any case regardless of the likelihood of the student being found responsible, and we have an obligation to complete cases within 60 days (though we [and the students] can request extensions when warranted). Also, while the media focuses on students who were expelled, that is only used in the most heinous of cases. Cases where we truly believe the student is a predator who is a danger to others. We have a host of other sanctions at our disposal that focus on education and helping the student. Law enforcement can only offer punitive sanctions, that is not appropriate for an educational environment.
One thing that needs to be said in this whole discussion is that the vast majority of the time I'm sure the student conduct system works and works well. I think your last sentence is extremely important for context of the discussion as a lot of the university student conduct system is intended to provide disciplined, learning environment where students can make mistakes and learn from them in a way that doesn't permanently impact them that the legal system might. It is easy to forget that when you see stories like the one I linked in juxtaposition with the on-going fiasco at Baylor...one might conclude the system is broken when really that is something like 0.1% of the situations that the system has to deal with.
**quick side note, there is no snark/sarcasm/pejoratives intended in any of my response, I simply am not smart enough to craft the same message with better/more useful words.
-
I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.
I don't think that's the case at all. Code of conduct violations aren't public information and don't have to be disclosed on a job application. TAMU correct me if I am wrong, but I am not even sure schools would require you to disclose on a transfer application if you had a code of conduct issue. It certainly would not be indicated on your transcript or something like that.
The only reason we knew about the USC one is because he is a football player and the girlfriend was very public with her objections.
-
When people drink and drive people usually don't always get hurt. Sometimes It happens countless times every day, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people usually don't always get hurt. SometimesMore often than not, the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex.
I tend to disagree with you on this issue. However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking. While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about. Thank you.
Edited to add: Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios. Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case. That's the reason this got me thinking.
-
I tend to disagree with you on this issue. However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking. While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- but it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about. Thank you.
Edited to add: Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios. Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case. That's the reason this got me thinking.
That's pretty good stuff there stilla.
-
This is a great conversation probably worthy of a thread. Otherwise somebody might end up thinking that Bobby Knight beat up the USC kicker's girlfriend (or maybe didn't). And so it goes.
Bobby wouldn't want to dirty his hands that way. He would pick up the kicking tee and throw it across the field at her.
-
When people drink and drive people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex. The more we can untangle alcohol and sex from each other the better off as a society I think we will be. That's why I think the most important part of the Dear Colleague Letter isn't about the conduct process. Its all the requirements for prevention education that universities now need to provide to students. That is where we will get the culture change that Eng was talking about.
This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.
-
I don't think that's the case at all. Code of conduct violations aren't public information and don't have to be disclosed on a job application. TAMU correct me if I am wrong, but I am not even sure schools would require you to disclose on a transfer application if you had a code of conduct issue. It certainly would not be indicated on your transcript or something like that.
The only reason we knew about the USC one is because he is a football player and the girlfriend was very public with her objections.
I guess I was operating under the assumption that if you are expelled from a university that would be visible to other universities making it very difficult to attend another university. I'm kind of shocked that someone expelled at one university wouldn't have an obligation to report that to another university, but what do I know. If that isn't the case I withdraw my objection.
-
The duality of the justice systems creates the issues on these extreme cases with different burdens of proof. What MU had in place that caused the issues under Buzz was just a weaker version of the Title IX approach except that now there are trained, objective administrators in place. A good progression but still flawed.
However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction. In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD. Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power. The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.
Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.
-
The duality of the justice systems creates the issues on these extreme cases with different burdens of proof. What MU had in place that caused the issues under Buzz was just a weaker version of the Title IX approach except that now there are trained, objective administrators in place. A good progression but still flawed.
However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction. In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD. Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power. The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.
Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.
I thought of the MU case as well when reacting to this (but for the grace of God go us or whatever the quote is :))
We'll never know, but I'd be curious if any of this was referred to the LAPD. I'd have a lot tougher time stomaching the result if an expulsion was determined to be warranted but it was not referred to criminal authorities. I get that prosecutors may not have enough to go on, but if it's worth of expulsion given the accusation, I'd think it worth of criminal investigation.
-
Bobby would grope himself ... if he could find it under all that blubber!
-
Bobby would grope himself ... if he could find it under all that blubber!
That is a condition that is not exclusive to Bobby ;D
-
This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.
Depends on when you stop considering the impact of said encounter on their well being.
-
Depends on when you stop considering the impact of said encounter on their well being.
???
-
This is a very poor analogy. Drunken drivers kill others. People who get drunk and have sex may hurt themselves but kill nobody. Same for their willing accomplices/partners. Decoupling alcohol and sex may be a lofty goal - educate, educate, educate. But criminalizing bar hook ups as a means to that end is crazy and will lead to major injustices IMHO.
Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.
-
My intent wouldn't be to eliminate the code of conduct, but more closely align it with law enforcement in issues where alleged student misconduct would also be considered felony criminal behavior. Admittedly, I'm speaking out of my a$$ somewhat here as I'm neither a student compliance expert nor a legal expert (I've stayed at multiple Holiday Inns with no impact on my intelligence). However, I would point out two of your objections are very valid and I have the same concerns, but instead of wall papering over them with another layer of bureaucracy which creates special bubbles like campuses we should be working towards reforming the criminal justice system. Yes, Texas has horrible sex offense laws, we should fix that for the whole state, not just the kids who go to college. Additionally, this DA mentality of only charging if I can win needs to go away. People need to see the justice system working for them to make them feel like they are safe to report things, especially with sex based crimes.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.
One thing that needs to be said in this whole discussion is that the vast majority of the time I'm sure the student conduct system works and works well. I think your last sentence is extremely important for context of the discussion as a lot of the university student conduct system is intended to provide disciplined, learning environment where students can make mistakes and learn from them in a way that doesn't permanently impact them that the legal system might. It is easy to forget that when you see stories like the one I linked in juxtaposition with the on-going fiasco at Baylor...one might conclude the system is broken when really that is something like 0.1% of the situations that the system has to deal with.
**quick side note, there is no snark/sarcasm/pejoratives intended in any of my response, I simply am not smart enough to craft the same message with better/more useful words.
I can't find much to disagree with here except the bolded. As Sultan explained, an expulsion is nowhere near as damaging as a prison sentence of any kind. Expulsions are protected by FERPA, it doesn't affect your future job prospects, it doesn't affect your voting status, and you are free to enroll in another school the next day if you so choose. Plus, you have your freedom and all that.
I agree that the true path to positive change is by changing the law and changing the judicial system. Title IX does create "bubbles" of safety for college students. And honestly it does cause confusion and problems. Students who are taken seriously by universities than go to law enforcement expecting the same treatment. Instead they are told what happened to them isn't a sexual assault. That's devastating. It's not law enforcement's fault. They can only uphold the law as written. It causes confusion the other way too. People read stories like this one and say "these colleges are out of control! If the police didn't find any thing why are they suspending or expelling the kid? Damn SJWs!" What they don't realize is that violations of law and violations of student code are very different and they have different standards of proof. Just because the police don't press charges doesn't mean the accused is innocent.
A bit of tangent but I'll share. Every law enforcement officer I have met and worked with has expressed support and gratitude for Title IX offices. They recognize that the judicial system fails victims of sexual assault. They are happy that at least on campus victims have some reasonable chance at getting some justice for what happened to them. A vast majority of the cases my offices sees were sent to us by the local police. They want us involved and investigating.
I would love to see the world outside of campus change, and I think we are on our way. But until we get there, I am grateful that campuses are "ahead of the times" and look forward to the day when we are all on the same page.
-
Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.
So in your world a person who by his or her own free will ingests enough of a substance to make poor judgements isn't responsible for those poor judgements. Getting behind the wheel, having sex, knocking over a gas station, etc. Alcohol takes the rap, not the individual who freely over consumed it. Fantasyland.
-
I tend to disagree with you on this issue. However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking. While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about. Thank you.
Edited to add: Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios. Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case. That's the reason this got me thinking.
I appreciate the edits. I honestly phrased it the way I did because I don't have the data to back up what you said. I assume your version is correct but haven't actually done the research to confirm it.
-
So in your world a person who by his or her own free will ingest enough of a substance to make poor judgements isn't responsible for those poor judgements. Getting behind the wheel, having sex, knocking over a gas station, etc. Alcohol takes the rap, not the individual who freely over consumed it. Fantasyland.
No, you mixed things up. You included in your list actions where the drunk person is doing something to someone else. Choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing to knock over a gas station, etc. That's not what is happening in these cases. They are not choosing to have sex. Someone else who is sober or more sober than they are is choosing to have sex with them. They take away their choice. Even if the drunk person is initiating than the responsibility lies with the sober one to say no that is not ok. If they are drunk and they choose to force themselves on someone else, that is different.
-
However, if there is evidence of a crime, why aren't the police and DA handling the justice? There just needs to be checks in place that delineate the jurisdiction. In this case, if USC had more witnesses than they can reveal, then call in the LAPD. Which indicates they don't, and thus they would be overstepping their power. The accused has no means of appeal except civil court.
Thus where this legislation needs to be improved.
Why are you assuming that the police and DA aren't involved? They are responsible for investigating any violation of the law and universities are obligated to report any violations of the law they become aware of. They investigate the violation of the law while the university investigates violations of the student code. They are two very separate standards that don't say the same thing. Why would law enforcement be involved in the student conduct process.
The accused does have a means of appeal. Universities are obligated to have an appeal's process that is completely separate from the conduct process. If they don't like the appeal outcome they can seek appeal through the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.
-
No, you mixed things up. You included in your list actions where the drunk person is doing something to someone else. Choosing to get behind the wheel, choosing to knock over a gas station, etc. That's not what is happening in these cases. They are not choosing to have sex. Someone else who is sober or more sober than they are is choosing to have sex with them. They take away their choice. Even if the drunk person is initiating than the responsibility lies with the sober one to say no that is not ok. If they are drunk and they choose to force themselves on someone else, that is different.
If you can choose to commit robbery, murder or vehicular homicide "over the legal limit" you can choose to have sex.
If I'm drunk and you're sober and we rob a gas station are you the guilty one and am I the innocent victim? In your world, yes. Only the sober (or more sober) person is responsible for what we do together. Sorry, but I think that's crazy.
-
If you can choose to commit robbery, murder or vehicular homicide "over the legal limit" you can choose to have sex.
If I'm drunk and you're sober and we rob a gas station are you the guilty one and am I the innocent victim? In your world, yes. Only the sober (or more sober) person is responsible for what we do together. Sorry, but I think that's crazy.
No. You are getting mixed up again. Both people in your gas station example are choosing to do something to somebody else. They are forcing whoever is at the gas station to give them money. In these situations no one is forcing the sober person to have sex. They have full control and can say no at any time. The sober person is choosing to take advantage of the drunk person.
-
No. You are getting mixed up again. Both people in your gas station example are choosing to do something to somebody else. They are forcing whoever is at the gas station to give them money. In these situations no one is forcing the sober person to have sex. They have full control and can say no at any time. The sober person is choosing to take advantage of the drunk person.
One is either capable of and responsible for decisions made when over the legal limit or not. You can't have it both ways as that defies logic.
-
Why are you assuming that the police and DA aren't involved? They are responsible for investigating any violation of the law and universities are obligated to report any violations of the law they become aware of. They investigate the violation of the law while the university investigates violations of the student code. They are two very separate standards that don't say the same thing. Why would law enforcement be involved in the student conduct process.
The accused does have a means of appeal. Universities are obligated to have an appeal's process that is completely separate from the conduct process. If they don't like the appeal outcome they can seek appeal through the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education.
The DA and Police moved on. USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue. If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.
You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that. But the duality of the burden of proof is the issue. The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX.
Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later. It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain. The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.
You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.
-
One is either capable of and responsible for decisions made when over the legal limit or not. You can't have it both ways as that defies logic.
Again Lenny, this isn't about any decision the intoxicated person made. This about the decision the sober or more sober person made to take advantage of someone while they were intoxicated. You may not like it but that is policy at every university that accepts federal funds (all but 4). And it is slowly becoming law everywhere. You are on the wrong side of history on this one.
-
The DA and Police moved on. USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue.
Why is it an issue? You say this repeatedly but don't explain why. Do you have an issue with civil courts (which have the power to issue much harsher sanctions than universities) using a different standard of proof?
If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.
Actually that's not true. A DA is unlikely to move forward if the victim is unwilling to participate. You could have an entire room full of people saying that he beat the crap out of her and as long as she takes his side there is a good chance they will not move forward.
You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that.
Thank you. But the rest of your post doesn't make it seem like you actually respect it.
The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX.
Again, you are incorrect. They have the ability to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education (as in where DeVos works, not some department at USC) who has the power to overturn decisions. Even if it were true, I'm not sure what your point is. Someone who appeals in criminal courts can only appeal with the US Judicial system. They go to a different court....just like appeals at an university goes to a completely different department separate from the conduct process.
Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later.
I agree with all of this. Which is why I would never advocate for a lower standard of proof in LEGAL cases. When someone's freedom or life is on the line, the highest level of due process is an absolute requirement.
It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain.
The issue at hand is both criminal and a conduct issue. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own standards of conduct for their students. This has been established in the courts many times over. Those standards can be set higher than criminal laws. USC is well within its rights to investigate and enforce its own code of conduct. Receiving an education at USC is not a fundamental right. The place kicker signed a contract stating the he would abide by the university code of conduct. The university determined that he violated said contract. They have the right to assign appropriate sanctions as a result. The standard of proof is included in the contract btw.
The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.
Unless you have a copy of the university's investigation, I'm not sure how you can say that with such certainty. We have no idea what evidence the university uncovered. It could be exactly like the statement the lawyer put out said it was. If that's the case then, yes the university royally screwed up. Or this young woman could have put out the statement under duress because she was afraid that she was in for another beating. She might have told the university a completely different story during the investigation. And there are dozens of other possible scenarios in between. Without reading the report, I don't feel comfortable commenting one way or the other on this case. It is entirely possible there was a miscarriage of justice. That happens. It also happens in criminal courts on a daily basis. No justice system is perfect.
You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.
Some of this comes from my heart but most of it is years of experience and research on this topic. Dozens of court decisions and strong Jesuit lens of Christianity also helps. I might not be right about everything on this topic but I'm definitely not wrong. We can disagree on the path to a solution but if you deny that there's a problem or are unwilling to work towards a solution then you are wrong.
-
Here's where you struggle Lenny. People are not getting drunk and having sex. People are getting drunk and then other people are choosing to have sex with them without their consent. It is a one way transaction, not a mutual decision. They are not willing accomplices/partners. They are individuals who have ingested a significant amount of a mind altering substance that is scientifically proven to compromise judgement. That's why we don't hold people to contracts they signed while under the influence. Consent is a verbal contract and as such requires a mind that isn't significantly under the influence.
Respectfully, TAMU (and I really do mean that), here is where I think you struggle a little bit. I'm torn about whether you are intentionally obtuse as to how people view this or you simply do not understand. I don't expect you to agree, but it surprises me that it seems you simply do not seem to even acknowledge the other point of view.
I understand the distinction you're making between acting and being acted upon, but I do not find that persuasive. Obviously, we can all understand and envision the situation where someone is so intoxicated that they are being acted upon. Texas, apparently, defines that as being unconscious, but I absolutely agree that there are cases far short of that line where the victim is being acted upon. But I know I start to struggle (and clearly a lot of others do as well) as the line shifts the other way. I believe that many people who have had a couple of drinks -- quite possibly over 0.08 BAC -- are making conscious, rational decisions to act. They are not just being acted upon, but are also acting. Lenny is focusing on the action part; you are focusing exclusively on the being acted upon part. But the real question here doesn't honestly relate to the act of having sex. Rather, I think the question is about another act: the act of consenting to have sex.
The act of consenting has consequences. If you consented, you cannot then claim to have been sexually assaulted. Obviously, the act of consent must be knowing and voluntary. You obviously believe that once a certain level of intoxication has been established -- and even though BAC is typically not measured, it would appear that 0.08 is technically that level -- the victim cannot knowingly and voluntarily consent; intoxication negates that act.
But in many other contexts, intoxication does not negate actions/intent. Being intoxicated generally is not a defense in crimes. I trust that you understand that I'm not equating being a victim of sexual assault with committing a crime. I am merely pointing out that except in pretty extreme cases, intoxication does not negate intent. People get convicted of crimes all the time that have intent standards even though they were intoxicated or high. Generally speaking, intoxication simply cannot be used to negate general intent (i.e., the intent to commit an act). But in the context of sexual assault, intoxication is considered to negate general intent. Interestingly, this is true even if the person admits to the intent and admits to having communicated the intent. As I said, this apparent contradiction bothers some people. Keeping this in the context of campus codes of conduct, on the one hand you have a situation where someone says, "I know you had four beers before you decided to spew hate speech, but that doesn't change anything." On the other hand you have a situation where someone says, "Because you had four beers before you decided to consent to sex, that changes everything."
I know that this is a very complicated and emotionally charted subject. You've said a lot of things that have made me think and re-think about these issues. From my perspective -- not that you have any reason to particularly care -- I think you'd make a much more compelling case on this specific issue if you'd acknowledge the contradiction in how these things are handled and make a case for why it's important to do so, rather than simply insist that it's not a contradiction.
-
The DA and Police moved on. USC did not. Again, two versions of burden of proof is the issue. If there was second credible witnesses, then he would be criminally charged. He is not.
You are a great example of an advocate for justice. I respect that. But the duality of the burden of proof is the issue. The place kicker has no one else to appeal to than USC under Title IX.
Unfortunately, our legal system penalizes victims of all crimes wth its burden of proof. Fortunately, our justice system knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to the success of our democracy or else we'd be Venezuela sooner rather than later. It is a thin fabric, but an important one that Title IV process doesn't allow for...this case is a criminal one...one that the legal authorities passed on. I suggest USC is out of its domain. The system is flawed considerably if it reaches like it did here.
You can argue with your heart with more words. You are simply wrong.
THIS ISN'T A LEGAL ISSUE!!!
It is a student code of conduct issue. It does *not* need to meet the same burden of proof that the legal system does. By enrolling in the school, the student AGREED to abide by the code of conduct and its system of oversight.
-
Respectfully, TAMU (and I really do mean that), here is where I think you struggle a little bit. I'm torn about whether you are intentionally obtuse as to how people view this or you simply do not understand. I don't expect you to agree, but it surprises me that it seems you simply do not seem to even acknowledge the other point of view.
I understand the distinction you're making between acting and being acted upon, but I do not find that persuasive. Obviously, we can all understand and envision the situation where someone is so intoxicated that they are being acted upon. Texas, apparently, defines that as being unconscious, but I absolutely agree that there are cases far short of that line where the victim is being acted upon. But I know I start to struggle (and clearly a lot of others do as well) as the line shifts the other way. I believe that many people who have had a couple of drinks -- quite possibly over 0.08 BAC -- are making conscious, rational decisions to act. They are not just being acted upon, but are also acting. Lenny is focusing on the action part; you are focusing exclusively on the being acted upon part. But the real question here doesn't honestly relate to the act of having sex. Rather, I think the question is about another act: the act of consenting to have sex.
The act of consenting has consequences. If you consented, you cannot then claim to have been sexually assaulted. Obviously, the act of consent must be knowing and voluntary. You obviously believe that once a certain level of intoxication has been established -- and even though BAC is typically not measured, it would appear that 0.08 is technically that level -- the victim cannot knowingly and voluntarily consent; intoxication negates that act.
But in many other contexts, intoxication does not negate actions/intent. Being intoxicated generally is not a defense in crimes. I trust that you understand that I'm not equating being a victim of sexual assault with committing a crime. I am merely pointing out that except in pretty extreme cases, intoxication does not negate intent. People get convicted of crimes all the time that have intent standards even though they were intoxicated or high. Generally speaking, intoxication simply cannot be used to negate general intent (i.e., the intent to commit an act). But in the context of sexual assault, intoxication is considered to negate general intent. Interestingly, this is true even if the person admits to the intent and admits to having communicated the intent. As I said, this apparent contradiction bothers some people. Keeping this in the context of campus codes of conduct, on the one hand you have a situation where someone says, "I know you had four beers before you decided to spew hate speech, but that doesn't change anything." On the other hand you have a situation where someone says, "Because you had four beers before you decided to consent to sex, that changes everything."
I know that this is a very complicated and emotionally charted subject. You've said a lot of things that have made me think and re-think about these issues. From my perspective -- not that you have any reason to particularly care -- I think you'd make a much more compelling case on this specific issue if you'd acknowledge the contradiction in how these things are handled and make a case for why it's important to do so, rather than simply insist that it's not a contradiction.
Thanks, Warrior - better than I said it.
-
StillaWarrior, I appreciate the level headed response. I think you and Lenny are trying to say the same thing, but I can't tell when Lenny always resorts to insults and barbs. Thus my response isn't always elegant.
I think you do a good job of laying out what a lot of the confusion around this topic is. What I have been trying to communicate (possibly poorly) is that it does not matter what the decision of the incapacitated person is. What they are deciding to do is not a crime. Choosing to consent to sex with a sober person is not a crime. But a sober person (or more sober person) choosing to have sex with some who is incapacitated by alcohol is now against the rules at all universities that accept federal funds...and is starting to become law across the country. So while both of them may be making a decision that they can be held to, only one of them is deciding to do something that violates the student code of conduct.
That being said, the situation of someone being right around .08 BAC and enthusiastically consenting to sex and then changing their mind the next morning is so rare it can be considered a myth. If that is truly what happened 99% of those cases are never going to get reported to anyone and a majority of them would probably be fine with the activity that occurred. As we discussed before, when sex and alcohol combine usually no one gets hurt but people get hurt enough that I think it needs to be addressed. The vast majority of these (at least that I have seen) are ones where either one individual is well beyond the .08 mark or there were other forms of force or coercion used in addition to alcohol. The couple of cases I have seen where someone may or may not have been over .08 bac and we can establish that they did "consent" to sex, the accused has been found not responsible. Because while .08 is the theoretical line, the actual standard used is would a reasonable person been able to determine that the other person was incapacitated.
-
Again Lenny, this isn't about any decision the intoxicated person made. This about the decision the sober or more sober person made to take advantage of someone while they were intoxicated. You may not like it but that is policy at every university that accepts federal funds (all but 4). And it is slowly becoming law everywhere. You are on the wrong side of history on this one.
History? I don't think the history book has been closed on this issue. And as people become aware of how far out of whack this has gotten we'll see some common sense adjustments.
Sorry if I insulted you - didn't intend to - but I stand by my belief - the idea that a person with an ,08 BAC is incapable of consenting to have sex with anyone with a lower BAC doesn't make sense to me. And I'd be willing to bet my opinion is the majority one by a wide margin.
-
History? I don't think the history book has been closed on this issue. And as people become aware of how far out of whack this has gotten we'll see some common sense adjustments.
Sorry if I insulted you - didn't intend to - but I stand by my belief - the idea that a person with an ,08 BAC is incapable of consenting to have sex with anyone with a lower BAC doesn't make sense to me. And I'd be willing to bet my opinion is the majority one by a wide margin.
Again, its not about their decision to do something legal. Its about the other person's decision to do something illegal (or against the student code of conduct). And we actually talked about the opinion on .08 BAC. Eng estimated it would be about 50/50. I don't know if its that much but more people agree with than you might think. Actually in my experience when I've talked to people it depends on how you phrase it. If I say "Too drunk to drive = too drunk to consent to sex." People tend to agree. When I say ".08 BAC." They tend to disagree. Same people. I think this is mostly from anxiety of never being able to know exactly what a person's BAC is.....and the scary reality that most people have no idea what too drunk to drive looks like.
-
TAMU, a couple points about your argument:
1) Using.08 BAC (or any BAC) as a standard in your arguments is really difficult for people to accept. Nobody is walking around with a breathalyzer and measuring the other person's BAC in front of witnesses. I understand universities want to use an objective standard and .08 is a common legal standard. But the opposing viewpoint is this is an unrealistic expectation and burden to put on the student. There are so many variables that it is hard to ascertain what someone's BAC is without sophisticated tools such as a breathalyzer. (If you need me to expound on this, let me know.)
2) I understand that college campuses have to protect students from predatory acts. Getting someone drunk to the point of unconsciousness or mental incapacitation for the purposes of having sex with that person is a real problem. There are also situations where two people get drunk and have sex with no premeditated intent. In these situations, I get the impression that the university focuses on when sexual advances are initiated while opponents want to focus on whether or not there is active intent to get someone drunk to have sex with them.
3) There is a lack of transparency in the process. People outside of the university setting do not have a clear picture of university policy. That breeds distrust. I understand there are privacy concerns and regulations restricting the university from talking specifically about cases. But if there was better awareness of the policy and understanding of the process, people would trust that due process.
4) Universities may be consistently applying the same standard individually but not collectively. If universities have differing codes of conduct, it appears to the outsider that the process is not being consistently applied. A clear, public, federally mandated policy would help the general population know whether or not due process being served. But as long as universities have individually set rules, the public has a hard time knowing if universities are acting consistently and in good faith.
5) Some people are under the impression that universities are more concerned with covering their backsides than actually protecting students and serving due process. To them, it appears avoiding lawsuits trump the rights of the accused.
-
I lean to Lenny's way of thinking with regards to this discussion.
Probably a dumb question with an easy answer I'm not thinking of, but how can you determine blood alcohol level at time of consent if an assault is reported after the fact (as in the next day), which I imagine is the normally the case? What good does a 0.08 BAC standard do if you don't have a realistic way of measuring it?
-
I lean to Lenny's way of thinking with regards to this discussion.
Probably a dumb question with an easy answer I'm not thinking of, but how can you determine blood alcohol level at time of consent if an assault is reporte*d after the fact (as in the next day), which I imagine is the normally the case? What good does a 0.08 BAC standard do if you don't have a realistic way of measuring it?
Toxicologists can reverse extrapolate if they know what was ingested and when. It's done, for example, in DUI cases when a blood draw is taken a several hours after a crash.
-
4) Universities may be consistently applying the same standard individually but not collectively. If universities have differing codes of conduct, it appears to the outsider that the process is not being consistently applied. A clear, public, federally mandated policy would help the general population know whether or not due process being served. But as long as universities have individually set rules, the public has a hard time knowing if universities are acting consistently and in good faith.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for different universities to have different codes of conduct. For instance, a Baptist institution could have a zero tolerance for any alcohol consumption by its students. As long as the codes do not run counter to federal and state law, I don't see a problem with that.
-
Toxicologists can reverse extrapolate if they know what was ingested and when. It's done, for example, in DUI cases when a blood draw is taken a several hours after a crash.
Thanks for the answer. Are universities really using toxicologists to measure this?
-
I think it is perfectly acceptable for different universities to have different codes of conduct. For instance, a Baptist institution could have a zero tolerance for any alcohol consumption by its students. As long as the codes do not run counter to federal and state law, I don't see a problem with that.
I agree. I was talking about a very specific part of the code of conduct, sexual assault. Some people would prefer a consistent federal standard and process with no variance by university.
-
Thanks for the answer. Are universities really using toxicologists to measure this?
No. They have no right to seek this information.
-
TAMU, a couple points about your argument:
1) Using.08 BAC (or any BAC) as a standard in your arguments is really difficult for people to accept. Nobody is walking around with a breathalyzer and measuring the other person's BAC in front of witnesses. I understand universities want to use an objective standard and .08 is a common legal standard. But the opposing viewpoint is this is an unrealistic expectation and burden to put on the student. There are so many variables that it is hard to ascertain what someone's BAC is without sophisticated tools such as a breathalyzer. (If you need me to expound on this, let me know.)
Agreed. That's why BAC is the theoretical line. It is where a person goes from drunk to incapacitated. The standard actually used in conduct cases is "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated." In other words, was the complrightnt exhibiting enough visible signs of incapacitation or was the accused aware of how many drinks the complrightnt had consumed.
2) I understand that college campuses have to protect students from predatory acts. Getting someone drunk to the point of unconsciousness or mental incapacitation for the purposes of having sex with that person is a real problem. There are also situations where two people get drunk and have sex with no premeditated intent. In these situations, I get the impression that the university focuses on when sexual advances are initiated while opponents want to focus on whether or not there is active intent to get someone drunk to have sex with them.
Since when does intent matter? If hit and kill someone with my car I certainly didn't intend to do it. I still need to be held accountable for my actions.
3) There is a lack of transparency in the process. People outside of the university setting do not have a clear picture of university policy. That breeds distrust. I understand there are privacy concerns and regulations restricting the university from talking specifically about cases. But if there was better awareness of the policy and understanding of the process, people would trust that due process.
Well I'm certainly never going to advocate for getting rid of privacy laws on these matters. Those laws are in place to protect the accused as much as they are to protect the comprightnt. The only reason we hear about cases like the USC one is because the accused chooses to make themselves known. As for making the policies more public....they are public. You can log onto any universities website and they will explain the conduct process and the student code to you in explicit detail. They aren't trying to hide anything. People and the media (sorry MU82) just don't take the time to read or understand the rules.
4) Universities may be consistently applying the same standard individually but not collectively. If universities have differing codes of conduct, it appears to the outsider that the process is not being consistently applied. A clear, public, federally mandated policy would help the general population know whether or not due process being served. But as long as universities have individually set rules, the public has a hard time knowing if universities are acting consistently and in good faith.
Well there is a national standard. That's what Title IX is. Universities are then free to interpret that standard and create their policies based on that. Students can then challenge those standards with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education if they think the standards are unreasonable. To create a 100% uniform conduct system across all universities is quite literally impossible and wouldn't be ethical. As Sultan pointed out, why would a public land grant institution like TAMU and a private Baptist institution like Baylor have the same rules? Plus, a system that works at a giant school like UW would not work the same for a small institution like Marquette. Think of it like the states having different rules. On some matters the state (or the university) knows better what works for their constituents than the federal government (or the Department of Education). And again, these rules are readily available to anyone who is interested. They can research themselves whether or not we are being fair and consistent.
5) Some people are under the impression that universities are more concerned with covering their backsides than actually protecting students and serving due process. To them, it appears avoiding lawsuits trump the rights of the accused.
But all the lawsuits are coming from accused students who are found responsible. If they were truly concerned about avoiding lawsuits and covering their backsides they would do everything in their power to favor the accused. The preferred narrative by universities is that sexual assault never happens on their campus. Finding students responsible for sexual assault goes against their best interests from a public relations standpoint.
-
I lean to Lenny's way of thinking with regards to this discussion.
Probably a dumb question with an easy answer I'm not thinking of, but how can you determine blood alcohol level at time of consent if an assault is reported after the fact (as in the next day), which I imagine is the normally the case? What good does a 0.08 BAC standard do if you don't have a realistic way of measuring it?
I'm sure what Pakuni said is possible, but we do not use toxicologists. .08 BAC is just the scientific measure for when a person goes from drunk to incapacitated. Therefore it is the theoretical line. The standard used in conduct cases is "should a reasonable person have known that the other person was incapacitated."
-
I agree. I was talking about a very specific part of the code of conduct, sexual assault. Some people would prefer a consistent federal standard and process with no variance by university.
That's what Title IX is. Its up to universities to interpret it and their interpretations can be challenged and overruled.
You also have to remember that even the criminal process doesn't have a consistent federal standard and process with no variance when it comes to sexual assault. Individual states decide what they define as consent and sexual assault. Universities must also abide by state rules. What you are asking for is impossible.
-
In other words, was the complrightnt exhibiting enough visible signs of incapacitation...
I'm curious how this is interpreted. For purposes of such matters, is there a difference between "incapacitation" and "intoxication?"
-
.08 BAC is just the scientific measure for when a person goes from drunk to incapacitated. Therefore it is the theoretical line. The standard used in conduct cases is "should a reasonable person have known that the other person was incapacitated."
.08 is the level at which the government has determined that the average person's reaction time is impaired enough that he or she shouldn't operate a motorized vehicle. It is NOT a "scientific measure for when a person goes from drunk to incapacitated". Sorry, but that's just absurd.
-
.08 is the level at which the government has determined that the average person's reaction time is impaired enough that he or she shouldn't operate a motorized vehicle. It is NOT a "scientific measure for when a person goes from drunk to incapacitated". Sorry, but that's just absurd.
Again Lenny, you resort to insults and barbs. Tone it down.
You are incorrect on this. Between .07 and .09 BAC is when judgement and self-control are reduced and memory and reason become impaired. That is incapacitation as defined in Title IX.
-
I'm curious how this is interpreted. For purposes of such matters, is there a difference between "incapacitation" and "intoxication?"
Intoxication is a general term for under the influence of alcohol. Incapacitaiton is the point where someone is so intoxicated that their reason, judgement, and self control has been impaired. So all people who are incapciated are intoxicated but not all people who are intoxicated are incapacitated.
-
StillaWarrior, I appreciate the level headed response. I think you and Lenny are trying to say the same thing, but I can't tell when Lenny always resorts to insults and barbs. Thus my response isn't always elegant.
I think you do a good job of laying out what a lot of the confusion around this topic is. What I have been trying to communicate (possibly poorly) is that it does not matter what the decision of the incapacitated person is. What they are deciding to do is not a crime. Choosing to consent to sex with a sober person is not a crime. But a sober person (or more sober person) choosing to have sex with some who is incapacitated by alcohol is now against the rules at all universities that accept federal funds...and is starting to become law across the country. So while both of them may be making a decision that they can be held to, only one of them is deciding to do something that violates the student code of conduct.
That being said, the situation of someone being right around .08 BAC and enthusiastically consenting to sex and then changing their mind the next morning is so rare it can be considered a myth. If that is truly what happened 99% of those cases are never going to get reported to anyone and a majority of them would probably be fine with the activity that occurred. As we discussed before, when sex and alcohol combine usually no one gets hurt but people get hurt enough that I think it needs to be addressed. The vast majority of these (at least that I have seen) are ones where either one individual is well beyond the .08 mark or there were other forms of force or coercion used in addition to alcohol. The couple of cases I have seen where someone may or may not have been over .08 bac and we can establish that they did "consent" to sex, the accused has been found not responsible. Because while .08 is the theoretical line, the actual standard used is would a reasonable person been able to determine that the other person was incapacitated.
One thing you point out here which I think I'd like some guidance based on your experience....percentage-wise how many cases are purely one party was too intoxicated to consent and the other person "knew" and how many cases might have that as a component but there was also an element of coercion be it physical or verbal? I'd have to think the later scenario is vastly more likely to result in some sort of finding than the former.
General statement as a result of all of this.....culturally people just need to understand, if you and/or the other party have been drinking and you don't really know each other, don't have sex in any form. Nothing good can come of it.
-
One thing you point out here which I think I'd like some guidance based on your experience....percentage-wise how many cases are purely one party was too intoxicated to consent and the other person "knew" and how many cases might have that as a component but there was also an element of coercion be it physical or verbal? I'd have to think the later scenario is vastly more likely to result in some sort of finding than the former.
General statement as a result of all of this.....culturally people just need to understand, if you and/or the other party have been drinking and you don't really know each other, don't have sex in any form. Nothing good can come of it.
True dat.
-
You are incorrect on this. Between .07 and .09 BAC is when judgement and self-control are reduced and memory and reason become impaired. That is incapacitation as defined in Title IX.
Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but this standard is a guideline and this is where the reasonable person stance comes in. If both parties are at, lets say, 0.1 BAC was it reasonable that the accused could know that the accused either didn't or couldn't provide consent. Am extreme example to make the point: both parties at 0.1 BAC and it is known conclusively that no words were exchanged and zero physical coercion was applied, both parties seemingly engaged in the activity. Afterwards the accused says they were assaulted and did not knowingly grant consent. In that case, it would not be reasonable for the accused to know that the other party was unable to consent (they seemed to be acting "normal" and didn't say no) and very likely the finding around be for the accused.
-
That's what Title IX is. Its up to universities to interpret it and their interpretations can be challenged and overruled.
I'm not sure if I found the actual statute (we former media types have no clue how to do research ;)) but the most consistent explanation I can find is:
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title IX states that:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
According to the U.S. Depart of Education website (where I found the above quote), the scope of Title IX includes "sex-based harassment". So as far as I can tell, there is not an expressed statute about anything regarding sexual assault but it is implied. I'm ok with that. Merely pointing out that some people want there to be an expressed statute.
You also have to remember that even the criminal process doesn't have a consistent federal standard and process with no variance when it comes to sexual assault. Individual states decide what they define as consent and sexual assault. Universities must also abide by state rules. What you are asking for is impossible.
True. I was not meaning to imply that was my viewpoint but that there are some people who do.
Edit: I'll try to respond to your longer post later when I have more time.
-
Again Lenny, you resort to insults and barbs. Tone it down.
You are incorrect on this. Between .07 and .09 BAC is when judgement and self-control are reduced and memory and reason become impaired. That is incapacitation as defined in Title IX.
Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you are absurd - the idea that it is a scientific fact that a .08 BAC = incapacitation is though. The 4 levels re alcohol consumption are impairment, intoxication, incapacitation and overdose. .08 is LOWEST level that defines #2 (intoxication) legally, not a level that indicates incapacitation. I confess that I don't know the level at which incapacitation sets in (there is likely a variance do to several circumstances) but it should be (and in my experience is) at a much higher level than the lowest level of intoxication.
-
even the victim seems victimized here. so what is title IX's real purpose here? isn't there a point at which "reasonable" people can come to the conclusion during the "investigation" there is no "is" here? in this situation, obviously not. which leads me to believe one of 2 things-either these "investigators" are completely incompetent or there is some other motive here. have we lost all sense of common sense?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/02/student-athletes-torn-apart-by-title-ix
-
Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you are absurd - the idea that it is a scientific fact that a .08 BAC = incapacitation is though. The 4 levels re alcohol consumption are impairment, intoxication, incapacitation and overdose. .08 is LOWEST level that defines #2 (intoxication) legally, not a level that indicates incapacitation. I confess that I don't know the level at which incapacitation sets in (there is likely a variance do to several circumstances) but it should be (and in my experience is) at a much higher level than the lowest level of intoxication.
This is why it's a guideline not an absolute standard (or should be anyway). I am 100% willing to put my judgement/mental acuity to the test at 0.08 BAC and say it will be better than a lot of folks at 0.08 BAC simply because I practice my craft :)
I'm not advocating that I can/should operate a vehicle at 0.08, but I have zero doubt that my judgement is not impacted sufficiently that I can't make good/legal decisions. For some people that is absolutely not true......so guideline in my book.
-
This is why it's a guideline not an absolute standard (or should be anyway). I am 100% willing to put my judgement/mental acuity to the test at 0.08 BAC and say it will be better than a lot of folks at 0.08 BAC simply because I practice my craft :)
I'm not advocating that I can/should operate a vehicle at 0.08, but I have zero doubt that my judgement is not impacted sufficiently that I can't make good/legal decisions. For some people that is absolutely not true......so guideline in my book.
My friend, I worry about your decisions when you're stone cold sober! (Too easy.)
-
My friend, I worry about your decisions when you're stone cold sober! (Too easy.)
Have you been talking to my wife????
-
Bah
-
Have you been talking to my wife????
Talking? 8-)
(Like taking candy from #nored!)
-
(Like taking candy from #nored!)
That is surprisingly difficult
(https://media.giphy.com/media/kLk1Qa8mrYdQA/giphy.gif)
-
That is surprisingly difficult
(https://media.giphy.com/media/kLk1Qa8mrYdQA/giphy.gif)
+1
-
Agreed. That's why BAC is the theoretical line. It is where a person goes from drunk to incapacitated. The standard actually used in conduct cases is "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated." In other words, was the complrightnt exhibiting enough visible signs of incapacitation or was the accused aware of how many drinks the complrightnt had consumed.
Now, "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated" is a fair standard. No need to use a theoretical BAC line in your argument. Are you using .08 as an example to try to make it easier to understand? Because it actually muddies the water.
Since when does intent matter? If hit and kill someone with my car I certainly didn't intend to do it. I still need to be held accountable for my actions.
It doesn't. The standard of "should a reasonable person have known..." is what I was trying to say. I was just using intent as an example of when "a reasonable person should have known" vs a lack of intent, which may or may not align with a reasonable person knowing/not knowing. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Well I'm certainly never going to advocate for getting rid of privacy laws on these matters. Those laws are in place to protect the accused as much as they are to protect the comprightnt. The only reason we hear about cases like the USC one is because the accused chooses to make themselves known. As for making the policies more public....they are public. You can log onto any universities website and they will explain the conduct process and the student code to you in explicit detail. They aren't trying to hide anything. People and the media (sorry MU82) just don't take the time to read or understand the rules.
Nowhere did I say anything about doing away with privacy rights. Even though the policies are public, they are hidden in plain sight. There needs to be a PR campaign from universities guiding the public to these policies. Many people don't even know this is public information, much less where to look...so thanks for making me aware it is public and telling me where to look.
Well there is a national standard. That's what Title IX is. Universities are then free to interpret that standard and create their policies based on that. Students can then challenge those standards with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education if they think the standards are unreasonable. To create a 100% uniform conduct system across all universities is quite literally impossible and wouldn't be ethical. As Sultan pointed out, why would a public land grant institution like TAMU and a private Baptist institution like Baylor have the same rules? Plus, a system that works at a giant school like UW would not work the same for a small institution like Marquette. Think of it like the states having different rules. On some matters the state (or the university) knows better what works for their constituents than the federal government (or the Department of Education). And again, these rules are readily available to anyone who is interested. They can research themselves whether or not we are being fair and consistent.
Title IX is a very vague. I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard. Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position. Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools. If one exists, I would be happy to hear it.
As for a uniform code of conduct, that is unnecessary. I misspoke in my earlier post. I really meant to talk about having a federal, explicitly stated, uniform procedure for investigating sexual assault & harassment, which would be just a small part of a university's overall code of conduct. I apologize for the error.
But all the lawsuits are coming from accused students who are found responsible. If they were truly concerned about avoiding lawsuits and covering their backsides they would do everything in their power to favor the accused. The preferred narrative by universities is that sexual assault never happens on their campus. Finding students responsible for sexual assault goes against their best interests from a public relations standpoint.
The bolded certainly seems to have been the case about 5 plus years ago. Not all universities took proper steps to investigate claims of sexual assault and pass cases onto authorities. Some may have even obstructed investigations.
This opened up the possibility of lawsuits from assault victims. Now that nearly all the lawsuits, like you said, are coming from the accused it gives a false impression of over-correction. In attempting to avoid lawsuits from accusers, there are now only lawsuits coming from the accused. I was merely trying to point out that some people have this impression. Personally, I know these high profile cases are the vast minority and for the most part universities get it right.
I do appreciate your insight TAMU. This is a very important topic for society to discuss and I hope to improve my understanding of the process to better judge whether or not justice is being served for all parties.
-
Title IX is a very vague. I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard. Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position. Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools. If one exists, I would be happy to hear it.
That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.
-
That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.
Every student at my school is required to complete a 20 minute webinar, and complete a short quiz, in their first semester of being enrolled.
-
Every student at my school is required to complete a 20 minute webinar, and complete a short quiz, in their first semester of being enrolled.
Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?
-
Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?
I haven't taken it so I do not know.
-
I haven't taken it so I do not know.
I have no objection to a webinar or a quiz to follow. I think it's important that students be reminded (hopefully their parents have already told them) that their new found freedom can be a double edged sword and that they need to be careful to treat one another with respect and consideration. I hope, though, that the webinar doesn't confuse less than optimal behavior with sexual assault.
-
One thing you point out here which I think I'd like some guidance based on your experience....percentage-wise how many cases are purely one party was too intoxicated to consent and the other person "knew" and how many cases might have that as a component but there was also an element of coercion be it physical or verbal? I'd have to think the later scenario is vastly more likely to result in some sort of finding than the former.
I would guess that somewhere in the realm of 95% of the case that I have personally seen that involve alcohol also involve some sort of coercive behavior. Either bullying, badgering, blackmailing, threatening, ignoring nos, physical force, or getting nos when the complainant is sober and then keep pouring them drinks until they can't answer any more. The concept that two incapacitated people are happily throwing themselves at each other and then one of them feels taken advantage of the next day is so rare it can be considered myth. I personally have seen three cases where there was no evidence of coercive behavior but evidence of incapciation. Two were found not responsible one was found responsible.
General statement as a result of all of this.....culturally people just need to understand, if you and/or the other party have been drinking and you don't really know each other, don't have sex in any form. Nothing good can come of it.
Yep. This is why the education piece of Title IX is so much more important than the conduct piece. That is where meaningful change will come.
-
Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but this standard is a guideline and this is where the reasonable person stance comes in. If both parties are at, lets say, 0.1 BAC was it reasonable that the accused could know that the accused either didn't or couldn't provide consent. Am extreme example to make the point: both parties at 0.1 BAC and it is known conclusively that no words were exchanged and zero physical coercion was applied, both parties seemingly engaged in the activity. Afterwards the accused says they were assaulted and did not knowingly grant consent. In that case, it would not be reasonable for the accused to know that the other party was unable to consent (they seemed to be acting "normal" and didn't say no) and very likely the finding around be for the accused.
If you are saying what I think you are saying, than yes. If it can be established that neither party was exhibiting signs of incapacitation and no coercive behavior was present than the finding would likely (and should) go in favor of the accused.
It's important to remember that when I say .08 BAC is the standard, it is not the actual standard. It is the point that has been established as when incapacitation starts for most people. Impairment is also affected by serveral other factors like tolerance. Some people will be impaired at .08, some won't be impaired until .10, and others can be impaired at .04.
-
Now, "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated" is a fair standard. No need to use a theoretical BAC line in your argument. Are you using .08 as an example to try to make it easier to understand? Because it actually muddies the water.
The .08 is the line where most people start to become incapaciated. If you are going to use a word like incapacitated in your standard you need to be able to define it.
Nowhere did I say anything about doing away with privacy rights. Even though the policies are public, they are hidden in plain sight. There needs to be a PR campaign from universities guiding the public to these policies. Many people don't even know this is public information, much less where to look...so thanks for making me aware it is public and telling me where to look.
I see what you are going for but I don't know that a PR campaign would be a wise use of resources. The general public are not primary stakeholders and they for the most part aren't interested until a high profile case happens at a university they are interested in. Maybe including directions to the policy in any public statements about cases could be beneficial but I think the general best practice is to just quote FERPA and not say anything.
Title IX is a very vague. I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard. Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position. Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools. If one exists, I would be happy to hear it.
As for a uniform code of conduct, that is unnecessary. I misspoke in my earlier post. I really meant to talk about having a federal, explicitly stated, uniform procedure for investigating sexual assault & harassment, which would be just a small part of a university's overall code of conduct. I apologize for the error.
The original Title IX is very vague but has been repeatedly clarified by Dear Colleague Letters that set out some of the standards you are looking for. The one from 2011 is the main one that set a lot of these standards. So there is a set standard, but like any law, it is up to individuals to interpret it so there are naturally some differences. And again, these universities are separate institutions that have the right to set their own standards and systems within reason.
Personally, I know these high profile cases are the vast minority and for the most part universities get it right.
Thank you for acknowledging this. The system is not perfect. No system is...including the criminal system. But it works the vast majority of the time but everyone wants to focus on the handful of cases where it doesn't. We should of course work to improve the system but many seem to just want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I do appreciate your insight TAMU. This is a very important topic for society to discuss and I hope to improve my understanding of the process to better judge whether or not justice is being served for all parties.
Thank you, I appreciate the conversation as well. I don't always get unfiltered conversation like this in person. Its usually one of two extremes, either people who are too scared to say the wrong thing to the scary Title IX guy or people who don't understand and just want to scream at me.
-
That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.
Per Title IX every University must go over the definition of sexual assault, consent, incapacitaiton, the conduct process, and other relevant information at their orientation. It is also considered a best practice though not required to have a mandatory second training during the student's first year and to have the student sign a copy of the student rules affirming that they have read and understand them. So the only ones to blame if they don't understand the rules is the students. (Assuming the university has followed through on their obligations)
What do you mean by "trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem"?
-
Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?
Lenny, the only people who reach .08 after two beers is women who are 100 lbs or less and if they drink them both in less than an hour and has not eaten in a while. And I'm not sure why the amount of beers matters. It's not about how much they drink its about when their judgement has become compromised by alcohol.
Let's go about this a different way. You are obviously opposed to this idea. So where do you draw the line? Is there a point where someone is too drunk to consent? Or is it as long as they are conscious they are fair game?
-
Lenny, the only people who reach .08 after two beers is women who are 100 lbs or less and if they drink them both in less than an hour and has not eaten in a while. And I'm not sure why the amount of beers matters. It's not about how much they drink its about when their judgement has become compromised by alcohol.
Please reread my post. I didn't say the person who drank 2 beers in 45 minutes was .08 - he or she was the "assaulter" in my example. The person who drank 3 beers or the same period was the "assaultee". The idea that person A can make a bad decision and end up expelled (or worse) while person B can make the same bad decision and becomes a victim is one I just can't get my arms around.
-
Let's go about this a different way. You are obviously opposed to this idea. So where do you draw the line? Is there a point where someone is too drunk to consent? Or is it as long as they are conscious they are fair game?
1.Yes
2.No
I just believe .08 to be much too low a level to be considered "incapacitated".
-
1.Yes
2.No
I just believe .08 to be much too low a level to be considered "incapacitated".
So what is it?
-
Please reread my post. I didn't say the person who drank 2 beers in 45 minutes was .08 - he or she was the "assaulter" in my example. The person who drank 3 beers or the same period was the "assaultee". The idea that person A can make a bad decision and end up expelled (or worse) while person B can make the same bad decision and becomes a victim is one I just can't get my arms around.
Apologies for the misread. Even so, 3 beers only gets a significant minority of people to .08. And it's not the same decision. One is making a decision to have sex with a sober person, which is legal. The other is making a decision to have sex with an incapacitated person which is against the rules (and starting to become illegal in several states).
I'll give a comparison. A 15 year old and a 25 year old decide to have sex with each other. Both are "willing", both are deciding to have sex, the 15 year old night even be the one pushing for it, but only the 25 year old is choosing to do something illegal. It is the 25 year olds responsibility to say no. Like alcohol, youth is not an excuse for committing crimes. You murder someone or knock over a Gas Station as a 15 year old you are held accountable. But we don't hold them accountable for their decision to have sex because we recognize that itwas the other persons responsibility to not do something illegal.
Which brings us back to the question of the line. The .08 has been put forward because most people start to have impaired judgement at .08. And just like the courts have repeatedly decided that someone cannot be held responsible for a written contract signed while under the influence, consent is a verbal contact that needs two clear minded individuals.
As I've said previously, I'm open to arguments for other thresholds. But there got to be a scientific justification to it, not just "that seems too low."
-
New York Magazine. Title IX Enforcement is Broken
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html
-
New York Magazine. Title IX Enforcement is Broken
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html
a very well written article that i believe nails it-no pun intended, but, as carpenters with their hammers-everything looks like a nail-title IX bureaucrats, everything looks like an unsafe environment and/or sexual assault. then you throw fed money into the mix and look out. all common sense is thrown out and it's like they were trying to re-program zoe katz because they were the perfeshonals (sp mine) you know. this is the "$450 per hour" attorney's wet dream
-
New York Magazine. Title IX Enforcement is Broken
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html
Lots of misinformation in that article followed by hypothesises that are formed based on a lack of information. In Title IX cases, the university is not allowed offer any clarity on rulings because of FERPA. So one side is free to make up whatever story they want, publicize it, and the university is not allowed to comment. Over half the country was ready to burn down the University of Minnesota last year until someone leaked the investigation report clearly showing that the university was more than justified in their decision.
It is hilarious to me that the same people who scrutinize those who report sexual assault and claim they are just seeking attention or out for revenge, or making things up are often the same ones who are willing to take the words of those found responsible for sexual violence as the gospel truth.
There are miscarriages of justice under Title IX. Just as there are miscarriages of justice in the criminal system. Both can stand to be improved. But focusing on the vast minority of cases where it doesn't go right and ignoring the thousands where it does is not a logical response.
I don't have the investigation report for the USC case. I can't condemn or condone the university's decision without all the information. But one of two things is true. Either USC's Title IX office is one of the most incompetent in the nation and multiple someones need to get fired or there is more to the story. While I can't personally vouch for anyone in that office I personally think that it is more likely that there is more to the story than there being that level of gross incompetence. And if there isn't more to the story, I would be the first one to condemn them.
EDIT: To be honest, I can't be angry with journalists like Mr. Singal. While some of the misinformation in his article could have been clarified if he talked to an expert on Title IX, presenting his example cases in a one sided manner is all he can really do. If I have an investigation where one side gives a tell all and the other refuses to answer any questions, the only information I can record is very one sided. Universities' hands are tied. They aren't allowed to comment on cases at all. I'm sure Mr. Singal did his due diligence and tried to get the university's side in his examples but in the end all he can report is what he's told. Its an unfortunate reality that this spreads myths about the Title IX process and that is something I don't know how to fix. Federal privacy laws are a must in this matter. That is non-negotiable. I think all universities can do is keep up the good work and trust the Department of Education has their backs. We can take all the mud slinging if it means we can continue to help people.
-
Over half the country was ready to burn down the University of Minnesota last year until someone leaked the investigation report clearly showing that the university was more than justified in their decision
Not accurate, as much of the original discipline imposed was changed upon appeal. Lots of bad actors on all sides of this issue. The U of M came across as a solution looking for a problem in this case. It didn't help that Minnesota's athletic department has a rich history of inappropriate sexual conduct by AD's and other high ranking administrators...fact. They had zero credibility when investigating this.
TAMU, you have a very difficult job. I deal with these issues in an employment context.
Here's a real life case I'm curious how others would deal with....senior SME long tenured, invites a brand new employee to go for a boat ride after work, along with the new employee's two very young children. Invite happens at work. Drinks are poured and consumed before and during boat ride. SME initiates (and admits) engaging in sexual conduct in front of the kids. Employee reports they were intoxicated and was assaulted. Intoxication is verified. SME insists it was conseting behavior between two adults. New employee claims assault. No criminal charges filed. Employee files harassment charge at work.
What's the right decision for the employer?
-
Not accurate, as much of the original discipline imposed was changed upon appeal. Lots of bad actors on all sides of this issue. The U of M came across as a solution looking for a problem in this case. It didn't help that Minnesota's athletic department has a rich history of inappropriate sexual conduct by AD's and other high ranking administrators...fact. They had zero credibility when investigating this.
TAMU, you have a very difficult job. I deal with these issues in an employment context.
Here's a real life case I'm curious how others would deal with....senior SME long tenured, invites a brand new employee to go for a boat ride after work, along with the new employee's two very young children. Invite happens at work. Drinks are poured and consumed before and during boat ride. SME initiates (and admits) engaging in sexual conduct in front of the kids. Employee reports they were intoxicated and was assaulted. Intoxication is verified. SME insists it was conseting behavior between two adults. New employee claims assault. No criminal charges filed. Employee files harassment charge at work.
What's the right decision for the employer?
Real, I know nothing about the field. But I personally think the long tenured employee is in a crap ton of trouble.
And as to the article above, that's exactly what I think is happening in far too many places. We've got a whole industry built to handle the innocent 'I hit that' balcony catcall that should have been a total nothing burger ending with the apology as indicated in the article. Silly things like that specifically detract from legitimate cases of assault where it actually takes place. My sincere hope is that serious professionals in the field like TAMU would take that set of facts and immediately quash the 'case'.
-
TAMU - I agree that privacy in such cases is often vitally important. What I want to know is whose right of privacy is being protected? While I'm asking a general question, I'm really focusing on the USC case. Is it the "victim's" privacy that is being protected? If so, since she's denying that anything took place, could she waive her privacy rights and authorize the release of the report? Or is the entire process cloaked in a privacy right that doesn't belong to any individual and cannot be waived?
I understand that the USC case is an anomaly and that you don't have any more information about the specific facts than what we've all read. I'm just asking more of a general question about the privacy rules surrounding such cases.
-
Let's just drop this one here...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/security-footage-clears-usc-student-rape-charges-article-1.3385203
-
It is hilarious to me that the same people who scrutinize those who report sexual assault and claim they are just seeking attention or out for revenge, or making things up are often the same ones who are willing to take the words of those found responsible for sexual violence as the gospel truth.
Then there is a public perception problem brewing with the work that you do, and that is unfortunate as you are doing your jobs, but these things percolate because of situations that keep repeating themselves. The feeling, at least by some and captured in this article among many others, is that we have over rotated. The reporter asks a great question, why are we not listening to an adult woman who says this is a railroad job? The reflex reaction is to listen to the woman first if she makes a claim of sexual assault, but if she says nothing happened we ignore it? That is troubling and should be concerning to anyone.
Clay Travis, sports entertainment guy has a good take in my opinion. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/title-ix-broken-usc-kicker-booted-nothing/
Change is coming, the question is to what degree. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/04/little-appetite-rollback-obama-guidelines-campus-sexual-assault
-
Not accurate, as much of the original discipline imposed was changed upon appeal. Lots of bad actors on all sides of this issue. The U of M came across as a solution looking for a problem in this case. It didn't help that Minnesota's athletic department has a rich history of inappropriate sexual conduct by AD's and other high ranking administrators...fact. They had zero credibility when investigating this.
TAMU, you have a very difficult job. I deal with these issues in an employment context.
Here's a real life case I'm curious how others would deal with....senior SME long tenured, invites a brand new employee to go for a boat ride after work, along with the new employee's two very young children. Invite happens at work. Drinks are poured and consumed before and during boat ride. SME initiates (and admits) engaging in sexual conduct in front of the kids. Employee reports they were intoxicated and was assaulted. Intoxication is verified. SME insists it was conseting behavior between two adults. New employee claims assault. No criminal charges filed. Employee files harassment charge at work.
What's the right decision for the employer?
I don't think an appeal means that there were bad actors on the university side. All that means is the system was doing what it was supposed to. There is due process and checks for both the accuser and the accused.
As for your example, it would depend on what your company's rules. If this was a university case we would use the standard "would a reasonable person have known that the new employee was incapacitated." It would also depend on the type of relationship been the two, is there a direct line of supervision? The specific line of "in front of the kids" concerns me. I wasn't sure what you meant by that but you could have some indecent exposure or innapropriate conduct with a child concerns there.
What's it with Minnesotans and having sex on boats? ;D
-
TAMU - I agree that privacy in such cases is often vitally important. What I want to know is whose right of privacy is being protected? While I'm asking a general question, I'm really focusing on the USC case. Is it the "victim's" privacy that is being protected? If so, since she's denying that anything took place, could she waive her privacy rights and authorize the release of the report? Or is the entire process cloaked in a privacy right that doesn't belong to any individual and cannot be waived?
I understand that the USC case is an anomaly and that you don't have any more information about the specific facts than what we've all read. I'm just asking more of a general question about the privacy rules surrounding such cases.
Both the privacy of the complainant and the accused. There is no bias it is a blanket requirement. Both sides are free to discuss the case with whoever they so choose. If the young woman would like the truth out there, she and the accused could sign a document waiving their FERPA rights as it pertains to this case and the university would be free to comment on their case. They wouldn't have to comment on the case but they would be free to.
-
Let's just drop this one here...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/security-footage-clears-usc-student-rape-charges-article-1.3385203
I'm not sure what the point of this is. This isn't about the case we are talking about. Nor does it prove what I think you want it to prove. And this is the problem with these types of cases. That woman could have been making out with him, making sexual gesutres, leading her back to her room.....but she has the right to change her mind at any point. If she got to the room and then decided I don't want to do this anymore and he went ahead anyway, that is still a sexual assault. And per Title IX if she was incapacitated and he was not than it is still a violation of the student code of conduct. Of course, if they were both incapacitated then she would be the assaulter in the case.
Another factor in this case is that California is an affirmative consent state. It is required by state law that a verbal yes must be obtained before initiating sexual contact. A practice that I personally think is good in theory but is significantly flawed.
All that being said, if I was on the panel for this case and I saw that video I would find him not responsible unless I had very strong evidence that she had later changed her mind or that a reasonable person would have known she was incapacitated.
-
Then there is a public perception problem brewing with the work that you do, and that is unfortunate as you are doing your jobs, but these things percolate because of situations that keep repeating themselves. The feeling, at least by some and captured in this article among many others, is that we have over rotated. The reporter asks a great question, why are we not listening to an adult woman who says this is a railroad job? The reflex reaction is to listen to the woman first if she makes a claim of sexual assault, but if she says nothing happened we ignore it? That is troubling and should be concerning to anyone.
Clay Travis, sports entertainment guy has a good take in my opinion. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/title-ix-broken-usc-kicker-booted-nothing/
Change is coming, the question is to what degree. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/04/little-appetite-rollback-obama-guidelines-campus-sexual-assault
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.
-
Both the privacy of the complrightnt and the accused. There is no bias it is a blanket requirement. Both sides are free to discuss the case with whoever they so choose. If the young woman would like the truth out there, she and the accused could sign a document waiving their FERPA rights as it pertains to this case and the university would be free to comment on their case. They wouldn't have to comment on the case but they would be free to.
So, in the USC case, is it the alleged victim and the accused? Or is it the person who made the complaint (who was not the alleged victim in this case) and the accused? In this particular case, if the alleged victim (not the complainant) and the accused both authorize (and I have no idea if they have), is there anything preventing USC from telling the other side of the story? Can the alleged victim and the accused get a copy of the report?
-
So, in the USC case, is it the alleged victim and the accused? Or is it the person who made the complaint (who was not the alleged victim in this case) and the accused? In this particular case, if the alleged victim (not the complrightnt) and the accused both authorize (and I have no idea if they have), is there anything preventing USC from telling the other side of the story? Can the alleged victim and the accused get a copy of the report?
Thank you for pointing that out, the complainant and the alleged victim are two different people in this case. Were getting into general counsel territory here so my understanding is a little shakier, but my understanding is that if the complainant was a student they would also need him/her to waiver his/her FERPA rights. If they weren't a student than they could proceed with just the waiver from the accused and the alleged victim.
Different universities have different policies on handing out copies of the report to those involved. They are required to let them review the report but most universities don't let them take a copy of the report because they need to protect the privacy rights of other students involved. Some universities give out copies to those involved with information about other students redacted out.
-
I'm not sure what the point of this is. This isn't about the case we are talking about. Nor does it prove what I think you want it to prove. And this is the problem with these types of cases. That woman could have been making out with him, making sexual gesutres, leading her back to her room.....but she has the right to change her mind at any point. If she got to the room and then decided I don't want to do this anymore and he went ahead anyway, that is still a sexual assault. And per Title IX if she was incapacitated and he was not than it is still a violation of the student code of conduct. Of course, if they were both incapacitated then she would be the assaulter in the case.
Another factor in this case is that California is an affirmative consent state. It is required by state law that a verbal yes must be obtained before initiating sexual contact. A practice that I personally think is good in theory but is significantly flawed.
All that being said, if I was on the panel for this case and I saw that video I would find him not responsible unless I had very strong evidence that she had later changed her mind or that a reasonable person would have known she was incapacitated.
The point is it is another confounding case at the same school where two different burdens of proof are at play. If she said no, as you point out about California law, he would have been legally tried for rape. She didn't or else the legal charges would have gone forward. Instead, evidence (at least in this article) indicates she was the aggressor.
So, what will USC do? Expel him? Her? Neither? In the kicker's case, USC kicked him off the team and out of school, while putting a restriction order on him to not reach out to his girlfriend who denies the abuse and claims she was "railroaded" (even though he is out of school).
https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/girlfriend-of-former-usc-kicker-says-school-railroaded-1797468166/amp
Again, the issue for many of us is when the two burdens of proof are disjointed, and thus the flaw of Title IX's application here in these cases by universities (which even apparently varies university to university). Fairness is getting mixed up with justice. The incongruity of which strongly brings into question the entire "due process" of it all, which is unfortunate. When universities overreach or under reach on its application, therein lies the problem.
-
The point is it is another confounding case at the same school where two different burdens of proof are at play. If she said no, as you point out about California law, he would have been legally tried for rape. She didn't or else the legal charges would have gone forward. Instead, evidence (at least in this article) indicates she was the aggressor.
So, what will USC do? Expel him? Her? Neither? In the kicker's case, USC kicked him off the team and out of school, while putting a restriction order on him to not reach out to his girlfriend who denies the abuse and claims she was "railroaded" (even though he is out of school).
https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/girlfriend-of-former-usc-kicker-says-school-railroaded-1797468166/amp
Again, the issue for many of us is when the two burdens of proof are disjointed, and thus the flaw of Title IX's application here in these cases by universities (which even apparently varies university to university). Fairness is getting mixed up with justice. The incongruity of which strongly brings into question the entire "due process" of it all, which is unfortunate. When universities overreach or under reach on its application, therein lies the problem.
You have a lot of blind faith in the criminal justice system. The bolded is not true. DAs only pursue cases they think they can win. After that video surfaced, it wouldn't have mattered if he pulled on gun her in the room. The case was over. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
The burdens of proof aren't disjointed. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard that universities use for every case that they hear. From sexual assault to noise violations. What you are asking universities to do is create special treatment for sexual assault cases which is nonsensical. The university is not investigating violations of law they are investigating violations of the student conduct. A lower burden of proof is warranted.
-
You have a lot of blind faith in the criminal justice system. The bolded is not true. DAs only pursue cases they think they can win. After that video surfaced, it wouldn't have mattered if he pulled on gun her in the room. The case was over. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
The burdens of proof aren't disjointed. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard that universities use for every case that they hear. From sexual assault to noise violations. What you are asking universities to do is create special treatment for sexual assault cases which is nonsensical. The university is not investigating violations of law they are investigating violations of the student conduct. A lower burden of proof is warranted.
If you think a DA makes judgments on bringing forward a case simply "if they think can win a case or not", I don't know what to say. If you don't think there are higher legal standards around burden of proof, grand juries, judges along the way, you are naive.
Secondarily, do you think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are the same burden of proof?
Secon
-
If you think a DA makes judgments on bringing forward a case simply "if they think can win a case or not", I don't know what to say. If you don't think there are higher legal standards around burden of proof, grand juries, judges along the way, you are naive.
Secondarily, do you think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are the same burden of proof?
Secon
I work with the criminal justice system on a near daily basis. I'm not naive in the slightest. The reality is that most sexual assault accusations don't result in charges not because there is no evidence but because there is not enough evidence.
I don't think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are anywhere near the same burden of proof which is why I didn't say that. I said that universities use the preponderance of information standard for accusations of all violations of the student code of conduct. What you seem to be advocating for is that universities treat sexual assault differently and use a higher standard of proof that they don't use for any other violation. You can't seem to recognize that university conduct is not a legal matter.
Why is it so offensive to you that universities use a different standard of proof? You keep saying its an issue but have yet to explain what the issue is. What is the problem if someone is found not guilty in criminal court but found responsible by the university conduct system? Do you also have an issue with someone being found not guilty in criminal court but then losing in civil court?
-
So what is it?
I don't know. But my experience and common sense tells me that one does not go from bring OK to drive an automobile (.075, say) to being so incapacitated that his or her enthusiastic consent to sex is rendered meaningless (.080) in what amounts to a sip of wine or a swallow of beer. That doesn't seem very scientific to me - seems arbitrary.
-
Why is it so offensive to you that universities use a different standard of proof? You keep saying its an issue but have yet to explain what the issue is. What is the problem if someone is found not guilty in criminal court but found responsible by the university conduct system? Do you also have an issue with someone being found not guilty in criminal court but then losing in civil court?
Maybe beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a threshold, but I would also submit that 50.1% is dangerously low. That's basically a coin flip. Would you really want to kick a kid out of school and brand him/her forever a sexual assaulter, cheater, etc., because you thought there was "only" a 49.9% chance that he/she was innocent? Not me. And that's not even allowing for what % the needle is moved by the individual biases of the investigator - everyone has them.
-
I'm not trying to take sides in the ongoing Title IX debate and I particularly don't want to ignite some argument over Education Secretary DeVos and the various positions outlined in the article taken by folks lining up as one might expect, but I do think it interesting that there appears to be some discussion taking place in official circles very much along the lines of several pages in this thread that I believe we all found informative.
Perhaps TAMU can keep us in the loop. Of course we all want people properly protected. And of course we don't want others wrongly accused. Let's hope that the national conversation can remain as constructive as we've been on the topic but somehow I have my doubts in these charged times. Happy Friday everyone.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devos-campus-assault-rules-201708-story.html
-
i may have missed it, but why are schools saddled with prosecuting anything? let the schools try to stick with what they should be good at-teaching. allow law enforcement to do what it's supposed to do-enforce the law. the schools can then respond accordingly and further reprimand the student if they feel a need to further protect their students based in part on some real evidence and due process. is this a perfect solution? i don't know, but i don't believe the other one was working out very well at all.
excellent latimes article by the way
-
I don't know. But my experience and common sense tells me that one does not go from bring OK to drive an automobile (.075, say) to being so incapacitated that his or her enthusiastic consent to sex is rendered meaningless (.080) in what amounts to a sip of wine or a swallow of beer. That doesn't seem very scientific to me - seems arbitrary.
Well no matter where you put the standard, be it 0, .04, 08, .12, .20, etc, at some point one sip is going to be the difference between consensual and non-consensual. 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. In the end, this is all an academic exercise, because no one is being breathalyzed in these moments. The actual standard is whether a reasonable person should have known that the other person was incapacitated.
-
Maybe beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a threshold, but I would also submit that 50.1% is dangerously low. That's basically a coin flip. Would you really want to kick a kid out of school and brand him/her forever a sexual assaulter, cheater, etc., because you thought there was "only" a 49.9% chance that he/she was innocent? Not me. And that's not even allowing for what % the needle is moved by the individual biases of the investigator - everyone has them.
Given how much due process and thoroughness that goes into the investigations I am very comfortable with it. Especially given that the biases of our panel members tend to favor the accused. And while the actual standard is 50.1%, I think most of our panel members actually have an internal bar that is much higher. And while not an official practice, in my experience panel members will assign lower sanctions when they are closer to the 50% mark than the 100% mark.
A general disclaimer, I can't speak for all schools but at least at TAMU and the colleagues at other schools that I have worked with, expulsions for sexual assault are very rare. The national standard is that they are reserved for "true predators" or to say another way, serial offenders, who would likely offend again if given the opportunity. There seems to be a perception that students are getting expelled left and right.
-
I'm not trying to take sides in the ongoing Title IX debate and I particularly don't want to ignite some argument over Education Secretary DeVos and the various positions outlined in the article taken by folks lining up as one might expect, but I do think it interesting that there appears to be some discussion taking place in official circles very much along the lines of several pages in this thread that I believe we all found informative.
Perhaps TAMU can keep us in the loop. Of course we all want people properly protected. And of course we don't want others wrongly accused. Let's hope that the national conversation can remain as constructive as we've been on the topic but somehow I have my doubts in these charged times. Happy Friday everyone.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devos-campus-assault-rules-201708-story.html
I found the article mostly fair but I feel like they are using year old interviews from 2011. Yes there was a lot of turmoil and confusion when the DCL first came out. It was a huge adjustment. But universities have had 6 years to get in compliance and most are doing just fine. New jobs were created, masters programs refocused a new energy on training people for these new jobs, and now you have a new generation of employees who understand Title IX very well and can execute its requirements with ease.
We are all waiting on DeVos at this point. I think I said it earlier but I don't think there will be major scalebacks the way many expect. There might be a few small changes but nothing major. The article mentioned one that I personally would like to see change. The 60 day requirement for investigations to close. While it is not a hard deadline, extensions can be requested, I think it does a disservice to both accused and accusers. It puts pressure on universities to get investigations, panels, and appeals scheduled. An accused student may be asked to come back to campus during an internship out of state, or an accuser be asked to interview during finals weeks. I appreciate the thought behind the rule but would like to see it extended or further relaxed.
There actually was a scaleback already when they rescinded the most recent DCL regarding transgendered students. I personally think it was an ok thing because it will allow schools time to prepare for the new requirements before they actually become enforceable. The changes made in the DCL were good but came too suddenly much like the 2011 DCL. This will hopefully ease some of the initial chaos when those changes get re instituted (and they will).
I'll definitely be watching and would be happy to offer my thoughts and opinions.
-
i may have missed it, but why are schools saddled with prosecuting anything? let the schools try to stick with what they should be good at-teaching. allow law enforcement to do what it's supposed to do-enforce the law. the schools can then respond accordingly and further reprimand the student if they feel a need to further protect their students based in part on some real evidence and due process. is this a perfect solution? i don't know, but i don't believe the other one was working out very well at all.
excellent latimes article by the way
The NFL should stop investigating domestic violence. Let Zeke play. They should stick with what they are good at, playing football. Private businesses should stop investigating and holding employees responsible for violations of their employee conduct code. They should hand it all over to law enforcement.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, these cases have nothing to do with the law. These are violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there because there are no laws to enforce. They are of course welcome to investigate as well in case there were also laws violated, and we strongly encourage our students to report to them. What constitutes a sexual assault on a college campus is different from what constitutes a sexual assault off campus. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own codes of conduct for students that are a higher standard than criminal laws. Just like the NFL does and just like private businesses do.
And though you didn't mean any, I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct. I work for a university and I am terrible at teaching. That would be a terrible decision to have me teach in a classroom setting. I am however extensively trained and educated on how to conduct a proper investigation. I have written a thesis on the topic, I have conducted research on the topic, and I do pretty good work (if I do say so myself) everyday. In fact, I have trained law enforcement officers on proper techniques for interviewing survivors of power-based personal violence (more commonly known as sexual violence) and interviewing individuals accused of power based personal violence. And me? Honestly, I'm pretty average. Universities across the country have individuals in positions similar to mine who are even more well educated and trained than I am. While there was confusion and frustration when the DCL first came out, the market has adjusted and now there are individuals who have undergone the education and training to fill in these roles. Universities for the most part are good at this. Mistakes get made, systems can always get improved, but its not the broken system that some would make it out to be.
Oh and we use real evidence and due process. What do you think we are doing? Making sh*t up?
-
The NFL should stop investigating domestic violence. Let Zeke play. They should stick with what they are good at, playing football. Private businesses should stop investigating and holding employees responsible for violations of their employee conduct code. They should hand it all over to law enforcement.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, these cases have nothing to do with the law. These are violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there because there are no laws to enforce. They are of course welcome to investigate as well in case there were also laws violated, and we strongly encourage our students to report to them. What constitutes a sexual assault on a college campus is different from what constitutes a sexual assault off campus. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own codes of conduct for students that are a higher standard than criminal laws. Just like the NFL does and just like private businesses do.
And though you didn't mean any, I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct. I work for a university and I am terrible at teaching. That would be a terrible decision to have me teach in a classroom setting. I am however extensively trained and educated on how to conduct a proper investigation. I have written a thesis on the topic, I have conducted research on the topic, and I do pretty good work (if I do say so myself) everyday. In fact, I have trained law enforcement officers on proper techniques for interviewing survivors of power-based personal violence (more commonly known as sexual violence) and interviewing individuals accused of power based personal violence. And me? Honestly, I'm pretty average. Universities across the country have individuals in positions similar to mine who are even more well educated and trained than I am. While there was confusion and frustration when the DCL first came out, the market has adjusted and now there are individuals who have undergone the education and training to fill in these roles. Universities for the most part are good at this. Mistakes get made, systems can always get improved, but its not the broken system that some would make it out to be.
Oh and we use real evidence and due process. What do you think we are doing? Making sh*t up?
I'm only guessing, but I think there are many others on this board besides me who appreciate your input on this subject.
We all know how threads often evolve into chaos and inanity here on Scoop. Thanks to your posts here, many of us are much more knowledgeable on this subject now.
Well done!!
-
dittos to jockey's comments-plus the fact that you don't demean my comments or me personally if i present a thought counter to yours. i appreciate that. you hold a great command of the evolving dynamics, politics and the laws for that matter on this hot button issue. you have made yourself a valuable resource to help make this process better
"I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct."
if it matters, i didn't say they were ONLY good at teaching. just that they should stay with what they should be good at-teaching.
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.
yes, the schools can conduct their own investigation, but let the professionals in and heed their findings. match them up with what you've got
you mention that you are terrible at teaching-well right after you state that, you proceed to state how well you've done(i am commending you here, not mocking) you've researched and written a thesis on said subject and TRAINED law enforcement officers...in other words you TAUGHT law enforcement and i'm sure you did very well and your students appreciated it. law enforcement needs people like you to keep them up on this fairly new and evolving law enforcement issue
the problem i have with title IX is it seems the federal government had an end game in mind before the investigations were even started. when you tie money to something, it becomes advocacy-like. the feds held the universities hostage to curing sexual assault on campus and it sure seemed to take on the "carpenters rule" every male looked like a nail and the school held the hammer. keep in the back of your mind where this directive came from. well, if it's part of a legacy, it's at least on strike 2(the ACA will be #1) with a lot of foul ticks. there are many fighting to keep any semblance of a legacy even if that means getting it wrong or establishing a "quota-like" system. how many reported assaults were actual rape, etc etc. the USC story seemed to fit this one perfectly. you can also add the "mattress girl" to the list. let's look at these 2 and i'm sure there are more the same as we look at the wrongly incarcerated prisoner or much worse, the wrongly convicted who receive the death penalty.
our world of politics has grown so heatedly partisan that many times, fighting for the same goal becomes who gets the credit as opposed to getting the actual job done right. also, the special interest groups getting involved further muck it up
ok, the schools can walk and chew gum, but they are/should be best at research, teaching, training, etc. let the big dogs come in to do the dirty work. the school can act as an adjunct. then, law enforcement comes to their conclusions-jail, prison, electronic monitoring, put on a list of offenders if needed, etc. the schools can then base their discipline on what law enforcement and the court of law came up with.
ya see here, the school still does play a role, but get the title IX part out of it. title IX seems to march to a different drummer. it makes it seem as if there is a whole different set of procedure and laws and that's what opens it up to litigation. now who's paying for that? i mean the multi-million $$ settlements. there doesn't need to be separate laws or categories for the same offense-degrees? yes. a crime committed on a college campus is a crime is a crime is a crime. allegedly
with all due respect tamu!
-
For me there's a big difference between teaching and training. I can train all day long but put me in a classroom and ask me to develop a semester long curriculum and I will spontaneously. combust.
We do let law enforcement in. We encourage students to report to law enforcement. If we become aware of potential violation of the law we are mandated to call law enforcement. No one is keeping law enforcement out. We can't base our decisions based on what law enforcement finds because they cannot investigate violations of the student code of conduct. They can only investigate violations of the law. The student code of conduct requires a higher standard of behavior on this topic than criminal law does. There are many cases, if not most cases that universities see where it is a violation of the student code of conduct but not a violation of the law. If we based our decision on law enforcement in these cases than we would incorrectly be allowing students responsible for sexual assault to walk away without being held accountable for their actions.
I didn't understand all of your post but I think there is something about money being tied in with Title IX. Money is tied in everywhere. Criminal justice system, private companies conduct policies, professional sports teams policies. In fact, money is less of a factor in Title IX because despite 1000s of Title IX complaints being filed with the Department of Education exactly zero of them have resulted in loss of federal funding. Even a sh*tstorm like Baylor didn't result in loss of federal fundings (though there are still new complaints coming forward there so theoretically it could still happen...but it won't). The only way a university will actually loss their federal funding is if they publicly tell the DOE to go F themselves and that they won't be adhering to Title IX.
I'm also curious what you think make's law enforcement's investigations so much better. What evidence do you think they are gathering the universities are not? The vast majority of sexual assault cases comes to down to the interviews of the accused and the accuser. There usually aren't witnesses of the actual act, there's usual no video or audio, its between two people behind closed doors. What magical evidence do you think there is that law enforcement is getting that universities are not?
You said if this happened to someone you loved you would want the best investigation. Fine, let's just say that I agree that law enforcement's investigation is significantly better than what a university can offer. What do you say when law enforcement comes back and says "I'm sorry, we know something terrible happened to you, and that person is a scumbag, but the law in this state is out of date, and technically you weren't assaulted. We know you were so drunk that you pissed yourself and vomited in the bed, but we couldn't find any evidence that you actively resisted their advances, so you must have wanted it to happen." Would you tell your loved one "Sorry sweetheart, I guess you weren't assaulted. Go back so school now and see the person you think of as your rapist everyday in class and in your dorm. Everything's fine."? No, you would want the university to hold that student accountable for their violation of the student code of conduct.
Honest question, are you upset the NFL suspended Ezekiel Elliott? The police declined to charge him, said there wasn't enough evidence of domestic violence. The NFL did its own investigation with a lower standard of evidence and determined that he was responsible for the actions he was accused of and suspended him. He will lose millions of dollars as a result and his process was extremely public and embarrassing. That is much worse than anything a university can dole out. Or is it only universities that are unqualified to do these investigations?
-
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.
This is patently false. #Lies
-
This is patently false. #Lies
This is patently false. #Lies.
I can find you dozens of examples where contracts were voided because one party was intoxicated.
-
This is patently false. #Lies.
I can find you dozens of examples where contracts were voided because one party was intoxicated.
What does that have to do with your lie?
-
And given that you can't legally be held to a contract you signed while above .08,
This must be some Milwaukee thing. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
Another article:
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/devos-pledges-to-restore-due-process-1504825847
-
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.
-
Yep. We are moving backwards as a society in so many ways under this administration.
Your opinion brother not universally shared.
-
Your opinion brother not universally shared.
Undoubtedly. But someday history will treat this era with the derision it deserves.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/ (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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
Undoubtedly. But someday history will treat this era with the derision it deserves.
Waitin' on 2008-2016 judgment wit same taughts, hey?
-
Allreddy vewd az da gud auld daze, ai'na.
-
"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 arne duncan/john king or anyone else in the previous Administration gives two poops about how schools handle sex assault accusations? This is them throwing more red meat to their alt-left base
just win baby, eyyn'er?
-
Change is coming, announced yesterday
https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-devos-prepared-remarks-title-ix-enforcement
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
-
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
Judicial over reach is a problem...unless it is defense of a white male eyyn'er?
-
Allreddy vewd az da gud auld daze, ai'na.
The C-SPAN historian survey ranked Obama as #12 in his first appearance. Certainly took me aback that he'd be in the rarefied air near the ones easily rated in the first ten but obviously for the people who spend their lives every day critiquing the 44 men they saw 2009-2017 as a time period of accomplishment.
-
Judicial over reach is a problem...unless it is defense of a white male eyyn'er?
"Hathaway previously represented former USC football player Bryce Dixon in a similar case. In 2015, Dixon was reinstated to the university as a student after a Title IX investigation previously led to his expulsion."
hate to pee on your party here sully, but, ummmm, bryce dixon was african american
but thanks for playing
-
"Hathaway previously represented former USC football player Bryce Dixon in a similar case. In 2015, Dixon was reinstated to the university as a student after a Title IX investigation previously led to his expulsion."
hate to pee on your party here sully, but, ummmm, bryce dixon was african american
but thanks for playing
Yay! You can defend judicial activism when benefits black males too!!!
-
The over rotation has led to too many of these guilty until proven innocent events. I'm troubled that anyone would find this demeaning or somehow a problem by this administration or any administration to try and get these things right. The accused lives can be destroyed, too. This is a difficult subject.
The timing of the USC incident, where a judge yesterday said USC can't kick him out, but also preventing him from returning to campus is not going to help. It will now go to trial.
In New York, a woman who accused two football players of rape, wrongly, is now begging that she doesn't get jail time. The mean, were suspended from the team, no justice for them.
This article came out today with 5 other examples (not the ones we all hear about, Rolling Stone, Duke, etc) and some statistics around fake accusations. Rape is horrible, and there are countless sexual assaults that happen where the victim does not receive justice, the aggressor gets off. This does not mean we should stack the deck so heavily that innocent men are having lives severely hampered because his partner wants revenge.
"One university leader was rightly appalled when he was asked by an Office for Civil Rights official: 'Why do you care about the rights of the accused?'" – Betsy DeVos
A few stats that stood out.
Of all criminal complaints, rape cases are false by a 4:1 margin.
A Midwestern City study showed 41% of rape cases were false. FBI shows national average around 8%
USAF examination found 46% of rape allegations false, with 27% of those where the victim recanted their story.
We have over rotated to the point that the fundamental belief in this country of fairness has been tarnished.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/09/09/why-the-trump-administration-is-rewriting-campus-sexual-assault-rules-5-men-who-n2379071
-
The C-SPAN historian survey ranked Obama as #12 in his first appearance. Certainly took me aback that he'd be in the rarefied air near the ones easily rated in the first ten but obviously for the people who spend their lives every day critiquing the 44 men they saw 2009-2017 as a time period of accomplishment.
I'm surprised they didn't have him top 5, I mean whom else is able to secure a Nobel Peace Prize nomination 11 days into office. The amount of peace generated in those 11 days had to be some kind of record.
-
The over rotation has led to too many of these guilty until proven innocent events. I'm troubled that anyone would find this demeaning or somehow a problem by this administration or any administration to try and get these things right. The accused lives can be destroyed, too. This is a difficult subject.
Again, see my earlier post. What DeVos is threatening to do doesn't change anything. It merely strips away guidance which will only cause more confusion. It may even open the door for universities to be even stricter.
This article came out today with 5 other examples (not the ones we all hear about, Rolling Stone, Duke, etc) and some statistics around fake accusations. Rape is horrible, and there are countless sexual assaults that happen where the victim does not receive justice, the aggressor gets off. This does not mean we should stack the deck so heavily that innocent men are having lives severely hampered because his partner wants revenge.
Please explain to me how the deck is heavily stacked against men. I see this claim a lot but most never articulate how the deck is stacked.
A Midwestern City study showed 41% of rape cases were false. FBI shows national average around 8%
This stat is from a 1994 study that has since been debunked repeatedly. The author never clearly defines false reports and simply categorized them as whatever the police determined as a false report. Which you can imagine in a small, rural, midwestern town in the 80s (he collected data from 1978-1987) is going to be a lot of reports.
The FBI average of 8% is a commonly cited one. What people don't tell you is that it is the FBI stats from 1997. Since then the average has lowered to 2-8%. Why people use the 1997 stat when there are more recent ones is interesting. The Department of Justice puts it between 3-8% and has done studies on other crimes which have similar false reporting rates. FBI also only tracks "forcible rapes" meaning that some sort of physical violence was used in the process. It doesn't track drug facilitated and coercive assaults, the latter of which is not illegal but is against university codes of conduct.
USAF examination found 46% of rape allegations false, with 27% of those where the victim recanted their story.
These stats are from a 1985 study that has been repeatedly debunked as well. The study relied on either the accuser recanting (which could mean the report was false or could mean that they faced pressure to recant), refusing to take a polygraph, or failing a polygraph. Polygraphs have been proven to be psuedo-science and completely ineffective when used to determine truth in traumatic situations. Polygraphs rely on reading things like increased blood pressure. The test doesn't take into account that reliving a traumatic experience (such as a rape) is going to cause physiological reactions that would register as a lie on a polygraph test.
Don't you think its concerning that this author has to use numbers from studies not done in this century in order to prove his point?
This article came out today with 5 other examples (not the ones we all hear about, Rolling Stone, Duke, etc)
You have to be careful with these. Due to FERPA only one side of the story can be told and they always paint a very sympathetic picture that isn't always true. And some of these cases such as the Duke LAX case are actual issues with individuals instead of cases. The young woman in that case had a nutjob lawyer who lied and cheated to try and win his case. That doesn't mean that something terrible didn't happen to that young woman. People also don't understand that effect that trauma has on the brain. Rape survivors often have trouble given accurate detail to investigators because their memories are literally fragmented by the trauma. And oftentimes if they get one detail about the timeline wrong, the investigators will dismiss the case as false. A common occurrence is survivors claiming that they were raped for hours when it was actually only a few minutes because to them it literally seemed like hours.
But yes, I am 100% sure that there are cases where the university gets it wrong. We always need to be looking for ways to improve the process. But I'm curious why the few times universities get it wrong is justification for rewriting the whole system....but the same people think the judicial system is fine even though there are plenty of cases where they get it wrong too.
-
The over rotation has led to too many of these guilty until proven innocent events. I'm troubled that anyone would find this demeaning or somehow a problem by this administration or any administration to try and get these things right.
Yeah you also don't think Redskins is racist, so excuse me for thinking your logic is warped.
-
Please explain to me how the deck is heavily stacked against men. I see this claim a lot but most never articulate how the deck is stacked.
It isn't.
He and others here have bought into the myth of the victimization of the white male, which extreme forms results in what we witnessed at Charlottesville.
-
This isn't the argument Jamie made when the accused played for Buzz. And I readily admit that was handled incredibly poorly by so many at Marquette.
-
This isn't the argument Jamie made when the accused played for Buzz. And I readily admit that was handled incredibly poorly by so many at Marquette.
Huh. It's almost as if he has an agenda.
And Buzz did now what he did then, he would have (and should have) been fired.
-
Please explain to me how the deck is heavily stacked against men. I see this claim a lot but most never articulate how the deck is stacked.
They have to deal with higher salaries and preferential treatment. How is that fair? ;)
-
TAMU, if you would kindly read the article from the Atlantic that Eng referenced. Please comment on how you see the case. Let's stipulate that we don't have all the information and that the report of the actual incident is as described by the two participants who really told a pretty similar story. So bottom line, I'm asking you to offer your evaluation strictly based on what you read.
The reason I ask is that my personal read is that this was a clear overreach. 'Day after regret' kind of case. No he didn't have the infamous paperwork in triplicate. No we don't think he asked ever 10 seconds and got a verbal affirmative response. I'm just interested in whether you think the actions crossed the line. Because in my mind that helps me evaluate the mindset of a clearly educated and professional Title IX guy. Thanks.
-
TAMU, if you would kindly read the article from the Atlantic that Eng referenced. Please comment on how you see the case. Let's stipulate that we don't have all the information and that the report of the actual incident is as described by the two participants who really told a pretty similar story. So bottom line, I'm asking you to offer your evaluation strictly based on what you read.
The reason I ask is that my personal read is that this was a clear overreach. 'Day after regret' kind of case. No he didn't have the infamous paperwork in triplicate. No we don't think he asked ever 10 seconds and got a verbal affirmative response. I'm just interested in whether you think the actions crossed the line. Because in my mind that helps me evaluate the mindset of a clearly educated and professional Title IX guy. Thanks.
Well he was found not responsible for sexual misconduct. This really comes down to whether or not he tried to friend her on facebook after the no contact letter. He says he didn't but she says he did. Just like a restraining order, violating a no contact order is a serious violation. If he did it then the response was warranted.
I do see two concerns though. First is the claim that the university told him not to discuss the case with anyone. We warn students not to compromise possible witnesses by getting stories straight. But students are free to discuss their own case with whoever they wish. The second is the timing. Incident was reported in November but the hearing was in April. Cases are supposed to be handled in 60 days. Extensions can be requested when appropriate but that's very long.
-
use you believe in their opinion, or debunkers because they actually debunked something?
Have you read the recently published book called The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities?. In my view, this should be required reading of Title IX college administrators. One of the authors a former NY Times employee of 8 years.
If their data is used, they would argue they have debunked some of the conventional wisdom and data points thrown around. I've found in my many years that those claiming debunking usually comes down one's opinion over another. True debunking is done with facts, but often doesn't occur and is wrapped into more opinions.
Why do I think the deck is stacked against men, one of your comments earlier in this thread on the USC case, for one. The male goes in already at a disadvantage in today's environment. You even said that despite the claims by the woman at USC that her partner had done NOTHING wrong, she could be suffering from battered syndrome. Think about that for a minute. Even when the other person says consensual and nothing happened, we have an extra layer of defense now where we can claim she's not totally mentally able to make the claims. That is stacking the deck. The 2011 implementation of Preponderance of Evidence is stacking the deck.
-
It isn't.
He and others here have bought into the myth of the victimization of the white male, which extreme forms results in what we witnessed at Charlottesville.
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.
-
Yeah you also don't think Redskins is racist, so excuse me for thinking your logic is warped.
I have two posts about the Redskins and neither of them make any claim whatsoever on the racial makeup of the name. I said the court decision was correct in my opinion, the gov't shouldn't be dictating what is and isn't offensive which is how they ruled. That is an enormously slippery slope which undercuts the very fabric of this nation if we were to do that.
-
Are current college rape statistics correct? Or have they been debunked? New book, this was on CNN a few months ago.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/01/28/are-campus-rape-statistics-accurate.cnn
-
I have two posts about the Redskins and neither of them make any claim whatsoever on the racial makeup of the name. I said the court decision was correct in my opinion, the gov't shouldn't be dictating what is and isn't offensive which is how they ruled. That is an enormously slippery slope which undercuts the very fabric of this nation if we were to do that.
Don't lie Chicos.
-
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.
Keep fighting for the white man Chicos!!! Everything is stacked against you!!!
-
use you believe in their opinion, or debunkers because they actually debunked something?
Have you read the recently published book called The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities?. In my view, this should be required reading of Title IX college administrators. One of the authors a former NY Times employee of 8 years.
If their data is used, they would argue they have debunked some of the conventional wisdom and data points thrown around. I've found in my many years that those claiming debunking usually comes down one's opinion over another. True debunking is done with facts, but often doesn't occur and is wrapped into more opinions.
Why do I think the deck is stacked against men, one of your comments earlier in this thread on the USC case, for one. The male goes in already at a disadvantage in today's environment. You even said that despite the claims by the woman at USC that her partner had done NOTHING wrong, she could be suffering from battered syndrome. Think about that for a minute. Even when the other person says consensual and nothing happened, we have an extra layer of defense now where we can claim she's not totally mentally able to make the claims. That is stacking the deck. The 2011 implementation of Preponderance of Evidence is stacking the deck.
So no comments on all of your studies being from 20+ years ago.
Your first example of "stacking the deck" would only be accurate if universities completely discounted a person's testimony just because of the possibility of battered woman syndrome. They weighed her testimony against the testimony of multiple witnesses and found the multiple witnesses to be more credible. Happens in the courts as well. We also don't know what her testimony was as well. It is entirely possible that she told the university that she was being abused but then told a different story later in order to save face with her abuser. As I mentioned previously in this thread I have interviewed victims of abuse before who have told me that they were regularly having the sh*t beat out of them but then later they testify in support of their abuser. Some legitimately wanted to save their abuser and others were hoping that he would get expelled but had to take his side in case he wasn't. Is your advice to universities "pretend that battered women's syndrom doesn't exist?"
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. Prior to 2011, many universities had set up special procedures for sexual assault where a higher standard of evidence had to be reached in order to find a student responsible. The deck was purposefully stacked against accusers. The 2011 guidance made it so sexual violence was treated like any other violation of the student code of conduct. So asking for a special standard of evidence for those accused of sexual violence is actually stacking the deck for the accused. Now, if you want to advocate that the guidance change so that the standard of evidence has to match all other conduct violation cases but leave it up to schools as to where that standard is (or make all cases use the clear and convincing standard for all cases) then I could have that conversation. But advocating that those accused of sexual violence deserve to have a standard of evidence higher than all other conduct violations is a non-option for me.
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.
-
Well he was found not responsible for sexual misconduct. This really comes down to whether or not he tried to friend her on facebook after the no contact letter. He says he didn't but she says he did. Just like a restraining order, violating a no contact order is a serious violation. If he did it then the response was warranted.
I do see two concerns though. First is the claim that the university told him not to discuss the case with anyone. We warn students not to compromise possible witnesses by getting stories straight. But students are free to discuss their own case with whoever they wish. The second is the timing. Incident was reported in November but the hearing was in April. Cases are supposed to be handled in 60 days. Extensions can be requested when appropriate but that's very long.
Cool, thanks. I hadn't focused on the no contact order and I agree that violating that is a pretty big deal.
-
Cool, thanks. I hadn't focused on the no contact order and I agree that violating that is a pretty big deal.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
'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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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"
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnrDDVBE1ARDc88/giphy.gif)
-
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.
this is my favorite 'non NM' post of the off season.
to be fair, that puts it at about #100 overall
-
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.
Well it is lazy. Simply regurgitating talking points is what a lot of people do. The problem is when they aren't just surrounded by people who have the same mindset, those talking points usually don't have much substance behind them.
And both sides do this.
-
TAMU, here are some of the ways the Dear Colleague letter of 2011 stacked the deck.
Standard for guilt change to preponderance of the evidence
Legal representation barred for the accused
Investigation of off-campus (not on campus) incidents to be done not by police. (Incidentally, this reversed prior policy and should have mandated public notice and comment)
The Dept of Education expected results, and how does one get results other than finding students guilty and punished.
In 2014 when Harvard changed their policies to mirror the guidance, Harvard law faculty upon receiving the guidance in 2011 felt they were so slanted they issued a letter staying "Overwhelmingly stacked against the accused". This isn't me, this is the Harvard Law faculty. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
You have a difficult job on a difficult subject, but there is a reason why so many are actively speaking out about this. It's gone too far over to one side. Fairness should be root of all of this. Due Process. That is fundamental belief of people in this country and why so many feel it isn't happening with a stacked deck on campuses right now. Change is coming.
-
Standard for guilt change to preponderance of the evidence
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.
Legal representation barred for the accused
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.
Investigation of off-campus (not on campus) incidents to be done not by police. (Incidentally, this reversed prior policy and should have mandated public notice and comment)
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.
The Dept of Education expected results, and how does one get results other than finding students guilty and punished.
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.
In 2014 when Harvard changed their policies to mirror the guidance, Harvard law faculty upon receiving the guidance in 2011 felt they were so slanted they issued a letter staying "Overwhelmingly stacked against the accused". This isn't me, this is the Harvard Law faculty. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
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.
You have a difficult job on a difficult subject, but there is a reason why so many are actively speaking out about this. It's gone too far over to one side. Fairness should be root of all of this. Due Process. That is fundamental belief of people in this country and why so many feel it isn't happening with a stacked deck on campuses right now. Change is coming.
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.
-
TAMU, here are some of the ways the Dear Colleague letter of 2011 stacked the deck.
Standard for guilt change to preponderance of the evidence
Legal representation barred for the accused
Investigation of off-campus (not on campus) incidents to be done not by police. (Incidentally, this reversed prior policy and should have mandated public notice and comment)
The Dept of Education expected results, and how does one get results other than finding students guilty and punished.
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.
In 2014 when Harvard changed their policies to mirror the guidance, Harvard law faculty upon receiving the guidance in 2011 felt they were so slanted they issued a letter staying "Overwhelmingly stacked against the accused". This isn't me, this is the Harvard Law faculty. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
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.
-
let's juxtapose murder, robbery, aggravated assault, assault with great bodily harm, et.al. with sexual assault-wouldn't we want justice and the safety of all students including the accused to be a priority and/or goal as well?
-
let's juxtapose murder, robbery, aggravated assault, assault with great bodily harm, et.al. with sexual assault-wouldn't we want justice and the safety of all students including the accused to be a priority and/or goal as well?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Universities investigate and hear cases of "murder, robbery, aggravated assault, assault with great bodily harm, et.al" alongside local law enforcement. Its not just sexual assault.
-
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.
All well said, Pakuni. One question - when discussing a standard of proof that is "a preponderance of evidence" TAMU has said that could mean a 50.1% likelihood, the equivalent of a coin flip. I'm not a lawyer, but that's not what I would mean by it. What's your take?
-
All well said, Pakuni. One question - when discussing a standard of proof that is "a preponderance of evidence" TAMU has said that could mean a 50.1% likelihood, the equivalent of a coin flip. I'm not a lawyer, but that's not what I would mean by it. What's your take?
A coin flip implies that both parties start with a 50/50 shot. In this case the accuser starts at 0% and the accused starts at 100%. The burden of proof lies with the university to shift that to at least 50.1% for the accuser and 49.9% for the accused.
And as I've stated before, I'm open to moving to a "clear and convincing" standard. But only if ALL conduct cases move to a "clear and convincing" standard. There is no reason why someone accused of sexual assault should enjoy a higher standard of evidence than any other kind of case.
-
All well said, Pakuni. One question - when discussing a standard of proof that is "a preponderance of evidence" TAMU has said that could mean a 50.1% likelihood, the equivalent of a coin flip. I'm not a lawyer, but that's not what I would mean by it. What's your take?
This is a bit hard to answer, because every state can define that it's own way, and I don't know if every university defines it the same as their state or some other way. Generally, though, states define it as something along the lines of "more probably true than not" and then give the trier of fact (i.e. judge, jury, hearing board) some discretion as to what exactly that means.
In cases I've seen when a jury asks for a definition of reasonable doubt, a judge has always responded that it's up to the jurors to decide for themselves.
So, all that being the case, I don't believe either you or TAMU are wrong here. If "preponderance" for juror TAMU means 50.1 percent, I don't think a court would tell him that's wrong. If for you it's more like 60-40, I think the same is true.
-
A coin flip implies that both parties start with a 50/50 shot. In this case the accuser starts at 0% and the accused starts at 100%. The burden of proof lies with the university to shift that to at least 50.1% for the accuser and 49.9% for the accused.
And as I've stated before, I'm open to moving to a "clear and convincing" standard. But only if ALL conduct cases move to a "clear and convincing" standard. There is no reason why someone accused of sexual assault should enjoy a higher standard of evidence than any other kind of case.
I would think that common sense would move all conduct cases to a standard higher than 50.1%. The idea that we're kicking students out of school or disciplining them period because someone or some group determines there's a smidge better than a 50/50 chance they did something wrong seems out of line on its face to me.
-
This is a bit hard to answer, because every state can define that it's own way, and I don't know if every university defines it the same as their state or some other way. Generally, though, states define it as something along the lines of "more probably true than not" and then give the trier of fact (i.e. judge, jury, hearing board) some discretion as to what exactly that means.
In cases I've seen when a jury asks for a definition of reasonable doubt, a judge has always responded that it's up to the jurors to decide for themselves.
So, all that being the case, I don't believe either you or TAMU are wrong here. If "preponderance" for juror TAMU means 50.1 percent, I don't think a court would tell him that's wrong. If for you it's more like 60-40, I think the same is true.
Thanks for the explanation. For me, it would have to be more like 70%. Picking winners on cases that are coin flips seems so arbitrary to me. Cruel and unusual IMO. In criminal cases I'd want 90+% to be my guide.
-
Thanks for the explanation. For me, it would have to be more like 70%. Picking winners on cases that are coin flips seems so arbitrary to me. Cruel and unusual IMO. In criminal cases I'd want 90+% to be my guide.
That's certainly a fair way to look at it.
For me, I'd have to weight that against "How comfortable am I allowing someone I think is probably a rapist to continue being a part of this university and to continue sharing a campus with a person he/she probably raped."
In a matter that involves no criminal consequences, I suspect I'd err on the side of protecting the interests of a possible rape victim over protecting those of a possible rapist.
FWIW, here's how Black's Law Dictionary defines it:
"A standard of proof in civil cases, is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."
-
I would think that common sense would move all conduct cases to a standard higher than 50.1%. The idea that we're kicking students out of school or disciplining them period because someone or some group determines there's a smidge better than a 50/50 chance they did something wrong seems out of line on its face to me.
Do you have a problem with civil court? They use the same standard and can potentially fine people millions of dollars. Significantly harsher than anything a university can dole out.
You also need to keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the university. So an accuser needs to present a case that is strong enough to both overcome the initial assumption that the student is innocent AND any evidence the accused presents to the contrary.
Pakuni is also right. While 50.1% is the low bar for where "more likely than not" is set, its up to each individual to decide where their line is.
-
Is there a sliding scale for punishment? For example, Case A finds the accused 50.1% guilty and Case B finds the accused 80% guilty. Assume both are found guilty of the same violation. Do both violators get the same punishment or does Case B get a more severe punishment?
Tamu, how would you handle such a situation? Is there policy for these situations or is it up to the individuals/panels in charge of each case?
-
Is there a sliding scale for punishment? For example, Case A finds the accused 50.1% guilty and Case B finds the accused 80% guilty. Assume both are found guilty of the same violation. Do both violators get the same punishment or does Case B get a more severe punishment?
Tamu, how would you handle such a situation? Is there policy for these situations or is it up to the individuals/panels in charge of each case?
There is no official sliding scale that I am aware of. It's possible that some universities might employ something like that. However, I will say that "certainty" definitely plays a role in the sanctioning phase for most panel members. All the expulsions that I have personally seen would have met even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I will also say that I personally have never seen a case where someone was at 50.1% and found responsible. I will repeat, this is based on my personal experience from working at two different universities. Not generalizable.
-
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Universities investigate and hear cases of "murder, robbery, aggravated assault, assault with great bodily harm, et.al" alongside local law enforcement. Its not just sexual assault.
sorry-i was essentially responding to pakuni's comment above mine, but i should have highlighted it-
"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."
i'm not trying to take this out of context, but this statement is misleading at best-the unjustly accused student is losing his freedom in an indirect sort of way. yes he is or will be deprived of his rights. the WORST possible outcome is MORE than being unable to attend the university of his choice-sorry, but i once must again, refer to the duke lacrosse case. these guys were hung out to dry for a few years. and do you think that once they were finally found not guilty that all their problems just went away? they lost those years of their lives and then some
-
sorry-i was essentially responding to pakuni's comment above mine, but i should have highlighted it-
"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."
i'm not trying to take this out of context, but this statement is misleading at best-the unjustly accused student is losing his freedom in an indirect sort of way. yes he is or will be deprived of his rights. the WORST possible outcome is MORE than being unable to attend the university of his choice-sorry, but i once must again, refer to the duke lacrosse case. these guys were hung out to dry for a few years. and do you think that once they were finally found not guilty that all their problems just went away? they lost those years of their lives and then some
The Duke lacrosse case involved the legal system - and prosecutor misconduct though and I believe the DA was disbarred for his actions. That's quite a bit different than a Title IX hearing.
-
i'm not trying to take this out of context, but this statement is misleading at best-the unjustly accused student is losing his freedom in an indirect sort of way. yes he is or will be deprived of his rights. the WORST possible outcome is MORE than being unable to attend the university of his choice-sorry, but i once must again, refer to the duke lacrosse case. these guys were hung out to dry for a few years. and do you think that once they were finally found not guilty that all their problems just went away? they lost those years of their lives and then some
The Duke LAX case was a result of the criminal courts, not the university conduct system. The case predates the 2011 DCL. And while those young men did lose years of their life, they also received quite hefty settlements. And remember, not guilty does not equal innocent.
No one loses any rights from the university process. No one has a right to go to a specific university. Hell, no one actually has a right to go to college in general. It is a privilege to be a college student and represent a university. The worst thing a university can do to a student is expel them. They are free to transfer to another institution. Significant? Absolutely. Life-altering? In a way. Loss of freedom/deprived of rights? Not at all.
-
i'm not trying to take this out of context, but this statement is misleading at best-the unjustly accused student is losing his freedom in an indirect sort of way. yes he is or will be deprived of his rights. the WORST possible outcome is MORE than being unable to attend the university of his choice-sorry, but i once must again, refer to the duke lacrosse case. these guys were hung out to dry for a few years. and do you think that once they were finally found not guilty that all their problems just went away? they lost those years of their lives and then some
The Duke lacrosse case was in the criminal justice system. It had nothing to do with the Title IX standards we're discussing here.
-
You also need to keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the university. So an accuser needs to present a case that is strong enough to both overcome the initial assumption that the student is innocent AND any evidence the accused presents to the contrary.
I don't understand this at all. Of course when a freshman shows up on campus no one assumes that he or she is guilty of cheating, sexual assault, breaking curfew or whatever. But once accused, he or she has to establish there better than a 50% of innocence to not be punished. That's not a high bar for a burden of proof - actually it's as low as you could go for even any semblance of fairness.
-
I don't understand this at all. Of course when a freshman shows up on campus no one assumes that he or she is guilty of cheating, sexual assault, breaking curfew or whatever. But once accused, he or she has to establish there better than a 50% of innocence to not be punished. That's not a high bar for a burden of proof - actually it's as low as you could go for even any semblance of fairness.
No. The university needs to show there is a better than 50% chance that s/he is responsible. An important distinction.
How do you feel about civil court that uses the same standard with harsher sanctions?
-
No. The university needs to show there is a better than 50% chance that s/he is responsible. An important distinction.
How do you feel about civil court that uses the same standard with harsher sanctions?
I don't see it as much of a distinction assuming both sides get to make their respective cases.
I have mixed feelings about civil cases. Sometimes they provide justice that the criminal courts don't/can't. Sometimes they are nuisances that result in settlements anyway. Sometimes they get a dollar for everyone who ever bought a Milli Vanilli record and millions for the lawyers who represented them. But if I was on a jury I wouldn't vote for the plaintiff if I thought the case was essentially a jump ball.
-
ok, i get that duke was a criminal case-sorry my bad, but back to the "worst possible outcome..."
an unjustly ruled case(see usc, mattress girl, amherst college) ruins the dudes reputation, probably forever. once accused of an ALLEGED sexual assault, good luck reversing public opinion, that's if that news(exoneration) gets out as prominently as the accusations.
i'll take the expelling from the school any day. why the he!! would i want to give a university who just ran me over, my money. that school is the last place i would want to spend my time and call my alma mater
-
an unjustly ruled case(see usc, mattress girl, amherst college) ruins the dudes reputation, probably forever. once accused of an ALLEGED sexual assault, good luck reversing public opinion, that's if that news(exoneration) gets out as prominently as the accusations.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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!!!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"!
-
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.
-
Could you elaborate on this further?
TAMU has said as much more than once in this thread, I believe.
-
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 8-)
i'll just hang up and listen
-
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.
-
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.
Hopefully the women whose tests were abnormal are ok, but good thing bobby knight wasn't involved,eyyn'er?
-
Welp, it happened. DeVos issued a DCL rescinding the previous two DCLs and didn't replace them with anything.
For those celebrating this as a win, you need to understand that this move does NOT change the law. It merely strips guidance from the law. So now universities are now free to loosen some of their standards as many have hoped for. But they are also now free to make them even more one sided against the accused. Or against accusers. This move has done only one thing, created confusion.
Most universities are going to keep on as they have been because the assumption is that once DeVos is booted from power the next Secretary of Education will issue a new DCL similar to the one from 2011. Hopefully one that offers even better guidance than before. However, I do predict that you will see some more Baylors and Tennessees because universities now have more leeway to cover up high profile sexual assaults when it suits them.
Our country is more dangerous today than it was yesterday.
-
Welp, it happened. DeVos issued a DCL rescinding the previous two DCLs and didn't replace them with anything.
For those celebrating this as a win, you need to understand that this move does NOT change the law. It merely strips guidance from the law. So now universities are now free to loosen some of their standards as many have hoped for. But they are also now free to make them even more one sided against the accused. Or against accusers. This move has done only one thing, created confusion.
Most universities are going to keep on as they have been because the assumption is that once DeVos is booted from power the next Secretary of Education will issue a new DCL similar to the one from 2011. Hopefully one that offers even better guidance than before. However, I do predict that you will see some more Baylors and Tennessees because universities now have more leeway to cover up high profile sexual assaults when it suits them.
Our country is more dangerous today than it was yesterday.
Whoa whoa whoa...I trust tamu, that you don't base your decisions on cases the same way you reacted here. What you are assuming is that schools will NOT allow the accuser(rape victim) to appeal a decision.
"ability wasn't exclusively carved-out for accusers. While the new guidelines do state that schools can choose to allow both sides to appeal, they also specifically raise the notion of enabling appeal "solely in the responding party."
Depending on the situation, the schools will have discretion. I am sure that if this swings too far to the perpetrator, there will be actions as well. Let's be honest here-most schools are more than likely to continue to investigate these incidents as they have.
Here's the thing-the schools should be concentrating on doing THE RIGHT THING-period. This should not be a partisan issue. Just dot all the I's, shine the light of evidence on everything and no, we have not become more dangerous. That's not a "tamu-like" reaction. Can't knee-jerk this one because of who is in charge
-
?-(
Rocket, I don't think I said any of the things you said in the above.
-
Welp, it happened. DeVos issued a DCL rescinding the previous two DCLs and didn't replace them with anything.
For those celebrating this as a win, you need to understand that this move does NOT change the law. It merely strips guidance from the law. So now universities are now free to loosen some of their standards as many have hoped for. But they are also now free to make them even more one sided against the accused. Or against accusers. This move has done only one thing, created confusion.
Most universities are going to keep on as they have been because the assumption is that once DeVos is booted from power the next Secretary of Education will issue a new DCL similar to the one from 2011. Hopefully one that offers even better guidance than before. However, I do predict that you will see some more Baylors and Tennessees because universities now have more leeway to cover up high profile sexual assaults when it suits them.
Our country is more dangerous today than it was yesterday.
DeVos is so woefully unfit for this job, as is the case for so many of the current Cabinet members. The nation will be better off when our Education Secretary has at least a little understanding how, y'know, education works.
-
?-(
Rocket, I don't think I said any of the things you said in the above.
You didn't. He's too busy filing out his victim card to actually read anything.
-
?-(
Rocket, I don't think I said any of the things you said in the above.
i was basing my response pretty much around this-
" Our country is more dangerous today than it was yesterday."
i'm sure that you are going to be able to defend it from your standpoint, and that's finem but it just seemed out of character for you.
-
You didn't. He's too busy filing out his victim card to actually read anything.
have you ever hung around someone who's got a big hunk of spinach caught between their two front teeth, but no one will tell them? or another who smells like he's got a load in his shorts and you keep encouraging him to go hit on the click of chicks standing there next to the tapper?
-
Nah, I tell them. It is the adult thing to do.
-
DeVos is so woefully unfit for this job, as is the case for so many of the current Cabinet members. The nation will be better off when our Education Secretary has at least a little understanding how, y'know, education works.
Education that continues to fail the American students? That's exactly why we need someone different instead of the same old same old of how education works (doesn't work).
Great to see that more due process will be used at least by some schools moving forward. This is about fairness, people's lives can be permanently altered. We need to get it right, or at least attempt to. If schools choose to keep the old standards and they continue to screw up, they will be settled in courts of law.
The fact that arbitration is now an option from a neutral third party, how can anyone be against this?
-
Unless the accused played for buzz.
-
Great to see that more due process will be used at least by some schools moving forward. This is about fairness, people's lives can be permanently altered. We need to get it right, or at least attempt to. If schools choose to keep the old standards and they continue to screw up, they will be settled in courts of law.
We don't need to get it right. We need to get it right as much as possible. The only accountability system that never punishes an innocent person is one that never punishes anybody. The 2011 DCL was a step towards getting it right. DeVos' DCL is an attempt to completely erase that step. Unless you think that universities were "getting it right" prior to 2011. If she had made edits to the 2011 DCL to try and improve it, that would be one thing. Instead, we have uncertainty.
Fortunately, most universities recognize that the 2011 DCL, though it could be improved, was a positive step forward on this important issue. Most will continue to honor it. As Rocket said, universities should focus on doing the right thing. I trust that most will.
The fact that arbitration is now an option from a neutral third party, how can anyone be against this?
It could be a good thing. Who's training the arbitrators? Do they have a strong working knowledge of the nuerobiology of trauma, power based personal violence, and how to interview survivors of sexual assault and those accused of sexual assault?
If this is about fairness, why wouldn't you want experts on the subject conducting the process?
-
We don't need to get it right. We need to get it right as much as possible. The only accountability system that never punishes an innocent person is one that never punishes anybody. The 2011 DCL was a step towards getting it right. DeVos' DCL is an attempt to completely erase that step. Unless you think that universities were "getting it right" prior to 2011. If she had made edits to the 2011 DCL to try and improve it, that would be one thing. Instead, we have uncertainty.
Fortunately, most universities recognize that the 2011 DCL, though it could be improved, was a positive step forward on this important issue. Most will continue to honor it. As Rocket said, universities should focus on doing the right thing. I trust that most will.
It could be a good thing. Who's training the arbitrators? Do they have a strong working knowledge of the nuerobiology of trauma, power based personal violence, and how to interview survivors of sexual assault and those accused of sexual assault?
If this is about fairness, why wouldn't you want experts on the subject conducting the process?
We don't need to get it right. Well, that says it all.
I see today that Mr. Watson of Creighton had rape charges dropped against him. His life turned upside down. Her story neglected to give all the details. Does that make him innocent? It does not, but it most surely puts a cloud over her story and charges were dropped. We have to get it right, or attempt to.
Who's training the abritrators? Who's training the TITLE IX people that keep getting this so wrong leading to all these court cases. Isn't that an equally good question?
Why is it ok to ruin the lives of the accused without properly allowing a defense, with an attorney that can actually participate, without a stacked deck? This is the USA.
The country got more fair two days ago, and that's a good thing.
-
Seth Myers:
In an interview with CNN, Hillary Clington said that the electoral college needs to be eliminated. "Same with regular college," said Betsy DeVos.
-
MU82, cut it out, man. IMO, the one thing that will ultimately lead to this board shutting down is if we piss off the mods so badly with political stuff that they get fed up and pull the plug. Clearly, the fact that so many can't help but inject their politics into everything is emblematic of our society at large. But enough. Stop starting it. If others start it, retaliate. But let them be the clowns first.
-
We don't need to get it right. Well, that says it all.
Read the rest of the quote. I am waiting to see your outrage for the thousands of wrongfully imprisoned men and women in our prison system.
I see today that Mr. Watson of Creighton had rape charges dropped against him. His life turned upside down. Her story neglected to give all the details. Does that make him innocent? It does not, but it most surely puts a cloud over her story and charges were dropped. We have to get it right, or attempt to.
Mr. Watson's life was "turned upside down" by the LEGAL PROCESS. Not the university process. Last I checked the District Attorney is not governed by Title IX. But I'm glad you brought up the case. As I stated elsewhere, the DA decided to drop the case because the young woman admitted to committing a consensual sex act with a different person the same night, hours earlier. Now a logical person would ask, "what does her being fondled consensually by a different individual have to do with an accusation of rape by another man?" The answer is nothing. The fact that this is enough reason for a DA to drop a case is exactly the problem with the legal system and sexual assault. Its not about justice, its about what a DA can win. I have no idea if Mr. Watson is innocent or not. But dropping the case for this reason is ridiculous.
Who's training the abritrators? Who's training the TITLE IX people that keep getting this so wrong leading to all these court cases. Isn't that an equally good question?
I can't speak to all "Title IX people" but at my university we receive extensive training from professionals in law enforcement, psychology, neurobiology, nursing, and social work. We also hire individuals like myself who got masters degrees and JDs studying this very issue. In fact, a lot of the required training topics for "Title IX people" were outlined in one of the documents that DeVos just rescinded. So now universities can train their staff even less if they choose to.
And can you please stop the nonsense about "all these court cases." 150 out of 50,000+ is 0.003% or less. If police and hospitals got sued at a 0.003% rate they would be ecstatic.
Now back to who is training the arbitrators. Surely you wouldn't be against them getting the necessary training to properly understand these cases, right?
Why is it ok to ruin the lives of the accused without properly allowing a defense, with an attorney that can actually participate, without a stacked deck? This is the USA.
Again:
1. No one's life is ruined. The process is confidential, doesn't go on any records, and the worst thing that can happen is that they can't go to one college but can go to another.
2. They are allowed to properly give a defense. They enjoy more due process than a student accused of any other conduct violation.
3. Attorneys are allowed to participate even though they aren't allowed to participate in other kinds of cases at most universities.
4. This is an EDUCATIONAL process not a LEGAL process
5. You gave three examples of how the deck was stacked earlier in this thread. I explained to you that you were mistaken on two of them. The third is a matter of opinion. I don't think the standard of evidence constitutes a "stacked deck" but can understand why others would want to use a "clear and convincing" standard. If DeVos had switched that, I would have been fine. That's not what happened.
6. Universities have a mandate to be fair to not only the accused but also to the accuser and the campus community.
The country got more fair two days ago, and that's a good thing.
Again, no it didn't. DeVos didn't change the law. She didn't add due process for accused or take away due process for accusers. She stripped guidance which creates confusion and uncertainty. Also, you....as you often do....are confusing "fairness" with "losing an advantage." Prior to 2011, the "deck was stacked" against accusers at universities. To this day it is still massively stacked against accusers in the legal system. The 2011 DCL helped even the playing field at universities for accusers and accused, it didn't tip the scale towards the accusers. And remember, universities are supposed to treat accusers and accused equally which is different from the legal system where the accused gets all the protections.
-
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/09/23/a_campus-rape_official_who_disses_men_onine.html
"Can male students expect a fair process when a member of the school’s department responsible for handling sexual assault accusations has posted anti-male sentiments online?"
-
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/09/23/a_campus-rape_official_who_disses_men_onine.html
"Can male students expect a fair process when a member of the school’s department responsible for handling sexual assault accusations has posted anti-male sentiments online?"
there is a real and legitimate reason for the debate. it cannot be a "because i said so" issue. if all were fine and good-beautiful. if there needs to be some refining-beautiful as well. we don't live in a static world. debate, if carried on fairly, is healthy. title IX deserves to be revisited and revisited and revisited to make sure it is carried out fairly-nothing wrong with that. while it is being revisited however, they will implement what they have in front of them until something better comes along
-
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/09/23/a_campus-rape_official_who_disses_men_onine.html
"Can male students expect a fair process when a member of the school’s department responsible for handling sexual assault accusations has posted anti-male sentiments online?"
Did you read the part of the article that said "At the university, Harrington-Rosen is not responsible for investigating or resolving complaints of sexual assault"?
But your point is well taken. I am 100% certain that there are "Title IX People" as Chicos put it that are biased against men (or women, or people of color, or lgbtq, or straight, or religious, or atheists). Just as I am 100% certain that there are police officers, judges, jurors who are biased against people of specific identities. In both cases the biased individual either needs to receive further education/training or be removed from their position if that is not successful.
-
Did you read the part of the article that said "At the university, Harrington-Rosen is not responsible for investigating or resolving complaints of sexual assault"?
But your point is well taken. I am 100% certain that there are "Title IX People" as Chicos put it that are biased against men (or women, or people of color, or lgbtq, or straight, or religious, or atheists). Just as I am 100% certain that there are police officers, judges, jurors who are biased against people of specific identities. In both cases the biased individual either needs to receive further education/training or be removed from their position if that is not successful.
While I think I will regret wading back in, can you see how some folks might believe that an 'activist agenda' has become part of the Title IX culture? I understand that individual at Northwestern isn't personally responsible for rulings. But do you think she has any kind of open mind on the topic? I don't.
-
If she isn't part of the investigation process or the adjudicating process, her bias is of no more consequence than any of ours. She's just stating an opinion, as are we all.
-
If she isn't part of the investigation process or the adjudicating process, her bias is of no more consequence than any of ours. She's just stating an opinion, as are we all.
Perhaps. But she clearly holds an extreme position. Kind of reminds me of the mural that got whitewashed up at MU last year. Anyway, my 2 cents.
-
Chicos = pro-rape liar.
I thought the little creep was banned.
-
If she isn't part of the investigation process or the adjudicating process, her bias is of no more consequence than any of ours. She's just stating an opinion, as are we all.
"This year Northwestern University, above, hired Kate Harrington-Rosen as its Equity Outreach and Education Specialist for the Office of Title IX/Equal Opportunity and Access. In this capacity, she is responsible for “developing and delivering training for students, faculty, and staff on Title IX policy and procedures, as well as tracking and assessing education and prevention efforts across campus,” according to the Evanston, Ill., school."
if she is all the above, one has got to think that she has a little more influence in the process that we would. she may just be stating an opinion in her blog or whatever that is, but it's what's between her ears is that has to affect the training she delivers. her ANTI-male bias is hard to ignore when you're dealing with violence against her side. i'm sure most of us can see the problems here without putting forth one of the many analogies that could equivocate this situation.
my guess is that the university hired her without knowing she hated guys so much and now, getting rid of her could be a real sticky whicket. these "activist type" people usually hide behind some vague, do-gooder degree until the light is shone on them.
the university, by trying to take care of one problem, just unintentionally or not, created another
-
So DeVos was just on Fox News. While she didn't say much, two points were clearly made. 1) One sexual assault was one to many but so was one inappropriately handled case for the accused and 2) new guidelines are supposedly currently in development. Perhaps we should send in the scoop thread for administration consideration! It does seem that ironing this issue out is a clear objective for the Department of Education. We'll see what happens over the next several months.
-
So DeVos was just on Fox News. While she didn't say much, two points were clearly made. 1) One sexual assault was one to many but so was one inappropriately handled case for the accused and 2) new guidelines are supposedly currently in development. Perhaps we should send in the scoop thread for administration consideration! It does seem that ironing this issue out is a clear objective for the Department of Education. We'll see what happens over the next several months.
We'll see. If she makes sensible guidelines than great. Don't know why you would pull the current guidance before the new guidance was ready. I also don't know why you would say "the rule of letter is over" if you intend to issue a new letter. If new guidance is put out, I anticipate there will be issues, just like their were issues with the 2011 letter. Hopefully this one's issues won't be too grievous.
-
So DeVos was just on Fox News. While she didn't say much, two points were clearly made. 1) One sexual assault was one to many but so was one inappropriately handled case for the accused and 2) new guidelines are supposedly currently in development. Perhaps we should send in the scoop thread for administration consideration! It does seem that ironing this issue out is a clear objective for the Department of Education. We'll see what happens over the next several months.
I saw that as well. Interesting interview with that one dude who got a police escort out of his dorm and off campus after his “ friend with benefits” decided she was raped. From the sound of the interview, it didn’t seem like he got much “due process” but (say it ain’t so) I guess we need to hear the rest of the story, ‘ey? Is this one of those .003% ‘ers? Ahhkkk, if it weren’t for bad luck
-
We'll see. If she makes sensible guidelines than great. Don't know why you would pull the current guidance before the new guidance was ready. I also don't know why you would say "the rule of letter is over" if you intend to issue a new letter. If new guidance is put out, I anticipate there will be issues, just like their were issues with the 2011 letter. Hopefully this one's issues won't be too grievous.
I do. Because the current Department of Education leadership believes that the 2011 letter had 'weaponized' Title IX guidance inappropriately. In their view, eliminating that was intended to discourage that course of conduct. More to come seemingly for sure.
-
We'll see. If she makes sensible guidelines than great. Don't know why you would pull the current guidance before the new guidance was ready. I also don't know why you would say "the rule of letter is over" if you intend to issue a new letter. If new guidance is put out, I anticipate there will be issues, just like their were issues with the 2011 letter. Hopefully this one's issues won't be too grievous.
Because the new guidance got us to where we are today. The old guidance was more even handed. That is why. Over rotated.
-
Which was a good thing. Safer campuses.
What a bunch of bunk.
Congrats those who voted for Trump!! Another legacy on your hands. MORE RAPEY CAMPUSES!!!!
The state of scoop today. So very sad.
I truly wish something would be done or this once fun community will come to an end. Everyone enjoy their evening.
-
Because the new guidance got us to where we are today. The old guidance was more even handed. That is why. Over rotated.
Your assertion is that universities were handling sexual assault cases better prior to 2011?
-
The state of scoop today. So very sad.
I truly wish something would be done or this once fun community will come to an end. Everyone enjoy their evening.
LOL...the truth can be difficult for people to confront. Sorry if that ruins your fun.
-
@bye
-
The state of scoop today. So very sad.
It is.
I have tried my best to educate on this topic. But no one here actually seems willing to listen. It doesn't matter how much information I provide, how many misconceptions I correct, everyone's opinions are already drawn on party lines. One side provides research from the the 1980s, cherry picked news stories that only tell half the story, and throw around things like "150 court cases!" when well over 50,000 cases have been heard by universities in that same time period. The other provides research from this decade and years of actual experience in the field but in the end we all just side with our respective political leanings.
To be clear, Glow you and others (Stillawarrior comes to mind) have differing opinions from me but have asked questions and genuinely seemed like you want to learn more. I appreciate that. I'm not sure how much more I can take arguing with people who just want to prove their right.
-
It isn't political. The fact is that the Trump administration's new rules will likely make it less safe for victims on college campuses. Applying a hurdle similar to what applies in a criminal court, when alleged perps don't face nearly the same consequences, is a disaster. An absolute disaster for victims.
Hopefully ithe rules won't be that bad. But I'm not holding my breath. Sorry if that is hard for you to comprehend.
-
It isn't political. The fact is that the Trump administration's new rules will likely make it less safe for victims on college campuses. Applying a hurdle similar to what applies in a criminal court, when alleged perps don't face nearly the same consequences, is a disaster. An absolute disaster for victims.
Hopefully ithe rules won't be that bad. But I'm not holding my breath. Sorry if that is hard for you to comprehend.
No, it's that you're disobeying the rules of this site.
Sad.
Shame on your for ruining this site.
-
No, it's that you're disobeying the rules of this site.
Sad.
Shame on your for ruining this site.
I am so ashamed.
-
I am so ashamed.
I know you love it. You get a free pass to spew your political views on this website because the mods won't enforce the rules on you. Congrats. You are directly responsible for detriments to this website. Take a bow.
-
I know you love it. You get a free pass to spew your political views on this website because the mods won't enforce the rules on you. Congrats. You are directly responsible for detriments to this website. Take a bow.
<bow>
-
It isn't political. The fact is that the Trump administration's new rules will likely make it less safe for victims on college campuses. Applying a hurdle similar to what applies in a criminal court, when alleged perps don't face nearly the same consequences, is a disaster. An absolute disaster for victims.
Hopefully ithe rules won't be that bad. But I'm not holding my breath. Sorry if that is hard for you to comprehend.
If they move to a clear and convincing standard then I can live with that. Standard of evidence is important but it has less of an impact than people might think. I have found that panel members still rule not responsible if they find themselves between 50.1% and 65% sure anyway. Most cases I have seen where the person is found responsible are pretty clear cut. But I'm one person at one university so maybe I'm wrong.
The caveat I would give is that the standard of evidence needs to match whatever standard of evidence the university uses for all cases. It makes no sense for a student accused of sexual assault to enjoy a higher standard evidence than a student accused of any other conduct violation.
-
<bow>
QG... fun info... not for here. Partly due to you. Impressive power, dude. Dinkhead political whiners on basketball websites that deter people from sharing quality information. Take another bow!
Honestly it's sad. We can have very different beliefs.. religious, political, or almost anything.. I don't care. But, political is outlawed here. Yet, you spew it. Why, when you know it's not allowed?
Guess you hate MUBB. For that, I hate you. Wisen up. Quick.
-
If they move to a clear and convincing standard then I can live with that. Standard of evidence is important but it has less of an impact than people might think. I have found that panel members still rule not responsible if they find themselves between 50.1% and 65% sure anyway. Most cases I have seen where the person is found responsible are pretty clear cut. But I'm one person at one university so maybe I'm wrong.
The caveat I would give is that the standard of evidence needs to match whatever standard of evidence the university uses for all cases. It makes no sense for a student accused of sexual assault to enjoy a higher standard evidence than a student accused of any other conduct violation.
I agree with this analysis.
-
QG... fun info... not for here. Partly due to you. Impressive power, dude. Dinkhead political whiners on basketball websites that deter people from sharing quality information. Take another bow!
Honestly it's sad. We can have very different beliefs.. religious, political, or almost anything.. I don't care. But, political is outlawed here. Yet, you spew it. Why, when you know it's not allowed?
Guess you hate MUBB. For that, I hate you. Wisen up. Quick.
For a guy who whines so much about the content here, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and posting about it.
My crystal ball say there's an 86 percent chance you're feigning outrage.
-
I agree with this analysis.
Thank you. I'm not an unreasonable guy. There are changes to the 2011 letter that I would advocate for and others that I might not agree with but could live with. I'm just not a fan of throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
-
For a guy who whines so much about the content here, you sure do spend a lot of time reading and posting about it.
My crystal ball say there's an 86 percent chance you're feigning outrage.
99% you're felching a gerbil tonight
-
QG... fun info... not for here. Partly due to you. Impressive power, dude. Dinkhead political whiners on basketball websites that deter people from sharing quality information. Take another bow!
Honestly it's sad. We can have very different beliefs.. religious, political, or almost anything.. I don't care. But, political is outlawed here. Yet, you spew it. Why, when you know it's not allowed?
Guess you hate MUBB. For that, I hate you. Wisen up. Quick.
Lol. Good one JB.
-
Dammit Jay Bee. I hadn't heard felching before so I googled it. Now I have to get a new computer.
-
99% you're felching a gerbil tonight
(http://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2012/11/20/internet_tough_guy_430117.jpg)
-
(http://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2012/11/20/internet_tough_guy_430117.jpg)
We can meet up and I'll say it to your face if that's what you're asking for. That's no problem.