Monster Cluster Eff

[Eldon]

TAMU,

Have you heard of this case?

UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys’ tune got me punished for ‘sexual misconduct’

http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU,

Have you heard of this case?

UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys’ tune got me punished for ‘sexual misconduct’

http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html

Had not heard this one. It is...interesting. Based on what this professor has provided about himself, there is nothing there. That doesn't even meet the standard for harassment. Now, this article was written by the accused, so I would not be at all surprised to learn that this was not the full story.

However, it also needs to be kept in mind that employees don't receive the same protections and due process rights that students do. This is an employer disciplining their employee.

[Dr. Blackheart]

1 of 2 things happened here. Either one of the accused students leaked it to the news for god knows what reason. Or someone at the University of Minnesota is getting fired and then sued.

Student conduct investigations are part of a students educational record. As such they are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university cannot release the information without the written consent of everyone involved, a warrant/subpoena, or to a specific individual with an "educational need to know" (e.g. releasing gpa to financial aid to determine scholarship availability). However, individuals involved in the investigation are free to share it with whoever they like.

Again, the university process is completely private. If one of the accused students chooses to share their copy of the investigation with the news, that is not the university's fault.

Judging that the team backed down after these reports were leaked, I am guessing that some one from the university left the reports "out on a table" for the press. That report is damning in regards to misconduct of the student athletes, basically justifying the school's case. Let's not be naive as to who actually leaked these.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Judging that the team backed down after these reports were leaked, I am guessing that some one from the university left the reports "out on a table" for the press. That report is damning in regards to misconduct of the student athletes, basically justifying the school's case. Let's not be naive as to who actually leaked these.

I could never imagine this happening. If it did, then many people need to be fired. That being said, I am a very small fish and I have never handled a case this high profile.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't think that's the right analogy. I think the closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other didn't. Do you really feel less sympathy for the one who forgot to lock their door? Both were equally violated.

Disagree. The closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other was drunk and left the door wide open. And yes, I feel more sympathy for the person who locked his/her door.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Disagree. The closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other was drunk and left the door wide open. And yes, I feel more sympathy for the person who locked his/her door.

Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

[rocket surgeon]

Rocket Chicos doesn't need you to be his personal defender.

And again Title IX isn't a court of law. Attending a specific university isn't a civil liberty.

     i think many would agree that to keep bringing him up in a "backhanded" way 1) provocative and 2)unnecessary and 3) a passive/aggressive way to smack a fellow 'scooper who can't defend himself is uncalled for.  when he would sneak back on here under a different log-in, some would call him out and "diagnose" him with some type of "problem".  my responses are-check your mirror and i know chicos doesn't "NEED" me to do anything.  the guy is gone-end of story.  i'm sure you would do the same for a friend of yours

[rocket surgeon]

The article has some misinformation in it. While yes, the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) technically forced all schools to go to the preponderance of the information (not evidence) standard, most schools were already there. The reason the DCL included this is because there were some schools that had set up separate systems for sexual assault cases that used the higher "clear and convincing" or sometimes even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards when every other violation on their campus was using the the "preponderance of the information" standard. It was meant to stop schools from using a higher standard to artificially lower their rates of sexual assault.

The not allowing accused to cross examine their accusers is a true statement. But accusers are not allowed to cross examine the accused either. Instead a panel questions both sides. This is to keep students from harassing and bullying each other during the process. This too was also a standard practice, and what was used in most kinds of cases that happen on campus. The DCL simply standardized it.

Complrightnts are allowed to appeal if the panel finds the accused not responsible. That is true. Just like the accused is allowed to appeal if the panel finds them responsible. Its even on both sides.

Really the due process issues that most people complain about is the standard of proof. Preponderance of the information requires the panel to think it is more likely than not (or 50.1% likely) that a violation occurred with the burden of proof being on the university. This means that panel member start completely on the side of the accused (0% likely) and it is the university's responsibility to convince the panel from 0 to 50.1%. This is the correct standard to use in university cases. The university has very limited powers in terms of sanctions so a beyond all reasonable doubt standard is not warranted. I could hear an argument for the clear and convincing standard but it is such an arbitrary standard. It would lead to wildly different rulings based on who was in the panel.

The sad reality of our legal system is that it fails us when it comes to rape. It is currently estimated that 97% of people who commit an act of rape (different from sexual assault) will never spend a day in jail. It is such a hard crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It usually happens behind closed doors, without witnesses. Rape kits can just tell you that sex occurred, not if it was consensual. All it takes is 1 out of 12 jurors to say "I think they're lying" and the case is lost. Short of someone walking in on the crime and being willing to step in and testify, you aren't likely to get a conviction. And even when you do, there are biases that often lead to comically short prison terms (Brock Turner).

To be clear, while the legal system does fail us on this crime, beyond a reasonable doubt is still the right thing in these cases. When a person's freedom hangs in the balance, you need to be 100% sure. But its still failing us. The fact that a woman that I love could be raped tomorrow and her rapist has a 97% of getting of scott free is a terrible reality. I don't know how to fix it though.

Someone's freedom does not hang in the balance in the university system. The process is completely private, shielded by several layers of privacy laws. The absolute worst a university can do is expel them. They are more than free to transfer to a different university. A difficult inconvenience for sure, but hardly life shattering. Attending a specific university is not a right, it is a privilege.

ok-thank you-well stated

i realize title IX has some flaws and as you stated above, "rape" is difficult to prove.  one case that really shook the process was the mattress girl.  for fear of posting any of the many stories written on her from a source that some will interpret as "biased" i will let you guys look it up.  it should be exhibit A, exposing the weaknesses of the due process the universities are ignoring.  ok, it was one of a few, but lives were messed up(really really messed up) either way.  would anyone here want to be in a paul nungessor's shoes?  the support and notoriety that emma sulkowicz got was beyond the pale.     

[rocket surgeon]

Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

good example-i would submit another scenario- one who is seen as dressed provocatively(use your own visuals) and another who is wearing over-sized clothes, sweaters, jackets...what have you. add in, the provocatively dressed one is drunk as well. both get raped...were either of them worthy of more sympathy than the other?  i mean, you can add all kinds of things to each of these scenarios and decide whether or not a rape was rape.  there is always, the rest of the story...the importance however is that each are allowed to present all sides of "the story"

[real chili 83]

All that really matters in this case is that Title IX is the law.  Either you live with Title IX or gut it, probably in court.

Anyone know if it's survived a Supreme Court review?

[rocket surgeon]

All that really matters in this case is that Title IX is the law.  Either you live with Title IX or gut it, probably in court.

Anyone know if it's survived a Supreme Court review?

is it really in the supreme court's wheel house though?  i suppose anything can be reviewed by them, but i'm thinking some of our 'scoop lawyers know the process better than i.  i also think it's probably a good law with good intentions, but they forgot to dot the t's and cross their i's, ein'er?

[Lennys Tap]

Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

[GGGG]

     i think many would agree that to keep bringing him up in a "backhanded" way 1) provocative and 2)unnecessary and 3) a passive/aggressive way to smack a fellow 'scooper who can't defend himself is uncalled for.  when he would sneak back on here under a different log-in, some would call him out and "diagnose" him with some type of "problem".  my responses are-check your mirror and i know chicos doesn't "NEED" me to do anything.  the guy is gone-end of story.  i'm sure you would do the same for a friend of yours

LOL.  Yeah good thing we have you around to keep us on the straight and narrow. 

[GGGG]

Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

I find that to be very strange.  The very idea that your degrees of sympathy is related to how much some one who is a victim of a crime made themselves more vulnerable to a crime seems quite questionable.

[GGGG]

is it really in the supreme court's wheel house though?  i suppose anything can be reviewed by them, but i'm thinking some of our 'scoop lawyers know the process better than i.  i also think it's probably a good law with good intentions, but they forgot to dot the t's and cross their i's, ein'er?

It's a federal law.  Of course it is in their "wheel house" if a case gets that far. 

[rocket surgeon]

It's a federal law.  Of course it is in their "wheel house" if a case gets that far.

thank you...i think

[rocket surgeon]

LOL.  Yeah good thing we have you around to keep us on the straight and narrow. 

just sayin-if i, jesse, and/or a few others would be rippin on someone from your club who can't respond, there would be a fast n furious chitstorm of responses clogging up the 'scoop airways.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

good example-i would submit another scenario- one who is seen as dressed provocatively(use your own visuals) and another who is wearing over-sized clothes, sweaters, jackets...what have you. add in, the provocatively dressed one is drunk as well. both get raped...were either of them worthy of more sympathy than the other?  i mean, you can add all kinds of things to each of these scenarios and decide whether or not a rape was rape.  there is always, the rest of the story...the importance however is that each are allowed to present all sides of "the story"

Help me understand what you are trying to say here. I'm reading it as "If a woman dresses provocatively and is raped then she is a partially to blame for her own rape." Which I would disagree with vehemently.

[Jay Bee]

The U has to take a hardline stance. They lied about Mbakwe's case and are in an awful situation where they must come down hard.

Ban hammer 2 U

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

This is very....concerning to me. If, god-forbid, your daughter, wife or another woman you cared about was raped, I hope your level of sympathy towards them wouldn't be dependent on how many risk reduction strategies they were using to prevent the rape. It doesn't seem like a very Jesuit way of thinking.

Is it just alcohol that effects your level of sympathy? What if the woman was walking alone at night? That greatly increases your risk of being assaulted. Is she less deserving of sympathy? What if she took her eyes off her beverage for a few seconds and had something slipped into it? Does that make her less worthy of sympathy? What if she got on an uber in Chicago with all the news of uber drivers assaulting their passengers? What if she met a guy who seemed nice and gave him her number and he then used that to track her and rape her? How many steps must she take in order to prevent her rape in order for her to be worthy of your full sympathy?

This may be an argument over vocabulary. I can understand simply stating that she could have reduced her risk but to withhold sympathy based on vulnerability seems very questionable.

[Lennys Tap]

I find that to be very strange.  The very idea that your degrees of sympathy is related to how much some one who is a victim of a crime made themselves more vulnerable to a crime seems quite questionable.

I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong. I find disagreement with that to be strange, so I guess we're even.

[real chili 83]

What if she got on an uber in Chicago with all the news of uber drivers assaulting their passengers?

Broad sweeping statements like this don't help your point.  I've enjoyed reading your perspective on this topic. 

[rocket surgeon]

Help me understand what you are trying to say here. I'm reading it as "If a woman dresses provocatively and is raped then she is a partially to blame for her own rape." Which I would disagree with vehemently.

sorry- i can see where my statement didn't clarify the rape part.  what i got caught in doing was presenting different scenarios with the same outcome or conclusion.  what i am saying is BOTH rapes are WRONG regardless if a woman is dressed provocatively OR in an ugly suit.  i don't care if the woman was bare naked walking down the street-if she doesn't consent, it's rape.  now walking down the street naked part is a whole different can of worms in and of itself, but i don't mean to digress

[GGGG]

sorry- i can see where my statement didn't clarify the rape part.  what i got caught in doing was presenting different scenarios with the same outcome or conclusion.  what i am saying is BOTH rapes are WRONG regardless if a woman is dressed provocatively OR in an ugly suit.  i don't care if the woman was bare naked walking down the street-if she doesn't consent, it's rape.  now walking down the street naked part is a whole different can of worms in and of itself, but i don't mean to digress

If you capitalized your sentences, and cut down on the extraneous punctuation, it would make your point much easier to get across. 

[rocket surgeon]

If you capitalized your sentences, and cut down on the extraneous punctuation, it would make your point much easier to get across.

i'm a complicated, yet simple guy.  i am what i am,  what you see is what you get.  you really are a ball buster, aren't you.  now that chicos is out of the way, next up...i have no one on ignore and i intend on keeping it that way.  you?