“I’ll take her credibility and insight over 90% + of professional journalists.”
So would I, but the issue here isn’t her credibility, it’s her credence, and the credibility of her sources. I don’t think she’s making it up. I think she may have been given half the story, or less. There will be plenty of time to comment on the college’s actions and what they mean for higher education when/if we get some kind of first-hand, verifiable story.
Regarding the Hobart and William Smith case, if memory serves, the college board dismissed the case before DNA testing from the rape kit. That testing could definitely have revealed the identities of some of the men who had sexual contact with the freshman student. The concerns cited in the article are valid, but the physical evidence could well have satisfied many of them. The board might well have concluded that the sex she had at the fraternity house was consensual, but it is unlikely that they would have found that the sex with multiple football players on a table in public was consensual.
In any case, unless these facts are wrong, they hastened to dismiss the case rather tha making a good faith effort to assess all of the available evidence.
The professor is not reporting a story. She is saying *first hand * that she assisted this student. And the context of her remarks is her article and analysis that warns that feminism is is danger of over-stepping its moral and legal authority.
Reading the law review article gives information and perspective.
She is a professor, not a law student, and was assisting this student in his case. She says:
The basis was that he reminded the victim of the person who had assaulted her back home. What possible basis is there for not believing this professor? Perhaps the victim did go to the school saying she thought he was her rapist, but once he was cleared the stay should have been lifted. Check the link in post #11. But let’s also recognize that this is likely very much a one-off and not a typical situation. Not sure it really helped her in the article.
OK, I get that. Not sure there is any other public info on that particular case. It is unfortunate that it is being used by some to show over reach, as I think this was just a bad decision by someone at the college (if the facts are as reported).
In thinking about this further, I suppose it is remotely possible that this happened. If so, the reason we don’t know the name of the college is that they probably got a confidentiality agreement in return for the significant amount of money they paid to this student for treating him in such a stupid manner.
That is the most likely end to this story - that the college settled. In almost every case the college is settling with the male claimants because it’s “cheaper” to settle than to go through with a lawsuit for civil rights violations they will in all probability lose. UC Boulder settled this week pretty inexpensively in the due process case against them so it’s highly likely that is what happened with the person referenced in the original post’s article at that university. It doesn’t take an attorney to realize many of these unis are violating basic civil rights. From the school newspaper:
@JustOneDad - settlements aren’t about “the truth.” That’s what trials are for. Settlements are usually about the defendant deciding that a trial would be more expensive than paying the plaintiff to go away. The expense of a trial might be monetary, legal fees and judgments, but it could also be damage to reputation. If the college involved is Reed, I can see where they wouldn’t want this known to, say, prospective applicants and their parents. A trial might have been pretty juicy, and not exactly in line with the image that they cultivate.
Cardinal Fang, imagine that you are a king and have the right to determine what happens on your property. You’ve got two subjects who for whatever reason, cannot coexist. You find out something about both of them and decide you like one a little bit more than the other. Instead of banishing the unlucky one, you feel some obligation towards him and want to allow him to stay in his home kingdom. Would it be unreasonable to order him to stay clear of the other if it allows him to carry on his tenancy?
If one committed a criminal act against the other or imminently threatens to do so, then the answer should be obvious. If neither committed a criminal act against the other or imminently threatens to do so, then one should back up and review the claim that they cannot coexist, which is probably a spurious claim.