<p>This article details how the Yale ‘informal complaint’ system works. It makes the old Soviet system look fair by comparison.</p>
<ul>
<li>He never learned the accusations.</li>
<li>There was no fact finding, just a complaint.</li>
<li>No record was kept.</li>
<li>There was no opportunity to clear his name.</li>
<li>And the supposedly confidential proceedings were made known to the Rhodes committee, his employer and the NY Times!</li>
</ul>
<p>As a result he lost his Rhodes Scholarship and his summer job. He did get into Harvard Law, though. Still no one should be subject to such Starr Chambers. </p>
<p>But momrath did say, “the assumption that colleges have inadequate processes.” That’s one of the gray areas, too, this assuming they can’t review and come to an effective conclusion. Remember, they are not acting as a criminal court, but as an advocate for their own community. If your daughter said she was forced into sex, would you really settle for pointing your finger at her? We don’t need any more graphic examples here, but what if her fault was going to pick up her jacket, which was in his room? Would you say, wait until the criminal court renders a decision? Or would you expect the administration to hear her out and take their own look? And if the pieces fell into place, to take some step to protect your girl, respond to the situation, while she is in their fold? And during that look, to also protect the accused.</p>
<p>Most here don’t know any more than what they’ve read-- which is the exceptions, those stories that get into the media or some report. </p>
<p>“A woman who said her son is a current member of the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at U-Va., who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her son, said professors “shamed the fraternity members in class” after the Rolling Stone article appeared.” How long will it take awc to figure out who she is?</p>
<p>And how many of you will take that as some objective truth, because she said it?</p>
<p>Btw, if college advice and other statements of fact are any indication, WaPo isn’t your info savior. Think about what you accept as truth and where you fall short. For the record, I wondered about RS when she said she recognized a face in a room already described as pitch black.</p>
<p>Has it been established yet that Jackie went to the Boars Head Inn on a date that evening? That would seem pretty simple to verify. If she did, then who was her date? Certainly it can be established about what time she left that Inn if she went - i.e. what time was the reservation? Is there a credit card receipt or register receipt with time stamp? Her 3 friends know what time they met her that evening so what was the amount of time between then and when she left the Inn? </p>
<p>At this point I just feel that some big part of the puzzle is missing here. Certainly some basics should have been established by now. If the date transpired, I myself find it odd that if this whole thing were some sort of hoax, then the boy who took her on that date has not surfaced by now. If there was no date then obviously she has some explaining to do.</p>
<p>SoWhat, sounds like you’re saying that a drunk guy can’t be expected to notice if a young woman is disoriented, mentally confused, apathetic, lethargic, uncoordinated and staggering, and she can’t really see. So if he has sex with her anyway it’s not rape. Is that your position, or am I misunderstanding?</p>
<p>Yes it does because you use it. But, that is a philosophical argument, I understand.</p>
<p>Just because something is part of law though, does not mean people follow it or agree to enforce it if it makes no natural sense to them. If the law is nonsense, people will nullify it by ignoring. </p>
<p>Therefore, because you agree with a law or something that defines rape one way, people are not obligated to use that definition, as useful in their own lives and the authorities cannot come in and tell them something happened that they do not believe. Laws, which are not believed in principle essentially have no force and the authorities cannot force one to believe that law and use it your own life. Therefore, it does matter if someone personally believes and accepts a law. </p>
<p>Alcohol laws are good examples. It is illegal for underaged people to drink. And how many families give let their young kids and teenagers have a very small glass of wine during special celebrations? Millions. They are effectively nullifying a stupid law. My first time getting drunk was inadvertent because I did not realize how strong it was, but right then I became a fan of bar mitzvahs. For the 10 or so I attended in middle school, i do not recall the cops ever coming in arresting anyone even though the law was being broken. </p>
<p>When one says no and the other doesn’t listen. When one can’t say no because (s)he is passed out and the other continues, deliberately, and with full understanding that the other is passed out. In other words, a glassy eyed disoriented girl who continues to blow her mate without understanding that he has passed out already is not commiting rape in my view. My standard works well in criminal courts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forget a drunk guy, even a sober guy can’t and shouldn’t be expected to identify the fine lines of a clinical diagnosis chart. Drunk sex is nothing new. Most people, 99% of men I would say, do NOT rape a drunk woman, nor do they go in with the intention of raping a woman. But they also don’t break out clinical charts in the middle of copulation and start diagnosing current state of mental ability. To expect that is just creating new material for SNL that writes itself. </p>
<p>They have no other choice. The Administration HAS to err on the side of caution; its the political and expedient thing to do. (Not to mention safety, first.)</p>
<p>I don’t think it will be easy to verify, unless they know “Drew’s” name, which is unclear to me from media reports whether a real person with a real name who attended UVA exists. Supposedly, Jackie is not cooperating with law enforcement.</p>
<p>In the Vanderbilt case, reportedly there is video of the woman’s unconscious body being carried up to the dorm room. Reportedly there are also pictures of at least one of the men penetrating her. </p>
<p>The defense attorneys say that the woman exhibited a “pattern of consent.”</p>
<p>This is why we need affirmative consent laws- so that these lawyers’ “pattern of consent” can be smacked back in their smarmy faces. </p>
<p>I have actually seen that happen. We were like all saying, What the hell is “female’s name” doing? “Guy’s name” has been out cold for the past hour at least. Did not see it as rape either, as she was too drunk to know what she was doing, as well. </p>
<p>“Has it been established yet that Jackie went to the Boars Head Inn on a date that evening? That would seem pretty simple to verify.”</p>
<p>No. just that she told her 3 friends she went and showed them a photo of the alleged date that was discovered later to be someone she barely knew from high school who hasn’t been in Charlottesville for 6 years.</p>
<p>That’s the only way to reasonably interpret Yes means Yes. Go broad. Don’t think that you can interpret the Dubowski chart after a few pitchers and in the heat of the moment (as CF thinks anyone ought to be able to). Just say no to drunken/high sex, period. Any reasonable person would take this position.</p>
<p>However, Bay, your advice still doesn’t cover medications. If a college girl is depressed, and is on SSRIs that alter state of mind or other similar medication, and the boy knew this, and then the two have sex without any drugs or alcohol being involved, she can still claim that she was not able to consent due to the influence of medications, and accuse the boy of rape. This is clearly written in the Yes means Yes law. So, no to having sex with any college girl who is on medication that alters state of mind, too. Don’t forget that.</p>
<p>The law makers did clamp down on college sex really well with Yes means Yes. </p>
<p>This is a very good, short legal article on the “yes means yes” law. I think it explains what might very well be the reasoning behind enacting it. Many on this board will not like it.</p>
<p>OK, SoWhat, so then the young woman in the New Zealand video is not being raped? Your standard works well. For rapists. </p>
<p>This is not a dispute about court cases or college tribunals or he-said she-said. This is you thinking you can have sex with that New Zealand blonde, and me thinking if you penetrate her you’re raping her.</p>
<p>LookingForward: You say people are focusing on the exceptions. I think these aren’t the exceptions, but merely the <em>edges</em> of the law. It makes not one iota of difference how far from the edge of the law one is so long as one is on the wrong side.</p>
<p>CA, you think they aren’t the exceptions. But this thread is focusing on those, not other cases. I say they are the failures and should be seen as that. There is, somewhere, detail on how various colleges have handled these cases and it’s not all about denying him his say and expulsion. </p>
<p>Btw, I’ve been close enough to the U scene to see one of the more egregious cases where his rights (and his defenders’) were trampled. I fault the U, not the law. </p>