<h1>2577 Momrath.</h1>
<p>Awesome post. Everyone on this board should read the NY Times oped by the Yale Law Prof. Which coincidental was published right before the UVA story broke. Prescient to say the least. Best line: “Prevention, rather than adjudication, should be a college’s priority.”</p>
<p>Sexual misconduct is one thing, rape/sexual assault is quite another. They need to be treated differently.</p>
<p>NW, I have seen only two references to a lawyer “being provided.” Both were from you on this thread. Could not confirm one was paid for at FSU. Have not seen that in T9.</p>
<p>Momrath, will link you the Dear Colleague letters later when I’m home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think when you have all boys you have a unique opportunity to observe young men and women through a completely different lens than simply your own history and your own viewpoint. It’s not that you think it’s entirely a woman’s problem because you are a women, it’s that you see with clarity that it involves both the women and the men and how they interact. As I said before I also lived it peripherally when a friend of one of my son’s was falsely accused. The woman recanted at some point during the investigation. Everyone, literally everyone, on this thread comes from a different experience and perspective, sometimes more than just a parent of boys or a parent of girls.</p>
<p>I’m certainly feeling addicted at this point. It’s a fascinating discussion with so many points of view. Some have a very personal reaction and others seem to see it as an intellectual puzzle. As usual, I thought JHS summed it all up perfectly:</p>
<h1>1480 JHS:
</p>
<p>My main interest is in the court that judges community accepted norms and the possibility of changing those norms to create a more positive society. And I want that change to happen because we actually care about each other, not because we are concerned with possible punishments, temporal or the end of days ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, its hard to argue with JHS’s conclusion (below) until one looks at what happens in the practice of college adjudications. There is no recovery from expulsion for assault. That will be on a person’s record forever, and if wrongly expelled…</p>
<p>Another college would be a asking for legal ramifications to accept someone with an assault charge (as opposed to a former cheater who made a one-time mistake, learned from it, yada, yada, yada.) And despite JHS’s thoughts that colleges have an appeal process, I would guess that such an appeal is a rubber stamp; in essence, no Dean/higher up is gonna take a risk. (Don’t even have to look it up.)</p>
<p>The only real appeal is in the courts which means that the appeals process is only available to those with cash to pay a retainer to an attorney. The poor are SOL.</p>
<p>Heck, if the record becomes public, such an expulsion will also limit future jobs, such an in the education sector.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“True or false: if you believe an employee is stealing, you can fire him. You can also report him to the police, but there is no requirement. And you do not have to wait for the results of a criminal prosecution to dump him. ?”</p>
<p>False. Totally false. Terrible example.</p>
<p>If the terms of employment are at will, then you can fire someone at any time for no reason at all.</p>
<p>If there is an employment contract, then you can’t fire without proof. Instead, you have to comply with the terms of the contract. Which typically would require a finding of “cause.” And if you wrongfully terminate, then the wrongfully terminated employee gets damages. An unsubstantiated suspicion or belief totally does not cut it legally. And typically the employer would never comment on the circumstances of the departure. So the departed employee can try to secure a new job. In contrast, colleges routinely report disciplinary findings to other colleges. So getting booted from college 1 per a kangaroo court is pretty likely to keep you from going to college 2 or college 3.</p>
<p>If the employee is a union member, then you can’t fire without proof. </p>
<p>If the employee is in a tenured position, then you can’t fire without proof. </p>
<p>Are you advocating that college kids be considered at will students? We can boot you from school at any time for any reason? Or for no reason? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it is provisions, such as these, which illustrate T9 was written with sleight of hand, and people use these provisions, as justification that it is a fair system. Sure T9 does not prohibit a lawyer, but nor does tell colleges the rights of the accused and the rights of the accused’ lawyer during the tribunal process. Therefore, colleges range from nothing to everything and everything in between in that regard. </p>
<p>In addition to what @northwesty stated, it does not matter that the accused can have a lawyer, if the lawyer: 1) is not allowed to be in the room to fully understand the charges against the accused, 2) is not allowed to present evidence to the contrary to what the accuser has alleged, 3) is not allowed to submit clarifying questions to the accuser or to the tribunal, 4) is not allowed to be in the tribunal room with the accused, 5) is not allowed access to the student files of the accused, 6) is not allowed to file a formal appeal in writing, 6) is not allowed to have a copy of the tribunal’ processes in writing…etc.</p>
<p>And, it is under these types of flawed processes that colleges are going to make many accused richer. And what is instructive is all the people and government agencies advocating this flawed process are not the one’s who have to pay up. </p>
<p>Oh, how easy it is to be for something where when it messes up royally and is held accountable and has to pay out money, you are not the one footing that bill. Hey, no skin off your back, if the colleges pay millions and millions. I get that, but find it reprehensible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is another disingenuous use of T9 provisions. Who the heck cares if colleges are required to have an appeals process, if the appeals process presents the exact same procedural issues, as stated in paragraph #2 above.</p>
<p>I wonder what these people making these arguments would say if an insurance company told them the same, but when they had an accident and were accused of hitting someone that the process mimicked a college tribunal? My guess is the accused would be mad at hell for being accused without being able to give a proper defense, and as in the case of some colleges, no defense at all. </p>
<p>Interesting that people have decided in the case of an alleged rape accusation they demand less for the male accused than they would want for having to defend an erroneous $1000 charge to their car insurance for a stupid car. I daresay people’s sense of what is right is totally out-of-wack.</p>
<p>“It is interesting that the conservative, it is the woman’s problem approach only seems to come from men, and women with no daughters.”</p>
<p>I have also been following this thread and I think this is a mis-characterization of the conservative view being presented here. I know as a Mom of boys also that it is not that I think it is a women’s problem. I am completely against any and all sexual assault, as are my boys. I am concerned about the process though. I just checked the sexual assault policy at my sons school and found out that anyone at his school accused of sexual misconduct is not entitled to be represented by an attorney but only entitled to be accompanied by an advisor, dean, professor etc. Why I wonder? Why not let the accused have an attorney? What are they afraid of?</p>
<p>Due process is very important. I think that is all people are trying to say. And it seems that is being sacrificed lately in the attempt to combat a previous problem where the accuser felt dismissed or not taken seriously.</p>
<p>I also liked the opinion piece shared by momrath, I thought it highlighted all of the contributing factors in this discussion.</p>
<p>@northwesty, you beat me to the post. Thanks for dong the heavy lifting. I fully concur with post #2585, as that is exactly how my company functions, and must function, in order not to get our pants sued off of us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In an ‘at-will’ employment arrangement, I can fire someone for looking at me cross-wise. But that does not create a permanent negative record that follows that employee forever. All they have to tell future employers is that they were terminated for [fill in the blank]. </p>
<p>When a future employer asks for a reference, we refuse to give them for anyone; all we will do is acknowledge the work dates.</p>
<p>Btw: don’t wrongful terms also result in damages in addition to back wages? If so, an attorney is much more amenable to take the case on contingency. (Can’t say I saw any wrongful term/expulsion penalties in T9.)</p>
<p>And yes, terrible example.</p>
<p>Civil rights cannot be ignored. Really. Civil rights will always trump. i worked decades ago i for a company in a position where I was privy to what was going on and that had several lawsuits going for wrongful termination. The company lost. All of them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am really reaching the conclusion that people are so weded to causes that they miss the forest for the tress and seriously can no longer keep two equally valid ideas in their brain at the same time.</p>
<p>No one has ever said it is the women’s problem. Not one poster has even come close. </p>
<p>What posters, myself included, have said is focusing on this women’s problem should not come at the expense of the rights of accused men. Not sure why that is so difficult to get for people.</p>
<p>On a more fundamental level, it just makes no sense to try and solve one problem of injustice by creating another obvious problem of injustice. If one does not like injustice (agreed, who does), why in the world would people accept as a remedy another process, which promotes injustice? That is just philosophically and intellectually inconsistent.</p>
<p>LF – in the title ix case of Jameis Winston and FSU. Winston has retained his own high priced lawyer to represent him. That’s possible since he will soon be a highly paid NFL player. I don’t know what would happen if he were a typical ramen-eating college student.</p>
<p>News reports say that the accused has two title ix lawyers representing her. I have no idea who is paying for that. Could be FSU. Or could be that those lawyers are working on contingency since you can see a civil law suit against Winston waiting in the wings.</p>
<p>Point is, both sides need to have lawyers if the kangaroo court is going to take up serious rape allegations and serious penalties like expulsion, which really is a lifetime sentence for a college kid.</p>
<p>At UVA, they pour HUGE resources into their Honor Code system because they still (mostly) adhere to the single sanction of expulsion and the Honor System is a big part of their tradition and brand. Accused always retain their own lawyers. I honestly don’t know what happens if the accused can’t afford that; seems only fair that they should always get a lawyer. The accusers may/may not retain lawyers. If they don’t they get lots and lots of support from the system. The people serving as Honor Counsel/Advisors are often specially trained students from UVA law school. </p>
<p>If the accuser is a faculty member, they get representation from the university general counsel office. Good idea, since faculty accusers often get sued in real court. Some faculty hire their own lawyers on their own dime as well. As you can imagine, there are law firms in Charlottesville that make a nice living specializing in Honor Code litigation. The whole thing is a HUGE deal, and all this infrastructure is devoted at kids who cheat on tests and term papers (which is not a criminal offense). Not kids who allegedly commit rape. The threat of serious penalties (expulsion is basically academic life sentence without parole) require serious due process and, accordingly, serious expense.</p>
<p>Because of all this, the honor system at UVA (for all its fame and tradition) is not really used very much. In a university with 21,000 students, the Honor Committee gets all of 50 reports a year. That’s pathetic. A level of unreporting and under enforcement that is mega-worse than what happens with college rape.</p>
<p>Take expulsion and rape out of the hands of the college kangaroo court and things are fine. Or continue with the current cluster of having colleges try to be a full blown criminal justice system.</p>
<p>Re #2591. ^Agree. </p>
<p>In addition, asking for accurate statistical information on rape does not mean one is trying to minimize the gravity of the act. </p>
<p>I have trouble understanding how some cannot appreciate all angles of the issue, as well. </p>
<p>“There is no recovery from expulsion for assault.”
And there is no recovery from sexual violence. Women carry that for years- and (not to meaning to get advocate-y,) it is their bodies.</p>
<p>I am very sensitive to spin- I personally consider spin-awareness part of “critical thinking.” My issue with this (yes, fascinating) thread has been one or two posters’ abject determination to spin wherever they could. Think about it. </p>
<p>One of the reasons I find law fascinating is that one needs to read and reconsider, time and again. What did they mean, what is the intent, how has this been interpreted and used over time? In theory, in the reading and pondering, one strips out the emotions (though they may be used later.) In spin, one seeks to get the knife past the ribs and into the heart. Big difference.</p>
<p>T9 is an attempt to fix a problem that exists. </p>
<p>I think we all agree “this women’s problem should not come at the expense of the rights of accused men.” But look back at the mud we had to wade through, how some posts seemed to purposely obscure this with all the arm waving and projecting and examples of specific acts, et al, and the insinuations. Not to mention the notion that if some colleges screwed this up, all colleges would be incompetent at it and the law is bogus. </p>
<p>And yes, “at will” matters. And many feel it is a violation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt, but as I learned as 5-year old, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’… In other words, is the solution to sexual assault to wrongly punish some for the greater good? </p>
<p>This is fascinating to me because of the spin as well. And, the way the story started and probably is ending is quite representative of the overall issue. And, the nearly hysterical effort to dismiss the details speaks volumes. As for the overall issue of campus rape I still am at a loss as to why this is a crime category in the first place.</p>
<p>I am trying to wrap my head around something…It seems that most in this debate seem to be of an agreement that most of the rapes are perpetrated by serial rapists. If that is so, and these rapists are on college campuses, what is the benefit of the college court process. And for this question lets assume that the accused is guilty, they are a rapist. All the college court process has done is give one person closure, and then depending on the punishment, is either back on campus after a year or sent off to the world free to prey on others. (aka Jesse Matthews)</p>
<p>This worries me, especially since more and more women seem to be choosing this route because of its easier path and higher rate of success.</p>
<p>I personally don’t see a problem with NO means NO, however, I also do not fear change and I think with proper education people will adjust to a new way of going about their sex lives. Really no different than having to begin wearing a seatbelt or not drinking and driving. </p>
<p>I do not believe however that YES means YES is going to change anything in the arena of the he said she said where one person is lying. But that is just a fact. If someone is going to lie and assert that a women never said NO (when in fact she did) do you think they are not going to lie and say she enthusiastically said Yes? Will the women with regret, or just plain sociopaths are going to admit that they said Yes? I don’t think it will change anything. </p>
<p>I believe that the anti sexual assault campaign is important and will be beneficial to the hook up culture participants. It will be ingrained in their brains, so even while intoxicated there will be underlying awareness and understanding. I believe this because of other succesfull education programs that have worked for the younger generation. Consider drinking and driving alone. The younger generation is way better at not doing it that than we ever were. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think everyone agrees (I know I do). What is difficult to understand is why your posts (and several others) seem to advocate positions where men’s rights (actually, accused rights) come at the expense of women (actually, accuser).</p>
<p>On a related note, it is my impression that you would rather have a system where not 1 single accused person is ever convicted, even at the expense of 1 million accused men going free. Sorry, but that just isn’t logical and is not what “innocent until proven guilty” is meant to prevent. There is a reason it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not “beyond any and all doubt”. The founding fathers chose a lesser standard for a reason. </p>
<p>[To be sure, universities nationwide must fully address the issue of sexual misconduct on their campuses. But it is imperative that their efforts to fulfill this duty remain consistent with the principles of due process of law and equal treatment that form the bedrock of our legal system.[/]</p>
<p>Sexual assault is a very serious charge. </p>
<p>From momrath’s post…</p>
<p>The first Yale guy wrote the above. I think he is right.</p>
<p>I read two cases and with what I read, I think Yale got the two cases right; however, the process is ridiculous. As much evidence as possible should be put on the table. As much evidence as possible. Both parties should feel like they were able to show and tell their story.</p>
<p>It isn’t just about the guys. Women can not lead the guys on and then a month later, or a year later, accuse guys of rape unless there is a huge discovery of new information… </p>
<p>Men and women talk differently and understand things differently. This is a problem without the addition of sexual assault issues. </p>
<p>Are we going to hang a guy after the texts the yale woman sent while she was drinking? </p>
<p>The texts can really be understood in different ways.</p>
<p>The Yale cases are very different from the FSU case. Different than the Hobart and Smith case. </p>
<p>The he said /she said ex sex partner cases are very tough. I think keeping track of the people involved and looking for patterns may be the best we can do…</p>