<p>CF - I agree completely. I even tried to point out the reasons why a college campus would be different. </p>
<p>My main point was about the inherent imperfection rate in adjudication systems, despite all the protections we think we build in. Criminal conviction is supposed to be held to the highest standard of proof that we as society can demand to find the truth, at least for disputes involving humans. I can only imagine what the Type-I error rate is in these campus hearings as currently conducted.</p>
<p>@TV4caster - Thanks for your recent posts. I just saw them, but currently cannot respond. I have marked them and will respond later. </p>
<p>I appreciate you going back and at least giving me the chance to respond to the charge that I place the accuser’s rights as secondary to the accused. That is all I wanted.</p>
<p>Oh gosh yes, it’s terrible. People are just really bad at recalling what they saw, they are bad at identifying strangers, and they are terrible at identifying strangers of another race. </p>
<p>Eyewitness evidence is terrible, and the justice system makes mistakes. But nobody says that because some people are wrongfully convicted we should stop having trials and stop putting people convicted of violent crimes in prison. Instead, we try to develop procedures to make the justice system better.</p>
<p>Similarly, campus tribunals make mistakes. But that doesn’t mean we should just allow rapists to remain on campus while doing nothing, relying on a justice system with (rightly) a high standard of proof to get all the rapists off campus. Instead, we should support a better system. I’m still at a loss to know why anyone supports keeping a student on campus when you believe, with clear and convincing evidence, that he raped another student. But that is what eliminating tribunals will do-- it will keep rapists on campus.</p>
<p>I think I’ve said before that I think college disciplinary hearings are a must, but I’d like to see them move towards higher standards and more due process, but harsher punishments. Not perfect, but better. The previous poster who said that there were no rape conviction under the old standard is just wrong. The maximum punishment a college can mete out is expulsion, and for obvious reasons they aren’t buying ads in the newspaper explaining why students are expelled. Fortunately, felony rape is a small percentage of sexual misconduct on campus. Most cases are drunken sex of one sort or another.</p>
<p>Unfortunately our lawmakers are moving in the opposite direction. Even now, Congress is trying to force more changes that I consider to be even more ill-advised, though the RS fiasco may have slowed this down.</p>
<p>It seems that the dialogue and the actions are being driven by the loudest and most emotional groups. Personally, I found myself getting outraged by whatever the latest story I read is, whether it’s about a rape victim or a what seems to be a railroaded accused, so I’m aware of how easy it is become irrationally angry and propose ill-advised policy.</p>
<p>Still, I’ve never understood why many people take a hard stand on a “women’s” side or a “men’s” side, at least when not in the heat of the moment. Most well-adjusted people have men and women in their lives whom they love and want to protect. Weird to me.</p>
<p>CF, I don’t think I have read a post by anyone here who thinks a rapist should stay on campus or even in society for that matter. I believe people are just saying that they want to make sure that a reliable system, with evidence and due process, is used to decide they are in fact rapists.</p>
<p>How the conservative talking points sound to me:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Claim we need to get rape cases out of the colleges into the legal system, where this crime is rarely convicted.</p></li>
<li><p>Claim that rapists should be punished severely, but set the evidence bar so high that no one is actually convicted.</p></li>
<li><p>Claim it is always a “He said, she said” so nothing can be done about it. Everyone knows women get hysterical and lie. </p></li>
<li><p>In case of evidence, claim that it is inadequate, that women lie, eye witnesses are terrible, and if his dna was there, change the argument to “she wanted it.” </p></li>
<li><p>Argue that there is always a risk of putting an innocent person in jail, so the perp should probably be acquitted to be safe. </p></li>
<li><p>Claim to be a defender of the constitutional right to due process, but offer no solutions for how provide students with the right to be on campus without fear of being attacked.</p></li>
<li><p>Oppose the students constitutional right to bear arms. This could lead to a girl with a gun and a boy getting shot just for raping someone. Some constitutional rights are more important than others. We only support a man’s right to carry a gun, but not a woman’s.</p></li>
<li><p>Claim that it is not right for a woman to release the name of her rapist because it could be harmful to him. Pretend that while there is a very high bar to prove a rape happened, it would be easy to prove that she is slandering the accused by proving that a rape didn’t happen. All of the innocent men need protection from the “hysterical” women who got drunk had sex, feel guilty, and are now falsely accusing men of rape.</p></li>
<li><p>Claim the women are just lying about being raped to get survivor status on campus, per George Will. While doing this, be sure to avoid all discussion of the number of times that men lie about raping women. The story is that it is the women who lie.</p></li>
<li><p>Always sound very sympathetic to victims, and offer support after a rape, but offer no solutions that will actually prevent campus rapes from happening. </p></li>
<li><p>Argue that since there are more rapes off campus than on, therefore the problem does not exist at all. It is imaginary.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Message to women:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Women, you are on your own. Honestly, while we pay lip service to the problem, we will do nothing to protect you from being raped at all.</p></li>
<li><p>Campus can be a hostile environment, but do not attempt to defend yourself with a weapon, that is unacceptable.</p></li>
<li><p>A hostile campus environment for women is only not the colleges problem, it isn’t anyone’s problem except women’s, if any of these cases are even real.</p></li>
<li><p>Justice for victims is not important at all. The only thing that is important is being 100% sure not to convict an innocent person. Note: this only applies to rape cases.</p></li>
<li><p>We will talk a lot. We will form committees. We will write and rewrite policies. We will hold education classes. We will have a big dog and pony show to throw the press off the scent. However, what we will not do is take any actions that will actually prevent rapes from happening or punish people who commit rape, so basically, so nothing is really going to change.</p></li>
<li><p>Just take it like a woman and shut up, just like your mother did. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Let’s think this through. A college woman accuses a fellow student of rape. If the college were to investigate the allegation, using a fair process, they would discover that there was clear and convincing evidence that the accusation is correct, and the student raped the woman. Unfortunately, the proof in this case, as in so many cases, does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, and so this student cannot be convicted in court.</p>
<p>Anyone who says the college should do away with sexual assault tribunals entirely is saying that this student should remain on campus, even though college authorities would be convinced of his guilt if they investigated. Many people on this thread, marie, awc and SoWhat among others, have advocated exactly this position. Therefore, they are advocating that rapists should stay on campus even though the college knows or could know that they have raped other students. </p>
<p>I, on the other hand, think that colleges have a responsibility to all students to remove rapists from their midst. </p>
<p>“2. Campus can be a hostile environment, but do not attempt to defend yourself with a weapon, that is unacceptable.”</p>
<p>I have personal experience with this one. Last summer my D attended a month long summer program on an urban university campus. The participants were free to go out and enjoy the city in the evenings and the campus was not “closed” so anyone could wander in. It was a relatively safe city but D was not intimately familiar with it and we worried. We sent her off with a cylinder of pepper spray to carry in her purse. Better than nothing we thought.</p>
<p>On the first day of the program the university brought in a police officer to give the girls some safety tips. At the end of his presentation he said, and “Oh and by the way, mace and pepper spray are illegal in this city, so any of you who might have brought it along, please go to your rooms and bring it down to me. We’ll leave it with the program organizer and you can take it home at the end of the program.” D said 60% of the girls, including herself, went upstairs, got the spray and turned it in. I was beyond infuriated.</p>
<p>After giving it much thought, 2 days later I got in my car, drove the 5 hours and delivered another cylinder to her. I took a risk, but at the end of the day I needed to send my D the message that indeed we women have to look after ourselves. </p>
<p>Much2learn - I don’t want to distract from the other points you made, but suggesting that students should arm themselves with guns while on campus is a horrible idea. It may be a constitutional right and possible in many parts of the country, but the college hearing process of almost every college would and should immediately expel any student found with a gun. Don’t know all the legalities though.</p>
<p>If colleges are so dangerous that students need guns to protect themselves against being raped then they should just be shut down and replaced with MOOCs.Maybe go back to single sex colleges and Prohibition. I certainly don’t even come close to believing this.</p>
<p>LOL I presumed Much2Learn was being facetious although now it’s out there for ever and ever thanks to the internet. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I’m a libertarian so not conservative or liberal in essence, but everyone seems to agree that the alcohol consumption and pregaming is a problem that colleges can change and even with enough political pressure we could change in the country (we reverted the speed limit back to 70 from 55).</p>
<p>Not everyone. I don’t have a position on this. I neither believe nor disbelieve that colleges could change alcohol consumption and pregaming by actions the colleges could take (that is, even if you think that changing the drinking age would reduce alcohol consumption, it’s not an action colleges can take). I’m willing to be convinced. What actions could colleges take, why would those actions reduce alcohol consumption, and what evidence are you offering me?</p>
<p>So, if your daughter (or niece, friend, etc) were sexually assaulted (either on campus or by another student of that campus,) you wouldn’t expect the U to take any action other than deferring this to the police?</p>
<p>It would be fine for he to just take her chances of running into him? (Dorm floor, dorm, cafeteria, classes or just out and about.) If she does, she should what? Leave the library, eat at another time, drop the class, etc? (and not expect similar accommodations by him.) If she asked to change dorms, to avoid him or have some adjustment to her class schedule, you wouldn’t expect any cooperation from the college, but you’d assure her the police were investigating? Yow.</p>
<p>And if your son were accused, you’d lawyer up, and what? </p>
<p>You can’t change it off campus - that is the only problem.My #2 son’s college got a grant to reduce campus drinking and were pretty successful on campus (and with freshman) but older kids who lived off campus didn’t slow down i’m sure. The main rule was no alcohol on campus (except for public community or faculty event), if you were caught with alcohol your parents received a letter (disclosure H and i got a letter, he got caught with a beer while watching a movie with a couple guys) and the kid had to go to counseling, if you were caught again you had to find housing off campus (happened to an acquaintance of S2). The irony of that is I’m sure the kids that got kicked off weren’t too unhappy as freshman were required to live in a dorm and if you want to party that hard and you have parents willing to shell out for an apartment and kiss their room and board money goodbye it wasn’t a “death sentence”. the second year of the program they required sophomores to live on campus which the kids really hated. So they had them for two years. But it did lower significantly the ambulance calls, dorm damage and some other markers. It did change the “tenor” of the campus according to my son.</p>
<p>Here’s one for you though: Colorado Springs is uber conservative - a hotbed of conservatives </p>
<p>Without T9, I suppose your girl could just hole up in her room, Or maybe drop out, pending the police conclusions. How do we protect her ability to use the campus, for that education and her life there? Why, we could come up with a policy that defines and clarifies…wait! That’s T9!</p>
<p>@dstark “Harvestmoon1, I can’t believe the police told these women you can’t carry mace.”</p>
<p>I believe mace is illegal to carry in a lot of states which is why we chose the pepper spray. I understood that pepper spray is legal is all 50 states. But like many things - yes and no. </p>
<p>Turns out that in many states you have to be 18 or older to carry it and in some states you have to purchase it from an authorized firearms establishment. That floored me. In Washington, DC I believe you need to carry some sort of registration paperwork once you purchase it. And in other states it can only have a certain concentration of the capsaicin. </p>
<p>Just a lot of nonsense as far as I am concerned. They really do make it hard.</p>