<p>“The first DD that shoots some poor slob while tipsey will spend alot more time in jail than i think any parent wants to think about. The thought of dunk gun toting college men and women give me major shivers.”</p>
<p>Why would she go to jail? She will say he tried to rape her, and no can prove that it is not true, so just like campus rapists, these women should almost never be convicted. It will be a case of “she said, he dead.”</p>
<p>Do we know that colleges have shoved things under the rug outside of the rulings that have been broadcast in the media favoring primarily the males? I thought that was what the 50+ DOJ investigations were about - to take a look at individiual colleges charged with noncompliance and ensure that there were policies and procedures in place for adjudicating misconduct. Not sure if any results of those investigations have come to light. </p>
<p>M3B “how do we know that colleges have swept things under the rug?”</p>
<p>This is clear from a number of cases. For example in the Michigan case where a football player was expelled for raping a student but only years later after he had essentially used up his football eligibility. Also, if you watched the UVA Board meeting, at least one Board member said so, and actually used that specific phrase. </p>
<p>They know that no one want to sent their daughter to “the rape school” so they try to keep it quiet instead of dealing with it.</p>
<p>I don’t know if there is enough information available for me to unequivocally believe that claim (that colleges sweep things under the rug). That is why i have a healthy mistrust of the media. The story they will publish is the one that is the most sensationalized. Whether a particular case goes to the police (and is therefore public information) or not I thought was up to the accuser to decide. If the college adjudicates, isn’t it confidential (unless someone involved files a lawsuit) unless it’s leaked to the media? The other thing that would say they are sweeping things under the rug is if they are found not telling the truth in the Clery reports. One of the directionals in Michigan paid a fine for failing to report a crime a number of years ago. </p>
<p>There can be independent attempts to gather this data or verify. The Clery numbers for individual colleges (for anyone who doesn’t realize) are online and can be googled. </p>
<p>But folks, a pause to ask: you also know there’s supposed to be a huge meteor shower tonight, visible anywhere? Some interesting talk and live feed <a href=“Why Sunday's Geminids Meteor Shower Will Be This Year's Most Explosive | PCMag”>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2473442,00.asp</a></p>
<p>Ok, carry on.</p>
<p>Some say mistrust of the media should cause one to question. Not that one doesn’t know, so just throw it out.</p>
<p>Sometimes the actual campus security data differs from what the U reports via Clery. Sometimes rape crisis center figures are compared. Sometimes colleges or other groups survey because the number who present at Health and/or submit a complaint can, of course, be lower than he number who deal with this.</p>
<p>I distrust the media, but have no problem believing more issues occur than the U becomes aware of. And I thought it was more than 50 colleges under scrutiny.</p>
<p>In any case, we’ve got to agree this goes on and needs action. But also, just focusing on rape obscures the breadth. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We know, because they have acknowledged it, that UVa has not expelled anyone for rape in some 12 years or more. To me, that counts as rug-sweeping.</p>
<p>Here’s another reason to believe colleges sweep things under the rug: the study I posted earlier today that demonstrated during the process when colleges’ Clery numbers are being audited, the numbers go up 50%. After the audit is over, the colleges go back to sweeping things under the rug find the numbers returning to the previous baseline.</p>
<p>I’ll throw in another perspective to those who oppose colleges having their own hearing process. In the past I‘ve been a trustee of a private college. Without speaking for the group, I think I can reflect everyone’s view. Even if Title IX was abolished, we would still want to hold our students to a code of conduct and to discipline students who commit sexual assault. We’re looking to educate students who are smart but <em>more</em> important than that is that they be of good character and integrity. Libertarians should especially support the right of a private entity to set its own standards.</p>
<p>As a private entity, we’re going to hold our students accountable for mistreating each other. Admits are fully aware of our code of conduct; it’s part of the admit packet and orientation. Agreeing to not commit sexual assault is the bare minimum to be part of the community. If you don’t like it, then feel free to attend somewhere else. We’re happy NOT to have you as part of our alumni body. There are 30,000 other students panting to take your seat, and we couldn’t care less if our admit rate goes from 5.00% to 5.01%. </p>
<p>Unpleasant though it may be, the disciplinary process is also part of the educational mission. As educators, you have to be an optimist about young people’s ability to learn. You’d like to think that by asking someone to take a year off after (say) groping another student you can help them learn something and return as a better person. Of course, the perpetrator often thinks this is unfair while the victim may not want them back (but often won’t support a harsher punishment either). Perhaps it’s no longer fashionable to talk about educating young people in the dimension of character, though I would think many people on the conservative side of the political spectrum should support this.</p>
<p>We’re struggling to find the best ways to balance all the competing factors. As a trustee you want to put aside your own biases and listen to everyone’s point of view with an open mind because that’s how we’ll find the best policies. I’ve learned a lot by listening to those I disagree with. Personally, I don’t think the OCR’s changes are a net improvement and I think they are hurting our efforts to come up with better policies (though they are a good kick in the pants to get us moving), but it’s essentially the law and we will comply.</p>
<p>@Harvestmoon1 “I got in my car, drove the 5 hours and delivered another cylinder to her.”</p>
<p>I hope she never needs to use it, but I applaud your parenting. </p>
<p>The OCR has mandated that colleges use the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine guilt. Some people think that’s terrible and others think it won’t make a practical difference.</p>
<p>What other changes have they mandated that you find objectionable, al2simon?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might start with not assuming that this is a conservative/liberal issue. Again, Alan Dershowitz, one of the top legal minds of our time – and a LIBERAL – opposes the plan put in place by his former employer, which itself follows DoE guidelines. </p>
<p>If you stop trying to put labels on people, maybe your pov will receive a better reception?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I have no doubt that most Deans/College Adminstrators can do a decent job adjudicating educational issues. But I would guess that <1% of college leaders have any training/experience with criminal assault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer should always be, safety first. </p>
<p>CF - Bluntly, I think it’s clear that they want a higher disciplinary rate. That might be the right result but if we can’t do it fairly it’s hard to have on your conscience. I suspect that if we were to add in what I consider to be basic due process protections then our knuckles would get rapped hard. No one really knows how to measure levels of intoxication way after the fact and asking colleges to do this feels like asking the impossible. I sometimes feel like the marginal changes serve to punish the fundamentally OK guy who’s made a mistake while not doing much to get rid of the true pigs. Perhaps I’m wrong on the right punishment for mistakes; I’m really trying to understand the consequences to the victims here - I’m a male and trying to be conscious of my blind spots. Very sad situation. Fortunately, I don’t bear any of the responsibility today.</p>
<p>“You might start with not assuming that this is a conservative/liberal issue. Again, Alan Dershowitz, one of the top legal minds of our time – and a LIBERAL – opposes the plan put in place by his former employer, which itself follows DoE guidelines.”</p>
<p>I did not say that liberals agree with all aspects of this issue and i did not mention Harvard at all. </p>
<p>“If you stop trying to put labels on people, maybe your pov will receive a better reception?”</p>
<p>I didn’t decide it would turn into a conservative vs. liberal issue. The parties have done that. The conservative and liberal pundits have done that. However, somehow, if I point that out it is offensive? Also, you labeled a person in the post where you admonish me for labeling a different person. I admit that I find that to be a little amusing. At least I did not label a specific person. I suppose if the person I characterized is no one, then no one will be offended. However, if the shoe fits…</p>
<p>Don’t forget civil court uses preponderance.
The Harvard law profs are not fighting Title IX but Harvard’s implementation.</p>
<p>“The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. [Harvard’s]sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.”</p>
<p>Bluebayou is pointing out that the shoe doe not fit M2L, and more importantly the policy does not work. </p>
<p>Doesn’t matter if Dershowitz is LIBERAL, as BB screamed. AD opposes how Harvard went about this. The OpEd says in part, that it exceeds Dept of Ed. (Btw, just saying: DOE is Energy. The official acronym for Education is ED.)</p>
<p>Initially, I am going to respond in summary to @TV4caster’s charge that I (and other posters) take the accuser’s rights as secondary to the accused" rights. He purported to show posts which this is the case. TV4 cited quotes by me in posts #s 2664, 2666, 2672, 2674, 2675. (BTW, great work on the research on gathering the quotes @TV4caster)</p>
<p>To put these quotes and the charge in context to what I have been saying all along re the rights of BOTH the accuser and accused, it is best to read this written by me in post #1946:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That post was written exactly as I meant it to be. It was in response to people wanting things done to an accused even when the accusations do not stand up under scrutiny. </p>
<p>Point #1:</p>
<p>As anyone who can read, the above quote cannot be written by someone who thinks that rights of the accuser is secondary to the accused, In fact, such a post can only be written by someone who thinks the accuser deserves a complete opportunity and supporting process to provide corroborating information of her alleged accusation that she were raped. </p>
<p>If this is an example of the ideology of a person who believes the rights of the accuser are secondary to the accused, as charged by @TV4caster, then my philosophy and logic classes were for naught. But, why, I may have horrible teachers.</p>
<p>Point #2:</p>
<p>Note the word “zilch” - that was there on purpose. </p>
<p>This was referring specifically to Jackie’s case and few other mentioned cases where NOTHING was holding up reference the accusation. We are not talking about some errant memory or facts here; we were talking about NOTHING holding up. Yet there were people who could not let go the fact that Jackie must be telling an accurate account and that she should be continued to be believed even AFTER nothing was panning out. Now, that is just darn delusional. Misplaced facts, confused things here and there in a major life event is one thing, but with nothing adding up and connecting is delusional to continue to believe after a certain point. </p>
<p>My post above was to put some common sense into the mix and point out that, yes an accuser should be believed, but being to be continued to believed when nothing ADDS UP in the stories means that the accused cannot and should not be charged criminally. </p>
<p>And note, noting adding up is quite different than having no evidence, even if the exult is the same. People keep using the example of a poster on her who had no evidence, but everyone believes her. That makes sense, I believe her too, but that does not mean that there was the evidence to arrest, convict and prosecute the perpetrator, no matter how much she may have wanted to. W cannot punish people solely on the word of mouth of the accuser. </p>
<p>Advocacy groups can say what they want in the support group kind-of-way and can still say they believe rape allegations where nothing adds up. However, as far as the accused, obviously, if nothing adds up, then the accused should not be charged with rape. </p>
<p>More to come later as we logically see how each quote by @TV4caster holds up against the claim that I place the rights of the accuser secondary to the rights of the accused.</p>
<p>“Bluebayou is pointing out that the shoe doe not fit M2L, and more importantly the policy does not work.”</p>
<p>Well, I presented how I hear the conservative view. Now trying to argue about how I hear something? Hmmm</p>
<p>“more importantly the policy does not work.”</p>
<p>What are you trying to say? I know that the policy does not work. That is why this thread is almost 200 pages long. I am saying that what is being done is inadequate and we need to do better. </p>
<p><a href=“HBO’s ‘The Newsroom’ Draws Backlash Over Rape Plot - The New York Times”>HBO’s ‘The Newsroom’ Draws Backlash Over Rape Plot - The New York Times;
<p>HBO’s Newsroom (a dramatic series) just aired an episode that raised many of these issues.</p>