All UVa frats on suspension

Parents Forum
2741

<p>From the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights “Dear Colleagues” letter: “the OCR does not require schools to permit parties to have lawyers at any stage of the proceedings.” Thus, the decision of whether a lawyer can be present at any stage in the proceedings is left up to the individual school. An appeals process is recommended by the OCR, but not required; again, up to the school.</p>

<p>The letter goes on to say that “public and state-supported schools must provide due process for the alleged perpetrator.” Does this mean that private institutions don’t have to provide due process? This statement is to me ambiguous and open ended.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Rape is a violent crime and felony, punishable by serious prison time. Why is the Department of Education suggesting that colleges question students accused of sexual assault without the same legal protections than a suspect in the general population would receive? To me this is hypocritical and goes against the belief in this country that even the most heinous criminals deserve protection under the law.</p>

<p>As part of our legal system, before a suspect is questioned by police s/he is read the Miranda Warning, which specifies
You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney</p>

<p>In several college cases cited in this thread, the accused were denied one or more of their Miranda rights. And this is just the questioning phase. They are also denied rights involving due process, self-incrimination, a speedy trial, double jeopardy, suitable punishment, etc. – all of the tenets of our legal system. </p>

<p>That the campus tribunals can only limit the accused exposure to the victim – either by restricting movements or expulsion – is to me a non-sequiter to the question why are colleges litigating violent crimes like rape and sexual assault in the first place?</p>

<p>Our legal system is not perfect. It’s often slow and cumbersome. Some are wrongly convicted. Some are wrongly not convicted. But, to me, it’s better to attack the flaws in our legal system as it pertains to sexual assault and push for reform, rather than imposing a secondary quasi-legal system that has already shown its inadequacies. The colleges do need to make campuses safe and non-threatening, but they can better do that in collaboration with police and courts than through the convoluted, ambiguous procedures mandated by Title IX and widely interpreted by the colleges.</p>

2742

<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>I’m trying to say the colleges should get out of the business of trying to adjudicate rape. It’s ridiculous and it cannot ever work. It’s a dumber than dumb idea in other words. And, by giving these young women the choice of going to a college panel vs. a criminal process if they actually have a felony complaint no-one wins. For the rest of the sexual assault or misconduct issues a school system is probably appropriate but then we really should stop calling those things rape. People get confused. Also, I realize that some mishear things in this discussion something like the way they misheard doubt about the Jackie story as a denial that rape happens. That one is harder to comprehend, but it did occur so there you are. Also, when I wondered why Jackie would listen to her vapid now nearly imaginary friends I was called a victim-blamer. So, it appears we cannot tell young women to use a bit of common sense anymore but we really want to ramp up the punishment on the accused if they claim anything goes wrong because their world should be perfect. Is that right? I’m really trying to understand this point of view.</p>

<p>Also, the reason this thread is so long has more to do with the Jackie tale unraveling in the national press than the campus rape debacle in general. There are several threads on that with very few posts.</p>

2743

<p>

</p>

<p>This, in particular, seems like an odd objection. Are you saying that no reports from eyewitnesses, no garbled text messages, no photos, no cell phone videos or surveillance videos can give us an insight as to whether a person was so impaired as to be unable to consent? “She couldn’t walk, couldn’t form a sentence and was vomiting” wouldn’t be enough? Six photos taken a few minutes apart, showing her lying in the same position with her eyes closed, wouldn’t help you form a decision? Assuming that you believe, as I do, that a person has to be very impaired indeed in order to be too incapacitated to consent, this incapacitation is often no secret to anyone who is observing the person.</p>

<p>Clearly, evaluating someone’s level of intoxication will not always be possible. But often it will be. I see no reason to give up trying.</p>

2744

<p>

</p>

<p>That sounds great, but it’s not that simple. For example, if a student accuses another of misdemeanor sexual assault, then the “safe” thing to do is expel the accused if the accusation is even somewhat credible. I can follow that standard in my home - if boy comes around my house looking for my daughter, I’d kick him out if I thought there was even a 5% chance of him groping her since her safety does come first to me and I don’t give a flip about his rights in comparison. Can’t apply a 5% standard in a university setting.</p>

2745

<p>"by giving these young women the choice of going to a college panel vs. a criminal process "
Wrong.<br>
I’m sorry, but read it. "A school should notify a complainant of the right to file a criminal complaint, and should not dissuade a victim from doing so either during or after the school’s internal Title IX investigation. For instance, if a complainant wants to file a police report, the school should not tell the complainant that it is working toward a solution and instruct, or ask, the complainant to wait to file the report.Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin their own Title IX investigation and, if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the student in the educational setting. "</p>

<p>“stop calling those things rape”
Rape is just one of several acts under sexual assault, sexual violence or sexual harassment. What says they are all called rape? (Not counting this thead.)
And so it still goes.</p>

<p>Do we at least all agree a woman should go to the police?</p>

2746

<p>Al2simon, I loved your posts before you revealed anything about yourself. I can see why a school would want you involved. You think very well. </p>

2747

<p>@marie1234 “I’m trying to say the colleges should get out of the business of trying to adjudicate rape. It’s ridiculous and it cannot ever work. It’s a dumber than dumb idea in other words.”</p>

<p>Well, I am not inherently opposed to having them in or having them out. I would be willing to support whatever solution can do a better job of identifying rapists and removing them from society. Much of the reason that colleges have had to get involved is law enforcement and the judicial branches almost total failure to deal with rapists effectively. If there is a way to change that, I would support you, but pushing the cases back into the legal system where almost no rapes actually result in convictions is not acceptable.</p>

<p>"I realize that some mishear things in this discussion something like the way they misheard doubt about the Jackie story as a denial that rape happens. That one is harder to comprehend, but it did occur so there you are. Also, when I wondered why Jackie would listen to her vapid now nearly imaginary friends I was called a victim-blamer. "</p>

<p>Well, you didn’t hear that from me. I really don’t have a strong view about the truth or lack of it in individual stories because I don’t really know what happened in individual cases. A person with a strong view on an individual story may be wrong. Their is clearly a rape problem on campuses in aggregate, but in individual cases it is very difficult to be sure.</p>

<p>“So, it appears we cannot tell young women to use a bit of common sense anymore…”</p>

<p>I tell my college and high school age daughters to have common sense and be safe all the time. We can, and I do. I do however, object to using that as a way to blame a woman after the fact, as if she is at fault. We do not do this with other crime victims. I also object to only talking to the women about how to be safe and not bothering to discuss how not to be a rapist with the men.</p>

<p>"…but we really want to ramp up the punishment on the accused"</p>

<p>Currently, very few of the accused are ever found guilty and receive any punishment. The system needs to find a way to put more effort into separating the guilty and the innocent. Currently, police and prosecutors seem to go out of their way to avoid these cases. If you mean increasing it from the current no punishment level then yes. The disparity between the estimated number of rapes that occur, and the number that are successfully prosecuted is unacceptable and allows serial rapists to continue their work.</p>

<p>“if they claim anything goes wrong because their world should be perfect. Is that right? I’m really trying to understand this point of view.”</p>

<p>I don’t understand what this means.</p>

2748

<p>I don’t think colleges are involved because “law enforcement and the judicial branches almost total failure to deal with rapists effectively.” The colleges are not somehow supplanting or trying to remedy what police or the courts don’t do. It’s because T9 starts about fair and equal access to education and the documents consider various situations they call sexual harassment to be violations (or potential violations) of that.</p>

2749

<p>“That sounds great, but it’s not that simple. For example, if a student accuses another of misdemeanor sexual assault, then the “safe” thing to do is expel the accused if the accusation is even somewhat credible. I can follow that standard in my home - if boy comes around my house looking for my daughter, I’d kick him out if I thought there was even a 5% chance of him groping her since her safety does come first to me and I don’t give a flip about his rights in comparison. Can’t apply a 5% standard in a university setting.”</p>

<p>Assuming that groping implies that the advance is it is unwanted, I think a 5% chance is way too high. That means that for every 20 boys that come into your house, you expect your daughter to get groped once. With that standard at my house, they would have both been groped at least a half dozen times by now. No.</p>

2750

<p>

</p>

<p>These are great when they exist and show something useful. It makes everyone’s job much simpler. I was speaking as a general matter and based on some (limited) personal experience and broader feedback from administrators who handle this full time. Much of the time it’s not very easy. Most guys have some sense of decency and aren’t forcing themselves on vomiting or unconscious women (thankfully) - these are our sons after all.</p>

<p>For example, people will have photos of everyone looking happy and in full control of themselves and looking affectionate, but the events usually happen several hours later. Most parties are not in official university buildings where there are cameras (underage students can’t drink there). Usually dark at night, so public footage not that helpful. The party scene at this college doesn’t usually involve bars (must be 21), so no video there. Surprising how much of student’s lives are on text and this is often helpful but often cuts both ways, as do eyewitness accounts. </p>

<p>It’s wonderful to work with ultra-smart students but one downside is they’re great at coming up with convincing explanations that serve their own interest :wink: </p>

<p>Another conjecture, based on my college days back in the stone ages - drunken hook-ups are not that unusual, and almost all end with no severe regrets on either side. Students view this as “normal”, and there’s nothing that allows eyewitnesses to tell a good hook-up from a bad hook-up before the fact.</p>

<p>It’s possible that decision makers tend to believe the proportion of hard cases is greater since the easy ones are, well, easy.</p>

2751

<p>I have a zero tolerance. I can understand a school needing a slightly higher tolerance. </p>

<p>When my older daughter told me she wanted to rent a place in the city, I walked and drove the streets checking out safety. </p>

<p>My wife and daughter laughed…but hey…it’s my daughter. ;). (I think they laughed but they were glad I did. :slight_smile: )</p>

2752

<p>@TV4caster claims that this quote below by me represents that I place the rights of the accuser as secondary to the rights of the accused. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let’s see how well the charge fits the actual post above:</p>

<p>Well, let’s ask the most salient question (oh darn it, it is the same question), “who looks smarter now, the police who when a rape is reported actually questions the accuser to ascertain the details or people advocating those questions are offensive and all details must be believed on their face?”</p>

<p>What this questions points out is that it would be make no sense that ALL DETAILS be taken at face value. Not sure how making sure someone’s (anyone’s accusing someone of a crime) story pans out is making her rights secondary to another? Anyone is free to tell me how looking for corroborating information is a subjugation of the accuser’s rights? It is not; it is called being logical and realizing that no matter how much an experience is believed by anyone, it could be wrong in what is alleged and wrong in who did it and wrong in what actually took place. The only thing that should be taken at face value is the account in general as being true. But then details matter. </p>

<p>@TV4caster says this logic and approach show me being callous toward the rights of the accuser. However, based on this quote below from #1946, it seems that I expect the accuser to get a full investigation and a full support to back up her allegation:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me guess, the problem for some people comes back to the story might not all connect well, some details might be wrong or missing etc., but that is not a reason not to arrest and convict. Well, the intelligent answer is that clearly depends, does it not? </p>

<p>If the part(s) of the accusation, which do not pan out, is central to the accusation and would be material to making the case, then yes, one should not arrest and criminally convict the accused. Civil court would be fine at that point, but not criminal court. </p>

<p>In this case, the quote shows nothing that remotely supports the claim that I place the rights of the accuser secondary to the rights of the accused.</p>

2753

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not going to be the one to tell women to go to the police. When you ask a woman to go to the police, you have to know what she is going to be subjected to. Getting the rape kit is reported a brutal experience in the best of times, just because of the necessary physical treatment, and if the woman has been drinking, reportedly the hospital staff often regard her with contempt. Then she’ll get to be interviewed by police officers who don’t hide the fact that they think either she is lying or she is to blame for her rape. Then, probably, the police will drop the case.</p>

<p>There are some women that I love that I’d advise against going. With the current way rapes are handled, I’d be sending her for a sure chance that she’d have an awful experience against a small chance that her rapist would be convicted. Why would I subject a woman I loved to that? Some of my female friends and relatives are strong enough and stubborn enough stand it, but others are not.</p>

<p>Ask women who have reported their rapes to police whether they’d recommend that a victim reports. A lot would say, don’t report. And that’s a terrible indictment of the justice system.</p>

2754

<p>

</p>

<p>I can appreciate the sentiment ! However, not to horrify both of us as parents, but in my line of work I deal with probabilities every minute. One common bias is for people to underestimate the probabilities of rare events, so I’ve learned to be very careful about believing I can estimate probabilities that are much under 1%. Statisticians have a term for this tendency to be overly certain. They call it Cromwell’s rule, and its based on the following quote from Oliver Cromwell:</p>

<p>“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken”</p>

2755

<p>Thanks dstark. This is a complicated and important issue, and I’ve learned a lot from reading your comments and those of many others.</p>

2756

<p>People are weird about low-probability events. Sometimes they think that a low-probability event will never happen (cf people on this thread saying that your daughter having a 1 in 100 chance of getting raped at college means that rape is so rare as to be barely a concern) and other times they’re terrified of low-probability events (EBOLA! I might get EBOLA! even though the number of people who have contracted Ebola in the US is two, and both were nurses who cared for a person in end-stage Ebola.)</p>

2757

<p>“One common bias is for people to underestimate the probability of rare events”</p>

<p>It seems to be that humans are programmed to be very very bad at this. If you tell people that something will happen 1% of the time, in their mind they tend to round it to zero. That is a big mistake.</p>

<p>"They call it Cromwell’s rule, and its based on the following quote from Oliver Cromwell:</p>

<p>“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken”"</p>

<p>Very similar to Richard Feynman’s “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”</p>

2758

<p>Alsimon2, you are welcome. Sounds like you may be in the financial business. </p>

<p>This is a very complicated issue. My use of zero percent was an exaggeration, but not by much. ;)</p>

<p>I love your post #2754 too. I am not trying to put any pressure on you to keep the quality of your posts up. :)</p>

2759

<p>Guess you both consent to this love fest :wink: </p>

2760

<p>In my more optimistic moments I think we could come to a better balance if we got people of good faith from Congress, the OCR, and all the affected communities in a room where they could watch these cases being presented - the actual ones as they occur, not the distorted ones that the press promotes. I’ve heard/read some pleas from parents (on both sides) that I’ll never forget. </p>

<p>Fortunately, young people are often more resilient than we think.</p>