<p>According to “Penn In Ink,” a 2006 book about journalism at the University of Pennsylvania by author Samuel Hughes, Sabrina Erdely (Sabrina Rubin at the time) got busted by her editor at the UPenn newspaper for submitting a story that she had completely made up. Who was the editor who disciplined her? Stephen Glass. Yes, that Stephen Glass…</p>
<p>“Is that what you think men are, awcntdb? Just animals who “just can’t shut it down” once they get going or get aroused?”</p>
<p>Well, we are all animals, and we do have drives. I do agree with that. Sometimes it can be difficult to shut them down, I am okay with that too. </p>
<p>What I don’t accept is any suggestion that these facts, in some way, make it less of a crime.</p>
<p>That’s not what he was suggesting, either. And, the animal part is not just male but rather it’s hook-up culture. If it’s a crime it’s a crime and doesn’t belong in a college administrators inbox nor does it if it’s a bad break up or drunk sex gone wrong so exactly when it really does I’m not so sure, but probably not most of the time.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that you will never find anything to that end in a college’s mission statement or their Form 990. </p>
<p>Instead, I would suggest that the college’s interest is to first protect itself, and second protect its students. Any truth, such that it is, is only tertiary. And IMO, that is exactly why college Admin should not be judge and jury – they are not a disinterseted party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All you have to do is look at the news, Director, bcos that is exactly what some/many colleges do for assault. But you math is incorrect. In a she said-he said, the she is 50%. One only needs 1% more “evidence” to get to 51%.</p>
<p>If the colleges and universities are not going to stand up for themselves regarding Title IX and instead actually adjudicate felony criminal acts, including criminal acts that were found not guilty in our legal system, then yes, I propose they have assumed the civil responsibility to find the truth of the accusations. Both the accuser and the accused have the right to the civil (or in the case of the accuser the criminal) court system. If the colleges and universities fail with regard to investigation and due process they both have the recourse of the courts. The accuser gets to choose but the accuser does not determine the ultimate outcome, and in some cases nor do the colleges and universities if it proceeds to civil court. Absolutely the colleges and universities are going to protect themselves first. But many are not doing that great of a job. Most businesses will protect themselves within the law’s jurisdiction. The honor court or judicial tribunal or whatever we want to call it is not a court of law in any way shape or form. it’s naive to think that it is substitute. </p>
<p>JohnCristos: I agree people say the dumbest things. I read those quotes and thought '“say what?”</p>
<p>Talk about fun with math^, BB. You’re assuming they fully believe her and/or haven’t looked further than “she said,” nor looked into context, looked for what details they can find. It’s not meant to be a rubber stamp. It’s not meant to be, well, she says he jumped her and, yup, he’s bigger, so “I guess.”</p>
<p>I;m still looking for the report I previously found (a college report) which takes the committee work and shows how the individual cases were closed. Has anyone come across this? </p>
<p>I’m sorry, I don’t understand this. I asked how many accusations, if true, would be serious. The circumstances of the alleged offense don’t determine the seriousness of the case. Are you saying that “We were both drunk and he raped me” is not a truly serious case? “We had a toxic breakup and then he raped me” is not a truly serious case"? I’m sure you’re not, so what are you saying? </p>
<p>Ok here’s as close as I can get you. I know a few will read it. It’s not the ultimate word but shows different conclusions to cases.
<a href=“Home | Community Standards & Accountability”>Home | Community Standards & Accountability;
Findings start with, “During the eleven year period from 2002 through spring of 2013, thirty-eight undergraduates were charged with sexual misconduct violations.”</p>
<p>LF, I don’t want you to feel left out. I love many of your posts. :)</p>
<p>I love the Dartmouth post. Great find.</p>
<p>Looking at the findings, and based on the limited amount of information, I think the punishments look a little soft. Some of the guys should probably be behind bars.</p>
<p>I appreciate the fact you like to go straight to the primary sources.</p>
<p>Why do I trust WSJ any more than RS? T9 doesn’t say crying proves anything. Nor does it prove anything when posters make some claims or turn to anecdote or over-interpret or explain what each other really meant. Etc.</p>
<p>So, the Dartmouth tribunal concluded that these students were guilty of what they were accused of. Why were they not thrown out? These are terrible offenses. Two people burst into other students’ rooms without permission and started to have some unwelcome, unsought sexual activity without permission. OK, the students didn’t go as far as having intercourse with their victims, but this is horrifying. If that happened to me I’d have nightmares for months.</p>
<p>And the person who coerced the victim despite verbal and physical resistance, why did that person get to return to campus? We may disagree here about Yes means Yes, but we all agree No means No.</p>
<p>May be because the RS story has been thoroughly discredited and the WSJ story hasn’t?
Live your life as you wish. Make assumptions, if you wish. </p>
<p>But here’s how I read it (separating apparent fact from speculation- and “apparent” is key.)</p>
<p>Mr. Dodge asked Ms. Taylor to describe “typical behaviors” of “somebody who may have undergone a sexual assault.” She listed three. First, “they frequently cry.” Second, “their storytelling is sometimes disjointed, sometimes not.” Third, “there’s often a lot of emotion inserted into the story that is about being very upset or in disbelief or unsure what to do next, petrified.”</p>
<p>I don’t doubt “typical” can include crying.<br>
But the author goes on to say- the author- </p>
<p>Thus Ms. Taylor’s testimony amounted to a claim that in principle a woman’s tears are sufficient to establish a man’s guilt—an inane stereotype that infantilizes women in the interest of vilifying men.</p>
<p>BS. </p>
<p>Ms Taylor answered what she saw as typical behaviors. Typical “of somebody who may have undergone a sexual assault.” </p>
<p>CF – The definition of serious that I was using were incidents that would trigger a Clery act report in the maximum category. That’s the best official, objective, and public definition that is used, at least that I can recall. Not possible for me to answer your question about assuming all accusations were true even if I knew all the details and had perfect judgment and recall. And you’re right, drunken sex or a prior relationship doesn’t preclude rape. Apologies for the possible confusion.</p>
<p>But, saying that a typical victim cries, as Ms. Taylor said, is not the same as saying that if you see someone crying you can assume she was a victim, which Ms. Taylor did not say. Saying that a typical domestic abuser is logical and persuasive is not the same as saying a logical and persuasive person is a domestic abuser.</p>
<p>Saying that cats have four legs is not the same as saying if you see a four-legged creature, it’s a cat.</p>