<p>What I meant was, in MOST cases the person doesn’t want to have sex with a given random other person. Even if it’s Saturday night, and even if a woman is drunk, of all the people in the world she could possibly have sex with, she doesn’t want to have sex with the vast majority of them. If he says, “You were drunk and you wanted to have sex,” and she says, “Yes, but I didn’t want to have sex with YOU,” and that is all you know, on the percentages, you should believe her.</p>
<p>Yes means Yes.</p>
<p><a href=“UC Berkeley Students: 'Yes Means Yes' Law Already Making An Impact - CBS San Francisco”>http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/11/07/uc-berkeley-students-yes-means-yes-law-already-making-an-impact-cal-rape-sexual-assault-affirmative-consent-campus-party-drunk/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Cardinal Fang, But it seems that most of the time these cases are not two completely random individuals with no connection. Stranger rape is much easier for people to deal with. These cases usually seem to involve people who know each other, who may well have been consensually intimate to some degree either on that occasion or before. Sometimes even after! (The Yale case in which they had sex again in the morning after the alleged rape.) That’s the problem in many of these cases. It <em>is</em> plausible that the person would have consented to sex.</p>
<p>A97db9, obviously, you don 't take no for an answer.</p>
<p>I think the point is that it is up to the woman to decide whether an offense was criminal or not. To decide if she wants to bring it to an honor court or to bring it into the criminal courts. It is not up to us to determine if person A and person’s B’s sex life is consensual or not fortunately because the terminology allows for many shades of gray. Everyone knows or should know by now I don’t think colleges should be adjudicating felony criminal offenses and I think it’s fine if a woman wants to keep it between her and the college and the accused, but just as in cases of plagarism etc., colleges must investigate and must follow their processes and procedures to the letter of civil rights which cannot be set aside. The accuser also needs to understand that if they choose to ignore the criminal system then they are in affect appearing before an honor court and just like a criminal court the accuser may feel satisfied or not. </p>
<p>I’m glad to read that on some campus somewhere the women are feeling that the there is change in how men and women interact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MOST cases where two people are having sex don’t end in one person accusing the other of rape. We are only considering the cases where intercourse (or some other sexual act) occurred, and one person said it wasn’t consensual. If you want to make the kind of inference you’re thinking of, you’d have to know the incidence of false accusation: how many people accuse truly, and how many occur falsely? But that’s just what we’re trying to determine here, so we can’t use it in our reasoning. </p>
<p>Well, to me the issue can be clouded by cases in which the accuser only decided that it was “rape” after extended convincing by her friends or by activists. (Occidental, for example.) I have no idea how frequently this occurs.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about a girl who told her friends she was raped and had to be convinced, supported, in deciding to report it. I also would agree that there are likely a certain number of cases in which the “persuaders” are correct.</p>
<p>Al2simon, we need to check- I thought once an accusation of sexual assault is brought, the college must respond officially. In the Amherst document, mediation, in various forms, is not an option. I’ll look.</p>
<p>And let’s put Deshowitz’s OpEd to rest. It is a complaint against Harvard, not T9. It makes a fine noise to keep referring to his liberal sentiments, but the OpEd (publicly available, in original form,) includes note H went past their T9 responsibilities.</p>
<p>“It would never occur to anyone to leave the adjudication of a murder in the hands of a
school’s internal judicial process. Why, then, is it not only common, but expected, for them
to do so when it comes to sexual assault” </p>
<p>We answered this. The fine points do elude some, but you can also look at the Amherst doc to see how they describe. If something is missing, let me know and I’ll link the main part of the Handbook (Code of conduct.)</p>
<p>The other temp thread was more reasonable.</p>
<p>I honestly think a good chunk of the mainstream population is surprised that women choose not to pursue criminal charges (when they claim they have been raped) and assume the college isn’t dealing with adjudicating felony offenses. Mainstream America thinks of rape as something that is forced. I honestly think the public subconsciously knows the police don’t always do a great job but they never think past that point and certainly they don’t if they don’t have college age kids. The media “tells” them that colleges are supposed to do this but then the public is fed a steady diet of media of stories that make no sense (like Occidental, the mattress dragger and others) or the RS and Lena Dunham stories. </p>
<p>All of this arguing seems futile if we don’t know what raped women want to have happen to their accusers. If they don’t want to get their attackers in trouble, then complaining that none are kicked out and demanding that it start happening goes against their interests: the victims will stop reporting at all. If they want their attackers expelled or in jail, then they must be mandated to at least file a police report. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’d assume that the accuser who had to be convinced it was rape is lying. Many women who have been raped by acquaintances initially don’t want to call their experience rape. Women who are victims of domestic violence don’t call it violence, either, but that doesn’t make hitting your girlfriend right-- it just means people don’t want to think they were victims of crime committed by people they know and like.</p>
<p>There’s a loony feminist strain that says that if a woman has had one drop of alcohol, she instantly becomes incapacitated. Thankfully, very few colleges have adopted that lunatic view. You frequently bring up Occidental, Consolation, but do you have numbers on how many other schools say that someone who has had a drink can’t consent?</p>
<p>Okay, here’s what I had seen:
"In some instances, a Complainant and a Respondent may choose to resolve a complaint through voluntary resolution. Voluntary resolution may include conflict mediation or a restorative conference with a college community member. However, voluntary resolution may only be used:</p>
<p>Prior to a Notice of Hearing being issued;
When the Dean of Students or designee determines this is a suitable option for resolving the concern, and both the Complainant and Respondent agree to use the process;
When the complaint does not involve sexual violence as defined in the Sexual Misconduct Policy."</p>
<p>“All of this arguing seems futile if we don’t know what raped women want to have happen to their accusers. If they don’t want to get their attackers in trouble, then complaining that none are kicked out and demanding that it start happening goes against their interests”</p>
<p>I’ve only skimmed it, but there’s an interesting op-ed in the NYT suggesting that many women want catharsis rather than punishment. </p>
<p>I tend to agree with you Bay. CF, it is clear from colleges losing in excess of 60% of the cases brought for wrongful expulsion that colleges are not going to go off half baked and start expelling kids on someone’s say so or at least at some point they will suffer a major loss and rethink. What part of that aren’t you understanding. Colleges will soon use expulsion as a last resort for the most provable egregious instances and and that is how it should be. Doubly, to mainstream America, it says alot if someone doesn’t want to press criminal charges…it really does and I really don’t need to hear all the reasons again why accusers don’t report. But remember who is sitting on these tribunals - mainstream America for the most part…not trained professionals. We would do well to focus our efforts in that direction, encouraging or mandating that college report felony assaults. Also sex can be unwanted but not violent so my best guess is that colleges differ in which ones have mediation available or not and for what type of cases mediation would be appropriate.</p>
<p>Well, if I was raped, when I was a college sophomore instead of just almost being raped, I’d probably want to castrate him, especially because that would have been the first time for me (how dare a virgin get drunk, not kiss a guy or talk anything romantic or flirty, let him walk her to her dorm, let him push his way into her room, and NOT expect to have sex when she passes out drunk!!). But, I believe that if I would have woken up after being raped, I would have called 911. Because I was assaulted. Sexual or not, I would have been assaulted.</p>
<p>Why aren’t both men and women raised to know whether they were assaulted or not? Is it that inobvious that if you wake up, and it’s pretty clear you had sex and you don’t remember having sex, YOU WERE ASSAULTED. Like, if someone asked to borrow $20 from you, and you are passed out, if they take the money, it is stealing.</p>
<p>I would have blamed myself for getting so drunk and trusting a male stranger (=fellow Ivy League college student) to walk me home to my dorm room, but I would have wanted him arrested and in jail because my behavior was stupid, but his would have been criminal. I don’t think the college was answering 911 (at least at that point in time), the police were.</p>
<p>I would NOT have given a HOOT whether he continued at the college or not, I would want him in jail, and if he was found innocent by some lark of the criminal justice system, I would have dealt with us both going to the same college or transferred. If he was found innocent, what right would I have to deprive him of the education he earned?</p>
<p>Is PTSD the business of the college? I saw a petition on change dot org, where a friend of the petition originator was raped, and she has PTSD symptoms badly when watching rape scenes on TV. So, the petition says the FCC should have a special “sexual violence” rating, beyond “sexual situations” and “violence”. Which IMHO is ridiculous - how can someone in their right mind watch “Sons of Anarchy” (specifically mentioned in the petition) and NOT expect rape? Seriously.</p>
<p>(current FCC ratings: TV-14-- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).</p>
<p>TV-MA-- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L). Sons of Anarchy is TV-MA.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually we do. Moreover, we have “two systems” in many areas of American life.</p>
<p>For example, years ago, one of the other shareholders in my co-op reported that one of the handymen had stolen something from his apartment. The super went down and searched the accused’s locker.( A police officer could not do that without getting a warrant.) He found the item “allegedly” stolen. The handyman was fired and the collective bargaining agreement was triggered by the firing. There was a hearing; the panel considering the evidence included both union reps and management reps. They concluded that the firing was reasonable. Not only was the firing upheld, the accused was kicked out of the union and because he was, he was ineligible for rehire in any unionized building in NYC. No need to wait for a court decision finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This process was NOT unusual. It’s what happened whenever a handy man is accused of theft. </p>
<p>Even if the matter goes to criminal trial and the accused is found “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he does NOT get his job back. </p>
<p>As I’ve posted before, my career as an attorney focuses on retail financial services. Once in a while, a broker will be accused of stealing money from a client’s account. After investigating, if the brokerage firm thinks he did steal the $, it fires him and the reason for firing is entered on his record. It is extremely unlikely that any other brokerage firm will hire him. In many instances, the matter will be referred to the DA or the US Attorney. Here in NYC, if the amount stolen is less than $10,000, it’s unlikely that the broker will be prosecuted. If it’s more than $10,000 it’s more likely that he will be. But if he is and is found “not guilty” he is not entitled to be reinstated to his former job.</p>
<p>BTW, the broker’s records are available to the public. So, even though a stock broker was found “not guilty” after a criminal trial, any member of the public can find out that his employer concluded after investigation that he did steal money. </p>
<p>I realize that being kicked out of college can be earth shattering. While I do understand that, I think that if a college thinks it’s probable a young man did rape a young woman, the college should be able to kick him out. Please understand that I think the proceeding should be fair. Part of “fair” to me is the right to be represented by an attorney. It doesn’t mean though that the standards of a criminal trial should apply. For example, I think if 20 young women have accused the same young man of raping them, the college should be entitled to consider that…even if a criminal court would not be allowed to do so (absent a conviction.)</p>
<p>So, while I do NOT think that merely being accused of rape should be enough to get kicked out of college, I don’t think a college should be required to allow a student who has been accused or rape…or theft…or other criminal activity to remain on campus unless and until he’s convicted of a crime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it will be clearer if you restrict yourself to just rape cases. Compare stranger rape to acquaintance (date) rape. Let’s assume that it is established in both cases that sex occurred. And the rape kit wouldn’t be any more of a help in one case vs. the other to determine if it was by force. So in both cases, technically, it is he-said she-said. Now let’s consider how plausible consensual sex would be in both of those situations: one in which the people haven’t met before and another in which they were on a date. In the case that they were on a date, consensual sex is not a given, but not surprising. In the other case (between strangers), it is almost completely implausible. Consensual sex doesn’t happen after breaking into someone’s apartment or after jumping out of the bushes. Now technically, in the case of strangers, the guy could claim that they met at a bar, but that defense doesn’t work in practice unless they actually did and were seen by someone talking at the bar (this not sufficient for a defense, of course, but it would establish that they knew each other).</p>
<p>I am ignoring for the moment the implausibility that someone would lie about rape. </p>
<p>How about this? If she doesn’t want it, it shouldn’t happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Why should a woman who wants her attacker expelled, but is pretty sure that the evidence against him isn’t enough for a court conviction, have to file a police report? Filing a futile police report on rape is not going to be a fun outing.</p>
<p>Jonri, I really like your post. Thanks.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys, schools losing 60 percent of expulsion cases comes to about 7 cases a year. </p>
<p>Schools that are settling with students… Those settlements aren’t necessarily with male students.
Connecticut just settled with 5 female students for $1.3 million.</p>
<p>Some women don’t want to pursue criminal charges.</p>