<p>“Sez who? What is the example where someone has been expelled based on an accusation and nothing else? This sounds like fantasy to me.”</p>
<p>Maybe, this one…</p>
<p><a href=“Student claims he was expelled from W&L for consensual sex”>http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/student-claims-he-was-expelled-from-w-l-for-consensual/article_5c28779e-a237-5e8d-b958-a1a2dadd83f1.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Congreve said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read this thread and find myself humming Carole King “Will you still love me tomorrow?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, so to be clear here.</p>
<p>The (real) case where the athlete burst into the room of a freshman in order to assault her, and was stopped by teammates. The school would have the athlete dead to rights, but there is no campus tribunal dealing with serious cases of sexual assault, and the victim is unwilling to bring charges. The athlete stays on campus. No punishment.</p>
<p>Jonri’s (hypothetical) case where Andrew disguised himself and assaulted 20 students, but the physical evidence against him has been obtained illegally and is thrown out of criminal court. None of the students can ID him. Andrew stays on campus. No punishment.</p>
<p>The (sort of hypothetical) case where two RAs take a drunk, passed out student back to her room. Video security cameras show them returning to the student’s room three times using her key, staying there for half an hour. She accuses them of assaulting her. They deny it. They are acquitted in criminal court (like the cops in the real case). They stay on campus. No punishment.</p>
<p>Is this what you want, northwesty? Don’t you think that the parents of Andrew’s 21st victim are going to have a good case that the college kept a rapist on campus knowing with reasonable certainty that he raped 20 students? Do you think that the parents of the athlete’s next victim are going to be happy?</p>
<p>“Apparently, the Honor Committee at UVa does not handle cases of sexual assault due to the interaction of Title IX and due process.”</p>
<p>This has always been the case. The Honor system is student run, so the university can’t delegate federal mandates to students. The Honor system also runs on a higher proof standard which the Feds won’t tolerate under title ix.</p>
<p>The Honor system at UVA applies to lying, cheating or stealing. There’s always been two generally accepted exceptions to the lying piece. First, fake IDs to buy booze. Second, telling a girl you love her…</p>
<p>First, the article is biased, saying the RS article is “mostly debunked” whereas my understanding, the main problem is the misidentification of the “ringleader” and that is still under investigation.</p>
<p>About the W&L case - I’m confused as to whether the board was a “Student Faculty” board, which is made up of students only at most universities, or a “Student-Faculty Board” which has students and faculty members on it. If he was actually thrown out by students, that would be really weird in my mind.</p>
<p>I also wonder, if he was not allowed to attend the hearing, and he contends that her decision to report the incidents as rape and then further file a complaint were based on circumstances, how that could be fair compared to a court of law.</p>
<p>And that’s the inherent problem. We CANNOT let churches, colleges, youth organizations, companies, etc. prosecute and punish rape. It is not their business or responsibility to do so. In real life, if someone commits a crime against you, you go to court and that person is found guilty or innocent. If they are found innocent, you have to deal with it. If they are found guilty, they are punished.</p>
<p>I cannot believe than anyone could read that story and not feel that the case should have been handled by the police.</p>
<p>(How about thoughts on how kids in college under 24 must report parent income and are considered dependents of their parents, but according to the law 18 and older is an adult, so names published when someone is accused of a crime? Could we have colleges use the police force appropriately but then request names of students under 24 not be publicized unless convicted?)</p>
<p>“First, the article is biased, saying the RS article is “mostly debunked” whereas my understanding, the main problem is the misidentification of the “ringleader” and that is still under investigation.”</p>
<p>No, it’s definitely debunked. The misidentification trail has led to a catfishing scheme compete with evidence such as phony email addresses and fake texts for the ringleader who is now known as Haven, not Drew. The three friends in the article have come forward and debunked virtually everything about that night with the exception of Jackie being upset. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Can we let colleges handle infractions of their Code of Conduct?</p>
<p>An, for W&L, note this “proof” comes from"he said." </p>
<p>LF, that’s backwards again. There is no proof and he was expelled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet we do. An employee is seen on security video dragging another employee into a stock room by the arm. They are seen emerging twenty minutes later. She says he raped him. As soon as the boss sees the video and hears the story, that guy is going to be fired. They’re not going to wait around for a court trial; that employee will be fired on the spot and escorted out by security.</p>
<p>I guess we should allow Boy Scout leaders accused of sexual abuse to remain Boy Scout leaders until they are convicted in a court of law? That used to be the standard. Lately it has become unpopular, for some mysterious reason. Lately, the Boy Scouts have attempted to be vigilant and remove leaders who even show a whiff of impropriety in their dealings with scouts.</p>
<p>Backwards? He was expelled and he says he wasn’t at fault. Do we know more?</p>
<p>The lawsuit is linked so feel free to go thru it. He claims he was denied due process which is relevant to the current discussion.</p>
<p>We only know the accused guy’s side in the W&L case. He says he’s innocent. What’s the rest of the story? His defense seems to be that consent for one sexual activity is consent for all. That doesn’t work for me. Evidently, her accusation is that at some point she withdrew consent; otherwise there would be no case because she would have consented. He has nothing to tell us about the alleged withdrawal of consent, which in itself is suspicious. Why does he not address the substance of the allegations?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sororities-call-u-va-freeze-on-greek-system-a-violation-of-student-rights/2014/12/16/102506aa-8572-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/sororities-call-u-va-freeze-on-greek-system-a-violation-of-student-rights/2014/12/16/102506aa-8572-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html</a></p>
<p>This action by the university made no sense. Why punish all, especially now that there are serious questions as to whether there is any truth to Jackie’s story at all. As the article says, students don’t return until January, but by then the university president should apologize for her precipitous reaction to the RS story. Suspending the Greek system makes as much sense as suspending all the rape victim’s organizations on campus over Jackie’s fabrications.</p>
<p>I agree with TatinG above. Not enough evidence for this reaction now.</p>
<p>The W&L guy claims he was denied due process, which may or may not have merit. There was certainly a process, and it’s for the court to decide whether it was due process.</p>
<p>But the case was brought up because he says he was expelled based on her accusation only. We don’t know whether that is true, because we don’t know the totality of the evidence, only what he says. Naturally, his lawsuit contains only the evidence favorable to him. What’s the rest of the evidence?</p>
<p>I’m going to go on record saying that if he was expelled based on her accusation that he had sex with her without her consent, and nothing else, then the expulsion was unjustified. </p>
<p>The burden of proof is on the accuser in the criminal system. That may not always be fair, but it’s fact. This one sounds like the classic he said she said type of case where she was in his bed willingly for some reason and then later decided it was a rape case. This one no-one can appropriately resolve in the legal system which is why the alternate system exists, I guess.</p>
<p>Fang – was it a good idea to have the Catholic Church handle all those child abuse allegations internally? Was it a good idea for Penn State to handle those child abuse allegations internally?</p>
<p>The priests and Sandusky got booted from the premises. Shouldn’t that be enough? </p>
<p>
And sometimes a guy who didn’t do anything wrong is kicked out of Scouting for life, and he can’t get back in even if the accuser drops the case. I’ve seen this happen. When the pendulum swings, people also get hurt. Maybe that has to happen, at least to some extent. But those of us who are concerned about fair procedures can’t just shrug it off.</p>
<p>I think what really needs to happen is for universities to rethink how to deal with this problem, from the ground up. Using the same procedures, but just tinkering with them to make convictions easier is not the answer, in my estimation. Perhaps a person who is accused needs to be removed from campus without prejudice–the way police accused of misdeeds are often given leave with pay–but even that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. We let people accused of pretty serious crimes out on bail if they meet certain conditions.</p>
<p>I am finally getting tired of this thread.</p>
<p>I want something constructive to compensate for the time I spent here. :)</p>
<p>Do lawyers keep their emails forever? Do they ever destroy emails? </p>