<p>
</p>
<p>But this same person can be subject to a lot of civil penalties, even though he was acquitted in criminal court. He can be subject to being fired, being subject to a million dollar lawsuit. The same evidence that gets him to lose his job and pay a million dollars should get his college to throw him out.</p>
<p>The OCR strongly discourages cross-examination by the representative of the other party. But the OCR does not discourage having each party submit questions, to be asked by the neutral arbitrator. This to me strikes a good balance between fact-finding on the one hand, and having the rapist’s slick high-priced lawyer badger the rape victim with questions about why she was wearing a skirt, on the other hand. I despise the slimy tactic of having the lawyer intimidate the accuser by asking out-of-bounds questions that the accuser is then told she doesn’t have to answer. Those questions shouldn’t be asked at all.</p>
<p>It only goes to civil court of that is where the accuser or the accused takes it. Hunt thinks as I do…liberty and civil rights matter not what the setting is in this country. The problem with the question submittable is in several of the current court cases, the judge/moderator/etc. has NOT asked the submitted questions - this has happened for the accused as well as the accuser. Title IV is not being managed well. It is not being applied very well. It is procedurally flawed. it is not working well apparently for accusers or the accused. We have a system for all this that is hundreds of years old and well tested. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s well tested, but in the case of rape, it’s gotten Fs on the test every year.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, you keep talking about civil rights, as if the accused attacker needs to have his civil rights protected, but the victim doesn’t need to have her civil rights protected. She has a civil right to a campus free of her attacker. Indeed, the law is clear that she has a civil right to a campus free of the person who has been determined, by CIVIL standards of evidence, to be her attacker. What is your proposal to afford that right to a rape victim? If you don’t have one, then your claim of concern for civil rights is just talk.</p>
<p>The accuser has 4 avenues to choose from. Criminal courts. College adjudication. Do nothing-get counseling. Sue in civil court. they can choose one or all. The accused has no avenues other than the one that the accuser chooses or suing after the fact in civil court. I’m not seeing where an accuser is lacking in paths to take. Darn tootin’ I believe in civil liberties. If you are an accuser get your story lined up, pick your path(s) in a timely manner and go for it. If you are an accused then you have rights that supercede and at a minimum should protect you against false accusation or poorly managed adjudication. If everyone does everything right the systems should work. The rest of the world outside the college bubble the accuser has 2 choices if they are poor - criminal courts and do nothing. The accuser - if poor gets a public defender. Kids have it pretty good in college. Accusers have more choices and avenues in college than they probably will ever have in the real world. </p>
<p>Well, that doesn’t change that the college’s choice is to follow Title IX or suffer consequences. If it were you, your daughter or another close female, attending college for her educ opportunities, would you be as comfortable saying, just move across campus or just wait for the court decisions?
Or if this were the church situation with some priests, would you be cozy to sit with your son in a different section or go to a different service, or drop out? Or want the institution to take messures while you wait out the court?</p>
<p>I’m sorry, momofthreeboys, I thought you were saying that college adjudication should be taken off the table. If it was taken off the table, then what would you propose to safeguard the college rape victim’s civil right to have a college free of her attacker? Criminal court doesn’t work, because the standard of proof is too high to respect her civil rights. Get counseling does nothing to protect that right. Suing after the fact does nothing, because a civil monetary judgement does not remove her attacker.</p>
<p>In the rest of the world, the accuser has the right to have her employer get rid of her attacker. She probably other rights as well, such as a right as a tenant, things like that.</p>
<p>It is horrible that a woman who was beating up her roommate was not immediately thrown out of all campus housing, in addition to other penalties. That would have been a clear cut violation of housing rules, in addition to many other things in a typical college code of conduct. </p>
<p>"If it was taken off the table, then what would you propose to safeguard the college rape victim’s civil right to have a college free of her attacker? "</p>
<p>As sympathetic as I am, is this truly a civil right from a legal point of view? Or just something we’d all (understandably) like? </p>
<p>Lookingforward I think it would depend on the circumstances. Sometimes “couples” just don’t click. And it can be ugly and it can escalate to physical assault. I’ve personally known a woman who assaulted and a man who assaulted. Close friends. Once the couples were separated they each went on to form strong, good attachments with other people. If you decide to have sex with someone you don’t know well you take a risk. The guy takes a risk. The girl takes a risk. And if they are two people who are never going to work right together there’s a problem. I think there are many options available to colleges and universities - depending on the situation. Easier on the big campuses than the small. That is where I think a college has to weigh if the assaulter is a danger to others or not. Tough to call. People should report ASAP and colleges should track complaints about individuals in case there is problem that is bigger than two people. You’re not going to hear in the media about the cases where kids were separated, or went through counseling or mediation. You’re only going to hear in the media the explosive stories - the ones that are intriguing for one side or the other.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is about colleges putting notches in their belt for the most number of expulsions as suggested pages and pages ago - that is repugnant to me for all kinds of reasons. The colleges that got it wrong will get it right eventually and probably pay dearly for it and the rest of them we never hear from have probably got it right. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The full name of Title IX is Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s why the Dear Colleague letter came from OCR, the Office of Civil Rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt, remember this? <a href=“http://www.courant.com/community/new-fairfield/hc-waterbury-boy-scouts-lawsuit-verdict-1216-20141215-story.html”>http://www.courant.com/community/new-fairfield/hc-waterbury-boy-scouts-lawsuit-verdict-1216-20141215-story.html</a></p>
<p>This involves the Boy Scouts being held liable to someone who was molested by an adult volunteer. There is no evidence that the adult volunteer was ever criminally convicted.
</p>
<p>So, note that there was no criminal conviction, indeed, there was probably no arrest. The leader himself wasn’t sued. But the jury still found the Boy Scouts had a duty to protect scouts. </p>
<p>Now, if the Boy Scouts can be held liable in that situation, do you really think a college that has knowledge that someone has probably raped multiple young women should just sit on its hands and do nothing, saying we couldn’t punish him–that’s up to the courts? </p>
<p>What if the accused was a faculty member? An employee who had access to labs in which young women often worked alone late at night? A physical therapist who worked with the athletic teams, including women’s teams? If he was arrested, but acquitted after trial, would you say the college had no responsibility to its students to protect them? If he’d never been arrested at all, shoould the college be able to say nothing about the fact that several students who do not appear to know one another have made similar allegations against the employee and continue to allow the employee to work without any safeguards? </p>
<p>The remedy for criminal cases is prison, fines, restitution. A civil suit if brought by an individual or group generally against an organization (in civil rights cases) and the remedy is relief for the individual suing and rectification of the incorrect policies or procedures. The later is what some of the accused are doing in court. Some of the accusers have also filed complaints with the office of Civil Rights, this is different than a civil lawsuit. There may actually be some civil lawsuits by accusers, but off the top of my head I’m not aware of those, if any. </p>
<p>The same rules apply to faculty and employees of the college (regarding Title ix).</p>
<p>Title IX has remedies available to victims, but really it is not a substitute for criminal prosecution nor should it be viewed as “equal to” criminal prosecution. </p>
For awhile, if I was gone for a couple of hours, this thread would have 200 new posts. What happened??
Maybe everything that could be said has been said. Not necessarily a bad thing.
UVa was on winter break. When classes resume, there may be more news. The suspension of the frats was to be lifted on Jan. 9.
There really has not been much new to discuss. I don’t believe any lawsuits have been filed, the fraternity ban has not ben lifted , neither Sabrina Erdeley nor Jackie seem to be talking, etc.
Since she is a performance artist, probably positively. She is now a celebrity.
I don’t think she did it for that reason, though.