All UVa frats on suspension

Parents Forum
3801

I understand what you are trying to convey, but it still defies logic and common sense, and many people are seeing that. And on logic and common sense grounds alone, I believe this particular argument is going to get lost and quietly scuttled by the wayside.

Advocates need to face up to the basic fact that in these days of expected equality, no one is going to fall for this differential type of expected behavior.

It takes two to tango - if a college female is drunk and saying yes to the college male, and the male is drunk and saying yes to the female and if they then have sex, then it is a wash. Both are indifferent to what the other means and what the other is saying. Stupid and regrettable behavior on the part of both people - sure. But, you just cannot then say that only the male is responsible or the sex act, when both were saying yes to each other, while both are in the same state.

That is just illogical to thinking people for the obvious reason - both are in the same condition and both said the same things and both did not have a clue what they are doing. Advocates might like it otherwise, but clearly they are having an uphill battle to the point where they are resorting to trying to rig the system. That should tell everyone something right there about the strength of the argument. If the argument was so cut and dry and logical, then it should be a slam dunk to implement because everyone would see it. Very few, except advocates, see it though.

As I stated before, to hold one party to a different standard means that the other party gets a free pass on stupid decision-taking, which results from the exact same conditions. And in the days of equality, I believe in the equality of smartness (females are as smart as males - been to school with a lot) and the equality of stupidity (females are also as stupid as males - and been to school with a lot of those too.) And no group should get extra protection for being stupid.

3802

CF, I will have to politely just tap out this back and forth on this particular aspect of this discussion. You just keep making up hypotheticals to prove some point or another; but, all which have no relevance to a real case, the many details involved in a real case, or relevance to the laws, which might be applicable that are also unknown. You are stuck going around in an ideology at-all-costs circle. I think we both know where we stand on this issue.

3803

I think it’s also wise to point out that when advocates use the word “rape” for everything that falls under the very vast spectrum of sexual issues between men and women it diminishes the strength and the general public’s understanding of what rape is. It diminishes what victims of rape and those that work with rape victims are trying to communicate. I think this is a huge mistake by “young female” advocates. The older ones ‘get it’ and repeatedly point to excellent op-ed pieces by Emily Joffee, Fire and others…but the message is not getting out.

3804

I agree with half of this, and disagree strongly with the other half. If she is drunk and saying yes, it’s on her. But what you’re missing is that it doesn’t take two to tango. It only takes one, if the one is strong. And that brings us to the Vanderbilt case.

In my opinion, if you enunciate a principle but refuse to explain how it applies, you’re not arguing in good faith. Awcntdb, you have said many times on this thread that if a guy is drunk, and a woman is drunk, then he cannot be guilty of rape. This sounds like an appalling standard to me, and I want to understand if you actually believe it. Perhaps you believe merely that if a woman makes consent-like actions and says consent-like words while drunk, then she has consented-- I would agree with that. But perhaps you believe what you say, and you think that extreme drunkenness is a defense for rape when the woman has done nothing to indicate consent other than being drunk.

Do you let the Vanderbilt guys off? We know that they were very drunk, because their lawyer acknowledges it. We know that they carried an apparently unconscious woman into one of their rooms, because there’s video. Do you absolve them from whatever occurred there because they were drunk, or do you not?

3805

Yes I can. The Yale report says Yale found sufficient evidence to substantiate that male student had sexual intercourse with a female student without her consent. That means they found that he raped her, because “having sexual intercourse with a person without their consent” is rape by definition. The Yale report further says that they suspended him for a year.

So I can say that they found he raped her, and they suspended him for a year. I don’t need any more details: the details they provide license me to say that they found he raped her and got a one year suspension for it.

And I’m outraged, because I don’t think that known rapists should return to campus to finish their degrees.

I agree with al2simon that it’s as if the colleges don’t believe their own conclusions. I have been convinced by this thread that a clear and convincing evidence standard would be better. But as to the rest of al2simon’s ideas (independent adjudicators, access to legal representation, ability to review & challenge evidence, cross-examine witnesses) the second two are already required by OCR, aren’t they? And the first two are not forbidden.

3806

@CardinalFang - Here’s my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong):

OCR allows schools to 1) Ban cross-examination. 2) Restrict the right to presentation of evidence 3) Ban attorney representation 4) Ban either of the parties from being present for part of the hearing (I’m not referencing keeping the accuser and accused in separate rooms). Many schools have an investigator model in which 1-3 are banned. The only thing the OCR requires is that the two sides be treated the same - e.g. if the accused is denied attorney representation then so is the accuser. But you’re right that the OCR and the schools are both to blame for this, and for serious offenses I’d like this changed.

At least in Harvard’s case “the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review [are lodged] in one office, and the fact [is] that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial”. Schools should be required to get independent trained adjudicators. Arbitration is commonly used in corporate America to resolve disputes. I’ve personally gotten the resumes hundreds of retired state and Federal judges who are available to arbitrate, so this isn’t an obstacle at all (the only obstacle I can think of is around scheduling problems).

State schools are probably different since they are public institutions and probably have higher due process protections.

3807

@al2simon, I just thought blaming reality tv for this was absurd. I guess if it works it will be the Jersey Shore defense?

3808

I have no problem with people that are “outraged” because I believe in personal freedoms. But sometimes outrage can become irrational and there are very real people out in the world that are writing very irrational things in the media these days. They have a right to express their opinions. Unfortunately it can become static and noise in meaningful conversation. I fear that this past year there has been too much static and noise and I fear that it will cause people that CAN do something more than rant about perceived injustices from doing meaningful things.

If there is any “pro” at all to the woman who lied her way through the RS article about UVa right on the heels of some highly publicized and questionable adjudication by colleges is that it has stopped some of the irrational and started some very meaningful dialogue. There are still close to 100 more colleges whose procedures and processes the OCR is looking at and at least 30 or more high profile civil cases winding through various courts and out of that should come some consensus about language, about due process, about what is and isn’t appropriate in light of the fact that the vast majority of our society believes criminal behavior should be adjudicated by criminal courts.

Outraged rape advocates are never going to be happy because I truly believe they think everyone should be expelled and marked for life and unfortunately that isn’t going to happen because not everything is criminal nor reaches the level of egregious behavior that requires becoming part of someone’s public record. It will be compounded by the fact that society as a whole is becoming even more conservative about what information gets shared and not shared and the public in general doesn’t want government in their bedroom. So no matter what, the outcome is going to be somewhere in the middle ground and there will still be outraged people on the fringes. There always is and there always will be because the fringe believes strongly that they are always right and everyone else is always wrong but generally what happens is the center gets moved slightly in one directional or the other and the majority become accepting.

The Campus Accountability and Safety Act introduced earlier this year and on it’s way to passage requires every college to create a “memorandum of understanding” with local law enforcement… These are the type of meaningful steps that are somewhat quietly happening.

3809

al2simon, have a look at this: [The OCR’s explanation of the Dear Colleague letter](http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf)

Let’s take the four claims you list: OCR, you say, allows schools to 1) Ban cross-examination. 2) Restrict the right to presentation of evidence 3) Ban attorney representation 4) Ban either of the parties from being present for part of the hearing (I’m not referencing keeping the accuser and accused in separate rooms).

Here’s the OCR guidance, from section C-5:

That seems to refute your (2); it seems that students have the right to present evidence.

This is from F-5:

That seems to refute your (4). I’m assuming that you are OK with jury-room-like deliberations where neither accuser nor accused is present.

But in any case, I don’t see the point of objecting to what OCR allows. If you say that OCR should never have sent the letter, then everything that the OCR letter allows would still be allowed. Rather, we should look at the OCR letter in terms of what it changes: what used to be allowed, but now is prohibited, and what used to be optional, but now is required.

So, it used to be that colleges could use clear and convincing evidence as a standard for adjudicating evidence, but now they must use preponderance of the evidence. Many of us, including myself, think this ought to be reversed.

It used to be that colleges could prohibit students from presenting evidence. But now under OCR they can’t. All to the good.

It used to be that colleges could conduct hearings where the accuser was present but the accused was not. Now under OCR they can’t. Again, a positive change.

It used to be that colleges could allow one side to have a lawyer, but prohibit the other side from having a lawyer. Now under OCR they can’t. Again, all to the good.

It used to be that colleges could disallow lawyers for both sides. And they still can. No change.

3810

@CardinalFang: Thanks for doing the additional research, but I’m not sure I agree with some of your conclusions.

But first, I do think we agree on a big picture point. I was describing what I think a set of good standards for colleges’ hearing procedures would be. I’m not focused on whether the Dear Colleague letter is responsible for the fact that colleges’ don’t seem to use them. So I agree that the Dear Colleague letter isn’t entirely the source of the problems that I believe exist (with a big exception for the standard of evidence requirement). It sounds like you might not agree with me that these due process protections should be required, though I’m not sure that you’ve taken a position. However, it doesn’t sound like you object to these protections.

As to the specific points you raised: Reading all of Section C-5, it states that the OCR would evaluate schools’ policies in the dimension of allowing the presentation of evidence. It didn’t require it. I don’t think I’m being nitpicky. As an example, if you read sections 7.3 and 7.4 of Yale’s procedures http://provost.yale.edu/uwc/procedures, you’ll see that the accuser/accused can suggest witnesses and evidence, but it’s up to the investigator to decide whether to interview them and whether to include the evidence in the report the fact-finder is using to decide the case. The fact-finder may never see the evidence, and the accuser/accused is not able to bring evidence up at the hearing. Other than the right to make a statement, it’s up to the fact-finder to decide how to conduct the hearing. This is not a right to present evidence as in a court of law. (This is what I was referring to as the investigator model, and I believe many schools including Yale use it).

As to the quote you highlighted in Section F-5: I read it differently than you do. In part, it says (1) schools may ban the accuser from portions of the entire hearing (2) if the accused is allowed to be present for the entire hearing then the accuser must be allowed to be as well. So logically it follows that schools may ban the accused from the entire hearing. In predicate form, (1) p (2) if not q then not p. Therefore q. Here p = accuser may be banned, q = accused may be banned.

3811

al2simon, You’re right that I haven’t taken a position on exactly what the due process ought to be in sexual assault proceedings. I agree with what OCR requires, except for the standard of evidence. I’m not sure what additional requirements should be put in place.

I think you missed this part:

I don’t see how we can read that as saying other than, “We’re going to evaluate your procedures, and no matter what else you require, we’d better see the opportunity for both sides to present evidence or your procedures will be found wanting.”

But again, you seem to be saying that the OCR didn’t go far enough. I don’t see you disagreeing with any requirement of OCR except the standard of evidence.

3812

Why can’t you just answer her question? There are plenty of cases like these supposed “hypotheticals” that actually exist, but it doesn’t even matter. You keep up the BS about “we don’t know all the facts” blah blah blah…“we don’t know the laws” blah. blah. blah.

If a male and female college student are doing shots at a party and the girl passes out and the boy picks her up and takes her to his room and has sex with her while she is unconscious, did her rape her or not? Your argument apparently is that he did NOT. The rest of the world (even people like MOTB, who are generally on your side) I would bet disagrees.

3813

I don’t think awctdb believes that there is no such thing as rape, we’re all far more intelligent than that. But remember given the fact that there may be legitimate cases, these guidelines at face value do a very serious disservice to the real victims of true harassment and discrimination. No one here I hope really believes that every female is a victim and every male is a misogynistic potential rapist. I don’t know why it is so difficult to understand that there are women who are using the new guidelines to serve their own purposes. Why would anyone not understand that? There are always going to be people that bend the truth. How convenient to get really mad at someone and get them banished, or be so embarrassed that you never want to see people that saw you in a compromising position or drink too much and do something you’d never do as a sober person. If the colleges and universities apply fair, equitable processes and procedures that do not favor one person’s civil rights over another person’s civil rights these situations should be self evident.

I don’t think there is a single state in the country that doesn’t have a law that says if a person is passed out it is illegal to have sex wtih them. But there isn’t a law that says if a women has a couple drinks then has sex the partner is a rapist. And a college and university cannot ignore evidence in order to ratchet up their “conviction” rate or under some misguided belief that women never lie and men lie all the time. But some universities have done exactly that and those days are rapidly coming to an end. It is, after all, the office of civil rights and they have obligation to protect everyone’s civil rights. You can clearly see from the Yale data that colleges are making rulings more often than they are dismissing complaints as unfounded. And the vast majority of colleges are going to be very, very careful about expelling someone and giving them personal information that will cripple their future on a wink and a nod in the absence of some pretty compelling evidence, Title IX or no Title IX.

3814

No, actually, you can’t. You can’t see any such thing, unless you subscribe to the ludicrous belief that Yale University is a good representative of all colleges, and that Yale students are good representatives of all students.

Moreover, that Yale is finding for the accuser more often than the accused also tells us nothing about whether Yale is generally making correct decisions, because we don’t know how many of these accusations are true, how many are trumped up, and how many are accusers accusing people of doing things that are not prohibited.

3815

You have good points CF. Statistically it matches fairly closely to the December DOJ reports which somewhat aligned with my thoughts about the actual rates of sexual misconduct so I didn’t question it terribly closely. I’m not a fan of anything related to Title IX, but my resistance must be wearing down.

3816

Well, I’m not sure I’m saying that the OCR didn’t go far enough since I’m pretty suspicious about whether they’re trying to go forwards or backwards :wink: But if their next step is to improve the truth-finding ability of these proceedings by allowing professional advocates to gather evidence and present both sides properly then count me in (given the burdens involved, I’m only talking about cases where a harsher punishment than probation could be given). I’ve already written about the areas where I think the OCR is wrong and don’t have anything else to add.

I think we differ in our reading of the Section C-5 quote that you presented because I’m assuming that it was written by a bunch of devilish, tricky lawyers. Paraphrasing, the relevant words are “OCR will review … the following critical element … the opportunity for both sides to present witnesses and evidence”. I read this as saying that there had better be an opportunity for both sides to present witnesses/evidence and that it will be reviewed, NOT that both sides must have the opportunity to present all the relevant,admissible witnesses/evidence that they believe are necessary to make their case. If they had wanted to make that a requirement then they would have said it explicitly.

For example, in the two policies that I’ve scanned (Harvard and Yale), both sides identify a set of witnesses that an investigator may interview, who will then include the interview excerpts that they want as evidence. That isn’t presenting a witness. To properly present a witness, an attorney advocating on behalf of their client should be allowed to do a preliminary interview of a witness, then should be allowed to ask whatever relevant,admissible questions they think they need to in front of the hearing board (technically, non-sworn statements aren’t evidence, but we’re stuck with that).

Also, I had some typos in the last paragraph of my previous post that ruined its meaning, so I’m correcting it below …

As to the quote you highlighted in Section F-5: I read it differently than you do. In part, it says (1) schools may ban the accuser from portions of the entire hearing (2) if the accused is allowed to be present for the entire hearing then the accuser must be allowed to be as well. So logically it follows that schools may ban the accuser and the accused from portions of the entire hearing. In predicate form, (1) p (2) if not q then not p. Therefore (if p then q), so q, and clearly (p and q). Here p = accuser may be banned from part of the hearing, q = accused may be banned from part of the hearing.

3817

I don’t see that the guidelines, themselves, do the disservice. It’s those who botch them. And it’s false or spurious accusations that do the damage to legit victims, as well as to the accused. Not some policy that says the colleges have to sit up and listen, take actions.

Separate the policy from those individuals who abuse it, whether out of maliciousness, stupidity or to cover their own butts. Don’t assume the college is trying to "ratchet up"conviction rates when we’re seeing- and have been seeing- punishments range from a slap on the wrist.

Yale had its own media messes with regard to sexual harassment and more- and darned well should be cleaning up its act.

This discussion keeps leaning back to ‘can’t see the forest for the trees.’

3818

I don’t want to put words or thoughts in anyone’s mouth, but my interpretation of awcntdb’s posts is NOT that the girl can be passed out, the boy can be drunk, and it wasn’t rape. I don’t think anyone would dispute that sex with a passed out person is rape.

My interpretation was that he was speaking of those grayer cases, where girl has 5 shots, boy has 7 shots (trying to make them “equally drunk here”), they both enthusiastically say yeah, let’s get it on, but then the next day/week/month the girl decides to file a complaint for whatever reason. If the boy in this situation were to file a complaint, that he was drunker than he thought, that the girl should have known his decision making capacity was diminished, that she took advantage of his drunken state to have sex, would anyone buy it?

Why is it just the man who has to make the decision on who is drunk, and how drunk are they, and is it too drunk to proceed? Let’s say it is a case where the woman has a mad crush on a guy, but he doesn’t really reciprocate—but one night they both get drunk together and the woman convinces him to have sex. Under these policies (if a woman is drunk she can’t consent), she could not be found to have raped him because it is not her responsibility to judge his drunkenness, but theoretically she could still file a complaint against him?

That is MY interpretation but if I am wrong please correct me.

3819

That’s interesting- because if she got pregnant and he tried to claim he was too drunk to consent, I don’t think that gets him off the hook.

3820

al2simon, OK, I don’t read C-5 the way you do, but I’m willing to accept that some colleges might, and it ought to be corrected/clarified. And on further reading I’ll accept your reading of F-5. In any case, I’d sign on to “allowing professional advocates to gather evidence and present both sides properly” in the case where suspension or expulsion was on the table, or maybe just in the case where expulsion was on the table.

It’s odd-- not necessarily bad, but odd nevertheless-- that suspending or expelling a student for sexual misconduct is going to require a full hearing with professional advocates, but expelling for other reasons can be done with a dean’s signature. I was expelled from college. As far as I remember, I got a letter saying I was out, and that was it. I didn’t appeal, because the expulsion was for lack of academic progress and was perfectly justified, but there was no hearing or anything of that kind.