All UVa frats on suspension

Parents Forum
4181

Honestly, who cares if the incidence of rape is the same on campus and off campus? What does that prove? it doesn’t prove that the risks are the same, that the perpetrators are the same, or that the best approaches to reduce the incidence of the crime are the same. I guess bringing it up is intended to strengthen the argument that colleges should defer all rape allegations to the police.

Furthermore, what does the fact that a college botched a particular case to the detriment of either the accused or the accuser prove? Colleges botch lots of things.

4182

Regarding statistics now sure there are current, accurate statistics. It would be significant to say that in the criminal system in general state to state - most states have “expanded” their definitions of sexual crimes over the last decade so if the numbers are decreasing then that is significant because it means per capita the rate is actually decreasinh (since the definition has expanded and theoretically would encompass more people). I don’t know that the statistics are really central to the discussion of what colleges are and aren’t responsible for. Title IX says they are (at this point) so the only issue is how are the colleges doing this and is it fair and equitable and does it meet legal requires with regard to people’s civil rights. The Title IX “investigations” that were all the news media hype are primarily in place in my opinion to determine if colleges have process in place and are they following their process and does their process “line up” with Title IX requirements. Those investigations aren’t so much about did the correct decisions occur except in context of did they follow the right processes and procedures in coming to a determination. I think it’s easy to get hung up on the micro level on this forum because as a group we spend our days on a micro-level - SAT scores, college ranking 3.6 vs. 3.8. Look at UVa - nothing micro is happening there it’s all pretty much big picture, that could change, but I doubt it.

I would also suggest that parents should be familiar with practices at the particular colleges THEIR children attend because there is no one universal one size fits all for how colleges and universities handle investigations and adjudications and if the criminal system is involved every state is different.

4183

The National Crime Victims Survey of the Department of Justice, to which you are apparently referring, has not changed its methodology, or its definition of rape, in the last few years. It’s a little frustrating when people start making uninformed speculation because they don’t bother to look up the information they are trying to cite.

Then why did you bring them up?

4184

See, marie, mandatory reporting is looking at just one piece. Hunt explains quite well and gets a “Yes, but.” If you had looked, you would find he online discussions of who is a mandatory reporter, how it works.

Likewise, whether risks are lower for non-partiers. It’s an interesting question- and T9 includes words about prevention education. But to me, it’s another"Yes, but." Yes, but if they weren’t partying…

I don’t think this thread looked for those stats, btw. Assault isn’t limited to parties or coming from them. But the media is intrigued by the lurid, gets attention from the way things are written.

ps. the FBI expanded their definition. (2012?) Fed trumps state, in most cases, in general, except where state law is stricter.

4185

I fully acknowledge and embrace my tendency to yes but. Questioning is important.

Hunt also said he would like to see police involved in criminal complaints. That is not happening now when young women are being provided with something that looks like an easier path to resolution and not surprisingly it’s the path they most frequently choose. Anything non-criminal is not my concern, at all so that one piece as you call it is the critical piece for me personally. And, the rest of it is not felony rape, .

4186

Just understand how this conversation can lead to impressions when it seems someone is rebutting in a way that seems to diminish a post one or more slots ahead. That can be what makes it a “Yes, But,” as opposed to a question or thought.

Btw, I linked that Brown stuff because it’s interesting how they sanctioned two frats for unsafe environment (however worded) despite not blaming individuals in the frat and seem to be clamping down on under-21 drinking, for the moment, at least. Apologies if I’m repeating myself.

I see you added.
Title IX says the college must clearly inform the accuser of her right to use local police. No one can say they “are being provided with something that looks like an easier path to resolution.” Not as a universal statement. It may happen, in some cases. But there are lots of reasons an accuser may choose to keep this on campus.

“and not surprisingly it’s the path they most frequently choose.” Gads, I wish someone could link this. Hunt brought it up for Yale and I looked at their reports (formal vs informal categories of complaint, for sex assault) and don’t get enough detail to make more of it. Some went one way, some went another. Since we don’t always know the full case, it’s hard to jump into their minds. Or those of the college T9 folks.

4187

Here’s a thought experiment–let me emphasize that I’m not necessarily supporting this idea–what if a college said:

“When an individual brings a complaint of sexual misconduct, he or she will (after receiving full information and counseling) be given a choice of formal or informal proceedings. Informal proceedings do not result in significant punishments for the accused, but rather can result in mediation, counseling, and instructions to keep away from the accuser. Formal proceedings can result in serious punishments, including expulsion or suspension. However, no person will be expelled for a first offense if the accuser chooses not to also refer the matter to the police for potential prosecution. Expulsion will be an available punishment for multiple offenses under formal proceedings even without police referral.”

You could consider, further, whether expulsion would be available for a first offense if the police declined to prosecute after referral.

Let me add that it’s my suspicion that this pretty much describes what already happens.

4188

Hunt, just saying: You wrote sexual “misconduct,” which is broad. I just can’t go back to find my quote or the primary info, but you know T9 limits how mediation can be sought, when it’s “sexual violence?” Which makes me wonder what sorts of actual details were behind what Yale classified as “informal.”

But I do agree, at core, with the idea of a lower class of violation.

4189

If a student alleges rape or attempted rape, Title IX says the complaint cannot be handled with mediation. No complaints of sexual violence can be handled with mediation. Complaints of sexual harassment can be handled with mediation.

Title IX does not prescribe exact punishments for instances of sexual violence.

4190

Does Title IX say that the accuser cannot choose to pursue informal proceedings if she prefers mediation? Or does it simply say that mediation can’t be the default option?

To answer my own question, it seems a bit vague:

I wouldn’t necessarily read this as meaning that the complainant may not opt for informal proceedings in cases of sexual assault.

But in my thought experiment, the idea that I was really putting out there was the idea that a student wouldn’t be expelled for a first offense under the formal procedure, even if the complaint was for sexual assault, if the complainant chose not to refer it to the police. The accused could still be suspended, or expelled for multiple violations, but not expelled for a first offense pursued entirely within the college setting (using preponderance of the evidence, etc.)

4191

Hunt I think that is pretty much what happens Hunt, but every once in a while a university has a knee jerk reaction of simply takes their eye off the ball and they just screw up. I also think what happens with a victim right away when they report and how that goes is far, far more important. I really think some of these girls are ill-advised and I think some of them just don’t understand how it all works.

This is straight from the Title IX guidance. Alot will depend on that “front-end”…does the accuser choose criminal and a formal complaint, does the accuser choose a more voluntary informal path, does the acuser chose formal but no criminal… and much will depend on how the accuser “frames” the claim, which is why I wrinkle my forhead when people use the word “rape” or even “sexual assault” for everything. There’s many shades of potential issues with what happens that a claimant might want worked out.

[quote[The grievance procedures may include voluntary informal methods (e.g., mediation) for
resolving some types of sexual harassment complaints. However, the complainant must be
notified of the right to end the informal process at any time and begin the formal stage of the
complaint process. In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, mediation is not appropriate.
[/quote]

4192

The government pages I’m finding say that mediation is not “appropriate” for accusations of sexual violence.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/know-rights-201404-title-ix.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title-ix-rights-201104.pdf

I can’t find anything that specifically forbids mediation in the cases of alleged sexual violence, but I doubt a college is going to institute a procedure that the government has announced is not “appropriate.” That’s an invitation for more scrutiny.

4193

This is a point that was discussed much earlier in this thread–what do the college authorities tell a complainant when she comes in with a complaint? What do we want them to tell her? Do we want them to tell her the truth? For example, do we want them to tell her whether her complaint is likely to result in meaningful action by the police? How would we feel if they said (for example): “Based on what you’ve told us, it is very unlikely that the police would pursue it, or a prosecutor be willing to prosecute it, because there won’t be enough evidence for a conviction. However, this is the third similar complaint we’ve had about this individual, and we think that if you pursue a formal complaint, it’s likely that he’ll be severely sanctioned, perhaps even expelled. However, you also have the option of an informal proceeding, in which severe punishments aren’t available, but rather mediation, etc. You can also choose to do nothing, but we’ll still provide you with support and counseling.”

This is the sort of thing that actually happens, by the way. Is it good or bad?

4194

Hunt, sounds good.

Does a school really tell an accuser this is the third time the accused had been accused?

4195

Hunt – I like your thought experiment proposal.

  1. It lets the college mostly focus on handling the situation so that the victim should be able to continue her studies at the school. That is supposed to be the main reason why title ix has been applied to this context. Schools also would be continuing their efforts at awareness, intervention and prevention, which most experts think is the place where the schools can really have the biggest impact. That also should be very consistent with the title ix mandate (and here I mean the title ix law's mandate rather than what the over-reaching DOE OCR says what the title ix law means and requires).
  2. It does not undercut law enforcement but rather coordinates with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Victim advocacy groups like RAINN and Yale law prof Rubenfeld have made this point convincingly imho. College proceedings should not be a parallel criminal justice system. College proceedings should be de-emphasized and should be coordinated with the real criminal justice system.
  3. It lessens the due process burden on all involved in many cases. In cases where the most severe offense and punishments are in issue, then everybody fully lawyers up (with the attendant costs) for the college proceeding and also in the real court proceedings. If the highest offense/punishments are not at issue, then all parties should be comfortable with less formality and less due process baggage.

I think Hunt’s proposal is pretty reasonable and consistent with title ix (the law). But not so consistent with the regulations put out by the current staff of the DOE OCR. Under the 2011 “guidance”, for example, mediation can be used for sexual harassment but not sexual assault/violence. That distinction isn’t in the title ix law.

4196

Correct, there is nothing to disagree with in your post.

If your post were the starting point, then I think the issue would have been seen and addressed somewhat differently. However, what you present here as questions and as your positions are not what were presented initially and thus the loss of resulting of credibility and ensuing skepticism.

I suspect people agree with your post now that they have been exposed, so they welcome the re-framing, but that was not the original frame.

And if they were not exposed, I doubt your post would ever have been written. Therefore, I see this as a perfect “clean up the mess after” post, which is useful, but others are not that quick to forget how inaccuracies were presented as fact.

As for the first quote above, the initial frame was that the epidemic of rape on campus was so bad that college was more dangerous than off campus to be a young female, which just turns out to be patently false. It is not wise to try to engender support for your cause with an over the top claim that is not true. A true, verfiable claim, sure, but a false one is a notch against credibility when it is found out.

As for the second quote, the initial frame was 1 in 5 females were raped on college campus. When they got called on that it, then it became 1 in 5 sexually assaulted, with un-invited holding of hands and being rubbed up against at a party being considered sexual assault. In short, everything got lumped together and treated the same. That was the second strike against credibility because any objective adult knows that these are not the all same, as some are downright criminal, and a review of the data confirmed that the I in 5 initial claim held no water. The feeling started to build that information was being used to try and dupe people to act, instead of being on the up and up.

As for the third quote, that was never the focus of the initial frame. The initial siren call was not “We have to reduce the number of men committing rape” it expressly was “We have to increase the number of males punished for and convicted of rape,” then it got amended to “We have to increase the number of males punished for sexual assault.” This is what irks many people - this language change when called on something. That is another strike against credibility. It is darn near impossible to trust people who always change their story.

And something that was not mentioned in your post that was a part of the initial frame was the move to chastise people, who questioned Jackie’s story at UVA, all under the guise that rape victims never lie. Posters immediately called others rape apologists and all sorts of other names. And then when the story turned out to be false, the same posters changed their position to “Oh, never mind, the problem is still real though.” I call that the fake story, but real problem defense. A serious hit on credibility was taken there, as well.

Your post is the type that would have gotten people to listen more intently. Not sure though that the credibility can be recovered. After being calling people rape apologists over a fake story and false stats, it is tough to get people back to the table.

And the focus also brought out the serious lawyers who are going to make colleges address the due process issues surrounding the accuser and the accused. And who knows what the result of that would be - one possibility is that if females realize they cannot just railroad a male in the tribunal, the charges may not be as quick to arrive at the tribunals doorstep.

Great post though - but that is nothing new for you, even when I disagree. However, I do agree here with the post.

4197

Cites for this, please? In particular, I’d love to see cites from government sources. You can find advocacy groups saying anything.

4198

Come on, Cardinal Fang. If there’s anything that ought to be non-controversial, it ought to be that OCR was trying to increase the punishment rate–otherwise, there would be no justification for requiring the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

4199

OK, fair enough, I’ll buy that.

No, I take that back. OCR says that they changed to the preponderance of evidence standard because that is what is required in all civil matters for civil rights cases.

4200

Cardinal Fang, I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I am willing to sell…sorry, couldn’t resist. That was the explanation they gave, but it doesn’t really make sense, because it applies to civil rights cases in federal courts. Really, they wouldn’t have bothered with this whole process if they didn’t think colleges weren’t punishing enough people.