Well, is that really true? Are there characteristics that fraternities typically, or often, have that do make them different, and make them particularly fertile breeding grounds for bad behavior? I tend to think that there are–these include traditions of secrecy, exclusiveness, single-sex membership, lack of adult supervision, key roles in the social scheme including the prime source for alcohol for underage parties, and more. Other groups can have some of these same characteristics, but many groups don’t have any of them.
So we might, in fact, want to ban specific social groups if they prove that they are special havens for criminals who take advantage of the weak-minded and weak.
I’m prepared to believe that not all fraternities exhibit these characteristics, and I’m certainly prepared to believe that other groups exhibit them (indeed, it appears that some marching bands exhibit them, as an example). But why not lower the hammer on any particular organization that exhibits them particularly badly? My feeling about this is like the serial predator–he should be expelled, and the organization that is a serial violator should be kicked off campus.
Personally, I don’t give a flip about frats however this is a thread about a frat that was wrongly accused and it is one of the biggest campus rape stories ever so I don’t think that this idea is very well timed.
Well, one thing they do is provide some of the needed housing. Isn’t that one of the comments about MIT frats? Not that banning residential fraternities immediately helped Hamilton.
I wonder how many Brown off-campus UG apts are in areas that would tolerate moving wild parties off campus. The area around the school is generally pretty high SES, with student units laced in among non-students.
The Jackie story got me in trouble so I have to be more careful this time.
From the Duke frat link…
[quote]
The woman told police she had a mixed drink at the party and later drank what she thought to be hot chocolate, the affidavit states.
She also said she refused a fraternity member when he allegedly led her to his upstairs room prior to her second drink. The last thing the woman said she remembers was dancing with friends.
When she awoke the next afternoon, the leggings she had been wearing were on the floor next to the bed and they appeared to be torn, she said, and her cellphone was broken.
She did receive two messages at 1:30 a.m. on Jan. 9 from an unknown phone number, according to the search warrant. The first read, “Yo,” and the second: “Ha ha, you went back with a kid I know … you’re screwed!!”
That’s a good question. Again, I’m not sure how I’d come out, but I’ll make the argument for the proposal I put forth above. I think I’d say that a school should only expel a student for a first sexual offense if (I) he is convicted of a crime or (2) the procedures for expelling a person are substantially more protective than those that appear to be mandated by OCR. I am not comfortable (for example) with expelling a person for a first offense when the standard of evidence is the preponderance of the evidence. This is even more the case if the procedure lacks other protections, such as a meaningful way to pose questions to the accuser.
Perhaps I would support a system in which such a student could be suspended based on the preponderance of the evidence, but only expelled if the evidence met a more exacting standard, such as clear and convincing. As I’ve said before, I don’t oppose expulsion for students with multiple violations, even where there is no criminal conviction.
I agree with this. No expulsions unless there is clear, convincing evidence and that the process leading to expulsion was was fair and equitable and protected both parties rights or the expelled student was found guilty of a felony and then expelled. It just makes sense. Anything less has a high probability of being overturned if brought to civil court and a monetary judgement for the defendant.
The way that I’d put this is that the more similar something is to a criminal prosecution in terms of the offense involved and the potential consequences to the accused, the more I want the procedure used to resemble criminal proceedings designed to preserve the rights of the accused. I think reasonable minds can disagree on how similar to criminal punishment an expulsion is–personally, I think it’s close enough to require some significant protections.
By the way, I have no problem with colleges expelling people. Heck, I have no problem with them expelling people for playing loud music–although I wouldn’t support expelling them for a first offense.
I suspect that schools are, in practice, not expelling for first offenses when the evidence is not strong, even if they are finding for the complainant. This is bad, IMO, and an argument for a stronger standard of proof. The punishment ought to be based on the severity of the offense, not on the quality of the evidence, once the person is determined to have committed the offense.
Preponderance of evidence is over 50 percent for one side or the other, correct?
Clear and convincing is what? 90 to 100 percent?
There must be something in between that can be used in sexual assault cases.
Most civil cases use a preponderance of evidence standard so if a school uses a peeponderance of evidence standard why would the decision of a school that uses the preponderance of evidence standard be thrown out in civil court?
This is what bothers me…
Why can students be thrown out for lesser issues but not sexual assault? That doesn’t sit well with me.
Why should schools be held to higher standards than businesses?
Maybe we need to figure out how many accuseds are being expelled for rape/sex assault and which are based on a first complaint. And then find out something more abut the nature of the complaint- and the ‘evidence.’
It’s difficult to put exact probabilities on “clear and convincing.” And most people don’t think in terms of probabilities anyway. (My family and I do, but we’re nerds who love numbers.) However, a rough guide would be 75% probability, I’ve read.
But even for numbers geeks like me, “clear and convincing” is a better description than a number like 75% or 90%. It’s more about a conviction of guilt than a willingness to give odds of 3:1 or 9:1.
“The way that I’d put this is that the more similar something is to a criminal prosecution in terms of the offense involved and the potential consequences to the accused, the more I want the procedure used to resemble criminal proceedings designed to preserve the rights of the accused.”
+1 Hunt.
While a lot of the postings have focused on the proof standard, imho there are many other procedural aspects that are more important and which have more to do with fundamental fairness – counsel provided to all, keeping a record, right to cross-examination, an independent and experienced judge, appeal rights, discovery. If you have all those things, your proceeding could be quite fair regardless of which proof standard applies. Because fairness is the sum of all of those things together.
If you don’t have all those other procedural features, you can still have a kangaroo court even with a higher proof standard.
This examines due process required of public schools and what it means.
You need to read the footnotes re: private schools. See the comments that many privates do use due process in complying with Title IX.
northwesty: Agree with the basic point you make above, though all the due process of a criminal trial probably isn’t needed.
An important fact to keep in mind even for criminal cases (details in post 2676):
I think of it this way - the classic Blackstone formulation for criminal convictions is that we’re willing to let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man. What should the ratio be for expelling someone from college? I’d say 3 or 4 guilty men free = 1 innocent expelled. For putting someone on probation - 1 to 1 is fine with me. I’m not really passionate about what the ratio for double-secret probation is.
People hate thinking of it this way, but as I’ve said before even unpleasant facts are facts.
Frankly, to me if we’re not talking about suspension and expulsion then I think a lot of the debate is just sound and fury. That’s why I keep circling back to this.
