The Vandy incident was immediately reported to police. Players kicked off football team very quickly and suspended from school. The players were indicted and arrested within weeks in August 2013.
At some point after the criminal charges were filed, Vandy expelled the guys.
I’m fine if the rule is that you can get expelled by the school after the cops and DA have investigated, charged you with rape, cuffed you, taken your prints and put you in jail. That is very rarely the situation.
Many have also suggested the rule that you can’t have expulsion on the table in the absence of a police report.
The problem situations are where expulsion comes without any of those things – cops, DA’s, real investigations, due process, etc.
I think this is really sad but I know one of my kids said they would be reluctant to ‘touch’ a passed out woman…but might call security. One of mine was with a friend who did carry a drunk girl back to her friends. And I can’t remember the poster, but another poster said his son felt the same way (wouldn’t want to touch her) but would call security and wait, but not nearby, until security came. I sound like a broken record but “our” kids are drinking waaay too much. Frankly if I had a daughter I’d rather she get popped for an MIP and be safe in a hospital or somewhere than lying in the hallway with no one willing to touch her or worse like the Vanderbilt episode. If I think colleges need to do anything it’s raise awareness and do everything in their power to make kids feel safe reporting, calling security, seeing that these young drunk women (and men…plenty of them are passing out as freshman also) are safe. Maybe amnesty from the first MIP…i don’t know, but it “ain’t” solely about sexual conduct, it’s all about drinking. Sorry I sound like a broken record.
Well the defense was also alcohol. His attorney argued that he was so drunk that he was not his “normal self” and did things he would not normally do. So therefore he should not be held accountable. I am not sure what this attorney was thinking - apply that line of thought to vehicular homicide. He should have known that argument could never fly.
The “campus culture defense” was even more bizarre. Basically he argued that college students are not quite still children but not quite adults either. They are easily influenced by their environments and imitate the actions of others. Therefore Vanderbilt was to blame for allowing the culture of drinking/partying to exist. Looking to avoid responsibility just irritates people. Why would his attorney think this was a winning argument?
He would have been far better off doing a mea culpa and begging for leniency. Or having his lawyer explore a plea deal. With a video like that there is no way he was going to be shown any mercy from a jury. Now lets see what the judge does with sentencing. Thats what really counts.
Well, I think the reason Vanderbilt acted so quickly was the nature of the evidence. Nowhere near a ‘he said she said’ situation. The young woman was so impaired that she didn’t think anything had happened despite feeling so unwell the next day.
No we wouldn’t not at least until the third one at which point the little darling’s college tuition would be paying for rehab and counseling and coffee donations at AA…college would be a moot issue.
Of course these kids are 'blaming" alcohol, but how sad is that because I actually believe that was probably the only thing they were telling the truth about.
The preponderance of evidence standard doesn’t bother me as much as the pervasive lack of fairness, which may be related to due process or may be just a bias in favor of of the alleged victim and a collective rush to judgment. Our criminal justice system isn’t perfect, but it strives to be fair, sometimes twists itself in knots to be fair. The OCR mandates not only allow but encourage unfairness. This unfairness affects preponderance of evidence: If witnesses are omitted, if cross-examination is restricted, if lawyers are not allowed to speak, if the complainant’s appeal can be heard (therefore trying the same case twice), if victims’ rights advocates are not only on the committees but chair them, then the evidence itself may be slanted.
I accept that victims of sexual assault may need time before they are ready to make a formal accusation, but what I don’t understand is how the police are expected to investigate the crime without a serious accuser making a serious accusation. I also don’t see how asking the victim if she is ready to follow through on the accusation in anyway discourages her from pursuing the case. I would think it would be just the opposite. The police have the rape kit, they have the report, now they need a an accusation in order to move the process forward. I believe that the police, in general, do wish to see criminals tried and convicted, but they can’t do their jobs if women aren’t willing to be involved in the investigation and trial. I don’t see how the police can be blamed for reluctance to prosecute, when the victims themselves refuse to move forward.
I think the Vanderbilt case shows that the police and the courts can do the right thing, but they need the victim’s active involvement.
northwesty - from your comments it seems like you are an attorney. I’ve been trying to stay away from the whole corporate analogy conversation (even though I am definitely not an attorney many of the assertions seemed quite different from my understanding of HR best practice, so there didn’t seem to be much point). But you seem to be very convinced that colleges shouldn’t be having these hearings, at least when expulsions are on the table.
How would you advise a company that has an employee who is accused of sexual assault - for example there is a credible allegation of sexual assault of another employee? I think most companies would probably fire the guy after the police charged them unless they thought the accusation was dubious. But what if there was no police investigation or the assault was too minor for an arrest?
What do you think distinguishes the case of (private) college students & expulsion from employees & firings? No unions or tenure. Is it just the fact that employment is mostly at-will?
I hope you don’t think these questions are argumentative. Personally, I think the parallel is meaningful, at least in broad strokes.
Speaking as a man, I can understand this reaction. I would be afraid of getting accused of assaulting her. I would call security or find a woman to witness my interaction with the passed out woman. Of course, if there was an imminent threat to the health or safety of the passed out woman then I’d just do what needed to be done.
Same reason that when I go into a conference room at work alone with a woman it’s always one with big windows so we’re visible to the rest of the office. Wouldn’t ever chaperone a school trip without a few moms (that I knew) around either.
One simple reason comparing any of this to a workplace is that there are not generally people passed out all over the typical workplace. And, there are no beds.
HarvestMoon1 - You’re an attorney as well, right? Never made any sense to you as in it was too much of a stretch to apply the principles to what would typically be very different situations, or never made any sense to you as in the policies assumed as true seemed very different from those of most companies? To me, it was mostly the 2nd option.
Al2simon: Not to hijack this thread but I am not sure what you mean here:
Same reason that when I go into a conference room at work alone with a woman it’s always one with big windows so we’re visible to the rest of the office. Wouldn’t ever chaperone a school trip without a few moms (that I knew) around either.
Do you mean you would not have a meeting with a woman unless other people could see you? Meaning co-workers or clients (or both)? Are you concerned the woman will accuse you of something or that the office will think something? How do handle this on a regular basis? I find this curious and I must say a bit concerning. Would make it very tough for me, as one of the only women in an office that has no conference rooms with interior windows. I have never once had concerns about going into a meeting with a co-worker, client, agency personnel at times in rooms with doors closed and no windows.
and coffee donations at AA…college would be a moot issue.