<p>“Dstark and Pizzagirl. I prefer to talk about issues without getting personal. It’s easier for the conversation to stay civil that way.”</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying here, but there is no way around the fact that rape is a very personal crime with a lot of emotions and personal experiences attached to it. Those emotions and experiences impact our views whether we talk about them or not. I think it is helpful to learn whether views are based on experiences or lack of experiences.</p>
<p>I have noticed that those who believe that there is not an epidemic of rape, but simply an epidemic of false rape seem to have almost no first hand experience with rape. The real basis underlying that view is that it hasn’t happened to them or someone close to them. </p>
<p>Similarly, there clearly are cases where alleged victims lie (as they do about all crimes) and it can be helpful to hear about experiences related to that too in trying to find appropriate solutions to this issue.</p>
<p>I think we can stay civil, without everyone trying to pretend that rape is not a personal issue.</p>
<p>A girl spread it around a friend of mine gave her herpes. He was devastated at first, but fought back by stating quite clearly he did not and never changed what he did. He walked with his head high and still went to parties etc. And when he met girls, he turned it into a joke, introducing himself by saying, “Hi, my name is xxxx, and I do not have herpes.” Girls loved it because it came off as a novel pickup line. </p>
<p>Well, just the reverse effect the girl expected. She finally had to recant that she did not even have herpes. </p>
<p>But what was important is that when he stated “No” he did not give her herpes, pretty much everyone believed him and people were asking her to prove it after a short time. Imagine if the standard were the reverse? That would not be good and would have rewarded that girl</p>
<p>No one dated her for the next 4 years, which seemed like an appropriate punishment. Not sure why she did not transfer. Well, it is hard to leave a top school I guess and get into an equivalent top school as a transfer.</p>
<p>Misunderstanding of what Title IX says and requires, nothwesty. Read it. They do not require a decision in 60 days. And what menu of choices? </p>
<p>Why don’t some of you go read it? </p>
<p>And SoWhat, jmo, but your youthful perspective is showing in both your comments and how you vary your apparent position.</p>
<p>If any young woman who felt she had been sexually assaulted were considering what to do, this thread certainly sends a confused message. Eg, report it, but don’t accuse anyone, it’s harder on the accused than on you, their futures are ruined, some don’t want to have you personalize this, you’re probably just seeking retribution for a dump, or overestimating that fondling, the colleges won’t use due process, it’s really something else to blame (eg, drinking,) etc. Ad nauseum.</p>
<p>No. I think both men and women lie. And I think that colleges, journalists, police, juries, and public opinion need to be unbiased and look for all the facts. Assuming one side or another is telling the truth without any corroboration, confirmation, evidence, is foolish. I think all accused should have a fair proceeding in court or in the colleges. Radical notions, I know. </p>
<p>“I’d be interested in learning more about this, awcntb. Why are they losing? What forms of due process violations are most prevalent?”</p>
<p>Google up the objections of 28 Harvard Law School profs had about Harvard’s new sexual assault policies and procedures. In summary, they said that “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.” </p>
<p>Things like failing to provide counsel representation for the accused; having one office be detective, prosecutor, judge and appellate judge; not allowing discovery; not allowing cross examination of witnesses.</p>
<p>The schools are in a tough bind under this unwise title ix policy. They get investigated/sued if they go too soft on punishing accused. Then they also get sued for treating the accused unfairly. It is really stupid.</p>
<p>TatinG is posting links for us to read, if you like. It doesn’t help the dialogue if people are dropping words like crap at her or threats like “I am watching you.”</p>
<p>when he stated “No” he did not give her herpes, pretty much everyone believed him.</p>
<p>But you regaled us with your certainty some investigator would dig in and find some accusation or chit chat and the guy’s resume would be trashed, how no one could separate one guy from one story. Hmm.</p>
<p>Agree, Tatin, possibility exists either side fails. But we circle back to, “I think all accused should have a fair proceeding in court or in the colleges” and keep forgetting the accuser should also have a fair listen. If you meant that, you didn’t say that.</p>
<p>“Misunderstanding of what Title IX says and requires, nothwesty. Read it. They do not require a decision in 60 days. And what menu of choices? Why don’t some of you go read it?”</p>
<h1>1724</h1>
<p>Under the Fed’s 2011 Title IX Guidance, school’s have to “promptly” investigate and complete their own investigation. They cannot wait for a criminal proceeding (if one is brought) to complete the investigation. The Guidance proposes 60 days as an appropriate timeframe to conclude; within a semester’s time at the outside.</p>
<p>I asked and this is the answer I was given:</p>
<p>It is important to remember that colleges are not independent islands within the US. They were still governed by the supreme law of the land, i.e., the Constitution. The colleges are losing because they are failing basic equal protection under law claims. </p>
<p>Irrespective of what people want in the college tribunals, it is illegal to have two different standards for presentations and defense, one for the accuser and another for the accused. </p>
<p>Specifically, the processes where the accuser can have representation, but the accused cannot; where the accused is not allowed to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the the accuser is allowed to give details not privy to the accused; where there is no appeal process for the accused, but the accuser has endless appeals; where the accused is required to answer all questions, but the accuser can choose which questions to answer. There are a couple more I was told, but I think theses describe the colleges’ dilemma well.</p>
<p>It does not take much reading the above to understand why the colleges are losing a lot of cases. There is new industry now that sees colleges, as a cash cow for lawyers because of this. Many lawyers see these as easy slam dunk cases, which many are. </p>
<p>But, even these cases are lopsided in terms of which males. It takes about $75 -100K to win a case. so it is the high SES kids who are currently winning and receiving settlement money and the lower SES kids are the ones getting the shaft by the schools when accused. This will change soon though because there are now lawyers who are willing to take these cases on contingency. Worth the risk, if the win/settlement rate is over 50%.</p>
<p>I am paraphrasing. TatinG said society should be unbiased and look at both sides and I expect her to do the same. That is what I am watching. </p>
<p>What I highlighted is a very big accusation against Stanford. I went to Cal but I don’t think I am biased here. Is that accusation true? For me, if Stanford really did that, that is not acceptable. </p>
<p>I came across someone keeping track of that in a big spreadsheet on line. Colleges are loosing in excess of 60% of the cases but if I recall that spreadsheet goes back to 2011. Primarily due process issues with how they adjudicated. So fortunately that (procedures) is going to get cleaned up pretty darn soon I would think. I think many colleges misunderstood what they were supposed to do and make some wack-o decisions under (false) fear of the feds. The irony as pointed out was the feds never told the colleges how to punish, it only told them they needed process and procedures and the the colleges are losing on “process and procedures.” </p>
<p>I agree, I think some people lie which is why you need facts to back up truths, why you can’t presume guilt and all that other legal foundation our country is built on. Why they lie would require a survey - and we’ve all discovered when it comes to sex, it’s difficult to frame the questions in a way that is universal to all people. People lie because they are embarrassed, because they don’t want people to think less of them, because they are angry and lashing out, because they are seeking attention, because they have mental issues, because they are covering up mistakes and probably other reasons. But yes, people lie.</p>
<p>The accusation about Stanford is such a big accusation…</p>
<p>What is the above? True or false? If the above is true, that blows my mind. How many innocent people are affected by Stanford’s training where an innocent person was judged gulity because he presented his defense logically and persuasively? </p>
<p>If the above is false, that blows my mind. ;)</p>
<p>Yes, these types of cases are covered under Title IX, and can be processed under those guidelines, but in the case of professors there is another way.</p>
<p>Unlike with two students, there is an employment contract between the colleges and the professors. If a professor is accused of sexual misconduct, it can be judged that given the notoriety of just accusation that the professor can no longer effectively perform his/her job. The professor is usually asked to resign with a nice severance and the matter just dropped. Often the accusing female is fine with that even though no investigation or formal inquiry even took place. There are a good number of these, but given that no formal case bought to court, it is not surprising we never hear about them. </p>
<p>So yes, these can be Title IX cases, but when it comes to professors, colleges usually go the employment contract route and use performance of duties clauses to deal with the professor. </p>
<p>Now, where Title IX really rears its head here is for the accuser. If the accuser is not satisfied with the outcome re the professor, she can sue the college under Title IX. What the specific violation would be will vary based on the circumstances and details of the case. </p>
<p>EDIT: Oops - I realized I forgot one part of the answer. If the accuser and colleges go the Tile IX route when dealing with a professor, the procedures are NOT the same. This is because the professor has an employment contact. </p>
<p>Within that contract are procedures, which outline adjudicating complaints and disputes and also outlines the right of the employee. Students do not have such clauses in their enrollment contract. Thus under Title IX, when dealing with a professor, the rights and therefore procedures given the professor would be different than an accused male student. This assumes the professor does not waive those rights.</p>
Is that accusation true? For me, if Stanford really did that, that is not acceptable. </p>