<p>TatinG, post 1737 is a one sided opinion piece and not a proof. </p>
<p>I don’t really need to read another one sided opinion on this.</p>
<p>If Stanford really did this, we are going to be on the same side of this. </p>
<p>Where is the actual proof? </p>
<p>It doesn’t say “promptly” investigate and complete with 60 days. You’re quoting 60 days as “an appropriate timeframe.” </p>
<p>*What stages of the investigation are included in the 60-day timeframe referenced in the DCL as the length for a typical investigation?
Answer: As noted in the DCL, the 60-calendar day timeframe for investigations is based on OCR’s experience in typical cases…refers to the entire investigation process, which includes conducting the fact-finding investigation, holding a hearing or engaging in another decision-making process to determine whether the alleged sexual violence occurred and created a hostile environment, and determining what actions the school will take to eliminate the hostile environment and prevent its recurrence, including imposing sanctions against the perpetrator and providing remedies for the complainant and school community, as appropriate…</p>
<p>OCR does not require a school to complete investigations within 60 days; rather OCR evaluates on a case-by-case basis whether the resolution of sexual violence complaints is prompt and equitable. Whether OCR considers an investigation to be prompt as required by Title IX will vary depending on the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of the alleged conduct. OCR recognizes that the investigation process may take longer if there is a parallel criminal investigation or if it occurs partially during school breaks… *</p>
<p>Now really, apologies for the long quote, you call can read it. This is just one of the Dear Colleague letters. <a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“Screening for Perpetrators – Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness & Action”>http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/professional-resources/legal-professionals/screening-for-perpetrators/</a></p>
<p>First paragraph on how to screen for perpetrators. In addition, they may be angry or they may be nice. Either is a bad sign. Logical persuasion of judges is a sign of a perpetrator. </p>
<p>@northwesty Took me some googling, but found the spreadsheet. - it was on a “guy site” and I hadn’t bookmarked the page. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/”>http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/</a></p>
<p>Ok…thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is not the same as this…</p>
<p><a href=“Stanford%E2%80%99s%20was%20the%20training%20that%20suggested%20college%20adjudicators%20should%20interpret%20an%20accused%20student%20who%20presented%20his%20defense%20logically%20and%20persuasively%20as%20a%20sign%20of%20guilt.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And while you’re reading the DC letter, look at F-2, which covers, “What are the key differences between a school’s Title IX investigation into allegations of sexual violence and a criminal investigation?”</p>
<p>And A-6. Does Title IX cover employee-on-student sexual violence, such as sexual abuse of children? </p>
<p>Also, supposedly there have bee 236 suits filed as of late June. Only 60 are highlighted in the recent link and 21 show pending. I agree that’s still a lot.</p>
<p>I know one case very closely and the everyone I know thinks the guy was railroaded. The U acted poorly, to say the least. But this is not an issue that lends it self to generalizations. You know some guy who… or your friend was falsely…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you think college kids drink, get high, and sleep around just to shock their parents, then you are out of touch. They do it 50% under preer pressure, and 50% because of the novelty. A less strict upbringing results in much lower incidence of extreme behavior in my experience.</p>
<p>But of course we have parents here who want their kids to not have sex till 21. Why is 21 the magic age? Will rape just stop after 21? Dumb …</p>
<p>LF – we agree that the Feds don’t “require” the case to be done within 60 days. But they do require “prompt” action.</p>
<p>And the Feds did inform the schools that they regulate in writing that they think 60 days is an “appropriate timeframe” for the case to be handled.</p>
<p>So if I’m a school, I think I’m going to get my cases disposed of in…well…maybe…about…60 days!!! </p>
<p>TatinG, do you disagree with what is in the link in your post 1742?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes people who believe otherwise like one individual on this thread even more ancient than 400 BCE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>DStark, do you think more men lie than tell the truth?</p>
<p>It is a yes or no question. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was in high school one Popular Girl spread a rumor that another Popular Girl has herpes. </p>
<p>Girls can be so cruel sometimes. I am a bit ashamed to say though that I found it quite funny at that time. </p>
<p>But then I was a 17 year old with half a brain. </p>
<p>Momofthreeboys… </p>
<p>There are 55 cases? </p>
<p>Is this really how many there are? </p>
<p>Does anybody know this? </p>
<p>Here is the root source of the nut-job accusation about the Stanford process. It’s a piece about how to determine who is the abuser and who the abused in a relationship – often a same-sex relationship – where both parties may be claiming to be the victims of long-term abuse. It has little or nothing to do with any kind of typical college rape situation (although the co-abuser scenario can certainly occur in a college relationship, and pose problems for administrators wholly apart from the issues we are discussing here). It has absolutely nothing to do with how hearings get adjudicated.</p>
<p>Here are the key paragraphs, with the tidbit that has been aggressively misinterpreted highlighted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is saying that having persuasive, logical arguments is a sign of guilt. They are saying that in a long-term violent couple, the abuser may be adept at persuading others not to interfere, and it’s important to investigate rather than to take the side of the slicker partner. It’s hard to understand how this turned into “Stanford is going to convict someone of rape because his arguments are logical” . . . except it’s not hard to understand at all. The willingness of avowed conservatives to engage in malicious misinterpretation is really wearing. It’s hard to have a logical discussion with people who lie like that.</p>
<p>TatinG, your link does not support your assertion.</p>
<p>There’s a big difference between Abusers can be persuasive and logical, so be aware that the persuasion and logic you’re seeing might be coming from an abuser, and Abusers can be persuasive and logical, but other people are not persuasive and logical, so if you see someone who is persuasive and logical, assume they are an abuser.</p>
<p>The actual article you cite supports the first version. Nowhere does it say that you should suspect people who are persuasive and logical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s clear that the quote above is warning investigators not to be swayed by arguments that appear persuasive and logical, but are actually untrue. The Stanford Daily is being misleading, not to mention reprehensible, by mischaracterizing the quote.</p>
<p>[quote=muchtolearn}Students in science, math and engineering majors seem to be putting in a lot more hours per week than students in certain other majors. Frequently the assignments seem to be more time consuming and complex and the grades lower than they are in other majors. Maybe leveling that playing field a little bit would help to reign in the party culture."</p>
<p>I am sure that your statement is true in some majors and for some schools. I was in the major that was ranked the hardest one at my school and still spent almost all my time partying. D1 is currently a major in the School of Arts and Sciences at UVA and I have never seen a kid study so much. She spends MANY, MANY, hours each day in the library. Despite this incredible work ethic she still makes sure she parties hard on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do I vary my apparent position? What is my apparent position in the first place?</p>
<p>I have said this before, and I will repeat it here. I believe in supporting the accuser unconditionally, in any way that comforts her. I also believe in holding the accused innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I finally believe that I do NOT have to take sides on this issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak for the thread, but anyone looking for guidance in a public forum better get used to a diversity of opinion. That’s how we keep pushing the thinking forward. People looking for groupthink should start an invitation only forum. I hope no one here is afraid of diversity of opinion.</p>
<p>My guidance to any college women who was raped would be to go to the cops immediately and get a rape kit done, and then file charges. ASAP. When evidence is still fresh. If she doesn’t want to do that because that’s traumatic, I completely understand, and if I were her friend and support group I would try to comfort her unconditionally. However, it is also inevitable then that the strength of her case will drop, should she decide to file later. Finally, rape being a criminal offense, the courts will have to use a beyond reasonable doubt standard, and that may sound cruel, but to me at least is the right standard to use. So, I would also tell her to be ready for cross examination which will definitely make the trauma worse, but would be the only way for her to get to justice. Is this not very fair to victims? I heartily concede that it is not, but rape victims are not singled out here, nor are female rape victims. This same standard is applicable to all victims of all crimes regardless of gender, by virtue of the bedrock principle, innocent until proven guilty.</p>
<p>As for what colleges should do, others have spoken eloquently about it, so I will let that be.</p>
<p>JHS, thank you very much.</p>
<p>TatinG, looks like your source lied. </p>
<p>SWDY, I think regarding the 55 cases, the men are telling the truth more than 50 percent of the time. </p>
<p>Dstark, another source reports on a total of 262, (not my 236,) from 2006-2010, but only highlights 33. One would need to look at each to see specifics and judge strengths/weaknesses. Plus, obviously, a lot has been changed since the feds tried to clarify guidelines in the past few years.</p>
<p>LF thanks. </p>
<p>I wonder if there has been a drop off in the number of lawsuits or the difference in numbers is because of different sources.</p>