@Hanna, I was involved in a civil case for 5 years (I thought it was 4 years. Time flies 
).
It was a heck of an experience. I would trade this experience for other experiences.
@âCardinal Fangâ I used the word convicted because someone is not a rapist until they are convicted. Which has been my point all along. My problem with the Vanderbilt kids is that the recognizance should have been limited in some way. For that, I blame the judge far more than I blame the school. Also, as someone pointed out up the thread, it should have been the work of less than a day for a half way competent lawyer to get a protective order issued to keep those a holes away from the girl. It should not be up to the college to take that action on its own. Certainly it seems an easy decision when you have a videotape. But in the vast majority of situations, the facts will be nowhere near as clear. But once the college jumps out and acts without judicial sanction, people will expect it to act in other situations, and then there is trouble.
They could keep the guys away from their victim, but what about the rest of the students? There are some people you donât want on your campus, donât want in your classes, donât want on your sports team. Vanderbilt told those guys, âGo away, we donât want anything to do with you.â IMO, that was the right choice.
IMO itâs perverse to have colleges and universities turn a blind eye to underage drinking and then bring the hammer down on only one drinker in a drunken liaison. Itâs unreasonable to have universities sanction co-ed dorms, co-ed bathrooms, open campuses and then try to figure out if one person or another initiated a liaison and whether their liaison fit some âsocially acceptable bedroom moves.â Itâs silly to think that people can text if they are technically incapacitated. Drunk texting is possible. Itâs unreasonable to let people wait months and years to âfigure outâ they didnât approve of some activity they were engaged in and expect a college, where they are residents at a minimum of a few years, to figure out if they are telling the truth months or years after the fact. Itâs unacceptable to me that the first phone call isnât to the police by a university confronted by an accusation that a student is a felon.
@Ohiodad51: If the sanction were only being sent to classes or being yelled at by the Dean, Iâd worry less. However the sanction is often expulsion, and transcripts are often (though not always) marked accordingly. That makes it essentially impossible to transfer anywhere else, ending a future before it starts. Thatâs a lot of power, I think, for teachers playing lawyer.
@âCardinal Fangâ: The college can go get a TRO if it feels it necessary. It can even join in the proceeding with the accuser (usually; not all states would allow it to be the same proceeding).
@Demosthenes49 we agree.
@âCardinal Fangâ again, it is always a bad idea to make blanket policy based on the most extreme cases. And as @demosthenes49 says, the college could get an injunction if that was the result they wanted.
Itâs kind of silly for a college to get a restraining order banning a student from campus without expelling them.
@âCardinal Fangâ Why?
And look at it another way. When the college acts without judicial sanction in one case, what is to stop someone from suing the college later when they report a sexual assault under far murkier circumstances and then allege they were assaulted a second time because the college failed to preemptively expel the accused after the first allegation?
This idea of getting colleges out of the judging business on sexual assault raises the standard of a guilty verdct to reasonable doubt.
So the accusers have less of a chance of winning.
The accusers would have less of a chance of winning than before the Dear Colleague Letter.
I could see the sccused going for this in some cases. Some accused may accept expusion over a possible felony on his or her record. I canât see the accusers going for this.
Maybe instead of expulsion, a school could just suspend a student for 99 years. Schools would still leave expulsion on the books as a possible penalty. Then the convicted at a school hearing can tell future employers or schools that he or she did not get the maximum penalty.
It is not surprising that the accused are filing suits. Filing a civil suit claiming their innocence doesnât prove or imply that they were falsely accused, they are merely disputing the decision; what would you expect them to do⊠proclaim their guilt? Also, your stats are off. From 2013, 8 were settled out of court and 5 civil cases were dismissed (in favor of the Universities). Those that settled out of court; this doesnât imply that the accused were falsely accused, it means that the University chose to settle in lieu of proceeding with court costs. Itâs interesting that you repeatedly quote KC Johnson, who is clearly on the side of the accused, as is âA Voice For Malesâ and âMinding the Campusâ. They are all biased sources with a clear agenda in favoring the accused.
Stanford is going to a 3 person panel to judge sexual assault cases. The school is thinking about having lawyers help both sides. All 3 panellists have to agree to expel. If only 1 or 2 agree to expelâŠthere isnât an expulsion.
What also can be done is with a preponderance of evidence standard, a school canât expel. A school can expel a student on a clear and convincing standard. So⊠When judging a case, a panel has to decide which standard is met and it has to be unanimous. If the preponderance of evidence is met but not the clear and convincing standard, the school can not expel a student. The punishment has to be less than expulsion.
A school should be able to suspend a student before a criminal case is decided and or before the school decides a case. The suspension can be open ended until the hearings are over.
@momrath, Itâs not surprising that accused/expelled students are filing suits. This doesnât imply that they were falsely accused. It simply demonstrates that they are disputing the findings. Would you expect them to agree with the University findings, when the findings are that they are found responsible for sexual assault?? Of COURSE they are going to claim innocence and unjust treatment! Also, your stats are off. Since 2013, 8 were settled out of court (not 10). These settlements only demonstrate that some Universities choose to avoid Court proceedings and costs; it does not imply that the accused were unjustly punished. Interesting how you repeatedly quote 3 sources who are clearly biased and totally in the ring for the accused; KC Johnson, âMinding the Campusâ and âA Voice For Malesâ; Seriously?? These 3 sources have a clear agenda in total favor of the accused. You are not going to have a balanced view of the topic if these are the only sources you draw from.
Fine @Demothenes. The criminal justice system is "failing"women when it comes to rape. Arenât they included in the âallâ that the system is supposed to provide justice for? Are they not part of the public that is to be protected? Law enforcement, and the judicial system as a whole, has a pretty contemptible record when it comes to dealing with rape victims and providing competent investigation and justice for those women. And by extension the public as a whole is put at increased risk when these crimes are left unpunished. And one âby-productâ of the criminal justice system is that when it does work,it tends to register social disapproval of certain behaviors. The abysmal numbers of prosecutions and convictions sends a very poor message to those that might be inclined to rape. And this hurts everybody.
And the problem is systemic from the bottom to the very top. How about this quote from Georgia Appeals Court Judge Christopher McFadden, who threw out the conviction of William Dumas for raping a woman with Downâs Syndrome:
And this comment from California Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson in the 2008 Metin Gurel case who had made âunpostableâ threats against his ex-girlfriend before allegedly raping her:
Or the recent decision by a Montana Judge to sentence a teacher to one month in jail after raping a 14 year old student saying :
And there are people who ask why women do not want to avail themselves of that system and report rape???
@dstark, are you suggesting that a school should suspend someone solely on the basis of an allegation? Thatâs a bit extreme, donât you think? I think it is worth pointing out that for most kids, a suspension pending a hearing would mean the suspended student has no where to live, no where to get meals, etc. it is not like high school where a kid just stays home.
I basically agree with what you say about the burden of proof, but I would feel a lot better about your proposed system if there were some rules about calling witnesses, cross examination, the ability to introduce evidence, etc.
@mom12345, to be fair, I think if you are going to call sources you donât like biased that you should acknowledge much of what is written on the other side comes from entities and individuals with at least as clear of a professional bias.
@Ohiohdad51, I never said that I âdid not likeâ the sources; what difference does that make? Those sources have a clear agenda. Everyone referencing them should know who they are and who and what those sources are advocating for. I didnât reference any sources on âthe other sideâ, so your point about that âother sideâ doesnât apply.
@Ohiodad51, depends on the situation. A suspension doesnât have to be automatic. The school should have the option to suspend though.
We are at the beginnng of changes. I think schools are going to use best practices and the schools are going to figure things out.
The sources @mom12345 mentioned are biased. We canât call biased sources biased? I find those sources biased and many times inaccurate.
And along with those transcripts kindly hand him the details of the Kalief Browder case or the details of the cases I linked in post #368 where 25 men were wrongfully accused and incarcerated. Cherry picking the worst college tribunal cases to torpedo that system while ignoring the gross inadequacies of the system you advocate for is problematic.
Itâs not that I do not like it but that it does not work. At least not for they type of cases we are discussing.
@HarvestMoon1 , just for purposes of clarity, Judge McFadden was sitting as a trial judge, not an appellate Judge, and what he did was order a new trial, not throw out the conviction, which implies that the defendant was released. From what I could find, I am not sure that what he did is in the same category as the other two. Seems like it could be he was doing what a Judge is supposed to do in a case with bad facts. Just canât tell. I could not find if the case has been retried yet. I agree that the California judgeâs comments were egregious, and he was reprimanded for them. And the Montana Judge is leaving the bench, and the teacher was ultimately sentenced to ten years. Not to excuse those comments, but the system did at least react appropriately in my opinion.
And I agree that teachers in general seem to be treated very leniently in cases of sex with their students. I just read of a case of a female teacher who received probation after having sex with two male students. That doesnât mean though that if something happens to my kids I should eschew the legal process.
Why exactly is KC Johnson biased? Because he blew up the Duke Lacrosse case?
@mom12345, I guess I just assumed you didnât like those sources because you called them âtotally in the ringâ who âhave a clear agenda in favor of the accusedâ. And if you have some sources that are not written from some pretty obvious ideological perspectives, I would love to see them. That is one of the big problems with this whole debate, imho.
Again, you throw around your opinions like they are absolute truths. I donât necessarily agree. I would gladly get raped while I was drugged (and could not remember the incident) versus getting seriously injured in a violent assault. I also bet that the vast majority of people would agree with me.
In many, many instances you are correct, however, just not all.