You should worry about the erosion of civil rights and free speech as well as a duplicitous process for judging actions that are already covered and vetted by our judicial system. Checks and balances are there in the states and in our federal system…we just have a department of the federal system that needs to be “checked.” If the problem is our states are behind the times in defining and adjudicating criminal behavior our state and federal governments should be “fixing” that…not creating an end round. But fortunately the "checks’ will come from the very legal system that the DOE tried to run around.
I think you mean duplicative. I don’t think processes can be duplicitous (shifty, shady, underhanded, crooked, double-dealing).
Duplicitous sounds about right to me, in addition to duplicative.
I say whatever your opinion of a particular process, processes are not the kind of thing that can have the quality of being duplicitous. It requires a mind to be duplicitous.
@northwesty, I maintain that it is an apt analogy relative to my belief that with sexual assault cases both systems are an exercise in risk management. And let’s not forget that the military tribunals have been around forever and UCMJ for almost 70 years. The military justice system most certainly should be more “full monty” than the newly instituted college tribunals that are still evolving. But in order for the military tribunals to be fully effective for women in sexual assault cases, the claims have to find their way into the system. And it is the commanding officer to whom the woman reports to that currently controls that decision.
An investigator gives the complainant’s commander a report about the facts of a claim, and that one individual (who statistically is likely male) then decides whether the facts merit a court martial. That commander also has the option of instituting a non-judicial punishment (an Article 15) where the accused could be reprimanded, lose rank or be put on reduced rations. I think the most serious penalty under Article 15 is correctional confinement for no more than 30 days. And even if the case does go to court martial, that one commander has the authority to overturn a conviction or lessen a sentence. You will forgive me if I don’t view this as an even playing field for women.
A bill co-sponsored by Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Maine Sen. Susan Collins was successful last year in making some reforms to the military’s handling of sexual assault. I believe they eliminated the “good soldier” defense in sexual assault cases, where a soldier’s strong military record could be a factor in sentencing. But another bill that would have taken away that sole commander’s power to decide the trajectory of a sexual assault claim was narrowly defeated twice - once in 2014 and again this year. I don’t think they have heard the end of it though.
And as far as certain offenses being punishable by death, the military has not executed one of it’s own in over 50 years. I don’t personally have a problem with that as I waffle back and forth on the death penalty in general. Will be interesting to see what they do with Nidal Hasan who was convicted and sentenced to death 2 years ago for fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood. He is currently sitting in a military prison writing letters to ISIL requesting to be made a citizen of the islamic state.
Here’s one from my alma mater:
http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151018/NEWS/151019361
" Now, as a plaintiff named John Doe, he is suing the school in U.S. District Court. He accuses Brown of violating his due process rights and discriminating against him based on his gender, in violation of Title IX.
In another lawsuit brought by the same lawyer in the same court, a John Doe, of Texas is suing a Jane Doe, of California, accusing her of defaming and slandering him by filing a false sexual-misconduct report that led to his 2-1/2-year suspension from an "elite" liberal-arts university in Rhode Island and his being labeled as responsible for a sexual offense. That lawsuit does not name Brown but details the same chronology...
He alleges that the Student Conduct Board, comprised of university staff and a student, found him responsible for misconduct and suspended him for 2-1/2 years after an unfair hearing in which board members failed to challenge or question her account and refused to let him present certain evidence and testimony. Brown erroneously put the burden on him to prove his innocence, it says. “The hearing was a mere formality to conclude John Doe’s predetermined guilt.” The provost upheld the suspension on appeal. "
One of the ways he is asserting gender bias is that both students were drinking underage but he was the only one charged.
Interesting he is also suing the accuser, you don’t often see that happening.
From the college paper:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/19/former-student-sues-u-for-gender-based-discrimination/
“At his University disciplinary hearing, John Doe was interrupted a few seconds into his midpoint statement by his advisor, MaryLou McMillan, interim assistant vice president for campus life and student services. McMillan requested that John Doe be “shut down” but did not provide “any justifying reason,” the April document reads.”
^^The lawsuit against the college is just another one in a long line, but the lawsuite against the accuser for slander is an angle not seen before. He claims he’s been rejected by 7 colleges since being asked to leave Brown, that his family monies have been lost and that the accuser gave false statements repeatedly to the college and to other kids on campus.
I very strongly feel that these “college courts” should be dismantled when it comes to adjudicating CRIMINAL charges. Unless we all want to double or triple the cost of tuition we are paying, I do not see how a college can properly fund a system that adequately protects the rights of everyone involved.
Not only the impact on tuition costs from the administrative burden, but the financial impact from lawsuits and potential lawsuits after the fact has got to keep college administrators awake at night.
The college’s general liability insurance covers sexual violence claims that fall under Title lX and in the vast majority of cases the legal fees associated with them.
The lawsuits appear to be settling both ways:
There is the cost of liability insurance premiums; in the case of very large universities, they might be self-insured or there could be a high per-claim deductible in place. The existence of liability insurance does not make lawsuits against the college free, or even minimal. Not to mention, when an insurance company has to pay out a high amount on a claim, ultimately we ALL pay through higher insurance premiums (insurance companies spread risk). This is an inexcusable expense IMO. Colleges need to be permitted to stay out of the business of adjudicating crimes. We already pay quite handsomely as taxpayers for an extensive criminal justice system.
Everyone loves to blame the cost of the rock climbing wall or the new dorms as being the cause of outrageous tuition. Why don’t we examine these types of ridiculous administrative costs instead? It costs far, far more to properly duplicate our entire criminal justice system than it does to build a rock climbing wall.
Are the insurance payouts for sexual assault claims a significant part of college insurance payouts? I’d doubt it, but I’d welcome facts about the issue.
@cardinal fang, very unlikely. But realize in policies such as what are assumedly involved here, different categories of risk are going to have different ratings. It is in that respect that you might see a jump in premium.
I expect the biggest expense is the cost of implementing, overseeing, regulating, assuring compliance, and administering these pseudo tribunals. Lawsuits, may, however, become a growing cost component if these lawsuits become a trend, which does appear to be happening. And all for what? If we don’t like the current criminal justice system or if we believe it is somehow not as friendly or accessible to sexual assault victims as the one created at the university, why don’t we just fix the public system already in place? Why do we have to recreate a whole new system at each college?
I realize that this is far from the only government-imposed administrative burden that colleges today have to shoulder. It just seems like this particular one is a no-brainer given that we already have a public system in place to deal with alleged crimes. Isn’t college expensive enough without forcing schools to add layers and layers of administrative burdens to their budgets?
An article re: Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale and Stanford. He was banned from the Stanford campus for 10 years because of allegations made against him. http://www.finance.yahoo.com/news/york-times-sheds-light-why-205532516.html
So from the article above linked by sevmom, it appears the civil suit filed against him by the accuser was dropped and Stanford has lifted the ban on Lonsdale, saying he did not violate Title IX after all.
It seems the “new evidence” considered is actually not all that new, it was published in an article written by Emily Bazelon back in Feb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/the-stanford-undergraduate-and-the-mentor.html?_r=0
From the Yahoo article:
"Bazelon explained that she had obtained emails from Clougherty but that she’d gotten “many more” from Lonsdale, who began a relationship with the Stanford student after he mentored her through the school’s tech-entrepreneurship program.
One of those emails read, “Kiss kiss kiss, you are super handsome.” Another said, “You are a sexy man” and “It was so nice sleeping with you.”
“A Stanford spokeswoman told me that Marcia Pope, the lawyer Stanford brought in as an outside investigator, who made the finding of sexual misconduct and harassment against Lonsdale, reversed herself after reading the emails,” Bazelon wrote.
Stanford’s reversal raises questions about the efficacy of university-run investigations on college campuses. The Stanford Review echoed those concerns in a piece covering the reversal saying it “raises serious questions about the integrity and thoroughness of the Title IX investigation process.”
Here is Bazelon’s follow-up piece from Nov 4:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/magazine/the-lessons-of-stanfords-sex-assault-case-reversal.html
"These kinds of accusations are more likely to get traction in a campus disciplinary process, which is by design less rigorous than the criminal justice system. In a campus proceeding, no one’s liberty is on the line, and universities are trying to be more user-friendly so that more victims will come forward, as most have long been reluctant to do. But the reputation of anyone accused of sexual misconduct is at stake, and reputation, too, is precious…
The emails that persuaded Marcia Pope to change her mind predated Stanford’s inquiries; they should have been part of the investigation all along. Lonsdale’s lawyers told me that he offered the emails to Pope back in 2014, when she first investigated Clougherty’s rape claims. Stanford’s spokeswoman initially told me the university couldn’t comment on this, but after an earlier version of this article was published, she said that the lawyers’ claim is “completely false.” In any case, I’m not sure what stopped Lonsdale from just handing the emails over. But whatever the reason, something about this process broke down. "
Interesting article from Newsweek, summing up the state of law suits against colleges by men who claim to have been unjustly found responsible for sexual assault.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html
Much of the article focusses on Paul Nungesser (whom Columbia actually did not find responsible) with some new information on his case against Columbia. I think this is an insightful comment on why we’ll continue to see more settlements, than actual wins.
In response, Mattress Girl threatened to sue Newsweek (even though she is not named in Nungesser’s complaint).
That’s just Sokolow’s spin. The attorneys and insurance companies will settle in these cases for the same reason people settle in other cases-- because it’s cheaper.
Update on a case from Brown:
" “Taking the facts in Doe’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Brown ignored exculpatory evidence, including the victim’s own testimony in the Oct. 18 complaint that she had in fact articulated consent,” Smith wrote. Doe has created a “reasonable expectation” that if the case is allowed to proceed to trial that discovery may yield evidence that Brown shows a bias toward female students in alleged sexual misconduct cases. Smith also let stand Doe’s accusations that Brown had breached its contract with him under student conduct procedures.
Doe's lawyer, Andrew T. Miltenberg, praised the ruling. “Up until now, courts have misapplied the legal standards or otherwise refused to acknowledge the very serious ramifications that sexual assault allegations have on the accused ...," Miltenberg said in an email. He credited Smith's ruling as "groundbreaking" in that it recognizes that it would be nearly impossible to produce evidence that female students accused of sexual assault were treated differently so early in the case. "We expect this decision to have a significant impact on the manner in which courts view Title IX cases.""