I just reread #194 on page 36. That’s not good for John. Looks like John was distributing drugs. That’s a felony. I don’t know about kicking John out of the school for sexual matters but …for drugs…and drugs looks like a reason John was kicked out…Yeah…bye John.
I don’t see why Reed would have to reinstate John.
Another issue, which isn’t as important after the illegal drug usage, is SMB required to make witnesses testify? During the first hearing , it looks like John wanted the SMB to require the witnesses to testify. It doesn’t look like the witnesses were prevented from testifying. That is a difference.
I don’t think John is a great poster man. Winston is not a great poster man. Mr Yu had three people testify the woman was intoxicated. That’s not good for Mr Yu.
I guess Swat screwed up in the case the school settled.
I don’t know Reed’s policy toward selling drugs. Reed brought in John Kroger as president in 2012. Kroger had served as Oregon’s Attorney General and as a Federal prosecutor in New York and Texas where he handled major drug cases. Reportedly part of his brief was to get a handle on Reed’s drug scene.
I also don’t know the history of John Doe’s drug activity at Reed. If the administration knew he was selling, then it would have been understandable for them to charge him and expel him, but as far as I know they didn’t. Though the use of ecstasy was a factor in John Doe’s case, I don’t think selling ecstasy or any other drug was brought up.
According to John Doe’s complaint:
About the witnesses: The title IX coordinator who compiled the investigative report interviewed AM, but his summary of her statement was misleading and didn’t accurately characterize AM’s opinion that Jane Roe’s participation was voluntary. He didn’t interview ML at all. ML claims that Jane Roe solicited her (unsuccessfully).
Apparently the 5 person panel that adjudicated the hearing didn’t ask either ML or AM to testify in person. The complaint is a little fuzzy on this point.
When John Doe filed an appeal he included sworn statements from both ML and AM. Both were eyewitnesses – and AM was an active participant. Both maintained that Jane Roe’s participation was consensual. In denying John’s appeal President Kroger said that the statements of ML and AM were invalid because they had also taken ecstasy.
(I haven’t been able to find Kroger’s letter denying the appeal, in which he mentions both John Doe’s drug activity and ML and AM.)
To me the salient point of this case is since Reed held John Doe responsible for sexual assaulting Jane Roe, by the same logic they should also hold AM responsible.
http://chronicle.com/article/Should-Colleges-Be-Judging/229263/
Interesting article from the Chronicle of Higher Education which does a good job of summarizing many of the arguments that have been discussed at length in one CC thread or another. This information on the cost of compliance with the OCR’s Dear Colleague mandates is noteworthy:
In my anti-Big Government opinion, budgeting the Department of Education OCR for “another 200 investigators” would be a wildly unjustified bureaucratic power grab. To add insult to injury that $100 million spend by the colleges to enforce Title IX would sure have gone a long way in providing financial aid and scholarships. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I’m a fan of restorative justice, and think it could be a good choice for some cases of campus sexual misconduct.
It wouldn’t always be appropriate, however. Restorative justice, as I understand it, is for offenders who admit they did it. An accused student who denies the accusation would not be a candidate.
Also, restorative justice is public. An accuser who does not want the incident to become public knowledge should not agree to the restorative justice process.
But in the cases where the accused student admits they committed the offense, and the accuser is willing to participate in this public process, restorative justice could have better outcomes for both accuser and accused.
So, for example, one might think of the Occidental case as a perfect opportunity for restorative justice; neither John Doe nor Jane Doe seems to have done well in the aftermath of the case as it stands. But John Doe would have had to acknowledge that he had sex with Jane Doe when she was too drunk to consent according to Occidental’s rules, and Jane Doe would have had to agree to a public process.
Guys: Have pre-printed legal contracts, with both consenting parties signing the contract stating they are consenting and are sober and of sound mind. Also have the student know where and when to find the closest Notary, who will witness the signatures. This will likely cool the passion of both parties.
I’m not sure about calling it “restorative justice” but I do think, as I’ve aid often and then some… much of the “to-do” about some of this could be managed with mediation. When alcohol and drugs are involved you cannot blame one party for bad behavior and then absolve the other in the absence of violence or passed out incapacitation. I don’t care if we call it no is no or yes is yes…we cannot discriminate and say it’s OK for one to drink and lose their decision making abilities but not the other (who somehow needs to maintain decision making skills despite consumption). We should not be focused on assessing blame but should rather be focused on honest conversation about personal responsibility when appropriate. Some seem to want to turn a blind-eye to personal responsibility on the part of females for fear of repercussions and I find that nothing will come of this without scrutiny of both parties. Perhaps we ought to be seeing what the colleges that are not experiencing Title IX investigations or lawsuits are doing rather than looking at colleges that are being sued and under investigation.
I also think that if a student does not report to the police, the student absolutely is “signaling” to some extent that the situation did not “meet” the definition of criminal (in their mind) along with a desire perhaps for confidentiality for which mediation is a very good solution.
I am no fan of Title IX expansion, and that’s no secret either, but I deeply believe that those that advocated for it never dreamed that it could or would be used for “reverse discrimination” or to allow harassment.
Yes and I don’t that it is totally appropriate for these types of situations…if an accuser wants “justice” then use the legal system. If an accuser wants confidentiality and a kinder, gentler process, use mediation.
As you know, Title IX permits mediation for some accusations. It looks to me like some students are choosing that alternative at colleges that offer it.
Restorative justice is used for all types of crimes, including serious crimes like murder.
Restorative justice presumes there is a “victim” and an “offender”…that is the issue with many of these cases it is not always clear if there is a “victim” or an “offender” and the word “victim” gets tossed out as if there is, in fact, an actual victim…more of accuser and an accused is probably closer to the truth in most cases - mediation is a stronger remediation in my opinion and perhaps if we look at colleges that are not embroiled in lawsuits we might find that mediation is exactly what is happening or some sort of give and take on the heart of the issues (like i don’t want to see this person, I don’t want the same classes as this person). If the case is not clearly felonious and worth investigation by police mediation would be my preferred choice of solving these issues.
Mediation can be problematic in many ways with the most obvious being that it carries no penalty or punishment. In many cases it is just a “dressed up” term for “leniency in exchange for an expression of remorse.” It might be appropriate in cases involving groping or unwanted touching/kissing but certainly not where rape is alleged.
The Heyman case at Bucknell is a good illustration of the pitfalls of mediation. Heyman reported being raped in her dorm by a fellow student. She agreed to mediation after Bucknell presented it as an effective way to confront the accused student with assured confidentiality which was important to Heyman. She was presented with a waiver to sign which essentially said that information disclosed by the parties in the mediation could not be used in any subsequent University proceeding. She did not fully grasp the implications of that waiver until the accused basically made statements at the mediation amounting to a confession. Despite 2 Deans being present, the boy was free to return to campus after nothing more than an apology for “hurting” Heyman.
Obviously this did not settle well with Heyman and she wanted to consider filing criminal charges. Her claim is that the Deans said they did not remember the accused making the incriminating statements and thus could not offer testimony supporting her.
Mediation can be used as an insidious tool to attempt to placate the victim with dialogue and expressions of remorse. I fully agree with the OCR on this one, with cases involving an alleged sexual assault mediation is not appropriate.
And I would also agree and said if the accusation was felonious it belongs in with the police and prosecutors. Some of these women do not seem to want to “go that far” and claim criminal activity occurred. If it’s not criminal, then mediation is perfectly acceptable to me. The woman in your example might have been better served by calling the police and not the college administration.
Chances are without the benefit of evidence collected from a rape kit she would not have been better served and a student who has implicated himself in a rape was permitted to just return to class, business as usual.
The constitution (mostly) defines and outlines the limits of government power. Very little of it has anything to do with how businesses operate.
Obviously it’s bad for a college to falsely expel someone but is it actionable? Let’s say a branch of a college were to close down. So one school has multiple branches, and then closes one down. Are they legally obligated to make restitution to students who attended there at the time and thus weren’t able to graduate? That situation seems very similar to this one so it seems that if one was actionable the other would be, and if one is not actionable then the other wouldn’t be either. Any lawyers who know anything about this?
That seems very strange. Whether the college considered the mediation confidential or not, if the young man admitted to the commission of felony rape in front of witnesses, it is hard for me to understand why he wouldn’t be prosecuted for it. But maybe there is something else in the story I am missing.
She signed a waiver agreeing that information disclosed during the mediation could not be used in any subsequent on campus judicial proceeding. At the mediation Heyman claimed the male student apologized and implicated himself agreeing that what happened was sexual assault. While the waiver did not prevent Heyman from pursuing criminal charges outside the University, she said when she considered it, the deans professed to not remembering the alleged admissions.
This is the problem with mediation, no matter what comes to light during the process there is no penalty attached to the proceeding. I find it very problematic that the boy would be allowed to return to campus if he implicated himself in this manner. This was however a 2003 case when “sweeping things under the rug” was more likely to go unnoticed.