Probably the result that is the most certain. Especially when it is easy for a third party to make errors in sexual misconduct cases with poor quality evidence and testimony (e.g. drunk).
no the changes are subtle-more autonomy for colleges and unis, no threat of federal aid removal, the ability to use mediation if both parties agree and it is appropriate and a restatement that the process must be fair and equitable. Anything else will come from the upcoming months before any new regulations are implemented.
Mediation was available for sexual harassment under the DCL but not sexual assault. Colleges now make the determination in what cases it is appropriate and both parties have to agree.
Well once they get some definitions around the non criminal actions I suppose it will all become clearer to the universities. All the states have defined sexual assault so I assume future guidance will address activitues that are criminal and the rest that colleges would consider honor code violations, it feels like that is where it is moving or at minimum public unis. I suppose the privates may have even more latttitude as long as they don’t deprive students of certain rights or in the case of professorial Title IX actions run afoul of free speech laws.
@QuantMech- I went to college in the 1980s and date rape drugs were definitely around in that time frame. I don’t recall the term roofies being used but I do remember being told by other women about not leaving my drink unattended. Rohypnol was introduced in the 1970s.
Interesting, Proudpatriot. The term “date rape” was not mentioned once during my pre-college education. In fact, this term was never mentioned in my presence, when I was in college. I would guess that Rohypnol did not immediately spread across the country, but slowly diffused across over a period of years (for the most part–isolated pockets possible). There probably is not an easily accessible data base that would show its first reported use on a state by state basis, but it would be interesting if there is something like that.
I would agree with your assessment about the term date rape but the concept was not new. When I first started dating boys who had cars (around 1981) my mother told me to always have change on me so I could call a cab “in case I needed to get away” She called it mad money and told me that her mother had always advised her to have mad money when she went on a date. I don’t think the concept was new even though the term was not in common usage.
I think the first time I heard the term date rape was in the mid 1980s. However, the idea of not leaving your drink unattended was brought to my attention, by another female student, prior to the usage of the term date rape. She told me someone could slip something in your drink. She told me that if I had to leave my drink to go get another, fresh cup (the fraternities all used cheap, plastic cups). I am sure that roofies did not sweep the country but it was known, at least in some places by the mid 1980s.
So in my own case I had been taught about the concept of date rape during my pre college days but I did not hear the actual term used until around my junior year of college. Alfred University had an educational seminar regarding date rape during my junior year (1985/86). That was the first time I had heard the term date rape, although the idea of a man getting a woman drunk and taking advantage of her was not new to me. There was no acknowledgement at the time that date rape could apply in any other way than a man taking advantage of a woman in a heterosexual context.
I remember this seminar as it was new and the university was touting its security escort service, which I did not know about until then (I think it existed). BTW-I don’t think the idea of teaching women how to reduce the risk of sexual assault is victim blaming. I also don’t think it excluded the idea of teaching men about consent. I think all avenues of risk reduction should be employed. If you lock your car door your car can still be broken into. Locking the door simply reduces the risk. Educating people reduces risk and should be used (without fear and shame).
An interesting observation. These players have been suspended from the football team but are all still students at UF.
https://sports.yahoo.com/felony-fraud-charges-recommended-9-florida-players-175940278.html
If you ask me these students pose a risk to every single student on campus, putting all of them at risk of credit card fraud, yet they are all allowed to remain on campus.
I know one of the accused players. He was a youth and HS football team mate of my son. I am surprised by his involvement. He isn’t likely to rape anyone but if a student can be thrown out of school in the absence of criminal charges why are all 9 of these students still allowed to be on campus?
Based on that article it looks like Yale will not change evidentiary standard:
The colleges won’t run afoul of they use that standard in other conduct code proceedings from what I think I understand. My guess is most would not but would tighten up their equality requirements and legal obligations which continue to have legal rulings. But all of it will be dependent on the open period for comments etc. That low standard in my opinion has the most probability of being debated.
More resistance to the DeVos agenda…
Thomas Abt in the Wednesday New York Times this week had an op ed column, in which he noted that homicides rose 12% from 2104 to 2105, and 8.5% (slightly more than that) from 2015 to 2016) according to the FBI data released this week. Violent crime (rapes, robberies and assaults) rose 4% from 2014 to 2015 and 4% again from 2015 to 2016. It is possible that the number of rapes fell, while the aggregate of other violent crimes increased. It is also possible that the number of rapes on campus fell, but there was an increase off-campus. Act was writing in support of the National Network for Safe Communities, which he felt was an effective approach to crime reduction (based on 10 studies, 9 favorable), and in any event, better than political sloganeering as a response.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm shows crime rates by year (crime per 100,000 people).
Crime 2014 2015 2016
Violent 372.0 384.6 397.1
Murder 4.4 4.9 5.3
Forcible Rape 26.6 28.4 29.6
Robbery 101.3 102.2 102.8
Agg. Assault 229.2 238.1 248.5
Property 2574.1 2500.5 2450.7
Burglary 537.2 494.7 468.9
Larceny-Theft 1821.5 1783.6 1745.0
Vehicle Theft 215.4 222.2 236.9
Forcible rape peaked at 42.8 per 1000 in 1992. Rate was 29.6 in 2016.
29.6 isn’t a “good” number. But the long term trend is for the rate going down significantly over the past 25 years.
The reported rates were lower than today in the 60s and early 70s. But that was such a different world in terms of awareness and reporting. So hard to say what those long ago numbers really mean as compared to current.
Realclearinvestigations has an in-depth article on a recent campus rape at UNC.
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/09/27/campus_rape_investigation.html
I read the article linked by Zinhead fairly quickly. Did it say where the sedative in the woman’s system came from? I don’t recall seeing that.
Try Googling Doxylamine and alcohol. It’s illuminating. I do not have any opinion on this case until I know where the sedative came from. Doxylamine is an anti-histamine. It is also used a sleep aid. You can buy it over the counter, but it may be one of those things where you have to provide your driver’s license when you buy it. (That is true of a lot of cold medication in my state.). It appears from the article that the investigators just ignored it, because it is legal and in widespread use. Combining it with alcohol is problematic, though–and I would guess, especially so with a lot of alcohol.
The article doesn’t say anything about where the sedative (or Doxylamine) came from. It also gives the impression that the investigators did not follow up on its presence at all.
The article says they didn’t follow up because it is such a common drug and she had limited presence of it in her blood work.
Re #278: Yes, that is what the article says. In combination with alcohol, Doxylamine can be deadly, though. I am not suggesting that the woman was in any danger of dying.
The drug wouldn’t raise an alert in a toxicology report by itself, for the reason you mentioned. But the combination of the drug (legal) + alcohol is what I am concerned about.
That is why I’d like to know whether the woman was just taking an anti-histamine, and unwisely combined it with alcohol, or whether someone else took actions that resulted in her having the anti-histamine in her system (along with the alcohol).
(It’s not as if giving women Quaaludes is an unknown activity.)