Yale Community at Odds Over Consent

Parents Forum
321

Yale is admirably detailed. I understand why they can’t be even more detailed, but I wish they could be. I’d love to know, in generalization, which kinds of sexual assaults result in expulsion, which result in suspension, which result lesser punishments in the formal hearings.

Also, I wonder about the informal complaint process. As to alleged sexual assault, Yale describes formal hearings where the respondent was found responsible and punished, formal hearings where the respondent was not found responsible and not punished, and informal hearings where the respondent was counseled and maybe there was a no-contact order. So, if there is an informal complaint of sexual assault, no matter what the accusation is, the respondent is always counseled and that’s it?

I’m wondering if there are some informal complaints where the complainer is told that what she complains about would not amount to a sexual assault even if it were true. Or informal complaints that turn out to be untrue on the face of it, because the respondent can demonstrate that he wasn’t there at the time of the alleged assault.

I mean, what if Emily comes to the informal process and says that she had one drink and then had enthusiastic sex with Max, so he assaulted her because she was incapacitated? Max shouldn’t be counseled; Emily should be counseled to take some damn responsibility for her actions. Or what if Sophie says that Jason assaulted her last Thursday, and Jason reminds the adjudicator that last Thursday he was in Indiana playing in a nationally televised basketball game? Jason shouldn’t be sent off to some consent training when it’s plain that what Sophie says is untrue.

322

Cardinal, you are assuming that all of the complainants are women and all of the alleged perpetrators are men.

I am told (anecdotally) that an increasing number of these complaints are from men who have been (or allege to have been) sexually assaulted or subjected to an unwanted advance from another man.
does that change your POV on who and how many people get expelled?

You have the complainant saying that he in no way invited any sort of physical contact. You have the perpetrator claiming that they were on a “date” and that all activity was mutual and consented to. Are you going to expel the perpetrator for a misunderstanding? Getting mixed signals? Having some sort of contact only to have the other party regret it in the cold cruel light of day?

These college sexual complaints are nowhere near as easy as people like to think- he said, she said, fueled by too much drinking on both parties. Sometimes its a date rape drug given to the other party. Sometimes it’s he said/he said.

Not easy stuff to listen to or adjudicate.

323

The schools that I was talking about and am familiar with fall into the category of elite privates. The overwhelming majority (maybe around 80%?) of this peer group used to use clear and convincing. It seems like many (most?) of the other Top 100 private research universities used clear and convincing as well. If you’re telling me that the vast majority of other schools used preponderance, then OK. We didn’t benchmark ourselves to them. I still don’t see how this addresses whether or not preponderance is a good standard to use, especially if we think panels are cheating around the standard when it comes to expulsions. Not at all.

I responded as best I could to many arguments in post #304. No need to repeat. Instead, let me attempt to summarize the last argument I heard -

  1. The mandate to use preponderance was mostly “not even a change at all” because the vast majority of schools were already using it.
  2. Yet somehow this “not even a change at all” is what is (partly) responsible for an increase in the number of reports being made. Furthermore, undoing this “not even a change at all” by allowing schools to use their previous standard will discourage reporting.

Again, the logic is beyond what my admittedly simple mind can follow :slight_smile:

I don’t know about you dstark, but personally I’d take that as an insult :slight_smile:

Instead, let’s think like seekers of the truth. It seems like we have a perfect opportunity for a good research study. Look at the schools that changed their standard in the last 5 years (Group I) and look at the schools that didn’t (Group II). Was there a greater increase in reporting in the Group I schools versus the Group II schools?

For example, if we’re seeing a lot more (valid) reporting at MIT and Dartmouth, then by this same logic the mandate to use preponderance couldn’t have been responsible for it since they were already using the preponderance standard. On the other hand, more reporting at Yale would count in the plus column.

Maybe some bright young person looking for a project will do this study.

Fair enough. I don’t think my arguments are driven by my political views, but I definitely might be blind to this.

Instead, let me tell you what I hate. I get irked when politicians and bureaucrats argue for changes primarily based on the large number of sexual assaults occurring on campus, and then, after coming up with their “solutions”, they don’t measure the success of their policies by whether they actually reduce the problem, nor do they use the studies they used to condemn the old policies as benchmarks for judging their own success.

I wish I had the same lack of accountability at my job. Actually, I take that back. We’d be bankrupt :slight_smile:

324

I’m not. In fact, having read the resolutions, which give genders, I know that not all complainants are women and not all respondents are men. But I’m using the generic “she” and “he” here. Most complainants are women, and most respondents are men.

325

@al2simon, i like your last post. Except for a 5 year stint, I was fully accountable for what I did, because it was my money.

I have a great wife. She put up with the losing days. The ups and downs.

I am a little hesitant to say this because you are better than I am in math. There is some correlation between math abilities and logic. It’s not a perfect correlation though. :slight_smile:

I think you need to rethink your conclusions about the effect of the preponderance of evidence standard. There may be an effect psychologically by announcing a lower national standard that leads to more people reporting. So, even though my school already had the preponderance of evidence standard, because it is now a national standard. I might be more motivated to report. I think this is true. I am not just saying this.

Also, you don’t have the numbers of expelled students to show there is a problem with the preponderance standard. The onus is on you. I didn’t ask you about the numbers just for kicks. :slight_smile:

You can see by the way people are talking about this issue that the atmosphere is changing. Look at the blowback the Yale basketball team received.

326

How many of us followed the Owen Labrie case? I assume that the prosecutors and police were convinced of Labrie’s guilt on the felony sexual assault charge as well as the sex with a minor misdemeanor. The plea bargain Labrie was offered was three weeks in jail, a record which said assault with no reference to a sexual assault, and no need to register as a sex offender. That’s in Concord, NH, not exactly a locale with criminal courts overburdened with serious felony cases. Yet, we’re criticizing Yale because not all “rapists” are expelled?

Did you read what happened to the victim when she returned to St. Paul’s in the fall? And Labrie wasn’t even there any more! Still, she was harassed, particularly by the members of a sports team he had been on. One of Labrie’s classmates enrolled in a different college. He made several trips to the victim’s sister’s college, sat outside her dorm, and showed up at events for organizations she participated in. What might have happened if one of Labrie’s friends had enrolled in the same college as the victim’s sister…and thus didn’t have to drive several hundred miles to stalk her?

I am really in awe of Labrie’s victim and her parents. I seriously doubt that I would have had the courage to put myself or my D through that. The only reason Labrie got convicted of the misdemeanor is that she was underage and Labrie knew it. So, for those who are convinced that all you have to do is call the police and justice will be served I offer that case as an example. So much info about the victim was given out that it took less than 15 minutes for this 60+ reader to figure out her ID. During the trial, her name was shown at least twice. The family lived a long way from Concord, NH but they were harassed. Like Erin Andrews, she can’t get rid of the stuff about her that’s posted on the web. Google her name and you get absolute filth, along with some happy things that indicate she’s doing ok.

I’ve been impressed that the name of Montague’s accuser hasn’t leaked, but now his friends have started the “we aren’t going to name her, but we’ll release details about her so eventually everyone will know her ID” plan.

I know the names of the victims in the Labrie case and the Steubenville case. I figured out the name of the Vandy victim but have forgotten it. (That “alleged” rape occurred in June 2013. There was a trial, which resulted in a conviction but a mistrial was declared so the case has to be tried all over again.) Every time the victims are identified and harassed.

Part of the appeal of the college tribunals is the confidentiality of the accuser’s and accused’s names. I know the names of victims who report the crimes to police are supposed to be confidential, but they rarely remain private. And the unfortunate reality is that when they become public, the victim is harassed. Invariably when the accuser is from an affluent family the defense hires private investigators to find out all the dirt they can. In the Labrie case, the family moved thousands of miles, but that didn’t stop Carney’s investigators from asking all their new neighbors about them.

327

@jonri,

I would like to give you something better than a like for your post but a like is all I have. :slight_smile:

I may be full of it, but… Math people tend to concentrate more on math than psychology. Psychology people tend to concentrate more on psychology than math.

I like how you wrote about the psycholgical impact on victims. How victims are treated.

I linked a story about a Kansas woman. She reported. People, some so called friends, turned against her.

And the accused has been accused more than once.

328

Really??? My bet is that if you asked a bunch of college students / college women “what is your opinion about the use of preponderance as the evidentiary standard for the adjudication of sexual assault claims in campus disciplinary hearings”, 90% or more of them would have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I really don’t think most everyday students follow this stuff.

Look, it is entirely plausible to me that the increased attention to this area and the addition of resources to campus Title IX offices have helped increase reporting. Respectively however, I think arguing for the use of preponderance because of its influence on the campus “psychological” climate is grasping at straws.

Do you remember the Duke lacrosse case 10 years ago (there’s a 30 for 30 airing about it right now)? Those guys were pilloried … campus marches and vigils, signed petitions by the 88 faculty members, national press condemnation, criminal prosecution by an unethical and eventually disbarred district attorney who was hell bent on getting them… and they were actually innocent ! Now that’s blowback !! The Yale basketball team got a love tap in comparison.

I think I’ve already said that I’m not sure there are more expelled students, but I’ve already addressed this. Let me just make one more point before I go back to the salt mines … Didn’t you just highlight the problems with the fact that NY and VA are going to add “expelled for sexual assault” to students’ transcripts? And you really want to do that on the basis of amateurish processes with little due process and a preponderance standard? We shouldn’t label people “rapists” (even if it’s not in a criminal setting) unless we’re confident in our processes. Otherwise, we’re just playing with fire - as the NY and VA laws illustrate.

329

I was going to suggest, a politician. :slight_smile:

330

@al2simon, I never followed the Duke lacrosse case. I don’t have one post in that thread and I have written a lot of posts. :slight_smile:
You might be right about students knowing…

I think the numbers of students being expelled is very important.

I do think mandatory reporting on a transcript is an issue. I don’t have answer for this. I don’t know everything; although my mom thinks I do. :slight_smile:

331

@ al2simon

First, the Duke case didn’t involve a campus tribunal. The matter was reported to police. It’s actually a great argument for the fact that sometimes the criminal justice system doesn’t do a great job—and for the fact that the publicity can make life a living hell for those involved in a high profile crime.

Second, the Virginia law appears to have been prompted by the Jesse Matthew case. Matthew was convicted of killing two women, one was Hannah Graham. Before killing these women, Matthew had been reported to the police in 3 separate incidents. No charges were issued–in the third case because the ID of the attacker wasn’t known.

In case 1, Matthew was a student at Liberty U. He was accused of raping a fellow student. The incident was reported to the police. The victim didn’t pursue it after talking to the police and DA. Matthew was expelled from Liberty U, but it was NOT for sexual assault. Liberty U’s honor code bars premarital/extramarital sex. Matthew admitted having sex with the victim, so he was expelled for having sex. Admitting to consensual sex is enough to get you kicked out of Liberty. Since the young woman said the sex was non-consensual, she wasn’t “convicted” of breaking the honor code and was allowed to remain.

Matthew then enrolled in CNU. He was accused of sexual assault and, according to CNU, it was reported to the police. The police now say they have no record of a report. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t one; if charges aren’t issued the report is dropped from the system. CNU was going to subject Matthew to a college tribunal like those we have been discussing. Matthew withdrew from CNU a week before the hearing. Nothing on his record said anything about the scheduled disciplinary hearing.

This is just a reminder that “blowback” goes both ways. I don’t want to ruin the lives of innocent young men, but I sure wish Jesse Matthew had been stopped earlier.

332

@al2simon, let’s come at this from a different angle just so I know what your basic premises are. That will help me better understand where you are coming from. Would you articulate for me why you believe the standard was lowered in the first place? Are you in the camp that this is a politically driven witch hunt based on an exaggerated view of the sexual assault statistics on campuses? Or do you believe there was and is a problem on campuses that the OCR was attempting to address?

I think the logic that you reference in 1) and 2) in your post #322 is not making sense to you because you are not taking into account other factors that could affect the reporting numbers. The DCL is not only about a new evidentiary standard. It contains many other provisions that have brought not only a more visible reporting structure, but a whole new awareness to the issue of reporting campus sexual assault. And these type of changes take time - sometimes a lot more time than we would think.

I believe you may have misinterpreted my “thinking like a lawyer” comment - I am hopeful it was not deliberate - although you did segway right into “let’s be seekers of the truth” instead. I think I was pretty clear in my post #263 how important it is to me to balance the rights of both parties in these tribunals. I have a son and a daughter (both athletes) so I would like to believe that I am sensitive to both sides of the issues in the cases that are dominating the headlines. I do not believe that there is a poster on this board participating in these sexual assault threads that would want someone unjustly punished in a hearing. But I am a pretty trusting soul and tend to think the best of people.

My comment was based on how I approach protecting my own interests or anyone else’s for that matter. Suppose someone appeared at your office door and said " I know our business relationship has been governed by this letter for the last few years, but I have decided to change the standard upon which you will be liable for any investment losses your clients might suffer. Here is the revised letter please sign and agree to this." You hand the letter to me as your lawyer to review. Do you think I am going to say “why of course this makes sense, sign away.” Of course not. Changes of that nature have to considered thoughtfully, discussed and then some consensus reached on whether or not this is in the best interest of your company. What are you giving up and what are you getting in return? Will you be harmed in any way if you agree to this and are there any other possible alternatives that might work better for one or both parties?

Obviously, we are just discussing the issue on a college forum, but sexual assault is a pressing issue facing women, and I do have a vested interest in it’s being addressed appropriately. I don’t perceive we have a 100% consensus yet on what is the best evidentiary standard,and I am not sure we have explored all the alternatives. So I guess I am “thinking like a lawyer” and am not going to agree to a higher standard just because you and other posters think that’s the way it should be.

333

While certainly not a witch hunt, I would think the standard was changed because of the belief that too many young men were getting away with sexual assault and that the standard of proof was too high. Certainly, the 1 in 4 number was cited by the administration when promoting the DCL. The outcry at the time was to always believe the woman.

Questioning whether 50.1% belief in one side or the other is not questioning whether the problem exists. Of course it does.

It is not just the accused that dislike the tribunal system. Emma started her mattress project because she was frustrated at the way the tribunal heard her case, her inability to ask questions, and the questions that were asked of her.

Jonri’s post points out how hard it is to keep the name of the victim private on a campus and how difficult it is to protect young woman from harassment after they make a complaint. It is probably not illegal for a friend of the accused to show up at an event at the sister of the victim’s college, but would certainly feel unsafe to the sister. I doubt that many woman really understand how this may impact them, especially if the accused is high profile, high status man and it takes a lot of courage to pursue a charge. Colleges (and high schools) should do more to punish harassment, but just not sure how realistic it is to control all of it. Not sure if the condemnation of the Yale men’s t-shirts is a sign that things are changing, although certainly a small step in the right direction. I wonder what life is like for the victim on the Yale campus.

The converse is also true: a man that is cleared should not be harassed and labeled a rapist either. I understand the frustration on both sides, but neither is acceptable.

334

Here’s an article from the Yale Daily News, which also includes oblique statements from the Yale authorities about consideration of prior disciplinary history: http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/17/montague-statement-sparks-debate/
I think it’s possible that the guy had a plan to deal with his expulsion quietly, but that it was upended by his teammates demonstration of “support” for him. As I said above, it will be interesting to see if he actually sues. I’m betting he doesn’t.

I’ll just add one word about the preponderance of the evidence. I’ve posted reams on this before, but the bottom line for me is that I don’t believe that it’s the proper standard of proof for a proceeding that includes the possibility of significant individual punishment, including expulsion from a university. I agree with @JHS, though, that it’s pretty likely that administrators are not likely to expel a student without (at least in their minds) meeting a more stringent standard.

335

No way they were that naive or stupid. (Can’t just make a team captain disappear “quietly” right before the biggest game in decades.)

336

If you are hanging your hat on that, even in light of the HIPPA laws, I would worry alot about Yale’s factual case. Obviously the legal argument, that the kid has no remedy for the expulsion, is where these cases are won and lost. But if he gets over that hurdle, then saying we didn’t really expel him for this but for other hazy and unspecified things is not an argument that I think will resonate. Like with virtually all of these cases that get past the Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment phase, it’s a dollar to a dime and a donut that the case settles. There is no way Yale wants discovery here. They can’t win. Too great of a risk they look like advocates (see the recent articles about the Amherst case). If in fact this kid has had prior relevant disciplinary history than Yale looks like they let a rapist run loose on campus.

I also want to say that I find it troubling so many of you are so incensed that the kid’s teammates would support him. I can’t for the life of me see how that minor show of support hurt him at all. Quite the contrary, the reaction to the wearing of the t shirts, including the likely forced quasi apology I think helps his cause in the case of public opinion.

Now maybe the lawyer is just blowing smoke, and maybe there are no plans to do anything. But if this kid doesn’t sue at this point or if the case doesn’t settle pre suit, after everything they have put out there, then he has the worst lawyer in the world. Because he will have radically increased his profile to no good end.

337

For those who have concerns about the impartiality of these “in-house” investigators employed by the colleges, there some news out in the Amhurst case that sheds some light on the issue. Some background on the case:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/college-finding-key-evidence-in-sex-assault-cases-is-expecting-perfection/article/2586636

The expelled student is suing Amhurst, and it came out during deposition that the investigator hired by Amhurst would have ignored any evidence that would have cleared the man charged.

http://academicwonderland.com/

You can read the relevant parts of the deposition here:

https://kcjohnson.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/08/amherst-kurker-depo.pdf

Given the attitude of the Amhurst investigator, I would certainly hope that Yale hired someone more competent to do the job in the Montague case.

338

Looking at the expelled student statistics, Looking at all the zero numbers of expelled students colleges have reported over the years, I don’t think a majority of schools used a clear and convincing standard or a preponderance of evidence standard when judging sexual assault cases.

Many schools probably did not even use a reasonable doubt standard.

I think Montague is going to sue or come up with some undisclosed agreement with Yale. After what his attorney said, how can he walk away without proceeding?

339

I agree with @Ohiodad51 in terms of the general reaction to the team showing their support for Montague. Regardless of whether it helped him or hurt him in the long run, the way I look at it they are showing support for him because they believe he was innocent and therefore treated unfairly, not because they support rape or rapists. I would hope, but obviously have no way of knowing, that if Montague did commit sexual assault and if he admitted that to his teammates, that they would not have shown their support that way. But the odds of him admitting his guilt, if in fact he is guilty, are slim to none,

I’ve recently observed a similar debate about showing support for someone accused of something pretty heinous in my local community - those who showed support for the accused were themselves accused of not supporting the alleged victim. However, those who did show support felt that the accused were innocent of the stated charges and that the victim had a back-story that would suggest his/her claims may not be entirely credible. At this time, it seems very clear that no one, except those directly involved, can have any way of knowing what really happened. It could be that the charges as stated are 100% true or are 100% false or fall somewhere in between. So the bystanders can only “choose sides” based upon what they know about the accused and the victim and who they feel is more credible. Perhaps one day more facts will come to light that help folks assess whether they chose wisely. And maybe if someone finds out they chose the wrong side, they’ll be more hesitant the next time to pick sides.

340

Wait a minute, a young woman sexually assaulted a young man and they expelled HIM?! (I would note that she in fact could be considered to have raped him, if the standard of penetration is not applied. Perhaps that definition needs revisiting.)