@HarvestMoon1, i get your point. I just think it is a catch 22. If the other alleged offenses were “in no way related” to sexual assault, then how are they being used to justify the dismissal? Not sure the “he is a bad guy and deserved what he got” argument works too well here, given the current climate and what appears to be the forming consensus that colleges are going to far in general and in this case in particular. If they are related to sexual assault, then either there is some type of proof to show that he was guilty, in which case why didn’t Yale kick him out before or there is no evidence that he was guilty, in which case how can they be used to justify the dismissal? I just don’t see the end game.
On the other hand, if Yale conducted a solid investigation, and if the evidence and procedure we see coming out of this is different than what we have seen in these case to date, then the school is sitting pretty, and the kid’s lawyer looks like the biggest idiot in the world. Maybe that is the best way to express my point. This case will live and die on this case. Not what else happened about that kid on campus, but the facts developed and the steps taken by the tribunal here in the moment.
And if I understand your point, there is no such thing as standing to report the commission of a crime. All citizens are free to advise law enforcement when they believe there is evidence that a crime has been committed. This is different than being required to do so, which is what being a mandatory reporter means. In my opinion, schools should be mandatory reports for sexual assault if they are going to involve themselves in these issues. But you are right that is not the law in a lot of places presently.
@dstark, as I have said before, the issue with rape kits is far, far more complex than you or HuffPo wants to believe. But by all means, keep demagoging the issue. And then explain to me how whether the city of New Haven has a back log of untested rape kits could in any way shape or form effect the circumstances here?
@Ohiodad51 Maybe you do know what I’m about to write, but the media sure don’t.
Yale has its own police department. If this young woman were raped on campus and called 911, it’s my understanding that the Yale Police Department, NOT the New Haven police department would respond. see http://publicsafety.yale.edu/police/investigative-services-unit
So the fact that the New Haven police department doesn’t have an investigation open on Montague just means nobody complained that he sexually assaulted her OFF THE YALE CAMPUS somewhere else in New Haven.
We actually don’t know with certainty that the young woman did NOT contact the police at the time of the incident.
I apologize. Most of the news stories just said she didn’t file a complaint with the New Haven Police. I thought it was unknown whether she contacted Yale Police.
@ohiodad51, I am not going to stop. This issue is real. These stories are not just in the Huffington Post.
How many links from different sources do you want? For example, Do you want the Houston story? Use google. Check out the front page of the SF Chronicle last Sunday.
Nobody here knows what is going on in the Montague case.
The argument that people should go to the police would be stronger if police didn’t throw away evidence.
And rape kits can be very helpful with acquaintance rape. Many times the accused denied there was sex. Rape kits can show otherwise. This is a fact.
It took 7 years to find my friend’s mom’s murderer. The investigators did not throw evidence away.
You know what is in the rape kits in New Haven?
Parts of rapists. Let’s get those rapists.
I want to emphasize that I know nothing about the Montague case. I merely was refuting the idea that in principle, Yale could be deemed at fault for expelling someone they had good reason to believe was a sexual predator, even if no prosecutor would think there was enough evidence to put before a jury.
When I said nobody here knows what is going on in the Montague case, I didn’t mean people shouldn’t speculate, share their legal opinions, whatever they want. That stuff is interesting.
Most students, the article says, choose a dean or someone from the university’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Education (SHARE) Center. It’s not obvious to me that a dean would be better than a coach. If it was my son, and suspension or expulsion was on the table, he wouldn’t have a dean or a coach. He’d have a lawyer.
^^ I agree, but I could see an18-22 year old not wanting to tell his parents he is accused of sexual assault and thinking he could handle it himself. The article also implies that lawyers have different rules than coaches or deans.
“The UWC procedures specify that, should a student wish to use an external lawyer as an adviser, the student must inform the UWC secretary at least four days in advance of any meeting the adviser will attend.”
I understand that hiring a lawyer as your adviser may be beyond the means of some students. This isn’t a criminal case in a state/federal court, so Gideon v. Wainwright doesn’t come into play either. As a result, students may not want to foot large legal fees if they believe this process will treat them “fairly” (which in their mind means their preferred outcome). That’s how you get basketball coaches or deans serving as advisers.
I think Yale should mandate legal representation for both sides in a formal complaint (i.e. bar the student from enlisting a coach/RA/dean or anyone else without a legal background), and foot the bill if that’s what it takes for students to agree. Unfortunately, not all universities have the resources for costly near fail-safes like this. Fortunately, Yale’s endowment is greater than the GDP of 80+ countries, and they can afford it.
Re the hints of prior bad acts or discipline of Montague:
I posted in the Men Fight Back Against Charges thread a finding in a case at George Mason, where Doe was again unsuccessful in a Title IX complaint, but the judge found in his favor in regards to due process violations.
The school admitted they had kicked Doe out not only for the sexual assault complaint (where he was initially found not responsible by a campus hearing), but for other issues and problems as well. The judge ruled that Doe was unaware those incidents would also be considered, and therefore he had no opportunity to defend himself against those incidents at the time of the appeal.
In cases where it really is unknown, why not just fine all such accused instead of taking the all or nothing stance of expulsion or nothing? The guilty will know they will get fined every time, and the victims will know they can have him fined. The innocent will know their max liability is limited and that they can survive the automatic fine if it happens rarely. I say if the accuser is clearly weaker than the accused, and we know they were in a private room long enough it could have happened, then let the accuser have the stronger accused fined. Simple.
Thoughts?
The responses I got from others are “A fine for rape is insulting to the victim.” But the fine is not for rape. It is for cases where guilt is unknown. If guilt is very likely, far more than 50-50, then of course we expel. The fine is for cases that are 60-40 to 40-60. I don’t think 51% should be the cut off. Give the weaker party some power.
"Jack Montague, the Yale basketball captain who was expelled near the end of the team’s best season in a half-century, sued the university Thursday for breach of contract and defamation, a development likely to reignite a charged debate over campus sexual harassment.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, Montague, 22, of Brentwood, Tennessee, names as defendants the university itself and two officials responsible for overseeing its compliance with federal sexual equality laws. The suit specifies no damages, asking that they be determined at a jury trial. "