Campus "rape", a clear indication the univsities are doing it wrong

[Derec]

[*]USC is required by Title IX to investigate.

University is not really qualified to conduct such an investigation. Also, often

[*]As pointed out USC's worst punishment is expulsion.
[*]The student has all their liberties and is free to attend another university if expelled, or can return in good standing if found not responsible or suspended.

This doesn't mean that the consequences are minor. In fact, they are major and life-altering. Which is why colleges should be careful not to punish innocent students just because of political correctness and "rape culture" hysteria.

[*]The requirement of due process for public schools is fulfilled.

Not really. At these kangaroo tribunals, the ability of the male student to defend himself is severely curtailed. That led to a number of questionable, and likely wrongful, decisions by the universities - Vassar, Amherst, Occidental, UGA, UND and many more.

[*]The school's has fulfilled its obligations under Title IX.

Maybe Title IX needs to be amended. Also, why doesn't Title IX (which is supposedly about gender equality and thus should cut both ways) mean that girls falsely accusing somebody of rape get punished by expulsion too?

 

[Derec]

Another point is that if a person is drunk , it does not matter if they instigated the act because the particular state they are in. I would be surprised if a case is dropped purely on the video surveillance.

Just being drunk doesn't mean that somebody can't give consent. If that were the case, millions of people would be guilty of (usually mutual) rape every weekend in the US alone. Not to mention that cabbies giving rides to drunk people would be guilty of kidnapping and theft.
No, it is nonsensical to claim that drunkenness itself makes somebody unable to consent.
While there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", it is not the same as just being drunk.

- - - Updated - - -

Generally if she was drunk then she was not in a fit state to give consent regardless of any video.

Wrong. Just being drunk does not make one incapable of giving consent.

Instigating it would have nothing to do with it.

What if he was drunk as well. Does that mean that she raped him, especially since she was the one who instigated the sex?
Or is it yet another instance of sexist double standards?

- - - Updated - - -

Generally if she was drunk then she was not in a fit state to give consent regardless of any video.

Wrong. Just being drunk does not make one incapable of giving consent.

Instigating it would have nothing to do with it.

What if he was drunk as well. Does that mean that she raped him, especially since she was the one who instigated the sex?
Or is it yet another instance of sexist double standards?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

University is not really qualified to conduct such an investigation. Also, often

The university is required to investigate or face stiff financial penalties and potential loss of aid. It does not matter your opinion on the investigatory competency. (One could claim that of the legal system as well.)

[*]The student has all their liberties and is free to attend another university if expelled, or can return in good standing if found not responsible or suspended.

This doesn't mean that the consequences are minor. In fact, they are major and life-altering. Which is why colleges should be careful not to punish innocent students just because of political correctness and "rape culture" hysteria.

I would argue that the most common punishments: probation and suspensions are not in any way life-altering. Expulsion can be depending on what one was pursuing, but it is far short of inprisionment, still legal fines, and the stigma of having a felony sexual misconduct on your record. Also, expulsion does not follow you. You are in no way required to tell people you went to college "x" and can still find meaningful employment and lead a good life.

[*]The requirement of due process for public schools is fulfilled.

Not really. At these kangaroo tribunals, the ability of the male student to defend himself is severely curtailed. That led to a number of questionable, and likely wrongful, decisions by the universities - Vassar, Amherst, Occidental, UGA, UND and many more.

All public schools are required to offer due process for all punishments even for non-sexual assault reasons. Bad grades, disruptive behavior, cheating, all these other things the courts have deemed is none of their business. And guess what, sexual assault and even brutal gang rape have the same punishment as academic dishonesty!

[*]The school's has fulfilled its obligations under Title IX.

Maybe Title IX needs to be amended. Also, why doesn't Title IX (which is supposedly about gender equality and thus should cut both ways) mean that girls falsely accusing somebody of rape get punished by expulsion too?

She/he can very well get expelled for such behavior.

 

[RavenSky]

I will, however, dispute article's assumption that the woman's behavior in the bar has any bearing on whether she was raped in her dorm room. One has nothing to do with the other, and her sobriety or lack of does not play into that point.

It most certainly does have a bearing. The claim was that she was too drunk to consent. The footage showed her not being too drunk to consent. The footage also showed her to be the sexual aggressor, but despite this feminists like you take her side just because she is female.

And I will dispute Loren's position that a Judge's ruling of no rape automatically means the young man is also innocent of violating University policy. One has nothing to do with the other, and it is up to the University to determine if their own code of conduct was violated.

The policy in question is the one dealing with sexual assault and rape. If whether he violated this policy has nothing to do whether he actually sexually assaulted or raped anybody, then the policy is most certainly faulty and should be revised. Often universities will treat any alcohol consumption as evidence of "too drunk to consent" but only against the guy, never against the girl.

So Derec, is it your position that if a drunk woman kisses you in a bar, you are thereby legally allowed to follow her back to her dorm and forcibly rape her? Because that is what you just argued for.

As to what exactly the Univesity is investigating, you have no fucking idea. If you do, post the specific University policy in question with a link back to its original source.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TSwizzle]

So Derec, is it your position that if a drunk woman kisses you in a bar, you are thereby legally allowed to follow her back to her dorm and forcibly rape her? Because that is what you just argued for.

You can't help but spew out this same garbage every time this comes up. You are incapable of rational discussion about it.

 

[RavenSky]

This situation is a bit strange. The woman was convincing enough that the police conducted an investigation and the DA went ahead with the case. Then the judge dismissed the case. So it is possible the sex was consensual (as the judge seemed to rule) or it is possible the judge is wrong. According to the cited story, the woman has no memory of what happened.

Now, the University is conducting an investigation, although we don't know what policies or code of conduct are being looked at nor do we know who is being investigated.

Yet, the "rape apologists" are all in a dither about the wrong doing of the University and the unfairness of its polices even though not a single one of them has any idea what is actually going on.

in a nutshell

 

[RavenSky]

The claim here, by Loren, is that the University is "doing it wrong" because they continue to investigate if the two students involved in this case violated University code of conduct.

The rape claim.

That is what my questions were about.

Why you shift to some other claim is telling.

The questions again:

If you know a person is drunk and they are instigating sex is it legal to have sex with them?

Does a person have some responsibility for what they do if they willfully consume alcohol?

I already responded to that question (while also being very clear to separate Loren's bogus claims from your question.)

Here is my answer again:

In general, sex without consent is rape. People in certain conditions are considered, prima facie, incapable of consent - minors, mentally incapacitated, and drunk/drugged after a certain point... i.e. passed out or too far gone to understand the nature and consequences of the situation.

The problem is determining "too drunk" - which is why anyone who actually gives a damn about not raping or (failing concern about the other person) self-preservation, should avoid having sex with relative strangers where they cannot confirm age, mental capacity and/or sobriety.

In the OP case, clearly the Judge believed that the woman was (1) not drunk to the point of incapacity, and (2) not raped in her dorm. I will assume that he had additional evidence we are not privy to in making his decision.

I will, however, dispute article's assumption that the woman's behavior in the bar has any bearing on whether she was raped in her dorm room. One has nothing to do with the other, and her sobriety or lack of does not play into that point.

 

[RavenSky]

Nobody is claiming that they were. But if both are about sexual assaults, then both should be about whether sexual assault was committed.
You, RavenSky et al act as if merely saying that "criminal law and university policy are not the same things" it justifies any arbitrary, capricious or biased university policy.

You clearly have no fucking clue what me or Toni or "et al" are talking about.

Post the specific university policy that one or both students are being investigated under, and a link back to your original source.

THEN we will talk.

 

[laughing dog]

University is not really qualified to conduct such an investigation.

If the University is not qualified to conduct an investigation to whether its polices have been violated, then who is?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is good that these schools do not have criminal court powers to lock people up, but they can still ruin somebody with false or incompetent or malicious prosecution and should rightfully be sued for the resulting damage.

What exactly is the policy? Is it spelled out to students before they invest their time and reputation and tuition into the school?

Is there one? Is it explicitly sexist and only applicable to male students. If so, is that double standard legal, and is it made clear on sign up?

Are US schools funded in part by tax dollars? If so, does that make school policy of interest and concern and accountable to the public at large, and therefore they ought to be fair and rational?

Can cool rational minds examine this? I am amazed that Derec could say something like a rape policy should have something to do with rape, and that garnering the response "prove it".

 

[laughing dog]

It is good that these schools do not have criminal court powers to lock people up, but they can still ruin somebody with false or incompetent or malicious prosecution and should rightfully be sued for the resulting damage.

What exactly is the policy? Is it spelled out to students before they invest their time and reputation and tuition into the school?

Yes, it usually is. Whether anyone pays attention is a different matter.

Is there one? Is it explicitly sexist and only applicable to male students. If so, is that double standard legal, and is it made clear on sign up?

USC (University of Southern California) has a website. Anyone is free to look it up. Of course, what is difficult in this instance is that there is no mention of who and what actions are being investigated and what possible rules/codes of conduct are being looked at.

Are US schools funded in part by tax dollars? If so, does that make school policy of interest and concern and accountable to the public at large, and therefore they ought to be fair and rational?

USC is a private institution. So, it is funded indirectly through tax dollars.

Can cool rational minds examine this? I am amazed that Derec could say something like a rape policy should have something to do with rape, and that garnering the response "prove it".

Derec is assuming that the investigation is about rape or sexual assault. The "prove it" was an obvious challenge to his assumption about what the investigation was about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...footage-nightclub-clear-USC-student-rape.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Fail but they probably have the basic facts.

Summary: She accuses him of rape due to alcohol impairment. Oops--multiple security cameras show that she's the instigator and that she intended sex. The police figured it out and dropped all charges. The university, though....

Without the case transcript it is difficult to give an evaluation.

For instance a drunk person can also be instigator, more so than when sober but in English and Californian Law. In such circumstance it suggests an argument for non-consent if the case is brought to court.

So the surveillance tapes may not provide a full explanation.

In English and Californian Laws, consent can be withdrawn anytime during intercourse.

This gets complex when the defendant claims he did not know consent was withdrawn (known as mistake of fact).

At the same time the person claiming rape may claim that she felt through fear that consent could not be withdrawn.



It would be good to see more detailed reports.

Are you missing the fact the police dropped all charges? The cops know it's a false accusation, the university still wants to punish him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought the claim here was the person was not capable of giving consent since they were too drunk?

The claim here, by Loren, is that the University is "doing it wrong" because they continue to investigate if the two students involved in this case violated University code of conduct.

In general, sex without consent is rape. People in certain conditions are considered, prima facie, incapable of consent - minors, mentally incapacitated, and drunk/drugged after a certain point... i.e. passed out or too far gone to understand the nature and consequences of the situation.

The problem is determining "too drunk" - which is why anyone who actually gives a damn about not raping or (failing concern about the other person) self-preservation, should avoid having sex with relative strangers where they cannot confirm age, mental capacity and/or sobriety.

In the OP case, clearly the Judge believed that the woman was (1) not drunk to the point of incapacity, and (2) not raped in her dorm. I will assume that he had additional evidence we are not privy to in making his decision.

I will, however, dispute article's assumption that the woman's behavior in the bar has any bearing on whether she was raped in her dorm room. One has nothing to do with the other, and her sobriety or lack of does not play into that point.

And I will dispute Loren's position that a Judge's ruling of no rape automatically means the young man is also innocent of violating University policy. One has nothing to do with the other, and it is up to the University to determine if their own code of conduct was violated.

Yeah. University policy to treat all accused rapists as guilty regardless of the evidence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Without the case transcript it is difficult to give an evaluation.

For instance a drunk person can also be instigator, more so than when sober but in English and Californian Law. In such circumstance it suggests an argument for non-consent if the case is brought to court.

So the surveillance tapes may not provide a full explanation.

In English and Californian Laws, consent can be withdrawn before or anytime during intercourse.

This gets complex when the defendant claims he did not know consent was withdrawn (known as mistake of fact).

At the same time the person claiming rape may claim that she felt through fear that consent could not be withdrawn.



It would be good to see more detailed reports.

Are you missing the fact the police dropped all charges? The cops know it's a false accusation, the university still wants to punish him.

I am aware of this but rape cases can be complex. This is why I quoted possibilities. Each case is different so has distinguishing circumstances.

My puzzlement is that surveillance tapes in themselves would not determine consent on the basis of soundness of mind and the article does not answer any questions as to whether she claimed if there was any point where she withdrew whether drunk or otherwise consent.

Also I'm puzzled when the news article stating the prosecution claimed she was too drunk to give consent. This is true but if should mean that if she gave consent and was drunk then she was not of sound mind to enter into any agreement.

I'm not saying he's guilty; the article is too sketchy plus surveillance videos in themselves do not present full evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This situation is a bit strange. The woman was convincing enough that the police conducted an investigation and the DA went ahead with the case. Then the judge dismissed the case. So it is possible the sex was consensual (as the judge seemed to rule) or it is possible the judge is wrong. According to the cited story, the woman has no memory of what happened.

Now, the University is conducting an investigation, although we don't know what policies or code of conduct are being looked at nor do we know who is being investigated.

Yet, the "rape apologists" are all in a dither about the wrong doing of the University and the unfairness of its polices even though not a single one of them has any idea what is actually going on.

I don't see it as confusing. The security camera footage was incompatible with her testimony. She's busted as a witness, end of case.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you missing the fact the police dropped all charges? The cops know it's a false accusation, the university still wants to punish him.

False.

The article YOU posted states that the young man was arrested and the prosecutor filed charges. It was a judge who dismissed the case. Your claim that "police dropped all charges" is false. Your claim that "cops know it's a false accusation" is false.

Moreover, your claim that "the university still wants to punish him" is ALSO false because the university has not yet (as per the article) concluded their investigation.

Why do you make so many false statements?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's there to prove? It's true by definition. If a sexual assault policy has nothing to do with whether sexual assault was actually committed (for example by expelling a male student who engaged in consensual sex just because the female was drinking, even if the male student was also drinking) then it is obviously a bad policy. And if it is applied against male students only, it is also a sexist policy.

(the rest of your nonsense isn't worthy of reply)

Oh it is. It just challenges your messed up worldview when it comes to expelling innocent male students.

For the millionth time in such discussions:

Criminal law and university policy are not the same things. They do not carry the same weight, they do not carry the same burden of proof, they do not carry the same consequences.

For example, a university cannot imprison a student who violates any of its policies. A university can expel a student who violates a university policy in some circumstances.

Yeah, work around that pesky Constitution that says people are innocent until proven guilty. The Obama administration was very bad about that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This situation is a bit strange. The woman was convincing enough that the police conducted an investigation and the DA went ahead with the case. Then the judge dismissed the case. So it is possible the sex was consensual (as the judge seemed to rule) or it is possible the judge is wrong. According to the cited story, the woman has no memory of what happened.

Now, the University is conducting an investigation, although we don't know what policies or code of conduct are being looked at nor do we know who is being investigated.

Yet, the "rape apologists" are all in a dither about the wrong doing of the University and the unfairness of its polices even though not a single one of them has any idea what is actually going on.

I don't see it as confusing. The security camera footage was incompatible with her testimony. She's busted as a witness, end of case.

There is no way someone can come to a definite conclusion based on the news article.

A person can still give consent if they are drunk but technically they do not have the mental capacity to make a rational decision even if they drag the person into bed. Did she withdraw her consent at any time (after drunkenly consenting). If so that would be a second issue.

There are false charges and correct charges of rape. In this case I cannot say which is correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The university is required to investigate or face stiff financial penalties and potential loss of aid. It does not matter your opinion on the investigatory competency. (One could claim that of the legal system as well.)

And we can't complain about totally unreasonable rules??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

University is not really qualified to conduct such an investigation.

If the University is not qualified to conduct an investigation to whether its polices have been violated, then who is?

To start with, they wouldn't have been able to obtain the security camera footage that exonerated him.