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

[laughing dog]

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.

I didn't say it was confusing. I said it was strange. Both the police and the prosecutor thought there was a case and they had the footage. The judge did not. Clearly there was enough there to get the case in front of a judge.

The security camera footage was incompatible with her testimony. She's busted as a witness, end of case.

See above.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Since you do not know what is being investigated, nor do you know if they could get the footage, or if they incorporate the findings from the police, your response seems to be driven solely by ideology, not facts.

- - - Updated - - -

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??

Of course you can. However, in this instance, you do not know what the rules are. Moreover, the investigation has not yielded an outcome or any action whatsoever. Hence your complaints appear premature.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

Yes universities can be sued for such damages. (Provided we are talking about what universities can actually do. They cannot prosecute for crimes, but public universities must offer due process.)

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 is. Colleges and universities are required to post these policies. All students agree to abide by them by accepting the offer to attend. If you want to search for USC's it shouldn't be hard to find.

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?

There is one and it cannot apply to only one sex.

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?

Yes. Any school that wants to opt out of federal funding for student grants and loans can ignore Title IX.

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".

By all means it is quite fascinating (and depressing) how these policies came about.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

The cops may think that it occurred, but there is enough doubt that they understand they cannot get a conviction at this time. Dropping charges can but does not mean innocence. They may be dropping charges for many reasons.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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??

You can, but explain to me why a university cannot investigate a potential rapist among their student body?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

The cops may think that it occurred, but there is enough doubt that they understand they cannot get a conviction at this time. Dropping charges can but does not mean innocence. They may be dropping charges for many reasons.

As I mentioned the whole article is too sketchy for such a complex case as a rape charge and poorly worded. For instance the statement, "too drunk to consent is clumsy." A drunk person can encourage or invite sex but they would be of unsound mind. So the CCTV footage would be seem to be insufficient in itself.

Technically we would have to accept 'innocent until proven guilty' pending a result of an appeal for a retrial.

Agreed, a university can conduct its own investigations as it deems appropriate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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?

What we say is that if someone is drunk, they are of unsound mind. In a contract of service, if a drunk person gave a cabbie US$1,000 as a tip, it's theoretically they would be able to sue for this amount back.

If someone signs a contract of sale or service when intoxicated they are also of unsound mind.

A drunk can of course take a taxi back home even though this is a contract of service.

My point is while he is innocent until proven guilty by an appeal, the video footage is incomplete. The other point is rape cases can be too complex to evaluate here news media (which are simply copying each other's articles) is not able to give proper details of this.

For instance a person can withdraw their consent (even after penetration) at any time. We don't know what the court records say about the case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes universities can be sued for such damages. (Provided we are talking about what universities can actually do. They cannot prosecute for crimes, but public universities must offer due process.)

In practice they can't be sued. Binding arbitration agreements that get it before someone who knows which side of the bread is buttered and thus almost certainly won't rule for the student. Binding arbitration basically means that unless you have a blindingly obvious case don't bother and even then you might lose.

By all means it is quite fascinating (and depressing) how these policies came about.

They came about because the feminists were screaming about campus rape and the Obama administration decided to do an end-run around the Constitution and make the schools punish with little regard for guilt. It's become a common tactic of our government these days--find ways to punish without a proper burden of proof. (We especially see it with traffic tickets. In some places there's a non-refundable fee to fight a ticket that's more than the ticket itself.)

- - - Updated - - -

As I mentioned the whole article is too sketchy for such a complex case as a rape charge and poorly worded. For instance the statement, "too drunk to consent is clumsy." A drunk person can encourage or invite sex but they would be of unsound mind. So the CCTV footage would be seem to be insufficient in itself.

Technically we would have to accept 'innocent until proven guilty' pending a result of an appeal for a retrial.

Agreed, a university can conduct its own investigations as it deems appropriate.

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In practice they can't be sued. Binding arbitration agreements that get it before someone who knows which side of the bread is buttered and thus almost certainly won't rule for the student. Binding arbitration basically means that unless you have a blindingly obvious case don't bother and even then you might lose.

It would be highly unusual for a public university or any university to have a binding arbitration agreement.

They came about because the feminists were screaming about campus rape and the Obama administration decided to do an end-run around the Constitution and make the schools punish with little regard for guilt.

Please look up:

• Jeanne Clery,
• Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education 526 U.S. 629 (1999)
• Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance of 2001
• 2011 Dear Colleague Letter
• 2013 the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE)
• The University of Minnesota Campus rape scandal.

In other words you haven't the smallest clue to what you are talking about. I mean really. Look at these, many happened during previous administrations.

 

[zorq]

In practice they can't be sued. Binding arbitration agreements that get it before someone who knows which side of the bread is buttered and thus almost certainly won't rule for the student. Binding arbitration basically means that unless you have a blindingly obvious case don't bother and even then you might lose.

By all means it is quite fascinating (and depressing) how these policies came about.

They came about because the feminists were screaming about campus rape and the Obama administration decided to do an end-run around the Constitution and make the schools punish with little regard for guilt. It's become a common tactic of our government these days--find ways to punish without a proper burden of proof. (We especially see it with traffic tickets. In some places there's a non-refundable fee to fight a ticket that's more than the ticket itself.)

Wrong. The Obama administration didn't change anything. They merely reminded universities and colleges that receive federal money that they are not allowed to ignore or tolerate sexual assault on their campuses perpetrated by or on their students. This had been part of the Title ix legislation passed under Nixon, but Obama made it clear that schools who refuse to make an effort to fulfill these obligations would be censured even though many of them had slid by with little effort I. The past.

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

Here is a link to Obama's 'Dear colleague' letter which represents all of Obama's influence on this topic. Why don't you read it and pick out the parts that you disagree with.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

- - - Updated - - -

As I mentioned the whole article is too sketchy for such a complex case as a rape charge and poorly worded. For instance the statement, "too drunk to consent is clumsy." A drunk person can encourage or invite sex but they would be of unsound mind. So the CCTV footage would be seem to be insufficient in itself.

Technically we would have to accept 'innocent until proven guilty' pending a result of an appeal for a retrial.

Agreed, a university can conduct its own investigations as it deems appropriate.

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

The Cctv I watched showed a girl staggering significantly outside the bar with her friend. Factor in the fact that there is a delay between ingesting alcohol and becoming intoxicated and there is no telling how drunk she was when she arrived in her room.

 

[RavenSky]

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

 

[Derec]

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

Her claim was not that she changed her mind mid-coitus, but that being drunk rendered her incapable of giving consent. The footage proves that claim wrong.

Also, you are speculating that she might have been raped without offering any evidence. In effect, you want to reverse burden of proof. As long as it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sex was consensual you will keep assuming that it was rape. That's just perverse.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. The Obama administration didn't change anything.

They changed everything. Before that DC letter, most colleges used "clear and convincing proof" standard, which is also used for non-sexual college disciplinary cases. The DC letter mandated that lowest possible standard of evidence be used for sex cases and sex cases only, in addition to restricting several other due process protections for the accused.

They merely reminded universities and colleges that receive federal money that they are not allowed to ignore or tolerate sexual assault on their campuses perpetrated by or on their students.

They went significantly beyond that by mandating changes that have led to an increase in false positives, i.e. innocent men being expelled.

This had been part of the Title ix legislation passed under Nixon, but Obama made it clear that schools who refuse to make an effort to fulfill these obligations would be censured even though many of them had slid by with little effort I. The past.

Title IX does not mandate the changes imposed by the Obama administration.

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

And it is bizarre to me that those left winger types who typically exalt the stringent protections of due process rights and presumption of innocence have chosen to applaud this severe restriction of both.

Here is a link to Obama's 'Dear colleague' letter which represents all of Obama's influence on this topic. Why don't you read it and pick out the parts that you disagree with.

We have done so in some detail in 2011 when the letter was first published.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

That's not the full DC letter. This is the full DC letter.

The Cctv I watched showed a girl staggering significantly outside the bar with her friend. Factor in the fact that there is a delay between ingesting alcohol and becoming intoxicated and there is no telling how drunk she was when she arrived in her room.

She didn't appear that way to me.
And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no telling how intoxicated he was at the time she had sex with him. So why aren't we speculating that she really raped him, especially since all evidence we have points to her as the instigator of the sexual advances?
The reason is simple: sexist double standards.

 

[Derec]

In other words you haven't the smallest clue to what you are talking about. I mean really. Look at these, many happened during previous administrations.

Nobody is claiming that stupid shit didn't happen during previous administrations. But federal government mandating lowest possible standard of proof in sex cases was done by Obama. And that led to an increase in false positives and innocent male students getting expelled.
The pendulum has swung way too far in one direction here. Unfortunately feminists think is hasn't swung too far enough.

 

[laughing dog]

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

Her claim was not that she changed her mind mid-coitus, but that being drunk rendered her incapable of giving consent. The footage proves that claim wrong.

No, it does not prove the claim wrong. We don't know how drunk she was nor do we know how drunk she was in her room.

Also, you are speculating that she might have been raped without offering any evidence. In effect, you want to reverse burden of proof. As long as it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sex was consensual you will keep assuming that it was rape. That's just perverse.

Saying she might have been raped in her room is not reversing any burden of proof. It is simply stating that it is possible she was raped in her room and that the footage is not helpful in determining whether she was raped or not in her room. In other words, unlike the rape apologists, Ravensky is not jumping to an ideological conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words you haven't the smallest clue to what you are talking about. I mean really. Look at these, many happened during previous administrations.

Nobody is claiming that stupid shit didn't happen during previous administrations. But federal government mandating lowest possible standard of proof in sex cases was done by Obama. And that led to an increase in false positives and innocent male students getting expelled.

Please link the to data that you believe supports your claim.

 

[Arctish]

Let's be crystal clear on this point, because it is important. A hypothetical woman can be the "initiator" every single step of the way, but the minute she withdraws consent and he continues anyway - he is raping her.

But she should have to prove it. Unfortunately universities often just take her word for it and expel the male student regardless of evidence. In the North Dakota case that led to the perverse outcome of the girl being criminally charged with filing a false report but the university still expelling the male student.

Correction: In the North Dakota case it led to the male student being re-admitted when the police discovered inconsistencies in the female student's account after the university disciplinary process had concluded. What those inconsistencies were is unknown. The female student had already left the school and the state when the police attempted to contact her.

 

[Arctish]

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".

You can find any college or university Code of Conduct information online. That's how I found Amherst's. And I linked to it at least 4 separate times, with the pertinent section identified and quoted. It's pretty straightforward.

I've never yet seen a college or university Code of Conduct that distinguished between male and female students.

 

[zorq]

They changed everything. Before that DC letter, most colleges used "clear and convincing proof" standard, which is also used for non-sexual college disciplinary cases. The DC letter mandated that lowest possible standard of evidence be used for sex cases and sex cases only, in addition to restricting several other due process protections for the accused.

That's ridiculous. The lowest possible standard of evidence is the flip of a coin. Don't exaggerate.

They merely reminded universities and colleges that receive federal money that they are not allowed to ignore or tolerate sexual assault on their campuses perpetrated by or on their students.

They went significantly beyond that by mandating changes that have led to an increase in false positives, i.e. innocent men being expelled.

The letter informed colleges that they should use the preponderance of evidence standard as was standardized previously and upheld by the supreme court in Title VI discrimination cases. Is that what you are referring to? Yes, there are likely more false positives now than there would have been before Obama's OCR reminded schools of their legal responsibilities. But there are also fewer false negatives. And again, I think I need to emphasize that Obama didn't write the law. He just reminded the schools of the law.

This had been part of the Title ix legislation passed under Nixon, but Obama made it clear that schools who refuse to make an effort to fulfill these obligations would be censured even though many of them had slid by with little effort I. The past.

Title IX does not mandate the changes imposed by the Obama administration.

Well that is partially true. Obama's clarification letter is a fusion of Title ix and supreme court cases including in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). As the law evolves there are repurcussions.

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

And it is bizarre to me that those left winger types who typically exalt the stringent protections of due process rights and presumption of innocence have chosen to applaud this severe restriction of both.

The dear colleagues letter specifically insists (as you might know if you had read it) that accused perpetrators are to be ensured due process and that the investigations and investigators and hearing process must be impartial.(page 12) Or maybe this the part of the letter you are objecting to?

Here is a link to Obama's 'Dear colleague' letter which represents all of Obama's influence on this topic. Why don't you read it and pick out the parts that you disagree with.

We have done so in some detail in 2011 when the letter was first published.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

That's not the full DC letter. This is the full DC letter.

Yes, the full document is linked from the page I provided too.

The Cctv I watched showed a girl staggering significantly outside the bar with her friend. Factor in the fact that there is a delay between ingesting alcohol and becoming intoxicated and there is no telling how drunk she was when she arrived in her room.

She didn't appear that way to me.
And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no telling how intoxicated he was at the time she had sex with him.

It sounds like you are admitting that you DON'T know what really happened in that room too. That is great because it was precisely my point.

So why aren't we speculating that she really raped him, especially since all evidence we have points to her as the instigator of the sexual advances?

Well, I know why YOU are speculating about countless scenarios, the rest of us are willing to let an investigation (into whatever it is they are investigating because even you don't know what that is despite what your hyperactive imagination is telling you) complete before casting judgements.

The reason is simple: sexist double standards.

INDEED.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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....

USC is reportedly conducting its own investigation and Premjee could still be expelled.

Why do you think the Daily Mail has the basic facts right? Their track record is abysmal. I think the entire story is make-belief. I need a more credible source to have any opinion on this.

In Sweden there was a recent rape case where a man was accused of rape in a club toilet. But he had filmed the whole thing and it was pretty clear that the lady took all initiative and was very much into it. Lucky him that he filmed it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They changed everything. Before that DC letter, most colleges used "clear and convincing proof" standard, which is also used for non-sexual college disciplinary cases. The DC letter mandated that lowest possible standard of evidence be used for sex cases and sex cases only, in addition to restricting several other due process protections for the accused.

Colleges did not use the "clear and convincing proof", they ignored the issue altogether and swept it under the rug. This is why they felt the Dear Colleague Letter necessary. No due process protections for the accused were lessened. In fact they were strengthened and clarified. (In previous cases due process meant you would just be informed you were suspended, etc. and could appeal through a letter to the dean. No formal hearing, no real appeal.)

They merely reminded universities and colleges that receive federal money that they are not allowed to ignore or tolerate sexual assault on their campuses perpetrated by or on their students.

They went significantly beyond that by mandating changes that have led to an increase in false positives, i.e. innocent men being expelled.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

And it is bizarre to me that those left winger types who typically exalt the stringent protections of due process rights and presumption of innocence have chosen to applaud this severe restriction of both.

Just curious have you given to the Innocence Project? https://support.innocenceproject.org/checkout/donation
They help falsely accused rapist get out of prison.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In other words you haven't the smallest clue to what you are talking about. I mean really. Look at these, many happened during previous administrations.

Nobody is claiming that stupid shit didn't happen during previous administrations. But federal government mandating lowest possible standard of proof in sex cases was done by Obama. And that led to an increase in false positives and innocent male students getting expelled.
The pendulum has swung way too far in one direction here. Unfortunately feminists think is hasn't swung too far enough.

Many of those laws passed in a Republican-controlled legislature. I also want to see a citation about your increase in false positive claims.