College Knee-Jerk Expels Student With No Investigation, Evidence

[AthenaAwakened]

College Knee-Jerk Expels Student With No Investigation, Evidence



A former student is suing his former college for expelling him for live-streaming a sex act. The problem is there was no investigation, and the woman who was filmed having sex told the school they’ve got the wrong guy. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm gonna bookmark this thread for the next time certain parties claim that 'liberals' never look at, discuss, or object to cases where colleges attack innocent people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Huh? Since when are you going to take a guy's side in a sex case???


And the reporters have it wrong--kangaroo court is the norm these days. It's not a sudden opposite.

 

[Metaphor]

Do women collectively hold more power than any other gender?

No? Well, then, this incident doesn't matter.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Huh? Since when are you going to take a guy's side in a sex case???


And the reporters have it wrong--kangaroo court is the norm these days. It's not a sudden opposite.

How is that them getting it wrong as opposed to you repeating exactly what they said? The sudden opposite comment was about how you get extreme incidents of injustice on both sides of the spectrum and this is exactly what should be expected from a process that also sweeps accusations under the rug.

If the investigators are more concerned about PR and getting the matter resolved as quickly as possible than looking into the facts, you're going to get bad rulings all over the place.

 

[zorq]

Huh? Since when are you going to take a guy's side in a sex case???


And the reporters have it wrong--kangaroo court is the norm these days. It's not a sudden opposite.

Believe it or not, most liberals** are actually interested in justice for EVERYONE. Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

** obviously, exceptions exist, just like any large group of people.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm gonna bookmark this thread for the next time certain parties claim that 'liberals' never look at, discuss, or object to cases where colleges attack innocent people.

Athena's a liberal now?

 

[Derec]

Believe it or not, most liberals** are actually interested in justice for EVERYONE.

If they were they would not be supporting a system of kangaroo courts where not much evidence is needed for punishment (based on Obama/Biden decree from 2011) and where due process rights are severely curtailed (for example, male students are often prevented from introducing exculpatory evidence).

Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

Except that many on the left do hold identity politics (women, preferred racial groups, preferred religions like Islam) over any sense of justice. I would not call them liberals though, not in the true sense of the word.

 

[Derec]

Athena's a liberal now?

Under the nonsensical definition used in America, she is.

 

[zorq]

If they were they would not be supporting a system of kangaroo courts where not much evidence is needed for punishment (based on Obama/Biden decree from 2011) and where due process rights are severely curtailed (for example, male students are often prevented from introducing exculpatory evidence).

Okay, This is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground. According to a Supreme Court ruling (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) sexual assaults on students qualify as sexual discrimination. When you combine that with public law passed in 1972 (Title IX) sexual assault on students is an illegal form of discrimination and the schools are responsible for eliminating it if they want federal funding.

There was letter sent in 2011 from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (which BTW was set up during the Bush administration in 2001) to the heads of colleges and universities under the direction of Obama/Biden. This letter informed the schools that if they did not take allegations of sexual harrassment seriously, effectively engaging in sexual discrimination, they would be found (legally) in violation of Title IX and would have their Federal funding removed. This is completely reasonable. This letter did NOT instruct schools to set up "kangaroo courts." It told them to take allegations of sexual assault seriously.

These "kangaroo courts" you are complaining about may be the schools' attempts to comply with federal law but any injustice in them is not thanks to liberals like Obama or Biden who want allegations of sexual harassment to be "taken seriously" and are willing to act legally against schools who refuse to. The injustice usually stems from some schools remaining relatively unprepared to address the issues. Should something be done about that? Of course.

Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

Except that many on the left do hold identity politics (women, preferred racial groups, preferred religions like Islam) over any sense of justice. I would not call them liberals though, not in the true sense of the word.

I already mentioned that there are exceptions. (Not that I should have even have to do that given I deliberately used the word "most" to qualify my statement)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Huh? Since when are you going to take a guy's side in a sex case???


And the reporters have it wrong--kangaroo court is the norm these days. It's not a sudden opposite.

Believe it or not, most liberals** are actually interested in justice for EVERYONE. Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

** obviously, exceptions exist, just like any large group of people.

Most are but she previously hasn't shown any willingness to accept the guy might not be guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, This is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground. According to a Supreme Court ruling (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) sexual assaults on students qualify as sexual discrimination. When you combine that with public law passed in 1972 (Title IX) sexual assault on students is an illegal form of discrimination and the schools are responsible for eliminating it if they want federal funding.

There was letter sent in 2011 from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (which BTW was set up during the Bush administration in 2001) to the heads of colleges and universities under the direction of Obama/Biden. This letter informed the schools that if they did not take allegations of sexual harrassment seriously, effectively engaging in sexual discrimination, they would be found (legally) in violation of Title IX and would have their Federal funding removed. This is completely reasonable. This letter did NOT instruct schools to set up "kangaroo courts." It told them to take allegations of sexual assault seriously.

These "kangaroo courts" you are complaining about may be the schools' attempts to comply with federal law but any injustice in them is not thanks to liberals like Obama or Biden who want allegations of sexual harassment to be "taken seriously" and are willing to act legally against schools who refuse to. The injustice usually stems from some schools remaining relatively unprepared to address the issues. Should something be done about that? Of course.

Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

Except that many on the left do hold identity politics (women, preferred racial groups, preferred religions like Islam) over any sense of justice. I would not call them liberals though, not in the true sense of the word.

I already mentioned that there are exceptions. (Not that I should have even have to do that given I deliberately used the word "most" to qualify my statement)

While you are right about where the kangaroo courts are coming from the problem is that rather than "take seriously" they are simply drumming the guy out without justice. It's a way of avoiding the pesky constitutional requirements of a fair trial.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, This is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground. According to a Supreme Court ruling (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) sexual assaults on students qualify as sexual discrimination. When you combine that with public law passed in 1972 (Title IX) sexual assault on students is an illegal form of discrimination and the schools are responsible for eliminating it if they want federal funding.

There was letter sent in 2011 from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (which BTW was set up during the Bush administration in 2001) to the heads of colleges and universities under the direction of Obama/Biden. This letter informed the schools that if they did not take allegations of sexual harrassment seriously, effectively engaging in sexual discrimination, they would be found (legally) in violation of Title IX and would have their Federal funding removed. This is completely reasonable. This letter did NOT instruct schools to set up "kangaroo courts." It told them to take allegations of sexual assault seriously.

These "kangaroo courts" you are complaining about may be the schools' attempts to comply with federal law but any injustice in them is not thanks to liberals like Obama or Biden who want allegations of sexual harassment to be "taken seriously" and are willing to act legally against schools who refuse to. The injustice usually stems from some schools remaining relatively unprepared to address the issues. Should something be done about that? Of course.

Just because right wing media paints the left as valuing "identity politics" above all else doesn't make it true. Right wing media (and internet blowhards) lie a lot.

Except that many on the left do hold identity politics (women, preferred racial groups, preferred religions like Islam) over any sense of justice. I would not call them liberals though, not in the true sense of the word.

I already mentioned that there are exceptions. (Not that I should have even have to do that given I deliberately used the word "most" to qualify my statement)

While you are right about where the kangaroo courts are coming from the problem is that rather than "take seriously" they are simply drumming the guy out without justice. It's a way of avoiding the pesky constitutional requirements of a fair trial.

There is no constitutional requirement for a trial in the private sector for violating rules.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is no constitutional requirement for a trial in the private sector for violating rules.

I disagree with this entirely. It should be an issue of contract law. The students have a contract with the university where they pay them a tuition in exchange for an education and agree to abide by things such as the code of conduct while they're there.

If the school is going to say that they are in breach of contract because they didn't abide by the terms of the code of conduct, then the obligation needs to be on them to prove it. If it were a social club then it wouldn't matter, but once they took money from the students in exchange for services, their duties towards their contractual partners increased substantially.

 

[KeepTalking]

There is no constitutional requirement for a trial in the private sector for violating rules.

I disagree with this entirely. It should be an issue of contract law. The students have a contract with the university where they pay them a tuition in exchange for an education and agree to abide by things such as the code of conduct while they're there.

If the school is going to say that they are in breach of contract because they didn't abide by the terms of the code of conduct, then the obligation needs to be on them to prove it. If it were a social club then it wouldn't matter, but once they took money from the students in exchange for services, their duties towards their contractual partners increased substantially.

Or perhaps there should be this thing called a civil court where the student can seek damages from the University for breaching a contract, rather than going off the deep end and pretending that getting expelled from college is tantamount to imprisonment and/or capital punishment.

 

[Jarhyn]

I disagree with this entirely. It should be an issue of contract law. The students have a contract with the university where they pay them a tuition in exchange for an education and agree to abide by things such as the code of conduct while they're there.

If the school is going to say that they are in breach of contract because they didn't abide by the terms of the code of conduct, then the obligation needs to be on them to prove it. If it were a social club then it wouldn't matter, but once they took money from the students in exchange for services, their duties towards their contractual partners increased substantially.

Or perhaps there should be this thing called a civil court where the student can seek damages from the University for breaching a contract, rather than going off the deep end and pretending that getting expelled from college is tantamount to imprisonment and/or capital punishment.

There are certain events in the world of private commerce that despite the fact that they are done by private companies, those actions are tantamount to sanction a by government. Being expelled from university is as significant to a person's future and career as having a criminal record, moreso even because it NEVER goes away, and can follow you when trying to gain admission to a new college.

The real question here is, should we allow private entities to have that much power without oversight?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree with this entirely. It should be an issue of contract law. The students have a contract with the university where they pay them a tuition in exchange for an education and agree to abide by things such as the code of conduct while they're there.

If the school is going to say that they are in breach of contract because they didn't abide by the terms of the code of conduct, then the obligation needs to be on them to prove it. If it were a social club then it wouldn't matter, but once they took money from the students in exchange for services, their duties towards their contractual partners increased substantially.

Or perhaps there should be this thing called a civil court where the student can seek damages from the University for breaching a contract, rather than going off the deep end and pretending that getting expelled from college is tantamount to imprisonment and/or capital punishment.

That's like saying that it's OK for an auto dealership to repo your car and tank your credit rating because they say you're not paying the lease even though you've made all the payments. You can sue them in a civil court, so it's cool for them to just do that. I think there should be restrictions on their ordering a repossession so that they need to demonstrate the lack of payments before being able to do that.

The fact that there are alternative avenues available for people to mitigate the damages doesn't mean that it's therefore OK to cause the damages in the first place.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Except that many on the left do hold identity politics (women, preferred racial groups, preferred religions like Islam) over any sense of justice. I would not call them liberals though, not in the true sense of the word.

Glad to hear that. We need to protect actual liberals from being lumped in with the regressive left and their constant identity politics.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no constitutional requirement for a trial in the private sector for violating rules.

I disagree with this entirely.

There is nothing to disagree about - there is no constitutional requirement.

It should be an issue of contract law. The students have a contract with the university where they pay them a tuition in exchange for an education and agree to abide by things such as the code of conduct while they're there.

If the school is going to say that they are in breach of contract because they didn't abide by the terms of the code of conduct, then the obligation needs to be on them to prove it. If it were a social club then it wouldn't matter, but once they took money from the students in exchange for services, their duties towards their contractual partners increased substantially.

Then change the US constitution or the US practice of law.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Huh? In what way is changing the US practice of law in cases like this not my entire point? That's what I'm saying should be done. The fact that this is a legal way for the university to act is something I think needs to be changed.

If someone says something pro Hillary in an election thread, do you respond by saying "well, why don't you just vote for her then?" as if that's an argument?