College Knee-Jerk Expels Student With No Investigation, Evidence

[laughing dog]

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.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

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?

No. When someone simply suggests you act on your own proposal, do you always respond by sputtering?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's just a fucking weird assed response. I get that sometimes people don't feel like defending their positions and just want to derail threads for the fuck of it, but at least put some effort into the thing.

And no, I'm not going to go and change some foreign country's laws anymore than you're going to fly to Russia and help engage in anti-Putin organizing as opposed to just discussing the matter on the Internet and doing nothing more. I'm just going to talk about in a thread and do nothing else because my level of passion about the topic stops at the typing things level.

 

[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.

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

They are being strongarmed into it by the government. This is a means around that pesky innocent until proven guilty bit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except there isn't--that's been gutted by binding arbitration agreements. If they could be held accountable in court we wouldn't be facing this problem because they would have taken a big hit in the pocketbook already.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Note that in practice there are very rarely wrongful repossessions because the business would be held accountable in court. With all the outcry over the housing mess note that there was a total of one wrongful repossession--and that was actually a rightful repossession that wasn't stopped when it should be. All the other cases we heard about were morons trashing out the wrong house.

 

[Arctish]

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.

They are being strongarmed into it by the government. This is a means around that pesky innocent until proven guilty bit.

You know what's pesky? The difference between legal proceedings in a court of law and the workings of a private institution's disciplinary process. Why, that pesky distinction keeps blocking your attempts to play the Constitutional Rights card like a chaperone keeping the frat boys off a drunk freshmen.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I agree with the general idea of treating matters of Code of Conduct violations like a breach of contract, and that such matters should be carried out in compliance with contract law. But in the US a person can't claim to have been harmed through the actions of another unless and until that alleged harm has been done. IOW a student can only seek redress after s/he has been expelled.

I'm not opposed to having expedited hearings in a court of law when an expulsion is called into questions. It's important to minimize the impact on a student's education should it be shown that the expulsion was not warranted. But the schools have to be able to act quickly if they deem the situation warrants it, so I'm against any proposal that would hamper attempts to remove dangerous or disruptive individuals from campus.

Last year a student at the University of Alaska attack his roommate with a knife. The school removed him from student housing immediately and expelled him after a hearing in which it was ruled that he had indeed attacked. Derec and Loren have argued in favor of keeping students in class and on campus until all legal proceedings against them have been concluded, which in this case would have meant keeping a very dangerous individual on campus and close to his victim for months while the Defense and the Prosecution worked out a plea deal. IMO that's unacceptable. The school was right to expel him as quickly as they did. If he feels he was wronged and wants to seek redress through the courts he's welcome to give it a go.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think that they need to be kept on campus until a trial is done, but if there's a danger to other students, it's a police issue and not a university administration issue and they should follow the lead of the cops. I think a decent policy would be that if the police feel that there's sufficient evidence to bring charges then that's the standard at which the university should act - regardless of whether the victim wishes to file those charges. The administrators shouldn't be making determinations of criminal guilt.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that they need to be kept on campus until a trial is done, but if there's a danger to other students, it's a police issue and not a university administration issue and they should follow the lead of the cops. I think a decent policy would be that if the police feel that there's sufficient evidence to bring charges then that's the standard at which the university should act - regardless of whether the victim wishes to file those charges. The administrators shouldn't be making determinations of criminal guilt.

The administrators don't make determinations of criminal guilt. Ye gods, this point has been made so many times it's a wonder it isn't stickied at the top of the forum. School administrators don't prosecute violations of criminal law. They uphold the rules of their institutions. They make determinations of Code of Conduct violations. Some of the possible violations are also crimes. Some of them are not.

For example:
Rape is against the rules and it's a crime. Stealing is against the rules and it's a crime. Cheating on an Biology exam is against the rules but it's not a crime.

When school administrators expel a student for rape or cheating or stealing they aren't enforcing laws, they are enforcing rules.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's nonsensical. The only way that the rule would be broken in those cases is if a crime has been committed.

If nothing was stolen, then no rule was broken. If something was stolen, then a crime occurred. There's a one to one relationship between the commission of a crime and the breaking of the rules. There's either sufficient evidence that he both committed a crime and broke the rules or there's not. You can't have one without the other when the rule being broken is one against committing criminal behaviour.

 

[zorq]

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.

Note that in practice there are very rarely wrongful repossessions because the business would be held accountable in court. With all the outcry over the housing mess note that there was a total of one wrongful repossession--and that was actually a rightful repossession that wasn't stopped when it should be. All the other cases we heard about were morons trashing out the wrong house.

This is a tangent, but I totally disagree. In the US right now there is a huge sub-prime auto lending market where destitute people need cheap cars to function in society because US public transportation in the US is a joke in most places but they don't have the time or money to file a suit when their car gets repossessed even when they have successfully made all the payments. It is just simpler for them to get a different sub-prime auto loan on a different car than worry about the shitty way the previous car dealer treated them.

I don't know about the housing market repossessions, and I know that asking you for a link is pointless, but car repossessions in the sub-prime market usually go uncontested even though they are sometimes done illegitimately and occasionally deliberately so. It's expensive to be poor in the US.

 

[Arctish]

That's nonsensical. The only way that the rule would be broken in those cases is if a crime has been committed.

If nothing was stolen, then no rule was broken. If something was stolen, then a crime occurred. There's a one to one relationship between the commission of a crime and the breaking of the rules. There's either sufficient evidence that he both committed a crime and broke the rules or there's not. You can't have one without the other when the rule being broken is one against committing criminal behaviour.

It's not nonsensical. There is a difference between rule enforcement at a private institution and law enforcement in society at large. The alleged transgression might be the same act but the two systems operate entirely independently.

If you're convicted of stealing in a court of law, your sentence won't include being expelled from school. If you're found guilty of stealing by a school disciplinary board, the punishment won't include imprisonment. They are two different processes carried out by two different systems deriving their authority from two different sources and having two different means of imposing sanctions.

Conflating a school disciplinary board with a court of law is like conflating a private security business with the FBI. They'll both respond to what looks like attempted credit card theft, but getting kicked out of a mall is completely different from being sent to federal prison.

 

[laughing dog]

They are being strongarmed into it by the government. This is a means around that pesky innocent until proven guilty bit.

What you don't understand is that is not criminal law. And they are not presumed guilty but the standard of evidence and decision-making is lower. Your argument is based on false premise and extremely faulty reasoning.

 

[Arctish]

This has been posted before but I think the information is relevant in this thread. Amherst College Student Code of Conduct (formerly the Student Handbook), Section 13. The Sexual Misconduct Adjudication Process (formerly Appendix C):

13.2.3. Effect of Criminal Proceedings

The filing and processing of a complaint of sexual misconduct is independent of any criminal investigation or proceeding. The College will not wait for the conclusion of any criminal investigation or proceeding to commence its own review, investigation, and, when applicable, proceedings outlined herein. Neither law enforcement’s determination whether or not to indict and/or prosecute a Respondent nor the outcome of any criminal prosecution are determinative of whether sexual misconduct under the College policy occurred.

Amherst spells out its policies in its Code of Conduct, which all students must sign and agree to abide by before being admitted. If we treat the CoC as a contract, then expelling Amherst students who have been found guilty in a disciplinary hearing but have not been convicted in a court of law isn't a breach of contract. The contract stipulates that Amherst will carry out it's own rule enforcement processes independent of any law enforcement activities.

I think if we're going to be criticising other schools' disciplinary outcomes on the grounds that the expelled student has not been convicted in a court of law, we should first look to see if they have similar stipulations in their Code of Conduct contracts.

 

[Metaphor]

This has been posted before but I think the information is relevant in this thread. Amherst College Student Code of Conduct (formerly the Student Handbook), Section 13. The Sexual Misconduct Adjudication Process (formerly Appendix C):

13.2.3. Effect of Criminal Proceedings

The filing and processing of a complaint of sexual misconduct is independent of any criminal investigation or proceeding. The College will not wait for the conclusion of any criminal investigation or proceeding to commence its own review, investigation, and, when applicable, proceedings outlined herein. Neither law enforcement’s determination whether or not to indict and/or prosecute a Respondent nor the outcome of any criminal prosecution are determinative of whether sexual misconduct under the College policy occurred.

Amherst spells out its policies in its Code of Conduct, which all students must sign and agree to abide by before being admitted. If we treat the CoC as a contract, then expelling Amherst students who have been found guilty in a disciplinary hearing but have not been convicted in a court of law isn't a breach of contract. The contract stipulates that Amherst will carry out it's own rule enforcement processes independent of any law enforcement activities.

I think if we're going to be criticising other schools' disciplinary outcomes on the grounds that the expelled student has not been convicted in a court of law, we should first look to see if they have similar stipulations in their Code of Conduct contracts.

Actually, that'd be irrelevant. The implication is that if the Code of Conduct was signed by the student, the behaviour of the University is above criticism. You might accept that there is no Constitutional recourse, you might accept that there is no contract law recourse, but that does not mean the school's methods are above criticism, nor does it mean that there ought not to be statutory protections for students that protect them from kangaroo court proceedings against them.

 

[Arctish]

This has been posted before but I think the information is relevant in this thread. Amherst College Student Code of Conduct (formerly the Student Handbook), Section 13. The Sexual Misconduct Adjudication Process (formerly Appendix C):



Amherst spells out its policies in its Code of Conduct, which all students must sign and agree to abide by before being admitted. If we treat the CoC as a contract, then expelling Amherst students who have been found guilty in a disciplinary hearing but have not been convicted in a court of law isn't a breach of contract. The contract stipulates that Amherst will carry out it's own rule enforcement processes independent of any law enforcement activities.

I think if we're going to be criticising other schools' disciplinary outcomes on the grounds that the expelled student has not been convicted in a court of law, we should first look to see if they have similar stipulations in their Code of Conduct contracts.

Actually, that'd be irrelevant. The implication is that if the Code of Conduct was signed by the student, the behaviour of the University is above criticism.

No, the implication is that the university or college has an established disciplinary process that operates independently as spelled out in the CoC agreement, that the student knows about the process, and he or she has agreed to subject themselves to it as a condition of admission. Whether or not it's a good process is a separate matter.

You might accept that there is no Constitutional recourse, you might accept that there is no contract law recourse, but that does not mean the school's methods are above criticism, nor does it mean that there ought not to be statutory protections for students that protect them from kangaroo court proceedings against them.

Failure by the school to follow the established disciplinary process is a violation of the contract between student and institution. A student sanctioned in that manner would have grounds to lodge a Breach of Contract suit in a court of law. Also, constitutional protections always apply in matters where the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are concerned. But since the school disciplinary process doesn't take place in a court of law, protections that apply to matters of law do not automatically apply to them. For example, you have the Constitutional right to have an attorney present during questioning by police or members of the court. That doesn't mean you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning by college administrators or a disciplinary board.

Any school can have flawed policies, or good policies enforced through a flawed process. In those situations the policies or processes are in need of serious improvement. But folks here keep making the fundamental mistake of conflating the disciplinary process at a private institution with a court of law, and that's the flaw I'm trying to eliminate here.

 

[Metaphor]

Failure by the school to follow the established disciplinary process is a violation of the contract between student and institution. A student sanctioned in that manner would have grounds to lodge a Breach of Contract suit in a court of law. Also, constitutional protections always apply in matters where the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are concerned. But since the school disciplinary process doesn't take place in a court of law, protections that apply to matters of law do not automatically apply to them. For example, you have the Constitutional right to have an attorney present during questioning by police or members of the court. That doesn't mean you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning by college administrators or a disciplinary board.

Any school can have flawed policies, or good policies enforced through a flawed process. In those situations the policies or processes are in need of serious improvement. But folks here keep making the fundamental mistake of conflating the disciplinary process at a private institution with a court of law, and that's the flaw I'm trying to eliminate here.

I'm not conflating them. Expulsion from a University is a serious sanction with lifelong consequences and Universities must be held to the highest standards in the processes and policies that lead to such a decision.

 

[Arctish]

Failure by the school to follow the established disciplinary process is a violation of the contract between student and institution. A student sanctioned in that manner would have grounds to lodge a Breach of Contract suit in a court of law. Also, constitutional protections always apply in matters where the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are concerned. But since the school disciplinary process doesn't take place in a court of law, protections that apply to matters of law do not automatically apply to them. For example, you have the Constitutional right to have an attorney present during questioning by police or members of the court. That doesn't mean you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning by college administrators or a disciplinary board.

Any school can have flawed policies, or good policies enforced through a flawed process. In those situations the policies or processes are in need of serious improvement. But folks here keep making the fundamental mistake of conflating the disciplinary process at a private institution with a court of law, and that's the flaw I'm trying to eliminate here.

I'm not conflating them. Expulsion from a University is a serious sanction with lifelong consequences and Universities must be held to the highest standards in the processes and policies that lead to such a decision.

I agree about the importance of colleges and universities upholding the highest standards in their processes and policies. I'm not sure we agree on what results one would expect when they achieve that goal.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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)

My understanding is that you are referring to harassment where this case is relating to an act in which the female involved where she advised this was with another person. Hence the lawsuit is about someone who claims that he was wrongly identified as the perpetrator and supported by the female concerned.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's nonsensical. The only way that the rule would be broken in those cases is if a crime has been committed.

If nothing was stolen, then no rule was broken. If something was stolen, then a crime occurred. There's a one to one relationship between the commission of a crime and the breaking of the rules. There's either sufficient evidence that he both committed a crime and broke the rules or there's not. You can't have one without the other when the rule being broken is one against committing criminal behaviour.

It's not nonsensical. There is a difference between rule enforcement at a private institution and law enforcement in society at large. The alleged transgression might be the same act but the two systems operate entirely independently.

If you're convicted of stealing in a court of law, your sentence won't include being expelled from school. If you're found guilty of stealing by a school disciplinary board, the punishment won't include imprisonment. They are two different processes carried out by two different systems deriving their authority from two different sources and having two different means of imposing sanctions.

Conflating a school disciplinary board with a court of law is like conflating a private security business with the FBI. They'll both respond to what looks like attempted credit card theft, but getting kicked out of a mall is completely different from being sent to federal prison.

I'm not talking about the punishment, I'm talking about the action.

Either the evidence shows that he stole something, in which case he broke both the law and the rules or the evidence does not show that, in which case he broke neither the law nor the rules.

If it cannot be shown that he committed the legal crime of theft, what school rule are you asserting that he broke? I'm not seeing how you're differentiating the two things.