College Knee-Jerk Expels Student With No Investigation, Evidence

[Tom Sawyer]

Just because it's a voluntary agreement doesn't mean shouldn't be bound to certain standards in order to prevent abuses by one of the parties in the agreement.

But these are based on certain standards to prevent abuses by one of the parties. You just happen to want to apply standards in criminal proceedings to non-criminal proceedings.

If we're talking about a crime then that's exactly what I want to do. The issue that the university is facing is that one of its students broke the rules from the code of conduct by engaging in criminal behavior. If they can't demonstrate a crime then, by definition, they didn't break a rule.

Now, given that the consequences aren't as serious, the standards of evidence don't need to be as serious and there's no problem with going with something like a preponderance of evidence standard instead of the beyond reasonable doubt standard. However, to get to that standard, you need to do things properly. Having some dude with eight hours of training looking into it does not rise to that level. If the guy investigating the crime couldn't get work as a private investigator, they have no business collecting evidence of a crime. If the people reviewing his report are similarly inexperienced, their review of the report adds no value.

Now, Nice Squirrel's policy there is, of course, a long shot better than the situation talked about in the OP. It is still, however, completely inadequate in determining whether or not a given student has violated the code of conduct for the university.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Criminal behavior on a campus is a serious thing and it deserves to be treated seriously. Putting a volunteer with eight hours of training in charge of looking into it is not taking it seriously.

Criminal behavior should be turned over to police.

Which is all I've ever been saying. If one of these investigators with only eight hours of training finds him or herself in a situation where they're trying to determine whether a rape occurred or a theft occurred or an assault occurred and their response to that is to do anything other than immediately stop "investigating" and call the police, then they are failing in their duties.

 

[laughing dog]

If we're talking about a crime then that's exactly what I want to do. The issue that the university is facing is that one of its students broke the rules from the code of conduct by engaging in criminal behavior. If they can't demonstrate a crime then, by definition, they didn't break a rule.

That is simply untrue for at least two reasons. First, their standard for demonstration of an act can be lower than what you wish. Second, your claim is logically false. Consider the rule "Conduct bringing disrepute to the university" or "failure to report a transgression of the code of conduct" or "cheating". The first may be caused by criminal act but does not need to. So a university could find someone guilty of violating the code without proving a criminal act.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If we're talking about a crime then that's exactly what I want to do. The issue that the university is facing is that one of its students broke the rules from the code of conduct by engaging in criminal behavior. If they can't demonstrate a crime then, by definition, they didn't break a rule.

That is simply untrue for at least two reasons. First, their standard for demonstration of an act can be lower than what you wish. Second, your claim is logically false. Consider the rule "Conduct bringing disrepute to the university" or "failure to report a transgression of the code of conduct" or "cheating". The first may be caused by criminal act but does not need to. So a university could find someone guilty of violating the code without proving a criminal act.

Well, the latter two don't contain crimes, so they're not related to the topic.

For the first one, it takes the discussion right back to the beginning. When you say that they have broken the rule "Conduct bringing disrepute to the university", what conduct are you talking about? If the conduct is "committed a crime" then the argument is exactly the same. Either you can present sufficient evidence that they committed a crime or you can't show that they engaged in any conduct which brought disrepute to the university and there's no rule which has been broken.

And, as I have said to you, I am well aware that their standards are lower than what I would wish. That's why I'm arguing that they should raise their standards. I don't see how you feel there's some level of complexity to that so that you need to continuously state it.

 

[laughing dog]

For the first one, it takes the discussion right back to the beginning. When you say that they have broken the rule "Conduct bringing disrepute to the university", what conduct are you talking about? If the conduct is "committed a crime" then the argument is exactly the same. Either you can present sufficient evidence that they committed a crime or you can't show that they engaged in any conduct which brought disrepute to the university and there's no rule which has been broken.

Except that the notoriety of an alleged crime is conduct bring disrepute to the university.

And, as I have said to you, I am well aware that their standards are lower than what I would wish. That's why I'm arguing that they should raise their standards. I don't see how you feel there's some level of complexity to that so that you need to continuously state it.

You continue to assume that these entities need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt because these are investigating legally defined crimes. However, in many cases, they are not. If they are satisfied that a student committed an act or is even likely to have committed an act, given that the punishment is comparatively minor to the punishments in the legal system, they are entitled to deal with it. Apparently these simple ideas are far too complex for you to comprehend. The hope is that exposed repetition might help you come to grips with these ideas.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except that the notoriety of an alleged crime is conduct bring disrepute to the university.

So, you're saying that if I went onto a university and pointed at ten students and screamed out that they're murderers, you'd be ok with them all getting expelled due to the notoriety of the crime that they allegedly committed? Or would you prefer that there's evidence that they actually did something first?

Also, you've touched upon another of the major issues discussed in thus thread. The university doesn't want the notoriety of a potential crime on their campus, so the people investigating the crime have a huge conflict of interest in that it's in their best interest to just get everything over with as quickly as possible, regardless of whether they can get to the truth that quickly.

And, as I have said to you, I am well aware that their standards are lower than what I would wish. That's why I'm arguing that they should raise their standards. I don't see how you feel there's some level of complexity to that so that you need to continuously state it.

You continue to assume that these entities need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt because these are investigating legally defined crimes. However, in many cases, they are not. If they are satisfied that a student committed an act or is even likely to have committed an act, given that the punishment is comparatively minor to the punishments in the legal system, they are entitled to deal with it. Apparently these simple ideas are far too complex for you to comprehend. The hope is that exposed repetition might help you come to grips with these ideas.

My issue is with the process used in how they come to be satisfied with this. If that process is inadequate, they are going to make far more mistakes than they would if they used an adequate process. They gain nothing by half-assing their investigations and they lose a lot. When people's lives are negatively impacted by these mistakes, it is incumbent upon the, to act as responsibly as possible in order to minimize them.

 

[laughing dog]

So, you're saying that if I went onto a university and pointed at ten students and screamed out that they're murderers, you'd be ok with them all getting expelled due to the notoriety of the crime that they allegedly committed? Or would you prefer that there's evidence that they actually did something first?

I think the appropriate course of action would be to either expel or banish you in that case.

Also, you've touched upon another of the major issues discussed in thus thread. The university doesn't want the notoriety of a potential crime on their campus, so the people investigating the crime have a huge conflict of interest in that it's in their best interest to just get everything over with as quickly as possible, regardless of whether they can get to the truth that quickly.

The same rationale applies to the police - they don't want an unsolved case.

My issue is with the process used in how they come to be satisfied with this. If that process is inadequate, they are going to make far more mistakes than they would if they used an adequate process. They gain nothing by half-assing their investigations and they lose a lot. When people's lives are negatively impacted by these mistakes, it is incumbent upon the, to act as responsibly as possible in order to minimize them.

There is no evidence that their processes are any more or less prone to mistake than the police's or that the decisions in these cases are more or less prone to mistakes than the outcomes from the legal system. Given that the repercussions from a possible expulsion are much less severe than from a false imprisonment, it is not unreasonable for them to use this process.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The same rationale applies to the police - they don't want an unsolved case.

To add a dimension to this: if the police don't solve a crime, they don't get their funding cut. If a college doesn't investigate and make a decision, they lose Federal Financial Aid revenue.

 

[Malintent]

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.

yes, this exactly. Not a "constitutional" matter, but a contractual one. The complication comes in to play when the school takes public money... and in there a crossover of procedure may occur.

 

[Malintent]

There is no evidence that their processes are any more or less prone to mistake than the police's or that the decisions in these cases are more or less prone to mistakes than the outcomes from the legal system. Given that the repercussions from a possible expulsion are much less severe than from a false imprisonment, it is not unreasonable for them to use this process.

Oh but there is evidence... and it IS unreasonable The police use certified investigators and formally transparent and regulated procedures for collecting evidence and drawing conclusions. schools do not.

I am a certified forensic investigator. Someone that is not would not last a second on the witness stand.
Ask a college professor to preserve electronically stored data as evidence, and they will fuck it all up.. guaranteed.

Without Googeling it... if a student reported to you (as a teacher) that someone was harassing another student with their computer... what is the FIRST thing you do to preserve evidence? $10 says you get it completely wrong, to the point of actually blowing any case that might exist against the accused...

 

[laughing dog]

Oh but there is evidence... and it IS unreasonable The police use certified investigators and formally transparent and regulated procedures for collecting evidence and drawing conclusions. schools do not.

That is not evidence that their process produces less mistakes. And the police do not necessarily follow regulated procedures.

I am a certified forensic investigator. Someone that is not would not last a second on the witness stand.

And the point is....?

Ask a college professor to preserve electronically stored data as evidence, and they will fuck it all up.. guaranteed.

And the point is....?

Without Googeling it... if a student reported to you (as a teacher) that someone was harassing another student with their computer... what is the FIRST thing you do to preserve evidence? $10 says you get it completely wrong, to the point of actually blowing any case that might exist against the accused...

The first thing I would do is tell them that if it is bothering them to tell the police and then tell the school. I would not attempt to preserve evidence or investigate. Please donate the $10 to the Humane Society.

 

[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.

yes, this exactly. Not a "constitutional" matter, but a contractual one. The complication comes in to play when the school takes public money... and in there a crossover of procedure may occur.

I don't think so. It's still taking money to educate the student, so it doesn't matter where the money comes from.

For instance, if a guy buys a car and is making monthly payments towards it, the dealership has certain contractual obligations towards him. If the guy is a veteran and the VA has some program which gives money to buy the car or if the guy's parents give him cash for the downpayment, the contract the dealership has with the buyer is still exactly the same and where additional money for the purchase came from doesn't affect that.

It's the same with a university. If they get X amount from the government or a student has a government scholarship or the like which pays Y amount, they are still taking money to educate the student and the contractual obligations towards them are the same, regardless of where the money is coming from.

The government may impose separate rules on either the school or the student in order for them to get that money, but that doesn't affect the contract between the student and the university.