Meanwhile the Dept of Education's crusade on protecting sexual assaulters...

[Toni]

I am conflicted here. While I support making a less toxic environment for victims, the rule has been disproportionately used against black men. Also, false accusations are far more likely in an atmosphere with few if any consequences for making them. Give people weapons and they will use them. I don't have any good answers but I do think there is a real problem here that the wingnuts are getting at.

False allegations are quite rare. It's not the huge problem that a lot of rape apologists like to pretend it is.

 

[ruby sparks]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

Ok but I see from googling that the term is apparently used in this context. There is a wiki page on 'Campus Assault Due Process' for example.

 

[Arctish]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

Ok but I see from googling that the term is apparently used in this context. There is a wiki page on 'Campus Assault Due Process' for example.

From what I've seen, people who oppose the change in the way sexual assault complaints are handled on campus follow one of three lines of attack. The first is to attack the legitimacy of the campus disciplinary process. This usually involves criticizing college and university administrations for investigating an alleged sexual assault because they aren't part of the criminal justice system. Many posters have claimed colleges and universities don't have adequately trained staff to do investigations, although its been shown that all of the larger ones do. This is where the conflating of due process and disciplinary process keeps happening, mostly I believe because it appeals to a reader's sense of fairness. It's a fallacious argument that ignores the fact that colleges and universities aren't enforcing criminal law, they are enforcing their rules, and they can best do that through their disciplinary process.

The second line of attack is to assert bias and gender discrimination. There is a dearth of evidence in support of that argument so on this board it usually morphs into an attack on the legitimacy of the disciplinary process.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, if the university does indeed want a standard other than whatever the current interpretation of federal policy is, then that university is free to not accept any federal funds.

This current interpretation is clearly awful, it assumes the accused should be able to present a defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

So there should be no justice when dealing with a private entity?

It's perfectly fine for your employer to fire you and make you repay $50k in expenses because Bob said you were a bad girl without the slightest shred of evidence you actually did wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if there was actual sexual assault (as opposed to a regretted hookup) she can always go to the police. They are much better equipped to investigate alleged sexual assaults than college tribunals.

To me this is the real answer. It's just the government has for some time now been looking for ways around the pesky 5th amendment, using universities to punish "rapists" is merely one example. (They're also bad about the 4th--just look at the TSA.)

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In what way does this apply to Code of Conduct enforcement?

When that code of conduct enforcement is acting as a proxy for the government--which it is in this case. The government told them to punish "rapists", they're punishing "rapists" with no regard for actual guilt. When they're acting as a proxy of the government they should be bound by the same rules the government is.

Or should it be legal for the government to hire a private investigator to snoop your house without a warrant. After all, they're not the government, the 4th doesn't apply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am conflicted here. While I support making a less toxic environment for victims, the rule has been disproportionately used against black men. Also, false accusations are far more likely in an atmosphere with few if any consequences for making them. Give people weapons and they will use them. I don't have any good answers but I do think there is a real problem here that the wingnuts are getting at.

And for those who stick their head in the sand and pretend women don't behave that way:

https://academia.stackexchange.com/...-and-she-is-blackmailing-me-now-what-can-i-do

She wanted a relationship rather than a one night stand, when she didn't get it, trouble.

(Note that this is simply one I stumbled across when it made the hot questions list, not anything I sought out.)

 

[Arctish]

This current interpretation is clearly awful, it assumes the accused should be able to present a defense.

Do you honestly believe that college and university Code of Conduct enforcement procedures deny students and staff the opportunity to present a defense should they be accused of violating the rules, or is this just hyperbole and sarcasm?

 

[Arctish]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

So there should be no justice when dealing with a private entity?

Nothing in my post suggests that.

It's perfectly fine for your employer to fire you and make you repay $50k in expenses because Bob said you were a bad girl without the slightest shred of evidence you actually did wrong?

Nothing in my post suggests that. It appears you are having difficulty with the concept of rules that are not laws, and rule enforcement being unrelated to, and independent of, law enforcement.

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In what way does this apply to Code of Conduct enforcement?

When that code of conduct enforcement is acting as a proxy for the government--which it is in this case.

No, it really isn't.

But supposing it was, what part of the 5th Amendment do you think applies here?

The government told them to punish "rapists", they're punishing "rapists" with no regard for actual guilt. When they're acting as a proxy of the government they should be bound by the same rules the government is.

Or should it be legal for the government to hire a private investigator to snoop your house without a warrant. After all, they're not the government, the 4th doesn't apply.

You are conflating law enforcement with rule enforcement and the result is nonsense.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you really think these "tribunals" on college campuses approach these cases with an open mind or presumption of innocence towards the accused?

No.... we have to "believe the victim" right? So long as the accuser is female anyway.

 

[Arctish]

Do you really think these "tribunals" on college campuses approach these cases with an open mind or presumption of innocence towards the accused?

No.... we have to "believe the victim" right? So long as the accuser is female anyway.

I think they approach it in the way laid out in the Student Handbook and the section of Code of Conduct that describes the disciplinary process.


If the Student Handbook says that reports of rules violation will be investigated diligently, conscientiously, and in a manner consistent with professional standards, great! That's certainly an improvement over the old 'are you sure you weren't leading him on?', or 'it's so close to graduation, maybe we should just let it slide', or 'are you sure you want to go through with this because it's just your word against his' dismissiveness that some people have encountered when reporting a rape.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If the Student Handbook says that reports of rules violation will be investigated diligently, conscientiously, and in a manner consistent with professional standards, great!

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you really think these "tribunals" on college campuses approach these cases with an open mind or presumption of innocence towards the accused?

 

[Arctish]

If the Student Handbook says that reports of rules violation will be investigated diligently, conscientiously, and in a manner consistent with professional standards, great!

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do you really think these "tribunals" on college campuses approach these cases with an open mind or presumption of innocence towards the accused?

Yes, I do. I have no reason to think otherwise.

I noticed you are employing the second line of attack I spoke to ruby sparks about. You are asserting bias and gender discrimination despite the dearth of evidence in support of that charge. It's an appeal to emotion and fear. It's a fallacy, not a substantive criticism.

I've read and signed a few Code of Conduct agreements over the years. I've read the Student Handbook and Codes of Conduct of several universities and colleges that have been under discussion here. And I've looked into several specific cases where bias and discrimination was alleged but haven't found evidence to back up that claim. More importantly, neither did the people alleging bias and discrimination.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And I've looked into several specific cases where bias and discrimination was alleged but haven't found evidence to back up that claim. More importantly, neither did the people alleging bias and discrimination.

Of course not. And there was a presumption of innocence on par with criminal courts? I think not. And yes, it does matter. Because once the school brands the accused a rapist, the public and any potential juror in a criminal case is more likely to be biased.

 

[Arctish]

And I've looked into several specific cases where bias and discrimination was alleged but haven't found evidence to back up that claim. More importantly, neither did the people alleging bias and discrimination.

Of course not. And there was a presumption of innocence on par with criminal courts? I think not. And yes, it does matter. Because once the school brands the accused a rapist, the public and any potential juror in a criminal case is more likely to be biased.

Where's the evidence the school brands the accused a rapist? Student records are confidential. Are you conflating the disciplinary process with a criminal investigation by the police?

Where's the evidence there's no presumption of innocence? Show me the Code of Conduct or the disciplinary board that prejudges the guilt of the accused.

And how does your evidence square with this:

Colleges often reluctant to expel for sexual violence — with U-Va. a prime example

As growing numbers of students report sexual violence, those who seek justice through internal channels at colleges are learning that even when allegations are upheld, school officials are often reluctant to impose their harshest punishment on the attackers: expulsion.

Federal data on college discipline obtained by The Washington Post suggest that students found responsible for sexual assault are as likely to be ordered to have counseling or given a reprimand as they are to be kicked out. They are much more likely to be suspended and then allowed to finish their studies....


… With elected officials and student activists drawing attention to campus sexual assault nationwide, reports of incidents have risen sharply. New federal data show 5,054 reports of forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in 2013, up from 3,443 in 2011, a 47 percent increase in two years.

There is no comparable national data on how those reports were resolved.

But dozens of colleges and universities that receive grants from the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women have answered surveys about internal discipline of sexual misconduct. Data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show the pattern of resolution at about 100 schools surveyed in 2012 and 2013. The information indicates that sexual offenders are often allowed to stay in school.

Of 478 sanctions meted out for sexual assault, 12 percent were expulsions and 28 percent were suspensions, according to the data. The rest were reprimands (13 percent), counseling orders (12 percent), community service orders (4 percent) and other, unspecified types of punishment.

Not so draconian after all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one said unfair Codes of Conduct are good. No one said that fair CoCs enforced in an unfair, sexist, or gender biased manner are good. And no one here has ever shown an instance where "both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled" actually happened except where there was an additional offense the guy alone committed.

And how exactly would you know that?!?!

All it's going to show up as is rape because she was too drunk to consent. You have no idea if it was mutually drunk. And the system is so stacked against the guys that we only hear of the cases where there's substantial exonerating evidence so what makes the news is only a drop in the bucket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From what I've seen, people who oppose the change in the way sexual assault complaints are handled on campus follow one of three lines of attack. The first is to attack the legitimacy of the campus disciplinary process. This usually involves criticizing college and university administrations for investigating an alleged sexual assault because they aren't part of the criminal justice system. Many posters have claimed colleges and universities don't have adequately trained staff to do investigations, although its been shown that all of the larger ones do. This is where the conflating of due process and disciplinary process keeps happening, mostly I believe because it appeals to a reader's sense of fairness. It's a fallacious argument that ignores the fact that colleges and universities aren't enforcing criminal law, they are enforcing their rules, and they can best do that through their disciplinary process.

It has not been shown that the larger ones are capable of doing it right. We have plenty of reports of it being done very, very wrong.

The second line of attack is to assert bias and gender discrimination. There is a dearth of evidence in support of that argument so on this board it usually morphs into an attack on the legitimacy of the disciplinary process.

The bias is the government de-facto ordered them to prosecute more "rapists". Never mind that the statistics show there aren't more rapists (simple test, look at police data rather than university data. Oops, female students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age not going to college)--thus the basically inevitable result that innocents are swept up.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

 

[Arctish]

No one said unfair Codes of Conduct are good. No one said that fair CoCs enforced in an unfair, sexist, or gender biased manner are good. And no one here has ever shown an instance where "both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled" actually happened except where there was an additional offense the guy alone committed.

And how exactly would you know that?!?!

I know that no one said unfair Codes of Conduct are good or that fair CoCs enforced in an unfair, sexist, or gender biased manner are good because I read the threads on this topic and participate in most of them.

I know that no one here has ever shown an instance where "both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled" actually happened except where there was an additional offense the guy alone committed because I've asked to see the evidence and all I've been shown are cases where there was an additional offense the poster didn't mention. Remember the Amherst case? Remember how Derec kept banging the drum of gender bias because both students were drunk but only the guy got expelled, and not mentioning that the accusation against him was forcible rape, not having sex with someone intoxicated?*

All it's going to show up as is rape because she was too drunk to consent. You have no idea if it was mutually drunk. And the system is so stacked against the guys that we only hear of the cases where there's substantial exonerating evidence so what makes the news is only a drop in the bucket.

Please present documented evidence the system is stacked against the guys.

* Remember when I said I was going to highlight the forcible rape part whenever anyone posted that 'both were drunk but only the guy got expelled' deceptive propaganda about the Amherst case? It applies to my posts, too.

 

[ruby sparks]

Arctish, what did you make of the comments and report(s) by FIRE? I am not familiar with that organisation, but from what I can tell, it is purported to be impartial and interested in valid and (here) relevant issues?

It/they (what was posted here) gave me the impression that there was a case for rethinking, for example, what I think has been described here as the 2011 'Obama Standard' (I write from afar and am not wholly familiar) and that yes, American colleges may not have been up to the mark as regards fair procedures over recent years.

It doesn't sound too dissimilar to the London Met police very recently readjusting their policy after having adopted a policy a few years ago of 'believing all victims' (of rape and sexual assault).

In other words, in both cases, it seems to me that the bar was lowered. That may have been well-intended. It may even be a good way to net more criminals. It may even be the case that to some extent there was only a risk that it was lowered and/or that the negative effects have been overstated or overreacted to. But it can be difficult to defend also, especially if it's applied as an exception compared to other crimes.

 

[Arctish]

It has not been shown that the larger ones are capable of doing it right. We have plenty of reports of it being done very, very wrong.

Show us these reports. Link to them, or to a list of them.

The bias is the government de-facto ordered them to prosecute more "rapists". Never mind that the statistics show there aren't more rapists (simple test, look at police data rather than university data. Oops, female students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age not going to college)--thus the basically inevitable result that innocents are swept up.

The government didn't order them to prosecute anyone. That's a function of law enforcement.

Please link to the statistics you are citing so I can see for myself what they show. Even if it's true that female college students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age who aren't going to college, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of sexual assault against females everywhere, or that institutions like colleges and universities have been doing an adequate job of enforcing rules against that sort of thing.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

In other words, you're not interested in having that discussion.