I agree with you that they are not adequate. However when we look at the Noles' quarterback case ( Jamies Winston), even though the FSU inquiry process gave him ample opportunities to "defend himself", he refused to cooperate from the get go and did not show up at the meetings designed to pursue that process initiated by FSU. His lack of cooperation has triggered a divide among Seminoles fans (spread out throughout Tallahassee). So far there is no indication that either the FSU Administration, the Noles' coach Jimbo Fisher, the Director of Football Operations (Robinson) and even the Booster Club are at all dismayed by Winston's refusal to cooperate with the inquiry process triggered by FSU.
With all due respect, you have no clue what has been happening in academia. Your cherrypicking of examples along with the mischaracterization of the situations is a prime example of bias.
The expulsions are usually for violating university codes of conduct, not for criminal activity. As for the your view of "flimsy evidence" and "due process rights", welcome to the world of private disciplinary action.
Not if expulsions are for something other than criminal activity. Again, you seem to be under the delusion that the due process rights under the criminal justice apply outside of that system: they don't.
Actually I do. And we have discussed it at length. It got a lot worse since the "Dear Colleague" letter - which reduced burden of proof and eviscerated any due process protections - but it has been going for decades. For example, a Vassar dean infamously said 20 years ago that men getting falsely accused of rape is a good thing.
Nonsense. The "violation of the university code of conduct" is the alleged criminal activity, rather than consensual sex (except at fundy xian colleges). But they don't require the violation to be proven to any reasonable standard.
Before the "Dear Colleague" letter colleges generally used the "clear and convincing proof" standard and gave accused men some due process rights. So it has nothing to do with "private disciplinary action" but with political decision by the government that the rights of the accused male students are worth nothing.
All these examples were because of accusations of rape, accusations that could not be substantiated and which in one case resulted in criminal charges against the false accuser. There is no other reason any of these students were expelled. Your argument is ridiculous.
Again, you seem to be under the illusion that male students accused by college kangaroo courts should have no due process rights, and that increasing the rate of expulsions is the only metric that counts, no matter how many innocent men are harmed in the process.
That's not quite what I was saying. There is an allegation of rape/sexual assault but the burden of proof used is so low it can't meaningfully distinguish between non-consensual and consensual sex.
Your posts indicate otherwise
Other than an indictment of that Dean, you are using that to condemn university processes throughout the country? That requires a combination of poor reasoning and bias that is mind-boggling.
Been there and done that. And, of course, your response does not address the your mischaracterization of cherry-picked example to conflate poorly-reasoned conclusions with fact.
Really, please point to any criminal code that makes a "violation of an university code of conduct" a criminal misdemeanor or felony. Otherwise, your claim appears as reason-challenged rhetorical excess not reality.
With all due respect, you are making unsubstantiated claims.
These are not criminal cases, so it is private sector disciplinary action for private colleges, and non-criminal disciplinary actions for public sector universities. As
Unfortunately for you, the students were not necessarily expelled for rape. Hence your claim is false.
Your bias is shining through with that rhetorical horseshit. You have no evidence the gender of any student changes the nature or standards used in these disciplinary hearings. Your argument ignores the reality that disciplinary actions outside of the judicial system are not required to afford the same "due process" as the justice system does. Finally, your claims concerning the Obama administration are both unsubstantiated and require a level of mind reading that I seriously doubt you possess.
No they don't.
It was an example of a radical feminist culture at many college campuses.
They are not cherry-picked, but representative of the forced low-burden of proof/no due process way allegations of rape are handled these days.
You are the one who is reason challenged, because the reality is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. It is not that university code of conduct has been made law, but that certain things that are parts of criminal code are also part of the code of conduct. Like rape, of which these guys have been accused of, without evidence. So the criminal violation and code of conduct violations are for the same alleged act.
Are you being purposely obtuse? The fact is that before the Obama administration directive the standard of proof was higher and students were afforded more protections. But in an effort to up the rate of expulsions by hook or by by crook the Obama administration mandated the lowest possible burden of proof be used and that many of the hitherto used due process protections be eliminated.
What were they expelled for then? Consensual sex?
No yours is.
I know of no case where a male student accused a female of raping him and she was expelled under similar circumstances and lack of evidence. Like if a male student has sex with a woman, sends her a message saying he had a great time and decides a year later he was raped. Would any girl in those circumstances be expelled?
You are ignoring the fact that nevertheless those accused by college kangaroo courts still should have some due process rights and in fact had some due process rights until the "Dear Colleague" directive forbade them from doing so.
Are you really ignorant of it or are you just feigning it?
No, it is an example at one college campus.
They are cherry-picked. You did not chose them at random. And your mischaracterization of low burden of proof/no due process simply proves my point.
No, university code of conducts are not made into law. If they were, you could point to it - and you have not.
In these cherry-picked cases of yours, please produce the actual reasons (not your biased interpretations) for the expulsion.
Repeating your unsubstantiated claims about the Obama adm. motivations does not make them more truer. But it does provide evidence that of your bias.
Are you being obtuse? You are making a serious claim about bias in the way one gender is treated in the university disciplinary process. There are many disciplinary actions that do not involve rape. If your claims are true, you should be able to show many examples, but you have not shown any at all. You do cherry pick examples and then mischaracterize the outcomes, but that is evidence of severe bias on your part, not by universities.
They so still have due process rights. And the "Dear Colleague" letter did not forbide anything like that.
Citing an opinion piece as disinterested evidence of the motivations of anyone is, at best, piss poor reasoning.Derec said:
I wouldn't think they'd get more sex, just sex with more attractive people.
In which case you should be able to point to many cases where there was clear evidence of rape and the university did nothing. And again, you are avoiding going into the cases of students being expelled for rape even though there is no evidence of rape and exculpatory evidence to boot.
I am not mischaracterizing anything. Obama administration is mandating the use of the lowest burden of proof possible and denial of due process protections like right to confront accuser/witnesses and right to counsel.
I am not claiming that as I have pointed out repeatedly.
The students were accused of rape. There was no evidence of rape, as evidenced by no police charges being filed (except in one case where the false accuser was charged with a crime), there actually was exculpatory evidence in each case, and they they were expelled.
I do not care about their motives (female vote most likely) - I care about their policies and their results, which are that innocent male students are being expelled.
No, you are.
We are here only talking university actions involving claims of rape. More specifically, claims of rape that could not be substantiated and did not result in criminal prosecution for rape.
I am doing none of it. If you think I am please show how I am cherry picking and/or mischaracterizing the outcomes of any of these cases. But that would involve actually addressing any of these cases, something which you have steadfastly refused to do during this conversation.
That is absolutely wrong. Also you are getting the radical feminist talking points wrong because some of your confederates are conceding that the accused students have no due process rights but are claiming that is a good thing.
Funny, I am thinking the same thing about you.Derec said:
Of course it's an opinion piece and clearly labeled as that. Nevertheless, it addresses the contents of the directive accurately. Otherwise you would be able to dispute the contents, rather than just attacking the source.
Your claims assume facts not in evidence. You have not presented any evidence in your cherry-picked cases that students were expelled for rape.
Your claims assume facts not in evidence. You have not presented any evidence to support your claims that the Obama administration is mandating the lowest burden of proof possible or that it is mandating the denial of existing due process protections.
I am not claiming that as I have pointed out repeatedly.
You are the one making claims of fact (the expulsion was for rape), not me. Provide the direct evidence that is true.
There is no need to address the cases. Your claims of fact in those cases are unsubstantiated. The fact you only present cases where you feel there is an injustice is an indication you are cherry-picking - using anecdotes to make sweeping generalizations.
Then why do you make repeated claims of fact for their motives?
Pure blather - ad hom attacks instead of dealing with actual content.
I did not attack the source. I pointed out that an opinion piece is not disinterested evidence.
is your comment not mine. I never wrote it.
Yet another highly questionable expulsion of a likely innocent male student.
This time at Duke. I guess that university learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse False Rape Accusation Case.
And of course, they use the same sexist double standard which I have talked about repeatedly on this and the previous board - if both the man and woman are drunk, the feminist dogma says the guy is the "rapist" while the woman is a "victim".
Yet another highly questionable expulsion of a likely innocent male student.
This time at Duke. I guess that university learned nothing from the Duke Lacrosse False Rape Accusation Case.
And of course, they use the same sexist double standard which I have talked about repeatedly on this and the previous board - if both the man and woman are drunk, the feminist dogma says the guy is the "rapist" while the woman is a "victim".
