The Manhood Trap

[Toni]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

So the expulsion is not ruining anyone’s life.

Once again, you throw out derails when faced with something you can't answer.

Getting thrown out of school like that is going to be a serious setback in life. You have the student loans but no degree.

There was no derail.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

And herein lies the heart of the problem.

The interests of the school in keeping the people safe are not the same as the interests of being fair to the people.

Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. Should we dispense with trials as simply throwing them in jail would make the population safer?

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Such actions are about liability, not safety. The same issue with charging applies to all secondary lithium batteries. Ban on size/ban on brand (but how do you identify the chinesium stuff??), don't ban on what it's in.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

So trials are superfluous.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.

So trials are superfluous.

You are confusing actions a university can take with the actions the legal system can take. They are not the same thing.

A university cannot bring criminal charges. It cannot bring any accused person to trial of any sort. It cannot bring legal charges but it can and occasionally does expel or suspend students for violations of its student code of conduct. One such potential charge that can result in suspension or expulsion is cheating on an exam. This is not something which is illegal but it can result in a failing grade, suspension, loss of scholarship ( where applicable) or expulsion.

If you are arguing that criminal charges should be brought when sexual assault is alleged, you will get no argument from me. I think criminal charges should be brought for cases of assault, including but not limited to sexual assault and for murder. University is unable to bring such charges. However it does have an obligation to do its utmost to provide a safe and harassment free environment for all of its students. A student who deliberately sets his dorm room on fire surely should be removed from campus and arson charges should be brought. A student who beats another student should be charged by local law enforcement enforcement —and removed from proximity from his victim. Even if that inconveniences the accused.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Victims may be reluctant to come forward because misogynist assholes refer to them as ‘victims’. And much, much worse.

Their ‘side’ would never be presented by the accused’s lawyers. Hell, we do not even know the accused’s side. We only know his attorney’s well crafted for public consumption storyline.

Lawyers for defense clients take cases of their clients or their clients’ parents can pay.

What is with everyone not getting it about contingency fees? This isn't about defense, this is about suing the school over what happened.

What kind of contingency fee do you believe would be collected in such a case? Why and who would pay?

Contingency fees raise the stakes for defense attorneys to craft a narrative that makes their client appear blameless while the victim is pained as a lying, scheming harlot who is probably mentally ill and mixes meds with too much booze.

You're getting this so utterly wrong.

The link was him suing the school for expelling him via kangaroo court. Plantiff, not defendant. Defense is never contingency fee!

So, the ‘evidence’ you brought was even flimsier -and still relies only on the narrative his lawyers were putting forth—so that they could win a settlement and get paid.

Money, not truth is the motive.

But as someone else pointed out, you are not reading carefully.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

What's that supposed to be related to??

I'm saying that you shouldn't have substantial punishment without a reasonable ability to present a defense. Competitive marketplace, ok, A doesn't like you, go to B. Non-competitive marketplace, you need recourse. And while binding arbitration looks like a good idea it ends up favoring the side that brings the most business.

What is your evidence that the university did nothing to investigate the veracity of the charges? Where is your evidence that Student A accused Student B of rape and the university just expelled Student B on the word of Student A?

 

[Bronzeage]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

And herein lies the heart of the problem.

The interests of the school in keeping the people safe are not the same as the interests of being fair to the people.

Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. Should we dispense with trials as simply throwing them in jail would make the population safer?

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Such actions are about liability, not safety. The same issue with charging applies to all secondary lithium batteries. Ban on size/ban on brand (but how do you identify the chinesium stuff??), don't ban on what it's in.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

So trials are superfluous.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.

So trials are superfluous.

Who said anything had to be fair? No one ever guaranteed either you or I a fair deal in life. This is when Dennis O'Leary said, "Life is hard, wear a helmet".

After spending entirely too much time of my life being responsible for the safety and well being others, many of whom saw it as an infringement on their personal freedom, I've gone slightly deaf to nitpicking the rules(I'll put the safety glasses on if the sparks bother me). You keep conflating a university with the Justice system and hope I won't notice. The school does not have the power to put anyone in prison, so, "Equal protection under the law" is a category error."

The school does have to power to sometimes demand higher standards than the law, which means there may be consequences for failing to 'be my brother(or sister)'s keeper.' Having sex with an unconscious or impaired person is poor keepership. Self impairment is not an excuse.
Since the school does not have a court or a judge, there is no trial. Someone has to be given the task of assessing the situation and making a decision in the best interest of the school. Someone might be going away, but not to jail.

I notice a complete absence of candle light marches by young men who demand an end to spurious accusations of sexual assault.