“For example, no one has said a word about due process. Why would this student agree to an accommodation without due process?”
The student has not been charged with a crime.
He didn’t agree to the accommodation - he was required to keep away from her in order to remain a student and not be subject to disciplinary action. It is not clear that he agreed initially to the investigation either as the college can do that without his permission.
He certainly is fighting back against the continued no contact order after he was found innocent of the assault. How is this an accommodation that the student agreed to?
Why would someone lie about knowing someone else? Who cares? I could lie about knowing the quarterback or the head cheerleader because I want to be popular. I could lie about having had dinner with the college president even if he was sitting 10 tables away. It is not against the law in most cases to lie. Even lying about knowing or not knowing someone is not harassment, not interfering with her education and thus not a Title IX violation The investigation was not ‘Has this male student ever done anything wrong in his life?’ it was ‘Is this female student’s claim that this man raped her valid?’ Looking like a rapist is not illegal, it is not harassment, it is not assault.
You ask “Is he still innocent?” and I’d ask innocent of what? Murder? Certainly. Harassment? Yes. Being a jerk? That’s not illegal, so yes, he’s still innocent. This was an investigation of whether he harassed, assaulted, raped this female student. He didn’t.
People are not convicted and punished for general traits. A liar is not guilty of stealing if he didn’t actually steal anything. He might still be a jerk, but he’s not a thief. You think there must be something more to it, and many people agree with you that anyone accused must have done something, that nice girls like the accuser would not just accuse someone with no actual facts to back up the accusation. Fortunately for the accused, the American system, even if it is just an investigation run by a college, doesn’t work that way. Merely saying “I’m pretty sure he’s the guy” doesn’t end the investigation with a guilty finding.
@mom2and
- Okay, fair enough. What would you do if two months down the road, you decided you didn't like the arrangement anymore? That it was too burdensome? And, I think you have to be judicious in assuming whether or not the original student was "asked" or was "told". We have one side of the story.
- You don't know if he lied or not. He's still "innocent", remember? Two friends state he knew who the girl was and had referred to her on several occasions. He said he didn't. Who is lying? Anyone?
Thats irrelevant. The issue should remain focused on his rights. If Title IX is "a landmark federal civil right that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Title IX is not just about sports; it is a prohibition against sex-based discrimination in education. " http://knowyourix.org/title-ix/title-ix-the-basics/ How is he not being discriminated against based on a sexual accusation (which has apparently, from the article, been found to have nothing to do with this kid. What happened to this young lady is awful, and hopefully she gets adequate treatment, but her need to feel safe should not trump his rights, as an innocent victim, to walk the campus without having to worry if he is violating some invisible boundary. Despite her right to privacy, it must be horribly anxiety producing for him, especially if he did not know the accuser, to wonder if any girl he happened to talk to or sit near might be her. What a way to live and try to get a high priced education.
@jym626 I don’t understand what, in particular you are referring to.
Presumably, any accommodation he agreed to would involve a written description of his obligations under the agreement. I know I would insist, or otherwise, what’s the point? Maybe he didn’t and that’s why he contacted counsel. In any case, he has clearly agreed to something as he continues to be a student with restrictions in effect, so I don’t see how arguing whether it’s called an accommodation or an order or an agreement has any purpose for us.
I didn’t say anything about the terminology accommodation or order. That must have been someone else.
IMO, it might have been reasonable to agree to a temporary restriction of his whereabouts during the investigative period, but once he was found to have nothing to do with her initial assault elsewhere, it should have been lifted and he should have been free to walk the campus. If she couldn’t handle that, perhaps she should have looked at her options as to where she would feel safe. Its not , IMO a Title IX issue for her WRT this kid because its a perceived threat in her mind, not a real one.
Let’s examine that for a minute. What if your continued presence DID cause additional trauma? And now, you were made aware of that possibility and chose to do it anyway.
What due process do you think is missing? I’ll assume there are due process rights owed (I don’t believe it, but I’ll work with that assumption). Due process is the investigation, the hearing, the right to bring witnesses and evidence to the deciding entity. The PROCESS. In criminal cases brought by the state, it includes the right to a speedy trial, a trial by your peers, might include the right to bail pre-trial. It has nothing to do with the feelings of the victim, the regulations or the rules under Title IX, or the actual facts, just the right to present the facts.
Say the Accuser has due process rights. She has a right to make a claim and to have that claim investigated by the appropriate college authorities. She may have the right to testify at a hearing, to have an adviser (lawyer), to have a supporting person with her at a hearing. Did that happen? Yes. Did the findings support her claim that this person being near her was harassment? No.
The accused has due process rights. He was accused, so he has the right to whatever it says he has the right to in the college handbook. An investigation? A hearing? To present witnesses? Whatever the handbook gives him. The investigation showed he was innocent.
The only ‘due process’ step that didn’t occur was the lifting of the restrictions after the action was resolved.
He isn’t causing her trauma. It is HER misperception that its reminding her of a traumatic experience that is the issue. She should be the one with the restrictions, and to deal with her PTSD. It isn’t his issue. If the college president’s house on campus reminds her of the location where the assault occurred, should they burn down the house? No. She should avoid it (but yes, it doesn’t move, so thats not a perfect example- just used to make a point). If her assailant was wearing a grey hoodie, should everyone on campus be required to get rid of their grey hoodies? If her assailant drove a green honda civic, should these cars be banned from campus if it causes retraumatization?There is a limit to what is reasonable vs what is her responsibility to address. Its not reasonable to keep restricting other people’s freedom because she has an issue to cope with. She needs to take ownership and deal with it heal, and move forward, to recapture her self help and coping skills. and if she doesnt, she is revictimizing herself.
We don’t know, but that’s exactly what I asked. Why would anyone agree to this without due process? Based on what most people do, we have to assume there was something, and the fact that an attorney “assisted” indicates something, too, but we don’t know what, how much or when.
So, are you saying that the fact the restrictions continue is a function of a, what, simple oversight in the steps of due process? Not a part of the agreement despite due process having been followed, and the participation of legal counsel?
I can see from reading the posts, we still don’t know the facts about the Oregon case.
I was hoping some news would be released.
RE: #224 Since I switched jobs and class sections, not much I could do two months down the line. But since it was voluntary, I could certainly stop following the accomodations.
As to the rest, this is where it would be helpfu for you to give your theory of the case. I am going by the lawyer’s story which states that the college imposed a no contact order on him and that he would be subject to discplinary action if he violated the terms. If this were voluntary, why would he be subject to discipline and not able to move freely around campus.
Everyone agrees that we only have one side of the story. The entire discussion hinges on believing the story as it has been told: that he is in fact innocent and that he is being kept from moving freely on campus and subject to discipline if he does so because he looks like the person that assaulted this woman.
Again, if you want to pose the scenario that he is actually guilty and the college has some knowledge of that and so is restricting him, you would likely get some agreement. But that is not what is being discussed here.
Since the Presidential Residence doesn’t ambulate, a reasonable accommodation might be one of avoidance there, too.
Already addressed that (the presidents house) in the post- and said it was just an example. There were several more examples provided (cars, hoodies, etc). If her assailant had a beard, should all guys be required to shave if it traumatized her? Where does it end?
I repeat. This is HER trauma to deal with- not his. He is the victim in this situation. Its horrible that she “feels” retraumatized, but there is therapy for that, which hopefully she is getting. Its not like he is stalking or harassing her, jumping out of the bushes and scaring her. Interesting dichotomy- a therapy patient has the right to privacy/confidentiality, but when he was initially accused of possibly causing harm, directly or indirectly, should he, as if it were in a court of law, have the right to face his accused? NOTE: This is an indirect example. For him it would be easier to steer clear of someone if they knew who they were. Seems to me he was being cooperative and compliant . He found out by fluke who it was. Hopefully that helps him to avoid making her uncomfortable. What if they were in the same class and assigned a group project to do together, and he didn’t know she was the accuser? He wouldn’t be able to deal with that situation, she would have to.
“We don’t know, but that’s exactly what I asked. Why would anyone agree to this without due process? Based on what most people do, we have to assume there was something, and the fact that an attorney “assisted” indicates something, too, but we don’t know what, how much or when.”
Earlier, up thread, you suggested that the male student should readily agree to accommodations just to be compassionate, to help a fellow student who has a special need. Many suggested, including me, that he agreed to cooperate with the investigation and the restrictions because he knew he had nothing to fear as he knew he had done nothing wrong. Give the blood sample or bodily fluids sample to rule me out as the rapist, agree to the restrictions temporarily because you know the matter will be over quickly. Watch a few hundred episodes of Law and Order and you’ll see people agree to restrictions all the time to try to clear themselves.
Now, JOD, you are saying that because he cooperated voluntarily that shows he’s guilty of ‘something?’ What happened to him being a compassionate guy willing to take the job in the law library or change sections of a course just to help out a fellow student feel comfortable? From the limited facts presented, it appears he did not have an attorney at the hearing stage, only an advising attorney once the restrictions weren’t lifted, and maybe that’s why he agreed, or maybe he was just ordered to do it as a condition to stay in school so he felt he had no choice. He could have claimed due process rights, but if he had done so may have been suspended while the investigation was conducted.
JOD: this is from the original article written by Halley on this case
She clearly says he was subjected to this, not that it was voluntary. This is what is being discussed here with the assumption that this is an accurate protrayal of what occured. Not that he was actually guilty or volunteered to be nice.
Unfortunately, Halley does not porvide anything further on the ultimate outcome.
Hey, @JustOneDad I don’t like your jacket. It reminds me of a jacket someone wore a year ago and it smelled bad and made me sick. Just seeing your jacket makes me sick all over again. Could you stay away from all of the posts I am in and also, stay out of all of the forums that I might be reading. Oh, if I see you, you’ll be subject to disciplinary actions and probably expelled by CC.
This is basically what you are advocating. It makes no sense whatsoever.
This said, I understand a person having a visceral reaction to someone based on a past experience. But the girl needs to work through this. I was a hostage once and for about a year was afraid of everyone with the criminal’s body type (kind of like a football player). But I had to learn there are many people in the world with this body type and I should not be afraid of them. I can see the college asking the poor guy to stay away from her dorm out of courtesy, but that’s ALL they should do. He should be free to go anywhere he wants. Maybe the two of them should go to lunch, so she can face her fear of his face and hopefully eliminate it.
Why should there be a balance? The young man did nothing wrong. After the initial investigation in which he was completely cleared of being the young woman’s rapist, I see no reason why he should suffer * any * repercussions for a crime he did not commit.
The young woman is troubled by his appearance. That’s understandable. But that is * entirely *her problem. If she’s wise, she’ll learn a better way to deal with it than insisting that innocent people be banned from places where they have every right to be. Not all businesses are going to be as accommodating as this university was.
I’m going to try telling this story as it might have happened, assuming the version the professor tells is true. There are other ways it might have happened, but here goes.
- One day, student A sees a person on campus who looks exactly like a person who raped her months before in another location. Naturally, she is shocked. She goes immediately to the campus authorities and tells them that her rapist is here! She demands protection from him.
- Cognizant of its Title IX and other duties, the school begins an investigation, It tells the target, student B, to stay away from student A, without telling him (at first, at least) the reason for the restriction. The investigation is thorough, questioning B and his friends. Ultimately, it is determined that B is not the person who raped A, and no other evidence of misconduct is found.
- However, A is not satisfied, and is still traumatized by seeing B, and asks that the stay-away order remain in place.
- By some means, B learns that the reason for the restriction on his movements is his resemblance to another person.
- When the restriction is not lifted, B seeks legal assistance from the professor.
- After investigating the situation on her own, the professor, on B’s behalf, approaches the university, pointing out that it is on impossibly shaky legal ground in imposing mandatory limits on an innocent student’s movements, Title IX or no Title IX. Once the university’s general counsel learns of the case, and advises the university president of the likely outcome of a lawsuit over this, one of the following two things happen:
a) Sensible people work out a compromise in which B agrees to take certain steps to avoid A. However, B gets from the university a letter confirming that he isn’t guilty of anything, and promising not to sanction him if he accidentally comes into contact with A. The parties enter into a confidentiality agreement.
b) B is not willing to accept any limitations on his movements. The university backs down entirely, and, in return for a confidentiality agreement, pays him a certain sum of money. The university assists A in avoiding B as best it can, perhaps by helping her transfer, take time off, or arrange a schedule and housing that avoids B as much as possible. - Nobody ever reveals where this happened, because the PR for the school (and for A) would be horrible, and B is also not interested in publicizing the fact that he looks like a rapist.