Right and then a law professor attempting to make a point with an obviously “extreme” example goes and alludes to the incident in a respected publication, and gets the internet all aflutter shining light on an incident that all involved would prefer to keep confidential. Which of course will most likely ensure that loss of confidentiality.
I’m sorry, but there isn’t a shred of truth to your claim. Jackets are not an issue under either Title IX or the Civil Rights Act.
Spot on, @Hunt.
"Jackets are not an issue under either Title IX or the Civil Rights Act. "
Well, neither are faces unless the guy is the assaulter but a lookalike won’t do it. geez.
@Hunt Thank you for that. I thought you were on track right up to the confidentiality agreement, payments, etc. It seems very unlikely anything like that existed when a professor is writing about it in a journal.
I wonder if you have any alternate ideas as to why the male student would agree to restrictions like this.
“I wonder if you have any alternate ideas as to why the male student would agree to restrictions like this.”
Kids who want to stay at their current school will agree to lots of things if the alternative is transferring or dropping out. Teenagers, like adults, don’t always do what their parents or lawyers advise them to do – and sometimes they act before seeking any advice. That’s not the part of the story I find at all far-fetched.
Because kids, particularly innocent ones, tend to want to be cooperative, and a temporary restriction, with the student assuming the restriction will be lifted once the investigation is concluded and he is cleared, may not seem like a big enough deal to hire an attorney in the face of school pressure.
It seems like this student would have no prospect of winning with you. If he refused to accommodate his classmate’s fears he’s an insensitive bully, continuing to traumatize a rape victim. If he agreed to the restrictions he must be guilty of something. What would you suggest a wrongly accused student do?
@marie1234
If you were the victim of sexual violence, the proper claim would be that you feel sexually harassed because the coat reminds you of the attacker.
I don’t think CC is the beneficiary of Title IX funding, so not only is it not covered by the law, but there are no payments at risk. However, if I felt you were were being honest, I would be happy to change the avatar.
JOD: where does Hunt say that B accepted “restrictions like this” (not sure like what kind of restrictions you mean here?) The entire point is that he did not accept the high level of restriction the school imposed.
Hunt actually wrote:
That is, B would be nice enough to try to avoid her, but with no sanctions if he can’t. IMO, he might agree to this because he is a compassionate human, not because he did something wrong.
Hunt also said that B also might not accept any restrictions (which may be more likely, especially with a lawyer involved) and might get a payment along with confidentiality.
IMO, it is also possible that B was satisfied with just getting the sanctions lifted and did not get any payment (unless he had to pay the professor in which case legal fees may have been reimbursed).
Can someone clarify- did he know who he needed to avoid and later found out why, or did he know only the locations he was required to avoid (place of employment, dorm, etc) and later found out why/who made the complaint.
JOD: Do you think the woman has a Title IX claim that she is being sexually harassed because this guy looks like her rapist, even though he is not her rapist, and thus the school has an obligation to restrict his movements on campus? Yes or no?
@Hanna Why would they have to transfer or drop out? According to nearly every poster here, that would certainly net the student a huge damage award for wrongful treatment of an innocent person. Unless, of course, the private university had the right to expel him in the first place.
The article says he was required to stay away from a specific student, which impacted his ability to work, go to class , and have housing.
Although I think Hunt’s scenario is the most likely, I still have a problem with how this could happen in the first place as alleged. In this thread, we have a number of posters including myself who, in other threads, have expressed that they’re sympathetic or somewhat sympathetic to the new Title IX regulations about sexual assault, because we think that previously colleges have treated sexual assault accusers badly.
And yet, none of these posters agrees with the college’s alleged actions in imposing restrictions on a student who had done nothing wrong. We think the college’s alleged actions are unjustified, unfair, and illegal. We think that even if it were legal to restrict a student in such a way, the college still shouldn’t do it. There’s one person here who supports the college, but… wouldn’t there be more than one person involved in this alleged decision? How would even a liberal college find two administrators who thought it was both legal and acceptable to punish someone who hadn’t done anything wrong? Is there even a chance that the college’s lawyers would agree to this, if they heard about it?
That’s why I’m suspicious that there’s something in this story we haven’t heard yet, and may never hear.
Again, that has never been my position, although several of you insist on saying that repeatedly.
I don’t believe the male student was ever charged with anything that we know of, was he? When it’s said he was “innocent”, wasn’t that referring to the possibility that he was the original attacker in her assault 3,000 miles away? There was never a criminal charge or a trial or a jury or judge that found him “innocent”, am I correct on this?
I always suggest that someone who is “wrongly” accused get a lawyer or other appropriate counsel. That’s what a student who is facing any serious disciplinary action should do.
Finding him innocent is not what we need here. He has not been found guilty of or even charged with anything has he? Heck, best I can tell he is not even accused of anything. However, you seem to think he may have done it or may be lying or something. But, to answer an earlier question, no your bothersome coat is not a violation of my CC rights under Title IX :).
You are right CF that there could be more to the story. It also could be that the school, unbeknownst to their legal team, was trying to protect this woman and really thought the restrictions were no big deal. Perhaps the person in charge still thought he might be guilty of something, even if the kid proved he was in Aruba at the time of the attack and there were no other charges. The professor made it pretty clear that there was no finding that he was responsible for the initial attack or for any other incident. I think we have to believe that this was a case of over reach. Why would the professor make this up? She had plenty of other cases to discuss in her post.
Also, they placed the restrictions while he was under investigation. If the woman continued to proclaim that he was her attacker, even with proof he was not, maybe the college felt they had to keep the investigation open and sanctions in place until she was satisfied?
Done what? The rape?!? You’d have to show us where I ever said that. Do YOU feel he might be the one who did it? I don’t.
Personally, I’m pretty sure it’s not in the University’s scope to cover that, anyway. If the police from 3,000 miles away want to charge him, that’s a different story.
“Why would they have to transfer or drop out? According to nearly every poster here, that would certainly net the student a huge damage award for wrongful treatment of an innocent person. Unless, of course, the private university had the right to expel him in the first place.”
Speaking as a lawyer…people and institutions do impermissible things that expose them to liability all the time. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be much work for litigators.
I still am not convinced the story took place as reported. But that’s certainly not because colleges follow all the rules all the time.
I believe the finding was made by the college: completely innocent.