There can be a world of difference between “some truth” and “the truth.” And “the truth” is very important and paramount to many people irrespective of whether it indicts a male or a female.
The fact the lawyer put her name on the piece doesn’t mean much to me. The lawyer has a point of view.
Hanna explained it very well earlier.
People are speculating. What the lawyer wrote was ambiguous. Nobody forced the lawyer to write the story. A few facts would be nice. A little elaboration would be nice. 
I will be fair. Where is Adam in the Paul Nungesser story?
What really happened in the Prof Halley story?
I am happy to read that some truth is ok. Of course, we don’t really know what the some truth is
No, I think the author was simply using that story as an example because she had some knowledge of the circumstances. I’m not sure that the main point the author was making lives or dies on that one example is the only opinion I’m putting forth and it doesn’t really matter what each side of the story is - it’s the college’s actions that are the example. The author had plenty of examples of egregious decision making that could have been used that are verifiable and public. For that reason alone, I suspect the story is true.
You might very well be right, @dstark . Time might tell us – if it’s true. If it’s not, we’ll probably never know.
Halley is a very distinguished professor and scholar and is certainly does not appear to be someone that would readily accept a man’s very unbelievable story. Why would she do that? It doesn’t add that much to her overall paper. She is a feminist and a lefty, Although she has some concerns - a bit beyond my level of political theory on a quick read - about how the current direction of American feminism. To me, it is believable. I find it much harder to believe that this professor would say she was involved in helping this kid if the story is in fact false. Anything is possible of course.
Does believing a story make it true?
The professor had to edit her piece for factual errors. She called somebody’s work 6th grade work. (She deleted that part). She told an anecdote without facts to back up the story.
Nobody can pinpoint one school that banned a man from parts of a campus because of his looks.
Even if the story is true, it is irrelevant if this action of banning somebody has happened once. IF…
A little substantiation of the story would have been nice.
How do you know what she deleted, dstark?
I read it.
Oh please.
Do y’all think HLS prof Halley is also making up the other story she recounts in her HLR piece under the same heading “Impacts without Misconduct”? The case ten years ago that woke Prof. Halley up “to the dangers of an unthinkingly broad, advocacy-based definition of sexual harassment.”
You are all sooo missing the point. When lefty feminist Ivy League academics are talking this way (and Halley is not the only one), you know the policy is really FUBAR. Or as Elizabeth Bartholet (another female feminist HLS faculty member) has put it “a moment of madness” that Harvard "will be deeply shamed at the role it played in simply caving to the government’s position.”
Continue to flyspeck away…
By the way, Stark, the HLR piece currently includes this:
“The remaining third of the document (and thus the entire remainder of the training) provides a sixth-grade level summary of selected neurobiological research.”
I’m inclined to believe what the HLS prof published in the HLR. That ain’t like Rolling Stone at all…
One of the editors of Reason (libertarian magazine and website) contacted her to fill in the sketchy details. No word back.
First Brian Williams, then Bill O’Reilly, now Janet Halley? Really?
Did anyone else read the article by Jonathan Chait in NYMag, which discussed the Halley article and two others on related topics? He does point to some of the quandaries that are discussed in this thread.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/feminists-criticizing-campus-sex-assault-rules.html
For parents of (potentially naive, sexually inexperienced) young men, soon to be entering the confusing social world of “college”, these articles are very thought provoking.
Not to worry nycparent12, the real scary days were about a year or so ago. Too many mainstream folks are “catching” on and hopefully the students both male and female are beginning to understand what the reality of not having legal counsel or the “real world” criminal justice system means when they put their life path and college financial investment on the line. They are also learning what happens when they jump into the media fray. The OCR is woefully behind on their investigations but the few that they have conducted have indicated that they know that some colleges and universities jumped the shark. Personally, I’m much calmer about the whole situation than I was a year ago and by the end of this year I am hopeful that progress will be made. It’s more young female students that are in danger of getting caught in the system because lack of counsel about what their decisions, both regarding criminal and non-criminal honor tribunals. actually mean and now it becoming more apparent what colleges can and can’t do or will and won’t do. And even some of the more respected feminists are starting to interject with rational thought. Young men will always have the fall back position of the civil courts if they end up in front of an ill-informed and disorganized college tribunal.
HarvestMoon1, somebody else I know contacted her too. 
@northwesty - While I totally agree with your Post #289 in that this represents the fundamental issue writ large, there is the other issue writ small of why the colleges should not handle these cases, i.e., investigative capabilities.
If instead of going to the college only, the female had gone to the police, I bet a lot of this would have been cleared up in under a day. The basic physics of opportunity says in order to commit such a crime, the doppelgänger would have had to be in the same place at the same time as the female.
In this day and age of cell phone pinging, IP address tracing, mobile ad cookie tracking, location sensors, cameras, etc., it would not have been difficult for the police to determine where each person was on the day and time of the alleged rape. The way it sounds, the lookalike knew he was not even in the same vicinity and even sounds like he was in different state at the time.
Give me your phone number or any electronics device code in your pocket, such as your car keys, and I know investigators who for $5K can tell me what you had for lunch the last two weeks and with whom. Could have been done here IF the colleges had the capability.
My point - a real, preliminary police report and preliminary investigation could have easily cleared up the issue of being the same person, just on physical location alone. It would not solve the female’s phobia of the person’s face and presence, but that is her issue.
And also this would have been the first thing a lawyer would have established if the male had a lawyer from day one - whether or not the male was even in the same place at the same time.
Overall, the college investigation was an errant waste of time, raised unnecessary speculation of the male, and looked at all the wrong things to find out if the male could have been the alleged rapist. What the police would have done in short order would have saved all the other nonsense the college did talking to other people, investigating the guy’s sex life, etc.
@JustOneDad
I haven’t read through every post on this thread yet, so maybe this was addressed. But several times you seem to have taken the argument that as a private school, they can ban anybody they want. That is, to say the least, absurd. There are numerous areas in the law that prevent that, but at the very least they have taken this person’s money. He has an absolute right and expectation to be able to be treated like any other student. A similar situation would be if I paid to join a gym. They cannot then turn around and ban me from the premises just because someone complains they don’t like the way I look, or for any other reason short of my breaking agreed upon rules or otherwise disrupting their business. Just happening to look like another person that is a violent criminal is not sufficient grounds to claim I am being disruptive, that would be idiotic. And in the case of the school, they cannot just offer to give me my money back and kick me out. The law recognizes reasonable expectations in contractual transactions. This is not at all like you kicking me off your personal property on a whim. That comparison is wholly false.
Thanks @momofthreeboys. Hey, at least I read about this and can think what to say to my DS before he goes off.
I read an article in Business Insider about the Occidental College incident last year, which involved a young man and young woman, both deeply intoxicated, who had what was clearly consensual sex, except that because of their intoxication, it turned out after the fact not to be deemed consensual. She in short decided it was a mistake, and that it could not have been consensual, because of her extreme intoxication. The man, though also intoxicated, was determined by Occidental to have erred, because he should have been able to determine that she was too drunk. Anyway, he was expelled and sued the university. According to the Business Insider article, which was very even handed, both he and she are now struggling. He’s been unable to gain admission elsewhere (despite having been a strong student and athlete). And she left the university because she continued to suffer emotionally. It’s all just depressing all round, for all concerned, and seems like it was handled horribly by Occidental.
I’m sure that was all discussed on CC.
Obviously one big message here is to avoid partaking of alcohol and drugs, and avoid any kind of sexual contact with people who use alcohol and drugs. Sounds easy, right? And also, avoid any schools with a big party scene.
But even then, if the person paid you even $1 to be on your personal, private property, there is a contractual relationship and you cannot just kick them off because someone complained.
My Dad leases personal land (not incorporated) to hunters, fisherman, and cattle ranchers. Since they pay him, he cannot just up and kick them off based on another’s complaint. And he cannot treat them differently based on a complaint either.
Ya know, listening to this, it is sounding less and less believable…