“If me or my friends, or even an acquaintance of mine doesn’t like your looks, I am well within my rights to ban you from my property.”
Poor analogy. The victim doesn’t own the campus. She is certainly entitled to ban the guy from her private property for any reason at all.
^^That’s not in the girl’s power. The only decision the girl has is to leave or not. It’s the University board of directors making the decision, and they speak for the owners.
On the contrary, he is being allowed to get a degree rather than having to leave. How is that a punishment?
Well, why would he have to leave? And, why would anyone think he should have to leave? He did nothing after all.
Colleges cannot kick people out because other people don’t much care for their appearance. That is ridiculous.
He’s paid his tuition. He’s entitled to pursue a degree and have the full use of the campus facilities. It isn’t “gracious” that they are “allowing” him to pursue a degree. It’s what he’s entitled to as a full student.
It is quite perverse to think that because an (innocent) person causes another person mental distress or hysteria because of how they look, that the “innocent” person should be subject to restrictions. That sounds an awful lot like a equal rights violation in this day and age. If this has to do with Title IX that is about “equal” rights not “unequal” rights.
So what? Doesn’t the University feel an obligation to protect an existing member of their “family”?
Put yourself in the victim’s shoes. Wouldn’t you want your school to protect you?
No, I would not expect any protection from innocent people whose appearance happens to bother me for whatever reason. Actually, I cannot even really wrap my head around that concept. Sorry.
“No. Telling her that the only option they could come up would be for her to leave the college would be the second blow against her. Banning him from her parts of the campus makes it possible for both of them to finish their degrees.”
But for the tenth time, he did nothing wrong, Her discomfort is unfortunate, but doesn’t entitle the campus to revolve around her preferences.
If someone threatens me, I can get a restraining order against them to ensure I don’t have to encounter them. If someone merely looks like someone who has threatened me, I don’t have a right to a restraining order.
I think you’re arguing just to argue. I don’t seriously believe you think it’s ok to put restrictions on an innocent someone just because they bring up bad memories for someone else.
Neither would I, but some people are more vulnerable than others and the King is responsible for everyone in his kingdom, not just himself.
If you attend a college, but were told that you cannot take certain classes, choose certain majors, or be in certain parts of campus at certain times due to an arbitrary preference by another student, how is that not a punishment against you?
Why would the victim need protection from a person who has not committed a criminal act against her and is not threatening to commit a criminal act against her?
Personally, love Shakespeare, but no drama, please. A single person got restrictions. It’s certainly not “the campus”.
BTW, I very much believe that the victim should be protected here. I would probably decide the same way the board did.
Your original analogy was that of a king who has one subject who objects to the presence of another subject, but neither committed a criminal act against the other, not where one of them owns the private property.
I am a rape survivor. There is no excuse for forcing limitations upon another student because he looks like her rapist. That’s an issue SHE should be concentrating on with her therapist - she will run into situations for the rest of her life that will remind her of the crime committed against her. His presence on campus in an opportunity for her to learn to deal with those situations in the future. Trying to protect her emotions by banning him from places on campus just keeps her in a victim mode instead of becoming a survivor.
Of course, that single person’s case will become a precedent where others will try to use the campus administration to impose similar restrictions on others whom they are somehow offended by (perhaps including being of a disliked race or religion, even if the complainer does not say so), even though no criminal act occurred.
You know full well that there are procedures capable of changing that.
I’ve been giving you the private property clue from the beginning.
Under-employed lawyers can take heart in the potential job opportunities, however one had best consider the extent of the King’s powers before counting up the fees.
This story is not going to become a precedent.
This story sounds like bs. DonnaL’s explanation is plausible… If the story is not a fantasy.
This episode sounds like a Brian Williams story.
A college banned somebody from parts of the campus because he looked like somebody else’s rapist? I don’t think there is a movement to spread this to other campuses. If there is a movement, It must be some secret movement hatched in several thousand Starbucks across the country. Do you get free hot chocolate if you join?
You are confusing private property owned and managed by a third party with private property owned by the complaining person.