Could have expelled him for WHAT? His bone structure? You can’t just expel students for no reason at all. There has to be a compelling reason - academic dishonesty, physical harm to others, vandalism, etc. There is no BEHAVIOR that this young man engaged in that is objectionable. Resembling a bad person is not BEHAVIOR.
Congratulations. You’ve discovered that there are exceptions. That would be why I said “very few…”
Can we have a lawyer weigh in on this, since JOD clearly isn’t?
Weigh in on what?
“There is no BEHAVIOR that this young man engaged in that is objectionable”
How do you know, Pizzagirl?
Sigh. A restaurant can choose to kick out a customer who is disruptive to other customers. This young man isn’t being disruptive, though. The disruption is only in her mind, and not based in reality. I’m a sexual assault survivor too, perpetrated when I was a young teen, but I don’t have the right to insist that men who looked like the man who did it to me should have their movements restricted.
They could have if this is a private university but they could have also been staring a very large civil rights lawsuit in the face. It varies from state to state but in general private colleges can set their requirements for admission and dismissal as long as they do not engage in illegal discrimination (making decisions based on race, sex, religion, etc). This college would be threading a very, very fine line in my opinion since they were making a decision based on race and sex.
@Pizzagirl “A restaurant can choose to kick out a customer who is disruptive to other customers.”
Yes. Thank you.
@Pizzagirl “This young man isn’t being disruptive, though.”
Sigh
@Pizzagirl "I don’t have the right to insist that men who looked like the man who did it to me should have their movements restricted. "
Absolutely, you do have that right. And, furthermore, on private property, you have the right to act on it.
The campus is not a kingdom. The college cannot make any rules, any decisions it wants to because while it may be private land, it is used for a public purpose. The college can decide who to admit and who to deny, of course staying within the laws on discrimination, but once admitted, IMO all students are entitled to equal treatment. How is restricting the accused from taking a class with this woman protecting her? He DIDN’T rape her. Restricting him from parts of campus doesn’t make this woman safer. Having him sit next to her in the library doesn’t put her in more danger. He didn’t rape her once, so he’s not going to rape her again. She’s not more protected by him not being allowed to join a club or walk though a building or work out at the gym. If she FEELS safer by not encountering him, she should take steps to make sure she doesn’t encounter him. She has that power. Avoid him. That may mean she needs to adjust her schedule, give up certain clubs that he’s joined, maybe even transfer schools. That decision is hers. She’s not owed anything from him or the college because it’s all within her control.
The reason no one is using DUE PROCESS in the responses is that you, JustoneDad, said the facts of this game you made up were that the decision maker was a private school. Due process is owed from the government to citizens; government is not a party here. It also doesn’t mean that the accuser automatically wins, that she gets to dictate the outcome. It means that the accused gets a fair hearing and understands the, well, process, and that the process is followed. If I concede that a private entity like the university owes due process TO THE ACCUSED (and I will only for the purposes of this argument because Justice Scolia and I would never concede due process rights in the real world), it appears due process was given to the accused here. There was an accusation, there was a hearing, there was a process. Where is your due process issue? Who didn’t receive due process? The problem was not due process, but the imposition of a penalty (restricted access) without a finding of guilt. If anyone should be arguing that due process was missing it is the accused, who may not have an avenue to appeal the unjust result.
Sorry, no.
“Due process is owed from the government to citizens”
Did you get that from Googling? Due process exists outside government.
If this young man were the ACTUAL RAPIST, then yes, of course. Obviously.
But the young man in question IS NOT THE RAPIST. He has done NOTHING from which the young woman needs to be protected.
Setting due process aside, the courts have also upheld breach of contract with students in private institutions that have been dismissed…so along with perhaps a discrimination violation the college theoretically could also be breaching the contract (and the expectations that he fall under the same stipulations and regulations as all other students) with the student by limiting his movements. So the “right” of a private university to “do what it wants” can be limited by the “rights” of the student who pays tuition in exchange for the “product.”
“He has done NOTHING from which the young woman needs to be protected.”
@LasMa I’m tiring of repeating things, so this is the last time. He clearly frightens the rape victim. And, I will point out that you have no actual knowledge of what he has done.
There is no right not to be frightened. Unfortunately, she doesn’t have that right and furthermore she should not want that right and good for everyone who recognizes bad things happen and no-one is required to build you a bubble to live in free of bad memories which unfairly penalizes innocent people for doing absolutely nothing but existing. Should we tear down all the private buildings that bother this girl, too? I suppose if the owner wants to demolish them for her that’s fine but this is an innocent young man. Good grief.
This is approaching silliness, now.
@momofthreeboys Nice. I’d bet you could have been a lawyer. Without knowing the specifics, we have to assume that most universities, like any other organization that has been around a while have legal counsel which keeps them apprised of current law. I’m sure your kids tenancy at their university are governed by some sort of an agreement. Look it up.
For what?
These arguments are made up.
Here is a list of liberal arts schools in Oregon from wikipedia.
Oregon
George Fox University
Gutenberg College
Lewis & Clark College
Linfield College
Marylhurst University
Reed College
Southern Oregon University
Warner Pacific College
Western Oregon University
Willamette University
Which school did this story occur? Name any school in the United States where this story occured.
If this story happened the way the professor said, that is terrible for the guy.
Is this story happening anywhere?
At least with the Jackie-UVA story, gang rapes actually happen.
What Marie said. There is no right not to be frightened, or upset, or offended. And if the young man actually DID something to upset the young woman – besides having a certain bone structure – I’m sure the article would have said so. If the young man knew he upset her, and then walked up behind her and grabbed her or otherwise intentionally frightened her, then yes, expel him. But there’s no indication he did anything like that.
This is her issue. And it’s actually is a golden opportunity for her to learn how to deal with this situation, because this isn’t the last time she’s going to run into a doppelganger.
"
@Pizzagirl “A restaurant can choose to kick out a customer who is disruptive to other customers.”
Yes. Thank you.
@Pizzagirl “This young man isn’t being disruptive, though.”
Sigh
@Pizzagirl “I don’t have the right to insist that men who looked like the man who did it to me should have their movements restricted. "
Absolutely, you do have that right. And, furthermore, on private property, you have the right to act on it.”
On MY OWN private property, yes, I have that right. On other private property that isn’t mine, I don’t have that right. Can I insist the mall kick out that man in the store over there because he looks like someone I don’t like? The mall is the mall owner’s private property. What makes me more important than that other customer?
At Wellesley, there was a statue put up last year of a near-naked man (google Sleepwalker). Some girls found it frightening and triggering to past assaults and asked it be removed. There were many debates back and forth but the college ultimately felt that the expression of art trumped girls’ fears - because those fears were unfounded, because a statue obviously can’t attack anybody. Now, obviously this isn’t fully analogous since a statue has no “rights” and there isn’t a “right” for an artist to have his work be installed anywhere, but this does kind of remind me of that. (The coda was that a drunk student vandalized it and got suspended and had to pay damages, which was right and fair.)
Well, I got my due process ideas from law school. Crazy, right?
Even if your due process ideas are correct that private parties OWE other private parties due process, who has been denied due process here? What process hasn’t been followed? The accuser asked for a hearing. She got one. You are confusing outcome with process. What wasn’t fair to the accuser about the process? Who didn’t get any due process you feel she was entitled to?
How about the first grade classroom? Should your child who frightens another child just by being in the classroom be restricted to only the last row, or the first row, or not allowed in the library or cafeteria at the same time as his classmates? This is after a due process hearing where Little Just-one was cleared of looking like another mean kid from the other first grade classroom who did actually push the accuser, where your child proved he didn’t push her, wasn’t even in school that day, couldn’t have been him. She doesn’t care. She thinks it was your child and feels scared if he’s in her class. She wants him gone and it is her right to be in this classroom because she applied and was accepted and the school owes it to her to make her feel safe (not be safe, feel safe). This is the best class and neither child wants to move (having dreamed of being in this classroom since birth) to the other class across the hall, or perhaps another school. Even though that class might teach the same subjects it just isn’t the class either family chose for an education. Should Little Just-One be restricted just because it would make another feel safe? No clubs or birthday parties for Little Just-One because this girl might want to join or attend, and she’d feel unsafe with him there. He LOOKS like a pusher! She can’t look at him without remembering that push from the other child. What if Little Just-One is black and black boys scare this girl? Just in general, she’s scared of black boys because one pushed her in pre-school. Does that change what she’s allowed to demand to feel safe?