I think JOD is just arguing for the sake of argument. IF the story is that the school took action against this guy because the woman really thought he was her rapist from back home, but figured out he was not, then clearly all sanctions should have been lifted. He should not be subject to possible sanctions just by looking like someone else.
But DStark is right, this is just silly because we have no idea if this is accurate and even if it is, it seems unlikely to happen again.
To me the unfortunate part is that other parts of the document seemed well reasoned and this is the only thing that is getting any play.
For the young woman in question, what happens when she boards a plane home for spring break and a guy three rows behind her looks like her rapist? Should he be moved to the back of the plane, or ejected? What if they’re both in first class? Pretty hard to get someone out of the line of sight within first class. Should he be booted back to steerage because he upsets her?
Exactly LasMa. They both paid for a ticket and they both have expectations of what that ticket entails. Anyway, I think it’s getting play with the bloggers because of exactly what we are discussing here and the on-going media blitz regarding what alleged sexual assault victims are demanding. If this story is true, it is extreme…but if it’s true, some college actually did this to a kid. It’s an example of where supposed rights of individual students clash and what degree we want to impose protectionism for a specific class of students or a single student within a larger society. I find it infinitely fascinating and a period in history that will be remembered long after the dust settles.
This also reminds me of the Orthodox Jews who refuse to be seated next to a woman on a plane. As if the woman who paid for a ticket should have to move to accommodate them. I sure as heck wouldn’t move without a fight.
I just reread what Prof Halley wrote…(instead of what the posters are writing. )
By the way, the prof edited her essay. I like it a little better now. The section I hated was cut out.
I disagree with her on Anna’s case though.
Looks to me like the guy reminded the accuser of her rapist and therefore the school thought he might be the rapist so the school investigated the guy.
This is different than saying the guy was investigated just because he looked like the rapist when he obviously wasn’t the rapist.
The guy should never have been investigated?
Where does it say the school did not think the guy was not a rapist and was cut off solely because of his looks?
After the investigation, the guy should have been told immediately he was found innocent and all restrictions should have been removed. The investigation may have been too intrusive.
“all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.”
That’s where it says it was just because of how he looked. ‘Reminded her of…thousands of miles away.’ There is no indication this guy was ever in the area where she was raped, and should have been a quick check to see if he had ever been in Denver or Chicago or wherever she said she’d been raped, or if he had an alibi for the time of the rape.
One day when I was in high school I was called to the office. Someone had been stopped at a school just outside our town and when asked her name, gave mine. They asked me where I’d been at 1:15, I said math class, matter closed.
No one ever said the school shouldn’t have looked into the woman’s claim, but really, doing full investigation, interviewing friends and dates to see if he could be a sexual predator when the simple question of ‘were you ever in X town’ may have cleared it all up? Seems overkill to me.
I took it to mean that the girl said this boy looked like her rapist, but also said the rape took place months before and thousands of miles from campus. As twoin says, the school may have been justified in investigating whether this kid was in that location at that time, but not his actions at campus once it was known he was not present where the assault took place. But, to me, the main injustice is not to have lifted the stay once he was cleared.
While I can’t argue it’s not compassionate, I would argue it’s an example of “hard cases making bad law.” It generally fails the “reasonable man” test as it’s clear that most people including myself see this instance as an absurd outcome.
As an aside, excepting something like travel for university sponsored activities, why would a university even look into a sexual assault that happened a thousand miles away? I guess I’m a pragmatic, insensitive lout, but I’d just refer the student to the appropriate law enforcement agency, the counseling services we offer, and call it good.
It’s pretty clear you guys don’t understand the limits of private property. It’s exceedingly unlikely that the university directors own the airline as well.
No, but the airline owners own the airline. Couldn’t they follow the same line of reasoning which the university did? “We know he’s not the actual rapist, and he’s done nothing at all to harm or threaten her, but he upsets her, so off he goes.”
If I may, I think his point was that it’s in the interest of the university to protect it’s image (or something like that) by doing this. And fully within their rights as a private institution. Since it’s within their rights, and in their interests, it’s reasonable. It’s not in the airline’s interests to boot the passenger. He was teasing in his post by sarcastically acting as if you were talking about the university since it’s not in the interest of the airline thus it wouldn’t be done.
Look, it simply doesn’t have anything to do with this. When this story broke, everyone sat around pontificating about it’s veracity and then started concluding it wasn’t true for all kinds of reasons, nearly all of which are not based on understanding of the law.
To wit: private property.
It was also interesting how many people wanted to jerk the rug out from under the person who had already been traumatized.
It is also interesting that you (and the college) want to jerk the rug out from under the person who has been found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing with respect to the traumatized person (if the story is as described). Especially since the continued “stay away” order that the innocent student is easy to accidentally violate at a small school.
While you may be arguing that the college may have the right to do such an action on its private property, that does not mean that it is a good idea (not everything that one has a right to do is a good idea). Perhaps if it is a good idea, the college should publicize its policy to the court of public opinion as a means of marketing itself to future students and attracting donations.
I’m getting tired of reminding you that the college actually went the distance in allowing the one student to even continue, so the notion that they “jerked the rug out” from him represents a very selfish and one-sided view of things.
Same with finding him “completely innocent”. You don’t have any knowledge of how innocent he was or wasn’t.
A couple of points. As a lawyer, I have to point out that if we are going to discuss a hypothetical case–which this essentially is–we have to agree on the terms of the hypo. The hypo that most of us have been discussing is a situation in which a college student wants another student to be kept away from her solely because he resembles a person who raped her. If the facts are different–i.e., if somebody accused him specifically of sexual misconduct–then the hypo is different.
But if we take the hypo as I stated–that the only problem is his appearance–then my legal opinion is that a college, even a private one with its own private property, couldn’t legally restrict his movements in this way. Any court in the land would find that he has a contractual right to access to the campus facilities for which he has paid. There is undoubtedly a disciplinary code that indicates infractions that can lead to punishment, and I wager that looking like a bad guy is not one of them. We may have seen stores or restaurants with signs that say, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” but they don’t really have that right.
I will add that a private university could deny admission to a person because he looked like Lee Harvey Oswald, or for any other capricious reason–no contract has been formed at that point. But if they admit him and take his money, they can’t then expel him because he happens to look like Lee Harvey Oswald, or for some other capricious reason.
One note: I do think a college would have an obligation to protect a student who had this problem. The way they would do it would be to provide counseling to her. It is certainly possible that the student with the offending face might agree to take certain steps to avoid unnecessary contact with her–that would be compassionate.
)