A legal battle would likely be very expensive and take longer than his time to graduation, so even an expensive legal victory would be of no practical use to him.
I think it’s probable that the university paid him a very large amount of money, after it was pointed out to them that a university is a public accommodation. Perhaps a lawsuit was hinted at, and perhaps the university decided that it had little chance of prevailing. I also think they understood how bad this would look if it became public knowledge.
He also may have agreed to the restrictions during the investigation period, assuming they would be lifted once the investigation showed he had nothing to do with it. I’d agree to that, thinking it was a temporary thing and would be quickly cleared if I was a 19 or 20 year old college student, without an attorney, who knew that I didn’t assault a girl in a city I’d never been to. Sure, Mr. Dean, I’ll stay away from that dorm and that classroom bldg. for a few weeks. No problem.
JOD, would you be okay with it if your employer came to you (private employer, private property) and said one of your co-workers had been robbed by a guy who looked a lot like you and she felt uncomfortable being around you. You can still work at the office, but your new work space will be in the basement, and you’ll need to only use the cafeteria after 2 pm, and you can’t go to any social events. You will be allowed to still keep your job, so no problem, right? You’ll still receive the same pay. Private employer, private property, just showing a little compassion for an employee who was traumatized.
For starters, the poster probably got a good hint of your thoughts on property rights based on your use of the word “king” and “kingdom.” Those words convey a lot in terms of ownership and directive powers. And since we do not have kings and kingdoms in this country, it would seem safe to assume you think property rights equate to king-like powers over property and subjects, which are different than what really exists here in the US.
LOL
Do you also “think” an attorney would write about it in a “public” article?
ETA: Maybe you can have @Hunt explain to you how public accommodations are treated and under what laws.
Hints: Handicaps, race, religion, national origin
Do I want to keep my job?
It was a illustration. I think all the adults here know there are no kings or kingdoms in the US.
@JustOneDad What the college did - or was presumed to do - is illegal (or bordering on it). Look it up. I understand what you mean about the victim being traumatized, but honestly - and this is going to sound a tad harsh - it is * not * the guy’s fault that she gets panic attacks or whatever when she sees someone who looks like her rapist. It’s her problem and she should seek professional help in dealing with it. Honestly, I think the other posters have made many valid points towards this. Special dispensations may be made for those who suffered an ordeal (like the girl),* but not on the expense of others *.
Interesting theory.
I wonder if it is correct.
If you have “looked it up”, maybe you could share with us.
Correct me if I am wrong JOD, but you seem to be insinuating that you believe there is more to the story, meaning that this guy is guilty of some act of assault due to the fact that he accepted the restrictions and lawyered up. And that the college, being private, has the right to do whatever they want, regardless of the fact that this kid has paid as much in tuition and fees as the young woman. You keep saying your made your position clear, but your comments are very cryptic and, given the comments, not at all clear to most of us.
My reading was that he hired the lawyer after he was found innocent, but the restrictions were not lifted. He may have accepted the restrictions during the investigation, thinking he had nothing to hide, but expected it to be temporary once he was cleared.
Did he hire a lawyer?
The lawyer that wrote the article said she was helping him because they did not lift the restrictions on his movements even after he was found innocent. The investigation that cleared him went on without a lawyer.
Does hiring a lawyer mean one is guilty? Again with the cryptic posts.
Well, it’s certainly possible that your posts don’t reflect what you actually think. That would explain their contentious nature, I suppose.
I note that although the author of this article describes the situation, she doesn’t say how it eventually turned out (or, unless I am mistaken, when this happened). It wouldn’t have fit the theme of her piece to state that the college eventually backed down, or that it paid a cash settlement. On the other hand, it also wouldn’t have fit her theme to state that there was more to the story and that there might have been other reasons to impose restrictions on the student. Either of these is possible. What is not possible, in my estimation, is that a college could successfully maintain mandatory restrictions on the movements of a student who simply resembled some other person who raped another student. A threat to go public with the restrictions would be enough to get them lifted–the bad PR would be monumental.
Not at all. The attorney said she “assisted”. Your Critical Read of that made it “hired”. I was just asking if you knew that he hired a lawyer. It certainly doesn’t say he hired one.
You are the one making assumptions, not me. The only assumption I ever make is that there is some other factor not presented. And, I will continue to make that particular assumption as it almost always proves to be the case in Science, Medicine and Life.
Other assumptions you made in a single post;
That I’m insinuating the guy is “guilty of …assault”.
That I believe the college has the right to do whatever it wants.
The guy “lawyered up”?
That he hired a lawyer after he was found innocent?
They both paid the same amount of tuition and fees.
What’s with all the assumption on your part? It’s getting in the way of rational discussion.
I’m so glad you’re back. In an effort to prove that a college is not actually private private property, I guess, someone brought up “public accommodations”. A little misguided, perhaps, but that got me thinking…
I was hoping an attorney could tell us a little something about Title IX, sexual violence, right to an education, etc. and how it might bear on this case.
Regarding “lawyering up,” I have noted that in virtually every thread in which a male student is accused or suspected of some crime, from a traffic stop to murder, hiring a lawyer is regarded by some posters as a virtual admission of guilt.
I doubt that any of them would fail to hire a lawyer for their own kid–or for themselves, for that matter–if they were being investigated for a crime.
If the male student was determined not to be the rapist, and the only reason for restricting his movements was his resemblance to another person, then I don’t think any of those things would have a substantial bearing on this case. It might be that the college would be obligated to make some reasonable accommodation to the traumatized student, but this would not include mandatory limitations on the movements of an entirely innocent fellow student. Perhaps it might involve allowing her to take time off without penalty, or allowing her to switch class sections to avoid him, or moving her to a different dorm, etc., but it wouldn’t involve mandatory restrictions on him. As I said before, any judge in the land would rule that this would be a violation of his contract rights.
Note my use of “mandatory” above; it is certainly possible that a nice person would agree to some limitations in order to avoid traumatizing a fellow student. But if that were all there were to it, he wouldn’t have needed any legal assistance.
I think any sane person would hire a lawyer if they were making a $100,000 to $250,000 investment in their young adult’s college education and they felt that the young adults civil or due process rights were being violated. I don’t know very many people that would walk away from that kind of money or even a semester’s money simply shrugging their shoulders and going “oh well” that’s life.
First of all, I made no such assumptions about what you think. You are not at all clear in what you post. I asked you if my interpretation of what you have been repeatedly posting was correct. Yet you again chose not to answer, but to point out that I was making assumptions.
You posted:
So he had benefit of legal counsel but did not hire a lawyer? You said that he had legal counsel, i.e. lawyered up. I pointed out that he may not have had legal counsel when he accepted the restrictions, based on the article.
That seems to insinuate you think he did something to her that frightens her.
You also said:
That seems to suggest that you think private property rights are what are important here.
I made the assumption that as a student he paid the required amount of tuition. Yes, I made that assumption. Do you think he is there for free? Does that give him any rights at all?
I think that repeatedly posting that one is giving “clues” and “hints” is somewhat ridiculous. We are not playing a game, we are having a discussion. The point of communication in this context is to communicate clearly what one thinks, not to subtly lay down clues as if constructing a mystery novel.