Fraternity Groups Push Bills To Limit College Rape Investigations

Parent Cafe
21

No, I don’t want the police called for misdemeanors. But rape is not a misdemeanor as far as I know.

A college has to be involved once the police are involved if the rape occurred on campus. If it occurred off-campus and involved students, the standard policy on students who are arrested should hold.

Rape should be no more and no less than other crimes of a similar level of seriousness. If someone punches you and breaks several of your teeth, and both of you are college students, would you expect the college to “take care of it”?

Would ANY parent say “oh, I can see why you didn’t call the police and get the other student arrested for breaking my son’s teeth”?

We have to stop treating rape as “special” as to have different rules about it. It is a very serious form of assault and if colleges are handling aggravated assault cases on their own with no involvement of police, that is also a travesty of justice.

“Campus security” is no better than “mall security” or “apartment security”. The only places students are really safe is when security is the first line of defense, and reporting to police is mandatory.

I work at a state college, and there is no campus security that is not part of the city police force and subject to ALL the responsibilities of being part of the Executive Branch. They must follow US law and the US Constitution. There is no “in-between” security force where the security guard can make a judgement call based on what the college wants to do in terms of addressing and reporting crime.

It works very well and I feel much safer because there is no middle ground. If a student is harassed by another student and it is reported to security, that is identical to reporting it to the police - all forms, all dealings are with the city police, with officers who happened to be assigned solely to our campus. If I am assaulted by another employee or a student, right to the police. Read them their rights…

As for the general bad rap of fraternities, here are some stats on fraternity members:
http://www.nicindy.org/fraternity-statistics.html

For the record, although I got stinking drunk at a frat party, the guy who assaulted me was not a frat brother, he was a ubiquitous non-Greek hanger on. My general view on frats is that they enable underage drinking and set up a scenario where it is easier to take advantage of someone not in the group. Until we address the elephant in the room, that underage drinking is all but encouraged on university campuses, I cannot find reason to blame fraternities solely for the epidemic of campus rape.

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/is-college-sexual-assault-a-fraternity-problem/?_r=0

22

With all due respect that should be afforded, stats about frats from frats…I think we can have a tad more objectivity than that…

23

Some types of sexual assaults are, however.

It’s important to remember that this doesn’t just cover actions that would unambiguously be thought of as rape (a term that doesn’t appear in all jurisdictions’ legal codes, by the way), but a whole spectrum of assaults.

24

Oh come on. Are you kidding me? Why is everybody else in the country alright with going to “hostile, disbelieving cops” (lol) but it’s so horrible for college students to? The fraternities and sororities think the consequences should come from the justice system, not the people looking to protect the image of the University.

If a girl accuses me of rape and she doesn’t go to the police, I can be kicked out of school, be thousands of dollars in debt and have my name slandered forever. If she goes to the police, I would be exonerated. Thats so crazy. I should have the right to due process from an unbiased court.

Have fraternities thought of the optics of what? Standing for due process and the use of the justice system? Do you really think that most members of fraternities and sororities stand for rape? Come on.

Lastly, it’s not just evil fraternities supporting this. It’s sororities as well! The girls who spend the most time with fraternity guys think they need this. How crazy is that?

25

About as crazy as statistics that show most battered women also support their partners…

26

I don’t think anyone is “blaming fraternities solely.” Campus rape happens elsewhere as well, including at colleges that don’t even have fraternities. But as you correctly note, fraternities often enable and actively promote underage drinking; and beyond that, they often enable and promote irresponsible, out-of-control drinking both by those who are of a legal drinking age and those who are not. And in too many cases, that ends up being an enabler for rape.

Some posters on this thread seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the college has its own process for investigating and disciplining students for very serious offenses like rape, that somehow precludes the rape survivor from notifying the police and pursuing criminal prosecution. It does not. That is always the survivor’s option. Many survivors choose not to go to the police, fearing that the trauma of a police investigation, often including harsh and accusatory interrogation, disbelieving police and prosecutors, and the glare of publicity at a criminal trial will only make things worse. Also, statistically, the odds of actually getting a criminal conviction in such cases are probably pretty low, so many figure, why bother? Then, too, some rape survivors may not want to send the perpetrator to prison for many years, living the rest of his life branded as a felon and a registered sex offender. Yet the survivor might be very well justified in not wanting the crime to go completely unpunished.

For its part, the college has every right to try to determine the facts and to take disciplinary action against a student who has crossed the line into behavior that is illegal and/or impermissible under the school’s own code of student behavior, however that is expressed–especially if that behavior harms another student or students or involves the school’s own property and facilities. So if a student organization–say, a fraternity–is regularly serving alcohol to underage students, the college must be able to step in and take disciplinary action, even without reporting it to the police and seeking criminal prosecution. If a student or group of students gets out of control and starts vandalizing the college’s property, the college must be able to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary action without waiting for the country prosecutor to secure a criminal conviction. Students sometimes engage in aggravated assault, theft, burglary, or arson; when these occur on campus or involve harms to other students, the college must be able to investigate so as to determine the facts and take appropriate disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion, as a matter of self-protection and protection of the students it has a legal obligation to protect, without waiting for the criminal justice process to secure a conviction, which can sometimes take a very long time. And note that some of these offenses are felonies. I see no reason why rape should be treated differently, with colleges barred from investigating and undertaking their own disciplinary proceedings. And note that if the college does take disciplinary action, the maximum penalty it can probably impose is expulsion; it’s not as if the college is going to sentence the perpetrator to 10 years in the state penitentiary and require him to register as a sex offender. Even so, I think most colleges have a long way to go in professionalizing both their investigations and their disciplinary proceedings to ensure accuracy in fact-finding and fairness to all parties involved.

Legislation to prohibit colleges from investigating and taking disciplinary action in cases of rape is, IMHO, transparently an effort to shield the rapists, calculating that successful criminal prosecutions of campus rapists are not likely to increase significantly, but college disciplinary actions can be eliminated completely, solely in the case of rape but not for other felonies or serious misdemeanors.

27

Your sneering sarcasm suggests you have a lot to learn about rape and how it’s historically been handled in the criminal justice system. It’s not just college students who have a problem with “hostile, disbelieving cops.” Rape survivors generally have faced that problem from time immemorial. It’s partly misogyny among police themselves, historically a heavily male-dominated, macho, and not particularly sensitive bunch of guys. It’s partly a gut “blame the victim” response–“She must have been asking for it,” or, “If that happened it’s her own fault, she shouldn’t have been drinking with those guys or she shouldn’t have drunk so much,” or “Good girls don’t put themselves in those kinds of compromising situations where they could get hurt.” Or they think it was probably just a “lover’s quarrel” or some consensual act that didn’t work out to the woman’s satisfaction, and now the woman is trying to get back at the man by alleging rape, and they don’t want to get mixed up in these people’s personal lives so they’ll ask accusatory questions to get her to admit it was all made up or exaggerated, or at least to get her to go away. Police don’t respond that way to most other kinds of crimes. And college students aren’t the only ones who face the possibility of disciplinary action without waiting for a criminal conviction. If a co-worker accused me of sexual assault in the workplace, I guarantee you my employer would investigate and if it determined that the charge was well founded, I would be dismissed whether or not a criminal charge was ever filed or successfully brought to a criminal conviction.

I don’t know of any school that would expel you unless it found the charge well-founded. And the criminal justice system can’t “exonerate” you, it can only find you not guilty, which only means the prosecution hasn’t proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt–a very high standard of proof under which a lot of people who actually did commit the crimes with which they are charged go free. Sometimes the evidence isn’t absolutely conclusive, or some of the evidence was mishandled somewhere along the way and must be disallowed, or the prosecutor didn’t present the case in a way that convinced the jury, or the defense attorney did a brilliant job of bamboozling the jury, or the jury itself, or even just a few members of the jury, hold the kinds of attitudes toward rape survivors that I just described in cops. Also, because it’s often difficult for prosecutors to get convictions in rape cases, especially (I would guess) in cases involving college partying where everyone’s been drinking and a little out of control, prosecutors often won’t even file charges or bring the case to a jury; they mostly want to prosecute cases that are going to result in convictions because that’s what makes them look good. As a consequence of all this, we end up with far more “false negatives”–cases where the rape actually occurred but doesn’t end in a criminal conviction–than “false positives,” cases in which the rape didn’t occur but the accused is convicted (though there certainly are some of those, as well, with racism sometimes figuring in). In part, this is by design; we require proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases because we’re more concerned about false positives, sending innocent people to prison, than we are about false negatives, letting actual offenders walk. That’s true for all criminal offenses, and I wouldn’t want to change it. But rape survivors face an even higher bar, for all the reasons I just described.

It is worth pointing out again that suspension or expulsion from college is not a criminal conviction. It’s an internal disciplinary matter that the college can take, usually on a standard of proof lower than “beyond reasonable doubt.” This naturally raises concerns about false positives. But a false positive in this context just isn’t the same as false criminal conviction; it doesn’t carry the same harsh penalties, for one thing, and there’s less stigma attached to it precisely because the standard of proof is lower and so there’s less certainty that the fact-finder got it right. Keep in mind, too, that someone–even the person accusing you of rape–could sue you for thousands of dollars or more in a civil action, and the jury would decide that case on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, i.e., much less than “beyond reasonable doubt.” That judgment would carry exactly the same kind and degree of stigma that the college’s disciplinary action would. If it’s fair to decide civil lawsuits on that standard–and as a society, we’ve decided it is–then I don’t see why it’s unfair for the college to apply that same standard in internal disciplinary matters.

28

There are college campuses where the “campus security” is actual police (and may be its own police department, or a part of the city, county, or state police), as well as college campuses where it is not. Usually, you can tell by noting whether the web site of that organization calls itself “police” versus not using the word “police” except to refer to another organization which is the actual police department of the city, county, or state where the campus is located.

29

So bclintonk do you really think what happened to Drew Sterrett and yours and my favorite university was anything close to “fair”? The push back that is occuring is occuring because many colleges and universities have failed miserably for both accused and accusers in an attempt to comply with the misguided expansion of Title IX responsibilities. It should have been transparent well over a year ago that this direction was going to happen. i welcome the legal arguments for both sides because out of that will come something that reasonable people can get behind. I can’t “get behind” the current status frankly

30

The power of the schools should be limited. Very limited if they are not going to set up a process that allows the accused or accuser to have legal counsel and an independent appeals process. A high school principal has some power to enforce violations, but if expulsion is a possible punishment, then there is a more formal process, a right to appeal to a neutral party, or if necessary, a court. A university should have no less.

The schools should be able to handle the misdemeanors, but not the felonies. If the accusation is that a felony occurred (assault, rape, weapons involved) it should immediately go to the police whether or not the accuser wants it to - that is the standard if 911 is called). If the possible penalties include expulsion, then there should be an independent trier of facts and law (you can hire arbitrators). It should not be 3 students and some faculty from the English department.

31

A “company” sometimes imposes discipline without legal involvement. A recent case in our public high school. A teacher was accused of selling pot to other teachers (not students) during school hours. There was not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution. The teacher was fired anyway (after the usual “process”).

I am really on the fence with this proposed bill, and will let those more knowledgeable come to a final conclusion. But I agree with others that the OPTICS of having frats seemingly defend rapists is a terrible idea. Let others carry that mantle.

32

“The fraternities and sororities think the consequences should come from the justice system, not the people looking to protect the image of the University.”

Fraternities and Sororities would not EVEN EXIST without the Universities!!! So unless they will have some other profit center or place to call “home” , then as the old saying goes - Its “not wise to bite the hand that feeds you”… or they run the risk of being “kicked off the teat”, as more and more frats have recently discovered.
Times have changed and the kind of behavior that used to be “OK” with Universities is not OK anymore .

33

And what does that have to do with colleges adjudicating felonies.

34

The Higher Education Act has, for decades, prohibited public colleges from banning fraternities or sororities (aside from individual ones, and then only for cause). More recent versions of the HEA have gone further in their protections, for example exempting Greek organizations from anti-discrimination laws.

I don’t think frats and sorts have anything to worry about, really, as long as the Fraternity and Sorority PAC is quite as well-funded and donates as much to members of Congress as it does.

35

That, unfortunately, I have to agree, is the present state, as it applies to Congress and federal solutions.

36

And there are very few nationally “organized” areas within a university - athletes and the Greek organizations are about the only two I could think of - that can respond to this situation. Better yet bthese organizations have an interest in protecting their members and these types of organizations have male and female members. This particular response comes from the fraternities but there is no reason the national Panhellenic organization could not respond should they have a different point of view.

37

Frats at PUBLIC, not Private colleges, are protected under that law.

38

I don’t know all the details of the Sterrett case but from what I do know, the procedures the university used look rather shabby and unprofessional. As I said in an earlier post, I think colleges and universities have a long way to go in that regard. However, I am not prepared to say they should take a hands-off approach to rape, any more than I would be willing to say they should take a hands-off approach to arson if a disgruntled student sets a lab on fire. The school has has a responsibility to protect itself, its employees, and its students, and if that means taking disciplinary action up to and including suspension or expulsion of the bad actor, so be it. They will sometimes get it wrong–in both directions, I might add, unlike the criminal justice system in which false negatives (actual rapists going unpunished) are legion and false positives (innocent persons held criminally culpable) exceedingly rare, though certainly not unheard of. (I’ve seen some estimates that something like 3% of rapes ever result in a criminal conviction). The colleges should try to get it right as often as they can, and that requires having well-trained professionals and clear, transparent, consistent, and fair procedures; there’s certainly more they need to do in that regard. But they shouldn’t need to wait for a criminal conviction before suspending or expelling someone they have determined to be the arsonist, and neither should they need to wait for a criminal conviction before suspending or expelling someone they have determined, after a fair process, to be a rapist.

Let’s be clear about this and knock off the inflammatory rhetoric, shall we? They are not “adjudicating felonies.” They have no power to adjudicate felonies. They cannot hand out criminal penalties, like prison time. They can’t require the rapist to register as a sex offender. The rapist who is expelled from college but never convicted in a court of law can truthfully answer “No” when asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” All the colleges can do is enforce their own codes of conduct, which they must have power to enforce lest they become meaningless. And frankly, up until very recently and in many cases still up to the present day, colleges have mostly wanted to sweep campus rape cases under the rug, treating them as minor indiscretions, and hoping they just go away quietly. That is no longer acceptable. As I understand the legislation that’s being proposed, colleges could no longer even do that much; they would simply be forbidden from investigating sexual assault cases at all. They could investigate and discipline the arsonist, or the student who assaults a fellow student or a professor with a knife or a gun, or the student who sets off a false fire alarm. But sexual assault? Oh, no, hands off, leave it to the criminal justice system where 3% of rapists are convicted.

Look, the idea that institutions have codes of conduct for their members and enforce those codes of conduct without waiting for the criminal justice system to act is neither new, nor should it be controversial. Just today the Athletic Director at our state flagship, the University of Minnesota, resigned after he got drunk at a university-sponsored social event and sexually harassed two non-student female employees, pinching the buttocks and rubbing the back of one of them and asking her inappropriate questions, and texting the other (apparently while she was still at the event) and asking if he could perform oral sex on her. Both women reported that they left the social event in the company of others because they feared the AD might follow them if they left alone. The university president confronted the AD the next day, told him what had been reported to him, and advised the AD to get alcohol counseling and assistance. The AD agreed, and shortly thereafter tendered his resignation, which the president accepted. The university’s investigation was brief and informal, but if the AD had not voluntarily resigned, it would have triggered a more formal internal investigation leading to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from his job. As President Kaler explained, “The University has an explicit policy against sexual harassment and a strong code of conduct that articulates the standards and behaviors we expect of our employees. I take allegations of sexual harassment very seriously.” Had it been an actual sexual assault rather than what was deemed to be sexual harassment, there’s no question the AD would have been sacked long before the criminal justice system got around to addressing it. That’s how life is in the real world, folks. No employer is going to say, “Oh, gee, this is serious, we’d better wait for the criminal justice system to deliver its judgment before we investigate allegations of wrongdoing and take disciplinary action if we determine those allegations to be well-founded.” And neither should college students expect that when they are charged with a very serious infraction of the school’s code of student conduct, the college should just look the other way and wait for the criminal justice system to reach a conviction. If all you college rapists out there think you’ll be treated with those kinds of kid gloves once you’re out of college and in the workforce, you’re in for a mighty rude awakening.

39

^^
Hear!! Hear!!
"That’s how life is in the real world, folks. No employer is going to say, “Oh, gee, this is serious, we’d better wait for the criminal justice system to deliver its judgment before we investigate allegations of wrongdoing and take disciplinary action if we determine those allegations to be well-founded.” And neither should college students expect that when they are charged with a very serious infraction of the school’s code of student conduct, the college should just look the other way and wait for the criminal justice system to reach a conviction. "

Hats off to bclintonk !!
=D> =D> =D>

40

My understanding is that if you are arrested, it is up to the college to have clear ethics rules in place so they deal with the situation exactly. If being arrested violates the college’s ethics rules and causes a student to be suspended due to their arrest, then the student is suspended. If not, there is no reason to suspend the student.

And note to everyone, when someone is arrested for rape and out on jail, generally there is NO restraining order automatically. A close relative of mine was raped by another relative, and eventually a restraining order including limitation of visitation for a child involved was obtained. The victim had to see the accused multiple times before finally a restraining order was obtained, and even so it was violated and the police were called in (but the accused was not charged with violating the restraining order however…).

Scum got 7 years in jail at least. After joking about his crime to others including his wife.

Anyway, someone previously mentioned about how we put so much value on college, the general trend is to think “HOW TERRIBLE!!!” when a college student gets raped, but completely ignores how rape victims (of the same age in this case) are dealt with in real life, outside of college.

How can you ask a college to automatically, before any conviction, put a de facto restraining order or any other limitation on an accused student when outside of college, an accuser must spend the time and money to get a restraining order even after the accused is arrested and charged?

How many people have knowledge of how rape cases are handled outside the rarefied air of college campuses?