Take a look at the Yale data in my post #13 if you have a minute. It is clear that Yale feels no pressure whatsoever. And that is just the last 18 months – you can go back years which is available on the same page and the story is the same.
We’ll, Yale may be feeling alittle pressure from Jack Montague’s lawsuit. We will know in several months if Yale followed procedures.
Brock Turner sexually assaulted a passed out woman and there were witnesses and evidence and that is a world of difference from a woman regretting capitulating to giving a BJ to a boyfriend in an established relationship and the recipient is suspended from college. Preponderance would undoubtedly have Brock expelled…the angry girlfriend…probably not without a whole different back story.
@collegedad13, It’s hardly victim blaming to say some girls lie.
Actually, under a preponderance standard the statement of the complainant probably satisfies the “reasonable fact finder” standard. At least it would in a civil case at the summary judgment stage, although arguably contemporaneous statements to the contrary (like some of the text messages we have seen in some of the reported cases) could allow a judge to toss it. But in the main, under a preponderance standard, one witness who testifies in support of the assertion is going to clear that hurdle.
Question for all the lawyers here on both sides of the debate. If beyond reasonable doubt was enough to put Brock Turner in jail, and the goal is to keep the Brock Turners away from college, why not use the beyond reasonable doubt standard in college tribunals?
Well, a couple reasons pop to mind. One, people will argue that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is too strict in the way that many of us are saying the preponderance standard is too loose. Oversimplified, a guy could beat a ineffective consent case under a reasonable doubt standard by saying he thought the girl was sober, regardless of what others say. Second, and somewhat relatedly, an effective tribunal system operating under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard would be virtually impossible to pull off without essentially recreating the criminal justice model, something that is well beyond the capacity of the colleges. I tend towards reason two for what it is worth.
@Ohiodad51 that is a good statement of the law in California also. Thanks
"If beyond reasonable doubt was enough to put Brock Turner in jail, and the goal is to keep the Brock Turners away from college, why not use the beyond reasonable doubt standard in college tribunals? "
Beyond a reasonable doubt is considered to be a much more stringent standard than preponderance of the evidence. I am not sure if you can even use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in civil matters. I did find its use in some probate matters dealing with forced sterilization
Ohiodad51,
I have some clarifying questions. If keeping out the Brock Turners is the goal, as mentioned earlier by collegedad13, evidently beyond reasonable doubt is not too strict a standard. If people want a less strict standard, perhaps the goal is to catch the cases that are not at the level of seriousness as Brock Turner’s?
But then, even Brock Turner went to jail only for 3 months, which doesn’t really rank high in criminal justice terms. So what cases is the preponderance of evidence standard, a whole two notches below the beyond reasonable doubt standard, trying to catch? How serious are these cases when it comes to criminal activity?
If the two standards and procedures are going to be the same, then of course we wouldn’t need any tribunals. Colleges could just refer the case to the criminal justice system, which would be a more efficient process anyway.
So why not use the beyond reasonable doubt standard in tribunals? It keeps the Brock Turners away as is the goal, and makes the process more efficient by having the criminal justice system handle the tribunal cases.
Any thoughts, please?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required whenever the state seeks to deprive an individual of life or liberty. Forced sterilization would be a deprivation of liberty. There is no technical prohibition to using that standard in other contexts, but several hundred years of our legal tradition have imposed different standards for different accusations.
1wife I imagine it would be illegal to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in expulsion hearings. I haven’t researched it though. If it was acceptable in the civil setting I am sure that Visa would have tried to use it in their terms of service. Also the law just changed in California making Brock Turners crime a mandatory state prison sentence
That was helpful. So, should public universities which are agents of the state as well as private universities who take public funding use the beyond reasonable doubt standard just as the courts when it comes to accusations of sexual assault or rape? Or do courts also use different evidentiary standards when it comes to varying levels of accusations of sexual assault or rape?
collegedad13, you write: “I imagine it would be illegal to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in expulsion hearings. I haven’t researched it though.”
Why would it be illegal? We are talking of an accusation of criminal conduct here. Is that not a serious matter?
Regardless, do you agree that the beyond reasonable doubt would be enough to keep away the Brock Turners of the world, and hence there should be no concern on your part if the preponderance of evidence standard used in college tribunals were tightened up?
Sexual assault claims field with a university are Title IX violation complaints which is a civil rights statute – not a criminal one. Preponderance of the evidence is the traditional standard used for civil rights matters.
HarvestMoon, Why are accusations of criminal misconduct (sexual assault and rape) being handled under the civil system? Is that fair to the accusers? Shouldn’t they get the benefit of the criminal justice system where the punishment would fit the crime?
Because Title IX gives women the right to bring claims of sexual harassment/assault to a college tribunal.
She can also report her allegations to the police. If you look at the statistics there is very little chance that her complaint will ever be prosecuted.
By the way, as SkiEurope mentioned, this is not a debating forum, so I will stop asking the leading questions. I agree with college tribunals. I agree with using the preponderance of evidence standard. However, I think people in favor should clearly say what they are there for. They are not there to catch cases of criminal rape and sexual assault, aka Brock Turner. They are there as a guard against bad male behavior, such as badgering a girlfriend for oral sex. Yes, she may consent to it in the end, but it is still bad behavior. I must say that I am torn about the cases of two drunk kids, and if it were up to me I would expel both, as neither could have given consent. That is also a good lesson for kids (of both genders) to learn - don’t have sex with a drunk person. Yes, I am sure there are cases where a disgruntled ex-girlfriend lies about lack of consent. To counter that, I would put a statute of limitations on the time of the incident vs the complaint (not sure what the limit would be, a month may be?).
Grossly over simplifying, colleges are not required to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard because they are not empowered to deprive an individual of life or a constitutionally protected liberty. The crucial issue is the sanction which can be imposed, not what the alleged violation is called. Using a hopefully non politically charged example, an employee can be fired for embezzling funds even if he or she could not be convicted of the crime of embezzlement, because there is no constitutionally protected right to a particular job, or to attend a particular college. Make sense?
It made sense all along. I was just trying to get the supporters of the preponderance of evidence standard come out and openly say that they were merely trying to stop bad male behavior, and not criminal sexual assault and rape. Just as I tell the college SJWs to only be micro-angry at micro-aggressions, I suggest that the parents, as adults, don’t use Brock Turner as an example when it comes to the average male college student who has been brought to a tribunal. That’s a bit over the top.
Only the women? Men are never stalked, harassed, or assaulted on college campuses?
I don’t think anyone said that though. Each complaint is different - some will constitute sexual assault and some will be harassment.