The real point here is one that was made numerous times over the course of this thread. The colleges are not permitted to to comment on these cases because of confidentiality issues. Their side comes out only if a court filing is made and gets published by the press. How can anyone evaluate any issue with only half the information necessary to make a reasoned judgement? Unless of course you are so blinded by your own biases that you couldn’t care less what the other side is.
Sadly, we have someone heading the DOE who was gullible enough to fall into the same trap. The LA Times published this filing one day after she made a public statement saying the “Boermeester case exemplified how broken the Title IX system is.” She got a pie in the face. I notice in her just released guidance the opening salvo makes it quite clear that colleges have an obligation to investigate third party complaints whether or not the student wants the school to take any action.
“More Title IX weirdness” my derriere. This is Title IX working at it’s best.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, I know two many couples that had volatile relationships both married and unmarried who finally split up and found other mates with whom they had perfectly happy long term relationships with no volatility. Sometimes two people together are combustible. Sometimes an individual may have an anger management issues that could potentially carry over to another person. I’m not sure how a college or university is in a position to make those judgement decisions and with two classes to go, if they even made the right decision. Seems like they could have made him finish them off campus, kept their restraining order and demanded counseling with not too much effort on their part. I’m not convinced kicking a kid out of school with 2 classes to go who is in a volatile relationship is the BEST solution and I’m not convinced that serves society best. When colleges and unis were backed into a corner with threats of withholding federal funding it does not perhaps serve the individuals best universally.
I wouldn’t describe it as a volitile relationship. I would describe it as an abusive relationship.
HarvestMoon explained to my satisfaction upthread that the university has the right and obligation to suspend or expel violent students. I think that is a very good thing.
Actually the expulsion was levied by the hearing panel but on appeal the appellate panel levied a suspension of 2 years after which he could presumably finish his degree. However that decision had to be reviewed under USC’s policy and a Dr. Carry who heads up Student Affairs said " nope, he’s out"and reinstated the expulsion.
Finishing his degree is most likely something that will be explored during negotiations if he continues with the litigation which I presume he will.
Volatile or abusive…that can really depend on psychological things that one can’t speculate about. My husband had a volatile relationship before I met him that I heard about from every single person who knew them. Many cautioned me that they would physically fight (both of them) and I heard what the friends were saying and took it under advisement. I told him point blank if he ever touched me out of anger I was out of there…forever. Now I’ve never, ever seen anything in him like I heard about in over thirty years of marriage so was “she” the trigger or who had the problem - my guess is neither had a “problem” they were simply volatile and should never have been together after the first fight and I’m glad they finally ended it, or I would have never met and married him. I’m glad mediation is back on the table because just from reading both sides, these two could probably have benefited from counseling and if not they should have gone their separate ways. Counseling should have occurred the minute she reneged on her story because one or both of them could have probably benefited from counseling. The college, continuing down the path it did just added fuel to the fire in my opinion and she should have some say in what happened going forward. Now if five other women came forth and said he choked and shoved them that would be a different tale and I’d feel entirely different about my impression and then he shouldn’t be running loose in society simply because he got kicked off a campus because it’s an issue for women outside the college, too. I just think we’re going about this in entirely the wrong way with these campus relationship issues so welcome some scrutiny and input from a larger audience. I’m guessing my feelings aren’t that different from Mrs. DeVos.
Expelled is out right so imo USC does not want him to be considered a graduate of their school. I don’t know if they’d allow him to finish as part of the negotiations, maybe he could get them to make the transfer of his credits easier so he can get a degree.
I feel very strongly there is no need to wait for someone to deliberately choke and slam more than one person’s head against a wall to remove that individual from campus.
If someone is “triggering” you, it is never justified to lash out violently. Instead you walk away. Or use your words. That is what we teach children.
So what happens down the road when his 4 year old cranky toddler “triggers” him? Are you going to make the same excuse that the child “triggered” him? Or are women simply always to blame or less worthy of intervention?
The point is when two people get together sometimes they just don’t mix…was it her, was it him…you just never know who sets who off. They are just two people who should not be together. Yes and in child abuse cases sometimes a child is the trigger. Clearly the person who gets triggered could use counseling to understand and deal with those triggers, but equally in a two-adult case the other person could also use counseling if they chose to stay in that situation. For a child, they need to be removed to a safe place until the adults can get to a place or an outcome where the child is safe. Good grief, it’s not always about “the woman” it’s about relationships.
Sorry, but in this case he choked her and hit her head against a cement wall twice. Not to mention the bruises that he left her with from past incidents. So no, this is not about “relationships” or “you never know who sets who off.” This is an angry man who cannot control himself and beats up on women. So yes this is clearly about the woman.
What provoked this incident was her refusal to set her dog loose in an alley. Can you imagine his reaction when he is presented with real world adult family problems? He needs help.
I have never seen the word “trigger” used like this. Is this sort of language commonly used when describing the actions of domestic abusers? anyone know? TIA
I’m googling around. Usually in domestic violence discussions it seems it is the victims/survivors described as being triggered later by words or events.
Describing the behavior of the abuser as triggered behavior kind of turns that usage on its head. It describes the abuser as a victim of sorts, or so it seems to me.
Now that we know more about the behavior that triggered the charges, it seems that the university definitely had to act.
I am concerned that the woman is willing to accept this kind of treatment from her boyfriend, especially since from what she said at the time it appears to be habitual. Or at least the manifestation of intimidating anger is habitual.
While I am generally in favor of women defining their own status, it sounds as if she may fall into the subset of people of an abusive relationship that refuse to admit it. I am concerned for her future safety.
I wonder if the U could have done a carrot/stick thing by making a private settlement allowing him to get his final two credits only if they BOTH enrolled in and participated in counseling. Would that be unethical?