<p>Ok. I have to work to work on the quote box. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice. CF, thanks.</p>
<p>The standard is lower for colleges, but remember colleges and universities do not have guidelines that say if this then that as far as punishment. And they cannot stand a civil test if they violate due process of the accused or do not follow their own procedural guidelines. Colleges are not in the business of prosecuting - they do not prosecute. So in some ways they still have to have some reasonable information that makes the accused found in violation of misconduct. I can understand that if a college has only a gut check feeling that an accuser is telling the truth in the absence of any corroboration the punishment will not be expulsion or perhaps even some suspension. That is not difficult for me to understand. Colleges and universities are in the business of education first and foremost not adjudicating criminal behavior. </p>
<p>I looked up Michigan’s policy which i had not done before it’s lengthy but I think it’s instructive as to the depth and breath of sanctions that a university may take. We hear mostly about the more sensational stories, but there is wide variation a college gives itself on how the college might handle an accusation of sexual misconduct.</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>Michigan also as mediation path that can be taken except in cases of sexual assault.</p>
<p>A student at Duke felt he was unfairly expelled just before graduation. He won a preliminary injunction last summer. Both he and the girl were intoxicated. Duke didn’t permit him to bring in his witnesses but used written statements of others which he could not cross-examine. Any proceedings before a student’s entire future is taken away must be fair. If both students are intoxicated, it’s not fair to hold one responsible and the other not.</p>
<p>We are not going to convict everybody who is a rapist. We are not going to end every rape.</p>
<p>Some cases are he said/she said .</p>
<p>What society can do is set itself up so there will be fewer rapes.
Schools can change the way they do things so there will be fewer rapes.</p>
<p>Procedures can be set up so victims have a better shot at making their cases. Policemen and others with authority can learn more about victims so they don’t throw 86 percent of the cases in the trash.</p>
<p>Also, a college or university will not be 100% perfect if they use a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. They won’t be 100%, and they shouldn’t be 100% perfect-- if they were 100% right, that would demonstrate that they were not in fact using the standard of proof they said they were using.</p>
<p>It’s also important to remember the victim has rights too. If a rapist is allowed to remain on campus, that is going to take away the entire future of his victim, who has see her attacker walking free. Unlike the criminal justice system, a college or university should not privilege the accused attacker’s future over the accuser’s future. A college should not bend over backwards to keep an accused attacker in college. Not only is keeping the accused attacker in college re-victimizing the victim, but also, keeping an actual rapist on campus means, quite likely, that another vulnerable student will get raped, or more than one.</p>
<p>It’s odd, ironic, something that many campuses are now going smoke free but they still tolerate alcohol. Making intoxication a cause for immediate expulsion (proven through breathalyzer) would end 90% of these cases.</p>
<p>Crossposted - so deleted. No longer relevant</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think colleges understand now that forcible rape is very different. But there is a high probability that if an accuser makes a claim that sex was coerced and there is no other corroboration the accuser could very well see the accused on campus. </p>
<p>How many allegations of criminal behavior are discarded by police and prosecutors? We need a baseline to compare. </p>
<p>I gather many criminal cases these days end in plea bargains. That means few cases reach the courtroom. </p>
<p>It could help to make such cases “no-drop,” which apparently means the police and prosecutors are not allowed to drop the cases if the victim refuses to testify. Some states have made such changes for domestic abuse cases. It is not settled yet if such changes have made any difference to the rate of domestic abuse crimes, or convictions.</p>
<p>From the reports in the press, such as the Hobart case, and this report about Williams this year: <a href=“Williams College roiled by report of rape - The Boston Globe”>Williams College roiled by report of rape - The Boston Globe, college athletes are often accused. College athletes, unlike most students, have connections to many adults at colleges–coaches, trainers, athletic directors. </p>
<p>Here’s my suggestion. Institute a policy that any student accused of sexual assault can neither play nor practice with their team for at least the current season. The next season, if, for example, a hockey player’s accused in spring. </p>
<p>Accused, not convicted, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because that removes the temptation on the part of the coaches and team members to look the other way, or put pressure on the victim to change her story. Oh, and the athlete has to move out of any special athletes’ dorm. Also, if any player talks to or arranges others to harrass the accuser, that player also cannot play, etc.</p>
<p>Make it worth the adults’ while to keep their teams in line. Make it not worth their while to prevent the victims from going to the police.</p>
<p>Almost all criminal cases end in plea bargains, but to get to a plea bargain the case must get to the prosecutor. Rape cases aren’t making it that far.</p>
<p>I agree CF. The problem is that because of insufficient evidence, women are not reporting it, neither are friends and others told of it, nor are officials, and it’s being dismissed out of hand by LE as well. There is a lot that can be done even if it’s not case that can be brought to court for criminal charges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must not be writing clearly enough. I am discussing the standard of proof that a college should use to expel a student for sexual assault. If the accuser’s accusation doesn’t meet that standard of proof, then the accusation will not succeed. Right now, the colleges in my view are using a standard of proof that is too high, so that even though the victim does have some corroboration, the accused rapist is still not tossed out.</p>
<p>Periwinkle: That standard would allow any vindictive girlfriend (or boyfriend) to get a player kicked off a team with no proof whatsoever. </p>
<p>We can’t go from ridiculously high standard (NO expulsions at UVa for sexual assault ever? seriously?) to ridiculously low standard (any athlete accused of sexual assault is thrown off the team? hello, fans of other teams who want to get good players off a team). There’s a just right standard.</p>
<p>And? The actions proposed on this thread would also allow other students to be thrown out without proof.</p>
<p>The just right standard is known as due process. </p>
<p>Due process is not a standard of proof. They are two different things. A standard of proof tells how much certainty is needed to decide that an accused person is guilty. Due process makes sure that the standard of proof, whatever it may be, is met.</p>
<p>So, for example, suppose the standard of proof was the standard Periwinkle recommends, which I think is ridiculously lax: an athlete accused of sexual assault is thrown off their team. In that case, due process for throwing an athlete off a team would merely be to ascertain that an accusation had been made. If it was determined that the accusation (however meritless) had in fact been made, then the (lax) standard of proof would have been met, due process would have occurred, and the student could be thrown off the team.</p>
<p>I’d bet the majority of these accusers were telling the truth: <a href=“http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/12/college-football-sexual-assualt-jameis-winston[/url]”>http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/12/college-football-sexual-assualt-jameis-winston</a>.</p>
<p>Few cases made it to court; juries often refused to convict. Coaches and teammates did not cover themselves with glory. Sitting out a season is not nearly as harsh a punishment as being expelled. It might even give them more time to study. </p>
<p>Giving coaches an incentive to prevent rapes would protect women. They might also not be willing to accept transfers with histories of alleged assaults.</p>
<p>Oh my gosh, why on earth do you think there should be yet another process in place and yet another class of students. You could slice and dice a campus into many classes and treat them all differently…as the kids say “not.” </p>