<p>What am I missing from this article in the Michigan Daily today.....</p>
<p>Records</a> outline 'U' sanctions for prof. | The Michigan Daily</p>
<p>This is bizarre...</p>
<p>Why wasn't the prof fired?</p>
<p>Why wasn't the student kicked out?</p>
<p>How could the prof be so stupid?</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>Haha. Why would you use a school computer haha. </p>
<p>She could have just been a stripper, but this girl wants the big bucks</p>
<p>I like the first two comments… most of them, actually</p>
<p>"The most problematic part of this for me is the preferential treatment the woman is getting from all sides. She was/is a hooker and should have been charged with prostitution. Her name is never mentioned, yet the professor’s name is splashed all over every article. Issues re. protecting “victims” are moot here because the justice system has proven no sex crime was committed, therefore she should be named too.</p>
<p>As for people alleging sexual harassment, abuse, whatever, we all have to realize that sexual assault and rape are some of the most over-reported crimes, especially on campus. For example, the best, most scientifically-vigorous studies have shown that at least half of all allegations of rape are demonstrably false, so there’s an even chance that the woman is lying about any sexual abuse, etc., here. Therefore, either neither party should be named or both, but to name just the man is sexist, misandrist and just plain wrong."</p>
<p>“The incident happened in 2008, was dismissed without conviction in 2009; we are now in 2011 - what does this tell you about The Mich. Daily’s wish to resuscitate “dead” scandals?
In doing so, they also misrepresent the situation in order to manipulate the emotions of its readers: The term “Probation” is a misnomer here - there is no probation without conviction; the two people involved received a deferred sentence, which means the judge did not feel there is any legal merit to convict them and basically said - let’s keep the case pending for a year and if nothing happens we’ll dismiss it. But the Mich. Daily reporter wishes to create a different impression. Juicy.
The same is true about the reiteration of sexual accusations about the Prof. that were found after investigation “unfounded”! Do we allow the accuser to continue and voice unfounded accusations (and interestingly enough the Daily did not ask the accused to comment on that part; I wonder, and you should wonder why not?)
Shame on the Mich. Daily for incompetent and manipulative reporting; poor us that the only scandal we have to warm our winter is one from three years ago.”</p>
<p>Thanks for this response pancakes. It helps me understand the details better. It especially helps me understand why the prof wasn’t fired…dropped charges…wierd.</p>
<p>The only thing I can’t figure out is how they knew to look at the profs work computer for correspondence with this law student.</p>