<p>That prosecutors are not bringing many campus rape cases may be a fact, but it is not an argument to railroad potential innocents later on.</p>
<p>jonri, those are interesting questions. If you don’t mind, I’ll give my answers.
I would expel this person, absent some evidence that there was a conspiracy against him or something. There might not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped any specific one of these persons, but in the aggregate, I’d say it presents “clear and convincing” evidence that he is a sexual predator. I don’t insist on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for such decisions.
It seems to me that this is the kind of case that ought to be referred to the real police. I think if they decided to charge/arrest him, I’d probably suspend him, and only expel him if he was convicted. I don’t like the idea of taking somebody who has been acquitted in criminal court, and then prosecuting him again with an easier standard of proof-especially when the new proceeding is quasi-criminal.
This is what I don’t know–the breakdown of different kinds of cases. I also think there is a fourth category: cases in which both parties were too drunk to form meaningful consent, but had sex anyway. I get a bit squeamish about treating such cases differently based on whether the woman, after the fact, thinks she would or would not have consented to have sex with the person in question if sober. I don’t think there is any clear agreement (or evidence) on how many cases like this there are. I certainly know that many, many college students have drunk sex and don’t file complaints about it afterwards.</p>
<p>@jonri I have no issue with anything @Hunt wrote above, so no need for me to repeat. </p>
<p>The first example is no different than what happened at my school in the 80s when a male student was asked not to return because he got into altercations with other male students way too many times. His case was excessive arguments, which lead to physical pushing etc. No proof, no evidence, but there were too many different people, who were not friends to each other, reporting the same thing to the dean, and the student was deemed a disturbance to the peace to the college community. </p>
<p>Me"
You continue to deny that it is an established fact that significant numbers of rapes are happening on college campuses. That is rape denial.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In spite of available research and evidence, you continue to deny that there is clear evidence that significant numbers of rapes are happening on campuses. You ignore the studies and reports that are available because the results are inconvenient for your position.</p></li>
<li><p>You continue to attempt to defend broad statements with narrow ones. You say you don’t know whether rapes are occurring, then defend that position with a reasonable statement that is a non-sequitur. You say that in an individual specific case, you were not there. True, but healthy skepticism in individual cases is very different from the view that you can not tell whether campus rapes are occurring in significant numbers.</p></li>
<li><p>You only suggest that rape charges should be called “misunderstanding” if the accused denies the charge, but do not say that it should be true for any other crime. Should murders be called “misunderstandings” too? There seems to be a special standard for rape cases."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>@ atwntdb replied</p>
<p>"You are wrong simply because I am not doing anything of the sort that you state.</p>
<p>My argument is not a non-sequitor because the aggregate is nothing, but a total of singular cases. I make no judgment on any case because I was not present or know the facts in any case. Some are rape; some are not. Not sure what is difficult to understand there.</p>
<p>Specifically, what I am not doing is jumping on a bandwagon that because there is rape on campus that it means instituting a system without due process for the accused prior to punishment.</p>
<p>My belief that an accused is innocent until proven guilty and should be afforded due process is not denial that something exists; it is affirmation that adjudication for the accused should be fair. I do not deny rape on campus anymore than I deny murder happens in the general public. But, an accused murderer is innocent until proved guilty and should not be subject to a system without due process either.</p>
<p>And it is interesting that you completely disregard that Title IX is the one that judges these cases solely on whether there was a misunderstanding between the parties, not intent. Your problem is with Title IX , not me. There is not a person on the planet who does not know rape exists on campus. However, Title IX completely denies rape does exist and does not punish anyone for any rape, even forceable rape with intent to inflict harm. Your argument is misplaced on the wrong entity. It is Title IX that denies rape exists.</p>
<p>Again, I agree to disagree. No need to keep defending myself against something, which I am not doing. Let’s focus on an equitable solution instead."</p>
<p>Comments
You make a broad statement that say that you are “not doing anything of the sort” but avoid:
- acknowledging that there is sufficient evidence to show that there is clear evidence that significant numbers of rapes are happening on campus.</p>
<ol>
<li>explaining why you only suggest that rapes should be call “misunderstands” but do not suggest it for other crimes.</li>
</ol>
<p>Additionally, you persist in your fallacious reasoning that if sample of size of one can not prove that an event happened with 99.9% certainty, then that opinion does not change no matter how large the sample size gets. As you say, “because the aggregate is nothing, but a total of singular cases”. This is simply not correct. I presume that you have not taken statistics. Ironically, you deny that my point in item 2 is correct and then make these statements that support the thing that you deny.</p>
<p>Finally, you try to change the subject from your persistence in claiming that no one really knows whether rapes are actually happening in significant numbers by acknowledging that rape does happen on college campuses. That sounds like agreement but it is not really. you are acknowledging that it happens but not acknowledging that it happens in significant number and that it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. </p>
<p>Here is a previous exchange where you made that more clear that you do not accept that the rapes happened if there is not a conviction in court:</p>
<p>Me
“You can’t just say that, in reality, there were very few rapes on campus last year because there were so few convictions.”</p>
<p>atwncbd
“This is fine, as long as you understand you are then living in a potentially make-believe world. Reality exists by virtue of the fact that it can be proved to exist by some objective standard.”</p>
<p>You continue to attempt to mask your views and agenda. Why?</p>
<p>@ awcntdb</p>
<p>I understand your concern about due process and evidence in court. However, there are many instances where an accused individual does not receive due process such as kids not getting due process from parents, or employees not getting due process from a business. Why do you believe that colleges have a duty to meet legal standards of due process and evidence? </p>
<p>Note: In this case, I am not implying that I disagree with you, I just do not understand the reasoning. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jonri: I think nearly everyone on this thread would agree with your pov. But the DoJ does not bcos a girl that drinks is, by their definition/regulations/guidance, unable to give consent, and if she is unable to give consent…</p>
<p>@Much2learn - No problem - You think I have some hidden agenda, and I am masking my views. Cool. Not my concern to convince you otherwise. </p>
<p>@Bluebayou wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is the point that, so far, no ones wants to confront; the DOJ has written two different gender standards for understanding and mental acuity when drunk. </p>
<p>The girl cannot give consent when drunk, even if she says yes. However, the male must be able to ascertain, while he is drunk, that the girl is drunk and her yes really is no. Get it. No wonder the schools are having issues resolving those cases. Makes no logical sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All by using Title IX which was originated to achieve equality ROTFL. Not to mention it implies that girls need protection…that they are incapable of making decisions on their own so men need to make it for them… I thought for sure that women would be screaming to the rafters about this and yet they seem to nod and shake their heads and say, yes…this is what we want. </p>
<p>No, bluebayou, I don’t think your statement is accurate.</p>
<p>First, as far as I know, the DOJ has NO definition/regulation/guidance that says a girl who drinks is unable to give consent. The LAW in most states is that a person–whether or not female–who is DRUNK is unable to give consent. This has nothing to do with the feds; it’s a matter of state law. As I understand it, all the DOJ regs change is the standard of proof. If it is probable that someone was too drunk to give consent, then the accused can be punished. It’s unnecessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was too drunk to consent .The DOJ regs don’t change the law; they just change the standard of proof. If I’m wrong, please cite the reg that says if someone is drinking, (s)he can’t consent. </p>
<p>Second, a lot of people on this thread seem to think that most rape cases filed with college authorities involve drunken hook ups in which both people are drunk to the same degree. These are the alleged “misunderstanding” cases. I think those cases are rather rare. They happen. I admit that. However,I think there are some male college students who start out with the intent of getting someone drunk so they can have “sex” with her; they use booze as a tool to rape. These guys are sometimes serial rapists. There are studies which claim they are responsible for the majority of rapes on most college campuses. Indeed, one study --I’m sorry but I can’t remember the cite–said that the “average” campus rapist had raped 8 times. </p>
<p>Third, some posters on this thread think that colleges shouldn’t deal with these cases at all. The result of that viewpoint is that the guy 5 different women say raped them stays on campus. They say if the guy has never been convicted of rape, it’s unreasonable to kick him out. (Want to know one reason freshman are more often the victims of rape? Because they don’t know which frats have reps as “rape factories” or which upperclassman is known to be overly aggressive with women or which guy brags about all the “sluts” he “banged.” Upper classwomen do. Of course, there are other reasons why frosh are targets, but lack of knowlege about reps is one of them. )</p>
<p>Even at some colleges which do have disciplinary proceedings, it’s common for the victim and the members of the hearing panel to be completely unaware that there are other accusations against the same person–especially if none of the cases go to hearing. </p>
<p>@jonri wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who in the world ever advocated for this? I do not recall any person on this thread even saying anything like this. To keep the conversation logical, it is important not to make things up that posters never said. </p>
<p>awc,</p>
<p>I didn’t make anything up; several posters have said that all rape cases should be handled by the police and criminal justice system and not by colleges. If that’s your position, the result is that the guy who has been accused of raping 5 different women will stay on campus. In each case individually, there isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as there isn’t, he’s not going to be convicted. In our criminal justice
system, the fact that there are 4 other allegations of rape isn’t admissible into evidence for most purposes. If the accused doesn’t testify, it almost certainly won’t get into the record.</p>
<p>@jonri - I do think you are confusing Title IX and its interpretation with actual state and local laws. </p>
<p>First, colleges are not following any local or state laws here, so those laws are irrelevant. If colleges were following state and local laws, they would be filing rape reports with the police. (Lawyers who know differently can correct me here)</p>
<p>Second, Title IX clearly says a drunk person cannot consent, but the law and its interpretation is clearly two different things. In our society, precedence sets the interpretation, no matter what is written.</p>
<p>The cases brought under this “drunk cannot consent” provision have all went with the interpretation that the drunk male should have more control and more awareness than the female. And in practice it plays out as the male cannot use the excuse that he was drunk regarding consent, i.e., he cannot say he heard yes. However, the female can use the excuse that she was drunk and her yes was not consent. </p>
<p>As far as I know, there are no cases the other way, i.e., the male got off because he was drunk and was believed when he said he heard yes or the female was held responsible for actually saying yes when she was drunk. It is all playing out one way; when the female is drunk she cannot consent at all even when she does say yes and the male is held responsible to know the difference.</p>
<p>We do need to deal with what is happening on the ground, and the above is what is happening and that is why it is a mess. The male must be the responsible one in the situation and think for both of them because he is suppose to determine what the female really means, even if she is saying the opposite. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correction: the guidelines do say that a drunk person cannot consent. See <a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think there are any “cases” that hold any such thing. Cite some. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume you mean precedents. Even if you do, that’s not true in college disciplinary proceedings, except to the extent a given college tries to make the punishments for similar infractions equal. U Virginia is not going to consider how Notre Dame dealt with a similar case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I call defining meaning from the middle of what people say. </p>
<p>What you leave out is the first part, which is the salient piece - that colleges should take rape seriously as what it is, a crime, and report it to the police because they are the ones who deal with it legally with actual crimes. Colleges disciplinary boards do not deal with crimes.</p>
<p>That is what I and others find so disturbing. That people want to take the seriousness of the crime of rape and treat it like kicking someone out for plagiarism or cheating. Why this active diminishing of the crime of rape to receiving the equivalent punishment as cheating boggles my mind. That strikes me as a step backwards for females, not forwards.</p>
<p>But, if you are OK with a system where the maximum punishment for actual rape is the same as for cheating or vandalizing the school cafeteria, then we do look at differently. I take rape a lot more seriously because I believe it deserves much more serious punishment. </p>
<p>@jonri - Appreciate the self-correction on drunk to consent issue. I deleted my response. At least, we are dealing with the same definitions.</p>
<p>As to precedents, I disagree now that the DOJ is involved. Schools will definitely start looking at what the DOJ “approves” of and what it does not. Therefore, DOJ is defacto setting a precedent because other schools are not going to want to rub the DOJ the wrong way, if it comes down on a school in which it disagrees how a case was handled.</p>
<p>awc, I’m going to bow out of this thread after this because it’s not going anywhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said that if colleges don’t deal with rape cases and leave them to the police, then the young man who has been accused of rape by 5 different female students will remain on campus unless or until he’s convicted of a crime. Are you now conceding the truth of that statement. Yes or no…</p>
<p>I don’t care why you think colleges think rape should be left to the police; it’s the end result that’s a problem. I certainly think rape is a serious offense. But if college disciplinary boards do not deal with rape because it is a “crime,” then the young man who has been accused of multiple rapes but never convicted of any will remain on campus. It’s probable that his guilt in each individual rape case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so it’s probable he’ll stay on campus. </p>
<p>If I owned a business and 5 women claimed the same employee had raped them, I wouldn’t just tell them to go tell the police and continue to employ him unless and until he was convicted because my internal procedures don’t deal with crimes. </p>
<p>College disciplinary proceedings deal with lots of crimes, BTW. They deal with minor in possession, many handle drug cases, including distribution, almost all deal with destruction of property cases, theft of property, stalking, assaults, embezzlement from student organizations, etc. In many of these cases, they punish, even though guilt is not beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>3mom
What is significant? In my mind 1 rape is significant and I’m sure awcntdb will add his thoughts but they probably aren’t too far off that one mark.</p>
<p>Comment
The point is that anyone that does not believe that a significant campus rape problem really exists will oppose anything being done to solve the problem because the problem it is not real. </p>
<p>That is why @awcntdb suggests that no one knows whether real campus rapes are happening frequently or not. He says that he has no opinion because he was not there and anyone who does have an opinion is just guessing because they weren’t there either. </p>
<p>Acknowledging that a significant number of campus rapes that are occurring and going unpunished, undermines his views that anyone advocating for change is just part of a “group think,” that the right thing to do is to not do anything different than in the past, that the courts are actually finding exactly those guilty who should be found guilty, and the number of convictions iis small because many of these situations are just “misunderstandings.”</p>
<p>If in fact, he is correct that it has not been established that there is in fact a campus rape problem, then I agree with him. Where we differ is in whether there is enough evidence to establish that fact.</p>
<p>@jonri
" it’s the end result that’s a problem"</p>
<p>Comment
You hit the nail on the head. </p>
<p>You see a problem and ask yourself whether the solution proposed is reasonable. If it is not, you reject it. That brings clarity. Some find this objectionable because it destroys the ability to redirect people with circuitous and selective logic. Essentially, “Please don’t just highlight specific bs in what I say, because then it will be obvious to everyone that it is bs.”</p>
<p>Please don’t bow out Jonri. We need that type of thought and clarity here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you. But in reality, it is not a “person” but a female that cannot give consent.</p>