<p>Not being formally charged for rape in Alaska is not necessarily an exoneration of any wrongdoing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally I don’t think so, that’s stretching paternalism to extremes but Standford did and they suspended the man for a year or two are are holding his diploma during that time if I recall, but the accuser wants him expelled I think so it’s back in the news again.</p>
<p>
I’m pretty sure I said the exact opposite of this upthread, and that awc agreed with me. But I don’t think even you mean “accused.” What I think you mean is that the person was not convicted in the criminal court, but the college tribunal finds it likely that he is a sexual predator. This is one situation in which I think the college tribunal should be able to do something a criminal court can’t do–look at the individual’s history to determine whether he is a predator–not necessarily whether he is guilty of a particular offense. But what if there is only one accusation: it is reported promptly to the real police, the person is charged, tried, and acquitted. Do you think the college should then pursue its own tribunal, using the same evidence but a different standard of proof? That makes me pretty uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Agree ^^^.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is pretty much what happened in the Parker Gilbert case I mentioned previously. But I don’t know what action the college has decided to take. </p>
<p>In that particular case, it would appear that all parties were extremely drunk: Gilbert, the woman, and the woman’s friend who slept through the whole thing IN THE SAME BED! The only sober witness seems to have been the suitemate studying in an adjacent room who said she heard sex, but no protests. It is unclear to me what kind of relationship or lack thereof the accused and accuser had beforehand. I was surprised that he was not found guilty in court, at least from the facts gleaned from published reports. So what is the college going to do? Expel him? Suspend him until she leaves? It’s a bizarre situation. </p>
<p>Although I am in the camp of thinking that rapes “ought” to be reported immediately to the real police, we all know that there is no guarantee, in fact not even a reasonable chance, that even if a traumatized victim pulls herself together to do so the case will be prosecuted, let alone won. So what is the proper role of the colleges in these situations? On the one hand, it is obvious that they are better positioned to deal with serial predators against whom several women make unrelated complaints. On the other, we have a few documented witch hunts, where administrators with an agenda “convicted” obviously innocent guys ( such as Occidental and Columbia). That shouldn’t happen, but in egregious cases where the resources are available, there is a remedy in the courts. We have almost certainly far more cases where predators evaded any kind of consequences.</p>
<p>Perhaps what is needed is a functional “appellate court” for internal Title IX cases. Would a more dispassionate group have looked at the ample evidence in the Columbia and Occidental cases and overturned the “verdict”? One would hope so. Clearly, it cannot be the same individuals who rendered the first verdict. I have the perhaps-mistaken impression that right now appeals are directed to the same internal body.</p>
<p>Here’s an article about the Dartmouth case: <a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2014/03/28/news/parker-gilbert-16-found-not-guilty-of-rape”>http://thedartmouth.com/2014/03/28/news/parker-gilbert-16-found-not-guilty-of-rape</a>
I think this example shows how difficult the situation is. The accused was acquitted of all charges by a jury–but many people are completely certain that the jury was wrong and that he is guilty. The facts are murky, but they certainly don’t make him look good. If there were other allegations against the same guy with similar facts, I’d support Dartmouth tossing him out. But if this were the only incident, it’s problematic.</p>
<p>I just read all of the comments on that article, which include lengthy and impassioned accounts of testimony by a person who sat through all 8 days of the trial as a soundman. I would urge everyone who is engaged in this discussion to take the time to read the entire comment list. It is highly illuminating.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, there is no evidence that the victim was drunk that evening, and multiple people testified to that. No one, not even her detractors, was able to quote any actual testimony that supported the idea that she was. Nevertheless, the defense kept saying she was. In my earlier comments I may well have been mistaken in assuming that what I had read about her supposed drunkenness was accurate. </p>
<p>I think that D should expel him. </p>
<p>Which is why I find it interesting that in the Stanford case the accuser is still unhappy, even though the person she’s accused is suspended (from starting grad school) and his diploma (from undergrad) held presumably until she is off campus plus it didn’t happen on the college campus or remotely connected to the college other than they were students. If the prosecutor decides not to prosecute this as a criminal charge, the victim in this case will not be in any proximity to the accused and the accused has not been expelled…just banished until she’s gone. This case seemed like a reasonable application of Title IX - sketchy in my mind only because none of this happened at the college campus and the only connection was that they were both students but reasonable given all the pressure put to bear right now on the colleges…but the woman still wants more which I find interesting. I really think the colleges need some guidance. They are so ill prepared to deal with all the intricacies of these situations. In this case, is it even remotely possible a university would backpedal and change their decision and expose themselves to an oops sorry changed our minds lawsuit? I doubt it, if so I’d predict an immediate lawsuit from the accused and since it’s California I’m sure there would be lawyers standing in line, especially if Alaska decides not to prosecute.</p>
<p>@TheGFG Thanks for the clarification. What is troubling is the police definitely has the most relevant information and are in the best position to determine what to do, charge or not charge etc. The fact that the school comes in way after the fact for something in a different state still does not pass the smell test. </p>
<p>No way is any information related to the case untainted at that point. I cannot see how colleges win this situation. They are making decisions on less information, less protected procedures, less defined procedures, and word-of-mouth rules the day. </p>
<p>These tribunals resemble bash processes that seem to point finger in the air and see where the wind is in blowing. As one poster mentioned, civil suits against the accusers are coming next, especially if the male maintains he did nothing wrong; no reason for him to take such a process without pushback.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>@momofthreeboys wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We reached the same conclusion and our most recent posts crossed above. I agree that lawsuits from the accused are next. I believe you were the one who mentioned this before in terms of slander suits as well re the Duke and and another case.</p>
<p>There is a reason very few accused threaten to file suits or even have angry press conferences following a verdict after going through a legitimate court case. All the errors and political posturing are severely limited and even the accused knows that he got a fair shake. Not so with the college tribunals.</p>
<p>I suppose the reason there aren’t more civil lawsuits against the accused students is that typically college students don’t have much money, so it’s not worth the cost of pursuing it. There may be some exceptions, but I’m not aware of any such suits. You may recall that O.J. Simpson was successfully sued in civil court after he was acquitted for murder–civil suits use the preponderance of the evidence standard. I don’t know if the plaintiffs got much in that suit, other than some degree of vindication.</p>
<p>Here’s a thought experiment: assume that the following is the ONLY evidence available: Accuser says: I went to a party at the frat house, and had a lot to drink. I don’t really remember what happened, but I woke up in Accused’s bed, and realized that we had sex. I immediately filed a complaint against him for sexual assault.
Accused says: I went to a party at the frat house, and I had a few drinks. I met Accuser, and we talked and danced, and I invited her back to my room. I suggested we have sex, and she agreed, so we did. She seemed sober to me, and I didn’t see her drink anything. The next day, she filed a complaint against me."</p>
<p>You’re on the college tribunal judging this case. As I said, there’s no other evidence–no helpful testimony from others, no further details from either of them. How are you going to adjudicate this case? If you believe her more than you believe him, will you convict and expel him? Will you say there’s not enough evidence to decide?</p>
<p>^^ I will speak as a CEO, which is a close enough analogy.</p>
<p>If two of my employees had such a situation during an office party, and this happened in one of our lounges, I would not even attempt to adjudicate. </p>
<p>Based on the stated conditions, there is nothing to adjudicate; it is two different stories. That’s it. I would tell both employees either they figure out how to co-exist, and I would do what I can to assist, or they both leave. However, I would stop there and make clear that I would take no judgement on either side. Therefore, my position would be not enough evidence to even decide. </p>
<p>On a larger point, I do not know of any community (including a company) or society, which would not basically degrade into factions if convictions for offenses were based on simply believability. The end result would be basic all-around mistrust, which, incidentally, my DS says is starting to happen on campus. The one thing that struck him about his sexual orientation was it was all based around mistrust between the genders. Learning to be careful does not need to mean creating animus between entire groups. That does not strike me as a good thing. Thank God I dated in the 80s is what I keep thinking now. </p>
<p>You can guess what I’d say - not enough evidence. College students may not have much money but as a parent could you sit back and watch all that money go down the drain if your son or daughter were expelled and if there was no strong evidence that the situation was as presented? I could maybe stomach waiting a year for the actual diploma to arrive in the mail, but expulsion - no way…there would have to be much more than a suspicion that one story was accurate and one was not. At a minimum there would have to be the benchmarks of “just cause” as it is generally applied in business. Many employers have moved from “at will” to “just cause” for termination - probably because lawsuits are expensive and “at will” has not stood the legal test every single time so I expect the ‘current’ language of the Dear College letter and the interpretation by colleges and universities will be strongly tested. It’s not going to play out with students standing on a street corner screaming at each other or administration, it will get played out quietly in civil court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No way. And any parent that does not do something, in my book, has effectively stopped being a parent. If my kid is going to get punished on one person’s word against his, you can guarantee that person will never be able to have a peaceful career, just as he might be resigned to have. There are all sorts of things which can be done, with court only being one of them. </p>
<p>This is a pretty good tutorial on the types of questions businesses ask themselves before they fire someone for just cause. To not be able to answer these questions leaves a company open to litigation. Not all questions may apply because if the employee handbook is well written it will be clear for instance, that an employee cannot "steal’ or a dozen other well worded criteria that would cause an employee to lose their employment. In my opinion these types of hard questions are not evident in the Dear College letter or in the DOJ requirements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having gone through this process many times with employees, I would like to comment that, as an employer, you are open to litigation if the employee complains that you are not a jelly donut.</p>
<p>The process is all about risk mitigation since you can do all the above that you quoted and either wind up with a reasonable departure or a lawsuit related to your lack of jelly donut-ness.</p>
<p>Sure it happens and colleges and universities should know this. But you can also feel sad about having to fire someone and yet at the same time know that the investigation was fair, that the evidence was substantial and that it was not a capricious decision made because of some external pressure not relevant to the situation at hand. Plus you stand a much better chance of winning any lawsuit and that the process was thorough and exhaustive you have a much better ‘chance’ during deposition.</p>
<p>@momofthreeboys - What you listed is exactly why an employer should never take sides in a situation when it is one person against the other and why the colleges are going to have a rough ride. </p>
<p>However, I believe those questions are missing on purpose for the colleges. I get back to my point a long time ago - this current college tribunal system, based on how it is purposely structured, cannot be about adjudication, as we understand it; it is about finding the easiest way to achieve a certain political outcome of an increased number of convictions to satisfy a political constituency. No fair entity creates such rules with obvious double standards, all which pertain to the exact same situation. This is purposeful. Wrong, but done on purpose.</p>
<p>I always look at who pays for errors to understand reasonings of action. And it is quite eye-opening that the people who advocate for a system, which does not answer or address fundamental questions of fair process when doling out punishment, ARE NOT the ones who will have to pay for errors made. It is the colleges and females that take the risk of civil suits etc. It will all change when both these groups realize that following the advice of people who will never pay a dime to help them after they are sued is not a good idea. </p>
<p>@fluffly2017 - Agreed. Those questions are really basic internal CYA questions, which really have no bearing on what a suit might be. But to not address the questions definitely just adds more fuel to the fire for the complaint.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Putting on my flame-proof suit, I’ll answer…</p>
<p>In the first place, I have a hard time believing that a rational female would bring the charges based on the facts given, with no complicating factors. On the tribunal, I would lecture them both about drinking to the point of blackout and about what constitutes consent for BOTH parties and let them go with a stern warning. I would tell the guy that if this ever happened again we would have strong reason to believe that this was a pattern of behavior with him, that he was deliberately and knowingly taking advantage of drunk girls, and that the outcome would likely be expulsion. For the girl, I would advise her that if she is troubled by this episode–and I assume she is, or she wouldn’t take the step of making the complaint–that she seek counselling. In fact, I might well recommend that BOTH of them seek counselling to help them understand the behaviors that led them to this situation, a situation I would hope neither of them is ever in again.</p>
<p>As a woman, there is no way in hell I would claim that I was raped or assaulted in these circumstances, moreover, and probably <em>more</em> importantly, I would not FEEL as if I were raped or assaulted in those circumstances. I would take responsibility for my own actions. How do I know this? Because after a boozy evening I’ve BT/DT. And don’t tell me that I’ve internalized rape culture or some nonsense like that.</p>
<p>There are obviously circumstances that would change my feelings: if I was pretty certain that I’d been roofied, for example, as opposed to KNOWING in the clear light of day that I went out and voluntarily had too much to drink and fell into bed with someone. Another big factor is what happens afterwards: there’s a big difference between private sex between two people and someone putting pictures of the event on the Internet, or texting about it with all and sundry. Something that’s private, you can learn your lesson about taking responsibility for yourself in every sense and move on. But even the other behaviors do not equate to rape. I would not hesitate to go to the school authorities and make a complaint about the pictures. On the other thing, well, some people are jerks and deserve to be known as such. Widely. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but your feelings are irrelevant to those who ‘count’ the numbers. :)</p>
<p>Regardless of your feelings, you would be counted in the numerator of the ‘1 in 4’ pronouncements.</p>
<p>I know, and that is why I have a problem with those numbers. I’ve also been told here that I am a “sexual assault victim” because some guy at a rock concert caressed my posterior a few times. I felt annoyed, not assaulted.</p>
<p>I consider both to be an insult to people who actually ARE survivors of rape and sexual assault.</p>