Warning For All College Men

<p>I understand what you are saying Lookingforward but at some point many of the things even in the Yale articles are things where the accusers could afford themselves of the legal system. What does that say when indivduals singly or as a group forgo the legal system? If someone is really interested in vindication and punishment why the heck are they looking to the college for that? It is not the job of colleges or businesses to adjudicate. It is not the job of colleges and businesses to determine what constitutes free speech and what is harassment. All they can have is a handbook and a written process for violating specific lists of things in the handbook and really all that the language in the Title IX talks about is having a process. Yet it sounds to me like people want to have the colleges be the substitute court system. Heck courts have struggled for years over free speach, right to congregate, and what constitutes discrimination and we think “colleges” can adjudicate fairly these types of situations? The outcome of the Yale cases will be most interesting. Now I’ve read everything posted and I still believe the vast majority of “examples” being citied in these Title IX discussions have absolutely nothing to do with Title IX and are battles that need to be fought in our judicial system. The intent of all this is good and fine, but the enforcement component is misplaced.</p>

<p>From the Bush fils administration.</p>

<p>[First</a> Amendment: Dear Colleague](<a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html]First”>First Amendment: Dear Colleague)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hunt, I agree it can be mighty serious for the accused and that there should be some way to be “more certain” (oxymoron?) before dishing out penalties. </p>

<p>Much of the arguments here seems to have rested on the “unfairness” of a college investigating and potentially assessing penalties. In addition to the above link, when you look at <a href=“http://www.notredamecollege.edu/sites/default/fileuploads/TitleIXPolicy.pdf[/url]”>http://www.notredamecollege.edu/sites/default/fileuploads/TitleIXPolicy.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, you can see how a school (under the microscope) did the first part of what the OCR is asking it to- laid out a clear statement of it’s position (and then some) and pointing to various resources.</p>

<p>Mom:</p>

<p>Sorry, but you are a little late to the table on this issue. Title IX was passed in 1972. Basically it is saying that if you accept money from the Federal government you have to agree not to discriminate on the basis of sex in the University’s programs or activities. In the implementing regulation at 34 CFR 106.8 it says:

</p>

<p><a href=“34 C.F.R. Part 106”>34 C.F.R. Part 106;

<p>No one want this stuff in the courts including the courts. It is expensive; time consuming; and the results often lead to unintended consequences. Courts are wild cards. Federal District Court judges have very high opinions of themselves and unlike appellate court judges are not necessarily selected for their scholarly acumen. BTW, if you accept money from the Feds you also agree to a whole litany of things like how you are going to dispose of your dangerous waste and how you are going to treat your animals, and lots more. If you want to dance you got to pay the piper.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OK. What does lowering the standard to “preponderance of the evidence” in allegations involving sexual assault, a crime, have to do with that? Nothing.</p>

<p>^I think tsdad is referring to putting the Title IX violations in courts. I believe he still allows that a victim can take her complaint to the police. ?</p>

<p>Also, Fabrizio, I believe tsdad already covered preponderance vs higher standards.
Preponderance of evidence is the standard that OCR uses in its own investigations and even though it is not an especially high standard it is very difficult to achieve. Standards used by the police and prosecutors are different than those used in civil matters. So while a person might not be “guilty” under a criminal statute they still might have created a hostile educational environment on the basis of sex by their actions and hence need to be disciplined under a college’s judicial code. This is one of the issues that the guidance is addressing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>But not as difficult to achieve as “clear and convincing” or “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that’s why the change was made, no?</p></li>
<li><p>How is an accusation of sexual assault a civil matter?! It’s CRIMINAL!</p></li>
<li><p>That has nothing to do with Title IX. Quoting tsdad, Title IX means “if you accept money from the Federal government you have to agree not to discriminate on the basis of sex in the University’s programs or activities.”</p></li>
</ol>

<p>It does not mean, “If a guy is accused of sexual assault, he has created a hostile education environment for women even if the accusation cannot be proven.”</p>

<p>Fabrizio wrote:

</p>

<p>If murder can be construed as interfering with someone’s civil rights, what makes you think sexual assault can’t be?</p>

<p>I think alcohol is at the root of most of the “problem,” including the really foul behavior at Yale (and certainly not exclusive to Yale).</p>

<p>We were amazed when our oldest went to college to find out that his college really didn’t care at all about underage drinking, so long as the kids didn’t expire from alcohol poisoning. The boys across the hall from son freshman year, with whom he and his own roommates shared a bath, drank to excess repeatedly and would foul the bathroom to the point where it was impossible to use for long stretches. There seemed to be absolutely no punishment or consequences for the behavior. </p>

<p>Most sexual misconduct during college occurs in the presence of alcohol. Take a way the alcohol – make it grounds for expulsion – and I really think you’d see most of the sexual harassment and assault go away. I also think our kids would be much safer and learn a lot more at college.</p>

<p>We basically just counsel our kids to steer clear of booze at college. If it’s at the party find a party where the kids don’t need alcohol to have a good time. They’re out there. They’re the ones who can actually conduct an interesting conversation!</p>

<p>Of course they can go to the police and many University police departments are highly trained and unfortunately experienced, given the populations they serve, in the area of criminal sexual misconduct. However, OCR is telling colleges that going to the police does not relieve them of the responsibility of determining through their internal procedures (and this involves both students and employees) whether the alleged action, using a preponderance of evidence standard, violated university regulations. These regulations are not criminal matters. They are standards of expected behavior. Just because a student or employee didn’t violate a criminal statute (either found innocent or a local overworked DA’s office doesn’t want to take on anything unless it is clear that they will get a conviction) means that the student or employee is the kind of person you want around your campus.</p>

<p>tsdad,
my understanding re Univ Police is that they are separate/diff jurisdiction from local Police???</p>

<p>I do see a significant new debate here about WHAT Title IX is really about!!!</p>

<p>Sew- I am sooooo with you on this!! Colleges/Unis operate as if the drinking age is not really 21/it is up to them, and depending on the school and on the day, they enforce as they wish. I cannot tell you how important this is. Yes, they are little “kingdoms”.
Lots of drug use goes on and is looked away from, as well.</p>

<p>There are arguments both ways here:

  1. libertarians say that the binge and hidden drinking is BECAUSE of the higher drinking age- a la the drug legalization argument
  2. others say that alcohol is inappropriate for brains until age 21 plus, and that driving and drinking under 21 is a very dangerous combination, and that drunkenness leads to other risk-taking behavior (like on this thread)
  3. some believe that learning how to drink in moderation is a good thing
  4. colleges want to encourage kids to feel safe from penalties so that they DO report unsafe situations/take their super-drunk, raped, bad-tripping friends in for medical help</p>

<p>I dunno!!!
My controlling type A tendencies and maternal hormones want my kids to stay away from all the dangerous stuff as long as possible! My rationalizing brain say that the best is for my kids to learn how to have fun without overdoing, how to defer gratification, and how to measure risks very carefully- but is that realistic? or just idealistic??
Many many of my friends and family member started on their road to addiction during college, sad to say. Today we have AIDS, ecstasy, and other sorts of scary stuff, too.</p>

<p>The binge drinking/mixed message/get a fake ID culture starts in HS, IMO. The local Police react differently at different times, and different families/parents handle this in infinitely different ways. Tres confusing for parents as well as the teens. The colleges are in a tough place, I understand.</p>

<p>p.s. Have one D who has attended two colleges so I am in the know, not naive about all this. Other D is a boarding school for high school, so it is interesting to see how all this is handled there vs at colleges and vs at local high schools and by the local families, police, etc. …</p>

<p>OP: ** Warning For All College Men **</p>

<p>Instead warning all college men about college policies on rape; shall we not teach them a single ethical conduct that under any circumstance “A NO from a female should be respected as a stern NO”?</p>

<p>I’m always appalled by mother’s rescue to sons unethical behaviors and believe that they play a great role in raising beasts whoes unethical conduct on college campuses results in such strict standards.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What planet are you living on?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Point accepted. But then “Standards used by the police and prosecutors are different than those used in civil matters” is just a misdirect. Yes, criminal and civil cases are evaluated on different standards of evidence. No, that does not justify weakening the standard to “preponderance of the evidence.”</p>

<p>Now a days most university police force officers are sworn and trained at state police academies. There are agreements between university and local pd’s over who handles what areas. Here prosecutions are handled by the county district attorney. The state has a series of statutes that deal specifically with the university and the DA will, or will not (sometimes much to the annoyance of our attorneys), prosecute violations of those statutes. Most large campus pd’s also employee civilian security staff.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What do “university regulations” have to do with anything? Sexual assault is a crime ANYWHERE in our country, on-campus or off!</p>

<p>I interpreted the second half of your post as if you wrote “…doesn’t mean that the student or employee is the kind of person you want around your campus.” With that in mind, I strongly disagree with your perspective. You are in essence saying that people who are deemed innocent in court should be treated as if they were guilty.</p>

<p>Sorry, that’s not how I do things.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly the same one inhabited by the mothers of only sons.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>oj oj oj oj</p>

<p>POIH i’m not worried about the no…my son understands that…i’m not worried about the staring, inapproriate comments, stalking, any of those, or the drinking and not thinking., i think i have raised him well, but as a mother of a son… i worry about the girl who suddenly says oops i changed my mind, i shouldnt have done that after the fact. if that girl wants to accuse my son of something…then i sure as heck want proof…not a school board saying…well we believe the girl’s story so therefore he is suspended or expelled. i just dont like the process for this, and if the girl does proceed with criminal charges after the school expelled, dont you think that may cause a problem that people already assume he is guilty?..i think it is a slippery slope when discussing possible criminal events to put it in the hands of the college review board. civil things fine…but i consider charges of rape criminal. We all agree that there are unreported rapes, and there are also false accusations…there is no perfect answer…</p>

<p>tsdad,
But at what point is there prosecution for offenses at colleges?
For ones reported to/discovered by campus POlice?
For ones reported to college Staff/Admin??</p>

<p>To me the OCR is trying to make sure colleges do not ignore reports, and that they try to be fair (there is the rub) in their procedures.
However, there is soo much up to the colleges still…</p>

<p>Frankly, I think our whole way of handling 18-21 years old is messed up by so many inconsistencies:

  1. can vote
  2. can go to war
  3. cannot drink or buy drinks, but are allowed to do it regularly
  4. can drive
  5. can hold a job
  6. can depend on their parents financially…
  7. can be covered by parents’ health insurance
  8. parents cannot have info about their health and treatments without their consent
  9. at what age do “juvenile” and “youthful” end in the legal system?
  10. lots of laws: drinking laws, drug laws are not enforced consistently in a variety of locations
    There is much more that is inconsistent here…
    These kids must be confused by all this, too.</p>