<p>@parent 56 I realize that there have been instances in which people who are truly good and considered so by classmates and the community have been falsely accused and treated unjustly, with their image harmed and all. But in this well-known case (Duke lacrosse players accused), for example (I choose it because it’s from my state) [Duke</a> lacrosse case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case]Duke”>Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia), the individuals accused were at a party where they were bringing in strippers and were the type to say racist slurs in response to racist slurs. And yet everyone feels sorry that they were wrongfully accused and that their reputations were damaged. It’s only one case, but I feel like the majority of cases bear resemblance to it, with perhaps fewer dramatic details.</p>
<p>^ But greenwitch, I think that if a felony has occurred (or said to have occurred), the school should have an obligation to report it to the police. They shouldn’t take it upon themselves to decide the next steps or follow these “procedures”. They are a school, not a court room! All this is what got the Catholic Church into trouble. They thought they could handle sexual issues within their own ranks too.</p>
<p>^^ I agree. The longer document mentioned that a school (receiving federal funds and therefore bound by Title IX) must proceed with it’s own investigation and not wait for a separate investigation by the police to result in a conviction (or not).</p>
<p>not sure i fully understand belle…are you saying that the lacrosse players deserved what happened because of their bad behavior??? that is like saying a woman deserves to be raped based on what she wears, or her past sexual history, …thought we were getting past that. should we only feel it is wrong if the lacrosse players had been fine upstanding gentlemen?</p>
<p>OK- there IS a distinct absence of a THIRD PARTY OUTSIDE if the school to audit all this. And the college can still handle the matter entirely within its own walls. The difference is that the college MUST respond.</p>
<p>To me, this is a compromise to keep the unis happy and independent, still acting unto themselves with their own system, while stepping up response and enforcement related to reports of sexual violence.
So far, the college is still not required to report any crimes to the police or involve the legal system: under-age drinking, drugs, theft, destruction of property, plagiarism, sexual harassment or coercion, etc.</p>
<p>While some may argue that the accused are now at a disadvantage, before these new regulations, the complainant was most definitely at a disadvantage. Now, colleges must respond and be more transparent and protective and punitory.</p>
<p>Until these rules, colleges could decide whether to respond and how to react based on their vested interest in preserving their reputations by ignoring, sweeping under the carpet such matters…</p>
<p>What are the penalties to the college for violations of these rules or procedures?
How will violations come to light?</p>
<p>Would parents and students feel better if these matter had to be taken outside the college wall to be handled by the police and the legal system??</p>
<p>limabeans, here is the section:</p>
<p>A school should notify a complainant of the right to file a criminal complaint, and should not dissuade a victim from doing so either during or after the school’s internal Title IX investigation. For instance, if a complainant wants to file a police report, the school should not tell the complainant that it is working toward a solution and instruct, or ask, the complainant to wait to file the report.
Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin their own Title IX investigation and, if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the student in the educational setting. For example, a school should not delay conducting its own investigation or taking steps to protect the complainant because it wants to see whether the alleged perpetrator will be found guilty of a crime. Any agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a local police department must allow the school to meet its Title IX obligation to resolve complaints promptly and equitably. Although a school may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while the police are gathering evidence, once notified that the police department has completed its gathering of evidence (not the ultimate outcome of the investigation or the filing of any charges), the school must promptly resume and complete its fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.25
Moreover, nothing in an MOU or the criminal investigation itself should prevent a school from notifying complainants of their Title IX rights and the school’s grievance procedures, or from taking interim steps to ensure the safety and well-being of the complainant and the school community while the law enforcement agency’s fact-gathering is in progress. OCR also recommends that a school’s MOU include clear policies on when a school will refer a matter to local law enforcement.</p>
<p>Another issue to consider:
Is is best to preserve confidentiality so as to preserve the reputations of both the complainant and the accused, pending full investigation, at least? Can this be accomplished while still pulling in the outside authorities?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it can. It’s done all the time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. If someone actually commits rape they should go to prison, not just be expelled. If someone is falsely accused they should be given a legitimate trial and not be expelled. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying that they should have been falsely accused?</p>
<p>Limabeans, if the complainant refuses to provide info to police, they can do little or nothing. This occured on DH’s campus, at a time when he was a faculty rep on the committee; long story, most of which I should keep confidential. It was a tough decision, over many weeks.</p>
<p>Bold here is mine. From the Dear Colleague Letter:</p>
<p>*Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.9
As explained in OCRs 2001 Guidance, when a student sexually harasses another student, the harassing conduct creates a hostile environment if the conduct is sufficiently serious that it interferes with or limits a students ability to participate in or benefit from the schools program. *</p>
<p>So, this suggests a qualifier- “sufficiently serious.” Serious enough to create a hostile environment for the accuser.</p>
<p>The more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the harassment is physical. Indeed, a single or isolated incident of sexual harassment may create a hostile environment if the incident is sufficiently severe. For instance, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment.</p>
<p>I think this bold suggests that incidents that are not “sufficiently severe” can need some repetition, to consitute a “hostile environment.”</p>
<p>Aack, gotta love legalese.</p>
<p>@ parent56 and Vladenschulette - NO, I’m trying to say that these weren’t perfectly nice people to begin with, so it was semi-believable that <em>they</em> were capable of a crime such as rape. No one has ever accused… Neil Patrick Harris of raping anyone because he’s a sweetheart. Generally good people or parents of generally good people, who make good decisions and don’t involve themselves in sketchy scenarios shouldn’t fear these unfair trials, because no one could be 50.00001% sure that Neil Patrick Harris (or his college-aged, non-gay equivalent) raped anyone. And the fact that they (the LAX players) were falsely accused suddenly made them angels, even though all this dirt on them and their other actions had been dug up in the process. Being innocent of the crime made them cast in a halo of light they didn’t deserve.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’ll duck out of this conversation now… Just wanted to put in my overly long and inarticulate two cents. Maybe I am naive, I’ll admit, especially to think for a second that schools care about sexual offenses.</p>
<p>This seems like a situation with tremendous potwntial for abuse. OTH it could end up changing the loose, FWB hookup culture prevalent on a lot of college campuses these days. Overall I don’t see it as a plus though.</p>
<p>“Unjust policies like this can ruin a student’s academic career. Take Caleb Warner, a student at the University of North Dakota who was accused of sexual assault and found guilty by the university based on that “more likely than not” standard. But when the local police finished their investigation, they charged not Warner but his accuser with lying to them about being assaulted, and issued a warrant for her arrest. Despite this development, UND refused to even reconsider the guilty finding for an entire year.”</p>
<p>It is naive to the extreme to believe that guys are not unjustly accused of sexual harassment by vengeful and/or unstable females with questionable motives. With these new guidelines, the accused on our college campuses no longer have the same due process rights of any other person accused of a crime in the US. In addition, they have also lost their double jeopardy rights, meaning they can be prosecuted for the same charge repeatedly even if they have been found innocent. </p>
<p>All college students, particularly men, should be forewarned, because they could find themselves in a situation where the system will be stacked against them. In effect, they will be judged guilty until they can prove otherwise. </p>
<p>Also, one poster said this could never happen to a kid who has been raised correctly. I am not sure how to respond to this statement, except to say that I doubt all people who have ever been falsely accused of something had bad parents.</p>
<p>
I might laugh if, as a guy, I wasn’t terrified of the prospect that people who actually believe this exist. </p>
<p>You actually think the world is so cleanly demarcated between big bad lax bros who patronize strippers and Neil Patrick Harris’s. You for real? Who are you to determine who’s a “generally good person,” and by extension, who shouldn’t have to fear being falsely accused of a heinous crime.</p>
<p>As if there’s a line in the sand, “yeah all you unsavory looking fellows who like to party, get on that side over there–you guys definitely have rape potential.” “And all you NPH lookalikes get over on the other side–you guys are upstanding gentlemen and never need to fear life-ruining false accusations or the absence of due process.” </p>
<p>Unless of course you’re ■■■■■■■■ and ironically commenting on the “girls who get raped bring it upon themselves” sentiment, in which case I applaud you for such a sustained use of irony.</p>
<p>With these new guidelines, the accused on our college campuses no longer have the same due process rights of any other person accused of a crime in the US</p>
<p>Read the Dear Collegaue Letter. It is the document Berkowitz/WSJ was referring to.
Public and state-supported schools must provide due process to the alleged perpetrator. However, schools should ensure that steps taken to accord due process rights to the alleged perpetrator do not restrict or unnecessarily delay the Title IX protections for the complainant.</p>
<p>Sorry lookingforward, the letter mandates that all schools use the “the more likely than not” standard, a lower standard of proof than accorded any accused person of a crime in the US. The due process and double jeopardy rights have been severely curbed for college students accused of sexual harassment, a most serious charge. A person in this situation could have their life destroyed without the ability to properly defend himself. You might think colleges students should not have the same due process rights as everyone else in the US, but don’t argue these rights have not been been harshly tempered for college students.</p>
<p>Parent57: I read the background and the DCL- and checked the definition, application and contextual considerations of due process- and we simply disagree. </p>
<p>Other posters can follow the links and read the original April 4, 2011 OCR documents, as well, and form their own conclusions. The Caleb Warner case predates this. Unfortunately, his accuser has not yet been convicted of lying. He may have a case against her.</p>
<p>I should clarify something. Of course it’s possible that even NP Harris could be falsely accused- whether it’s an outright lie or some overreaction on the part of another student. I don’t think it’s the intent of the OCR to deny rights to any accused. I think the problem starts with the fact that individual schools can apply their own definitions of what consitutes a “hostile environment,” (short of the physical situations.) Or, repetition. A more liberal school may allow for more flirting and teasing than a conservative school or one that’s very sensitive, due to recent events. In that respect, I am wondering if the DCL goes far enough. I am going to back off from this thread for a while.</p>
<p>It seems to me that colleges have already applied their own standards arbitrarily, and have (or the data seem to say) tens of thousands of young women at risk from nice young college rapist men. So the federal government has tried to provide more protection to college women, with a standard which will also be applied arbitrarily, depending on the college. I don’t think it’s terrible, but it will depend on its application. Probably a step forward - it should be noted that colleges could have (and in many cases have already likely) applied the same standard.</p>
<p>^^^Agreed. This is head and shoulders above the old situation where the College Dean sat behind a closed door an tried to piece together a typical “he said, she said” scenario. These cases are typically not prosecuted by local authorities for the very reason that there are no witnesses, and that is the main reason they land in the lap of the colleges themselves. We can argue where the standard of proof should lie; nothing fits the situation quite perfectly. My hunch is that applying a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard merely guarantees the accused will be exonerated close to 100% of the time.</p>
<p>As for where “double jeopardy” fits into this is not clear either. Where would the accuser “appeal” the decision except to another level of college bureaucracy? Again, that’s not much a concession, considering the ultimate authority really never left the college in the first place.</p>
<p>A close friend of my D’s was accused of date rape early in his first semester at college. In that case, the accuser went straight to the police, thereby taking the issue out of the college’s hands. I don’t want to get into details of an open case on a public forum, but my D and many others are convinced the boy is innocent. Among other reasons, the boy voluntarily took and passed a lie detector test. It’s really the only thing he can do - there is virtually no way for him to prove that the sex was consensual. He voluntarily withdrew from the college, hoping that he could re-apply after the legal issues were resolved. Yet nearly a year has passed, with no trial date in sight. The prosecution hasn’t dropped the charges but they “aren’t ready” to prosecute, either. His name was listed in multiple newspapers (including his hometown paper) when he was charged, but of course the “victim’s” name wasn’t listed. Every day this young man wakes up wondering if he will spend 4 years in prison (mandatory minimum sentence) and be branded as a sex offender, and he has no idea when (or if) this nightmare will end. </p>
<p>Guys - random hookups are NOT worth it.</p>