<p>
I’ve seen this type of thing happen, acm. The girl can go from feeling badly about herself and something she did to being a “victim”, getting the sympathies of her friends (and society), who is told that “she did nothing wrong.” </p>
<p>The guy in the same position is more likely to be seen as a stud (yea, got laid last night!) by his friends.</p>
<p>And who actually stays the whole night at these encounters (so as to be “waking up”)?</p>
<p>^ Have also witnessed a nice girl have remorse and awkwardness over sleeping with someone not her BF and then, in retrospect, decide she was coerced. </p>
<p>Girls are not all beasts. Boy are not all beasts. The best law would not advantage one or the other.</p>
<p>Extreme cases makes for bad law.
I’d add, the “I know someone who…” or “I heard…” or interpreting a set of documents based on your worst fears…do not make a picture of absolute reality in all situations.</p>
<p>I think many are worried that “the worst” could happen to them or their kids. And, that some authority (whether it’s police or the college) could dismiss our side of the story and set a maximum punishment.</p>
<p>We all know cases, from the media or stories among friends, of false accusations. BUT, the point should not be to jump on the documents that seek to clarify how the college should respond. </p>
<p>I have been wondering how many posters actually read through the documents or a Code of Conduct. A student agrees to the school’s policy and processes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is why we all worry. If there are tens of thousands wrongly convicted, how many more are wrongly accused?</p>
<p>Why do you assume that there would be more wrongly accused now than before? (I would have assumed the opposite - with clearer policies in place, clearer procedures, clearer rules, and more knowledge among all students of all three - I would have thought there would be fewer incidences rather than more. But then that’s my rational mind thinking. Potential rapists are often not particularly rational souls.)</p>
<p>Why would you think I assume there would be more now than before? I assume there are just as many now as before. If tens of thousands are convicted, surely more than that number have been accused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A law may be constructed to benefit the maximum number of people, in the view of the legislature at the time of its passage, but isn’t the judicial system supposed to be focused on the individual? Aren’t there legal restraints in place specifically to prevent the full weight of the state’s authority from swamping the rights of the individual? Isn’t the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to punish the innocent? Do we not wish to avoid a “Hang them all and let God sort them out” mentality, with procedures to match? </p>
<p>I fully agree that there are enormous numbers of poor people wrongly incarcerated. A goodly number of them are there because of the stringent penalties imposed for crack cocaine, in contrast to the milder penalties for powder cocaine. That was apparently a case of a law that was supposed to protect the majority that went awry. I presume that your response to a person who objected to that law would not be “Too bad, take it up with your legislature if you don’t like it.” </p>
<p>It seems to me that what makes some of us uneasy about all of this is that the institution–in this case, the college or university–is being encouraged to a) adopt a definition of a crime that assumes male guilt, and b)impose life-changing penalties WITHOUT the protections in place in the judicial system.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that in the past even forcible rapes were all too infrequently prosecuted, and that victims were all too frequently re-victimized by the system. There also seems to be little doubt that the number of unreported rapes is too high. Maybe the way to fix that is to frighten young men into greater caution by stacking the judicial deck against them, I don’t know. Are murders prevented by the existence of the death penalty? I don’t believe that a comparison of state murder rates bears that out.</p>
<p>Doing something to lessen the binge-drinking/hookup culture on campuses would be effective, I think. How to do that is another matter, since it is alive and well on all kids of campuses.</p>
<p>I have indeed read the Code of Conduct of ND, and found it to be a very fair-minded and thoughtful document. If more students, both male and female, followed its advice, they would be much better off, IMHO.</p>
<p>Anyone see how fears have been whipped to a frenzy in this thread? We don’t want a crowd to turn into a mob. All it takes is a few key words and phrases- rape, tens of thousands, expulsion, ruin, etc. The original post and many following comments have been inflammatory- seeking to get a rise before our rational sides kick in. Some have diverted with side tales. </p>
<p>Of course, false accusations are possible. Don’t assume our kids understand all facets of how behaviors can be interpreted because we see our kids as good. Help them. </p>
<p>The law doesn’t just seek to benefit the maximum number of people-- it seeks to protect the more vulnerable. And, that depends on various circumstances.</p>
<p>a) adopt a definition of a crime that assumes male guilt, and b)impose life-changing penalties WITHOUT the protections in place in the judicial system.</p>
<p>NOT how I see it. It does not assume male guilt and does seek to ensure he has equal protections and defense. Not a crime, a violation of the Code of Conduct. The student agrees to it when he signs the code.</p>
<p>“A law may be constructed to benefit the maximum number of people, in the view of the legislature at the time of its passage, but isn’t the judicial system supposed to be focused on the individual? Aren’t there legal restraints in place specifically to prevent the full weight of the state’s authority from swamping the rights of the individual?”</p>
<p>The judicial system is there to adjudicate on the basis of the law, not to make it. The rights of individuals are protected by federal and state constitutions (again made by legislators, not judges) but as interpreted by higher courts. More often than not, it works pretty well, and, yes, too often, there are miscarriages of justice.</p>
<p>College administrations are not part of the judicial system. They are required to ensure that their environments are perceived as safe, and they are required by law to have protections in place for certain classes of people. Again, miscarriages of policy can, and will occur. The OCR letter indicates that this was indeed the case in the past, and provides guidance in the hope that it will occur less often, when interpreted intelligently by college administrations that know, quite well in fact, what they are up against. The deck has, in the past, been hugely stacked against young women. Under the new guidance, I think it is still stacked against young women, but perhaps not as much as it has been in the past. Universities were not, and are not, in the business of defining “crimes” - that’s what legislatures do. </p>
<p>And yes, if you think the law is bad, you take it up with your legislature. If you think there has been a miscarriage of justice, you sue. I think that, intelligently enforced, the OCR letter would result in far fewer “miscarriages of justice” (in the broad sense, as universities don’t operate judicial systems.)</p>
<p>“A law may be constructed to benefit the maximum number of people, in the view of the legislature at the time of its passage, but isn’t the judicial system supposed to be focused on the individual? Aren’t there legal restraints in place specifically to prevent the full weight of the state’s authority from swamping the rights of the individual? Isn’t the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to punish the innocent?”</p>
<p>I always thought that that was misunderstanding of the rationale for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage of justice either way. The high standard of proof is largely to prevent the State from using the criminal justice system to persecute political opponents - no small concern in Tudor/Stuart England, in colonial America, or around the world today.</p>
<p>" Do we not wish to avoid a “Hang them all and let God sort them out” mentality, with procedures to match? “” </p>
<p>I dont think preponderance of evidence is quite like that.</p>
<p>“It seems to me that what makes some of us uneasy about all of this is that the institution–in this case, the college or university–is being encouraged to a) adopt a definition of a crime that assumes male guilt, and b)impose life-changing penalties WITHOUT the protections in place in the judicial system.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think a big issue in our discussion is just that - whats a life changing penalty. We are parents, and being tossed out of college (or even suspended) is a HUGE thing to us. Some of us are treating it as a criminal penalty. While the law treats imprisonment as a criminal penalty, but not expulsion from college, its fair to ask if the magnitude of the penalty justifies a higher standard of evidence. In discussing that it should be noted that damages in a civil law suit can bankrupt a defendant, yet we use a preponderance of evidence standard there. And that private sector employers (when not constrained by a union contract) practice employment at will - they can fire someone for any reason they like (with certain relatively narrow, legally defined, exceptions). I think much of the sense that this is a criminal matter is the halo effect from rape, which IS a crime. If a student was being suspened for cheating, say, would we be concerned that the Univ follow criminal procedures? </p></li>
<li><p>I still dont see that male guilt is assumed here.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^the notion of a life-changing penalty works both ways. Dig deeper into Brown, Yale, wherever and you find cases where the college did not investigate or the man had connections or the college assumed.
Gee, how 'bout we make a law that seeks to protect both sides? That allows protections for the accuser, but ensures protections for the accused. Privacy, defense, etc. And, since the U is an independent entity, not a government arm, lets have them pursue the matter throught their Code of Conduct.
Isn’t that what this all says?
If the accuser will work with the police, they can deal with the violations of criminal law. Whether or not, the U still has a responsibility. The documents also state that the police can ask the U to temporarily suspend its investigation while the police pursue it from their angle. For some families, that can be equally frightening- to think a U exoneration is held up.</p>
<p>I just want to say, I did read the letter and I am at fault for muddying the wateres here. I initially reacted to the negative view of many if not most male college students as potential predators. As a mom of a son I got riled up. I will stand by my opinion all people in the US should have the same rights including college students. I believed shipping people off to Guantanamo violated US law and certainly moral law, (just to show you how I view things, PLEASE DON"T COMMENT ON THIS, I don’t want to start anything else!). Oh and I also read the code of conduct for S’s university the same way I did for his private grade school and boarding school. This time I really promise to shut up!</p>
<p>As an interesting aside, S’s orientation started yesterday. At the Public Safety session for the parents, the head of public safety said if there is a rape allegation the first thing they do is call the city police. They are not equipped to handle these things at the college. He also said rape is the most under reported crime with the latest statistics thought to be at about 2% of all rapes reported. </p>
<p>The college has to include in their statistic report EVERY incident reported by a student even if they do not happen on campus (one happened in Canada).</p>
<p>On one of the hall bulletin boards there was a poster for a seminar on alcohol and hook-ups (presumably not a “how to”!).</p>
<p>“As a mom of a son I got riled up. I will stand by my opinion all people in the US should have the same rights including college students.”</p>
<p>Do you think employees should have the same rights? If your boss wants to fire you for say, insulting a client, are you entitled to criminal procedure, a defense attorney, a trial before a jury of your peers, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt?. Or should he be allowed to just say “you’re fired!” </p>
<p>College students DO have the same rights as all other citizens. When accused by the state of a crime, with criminal penalties, they are entitled to all the protections of criminal procedure. </p>
<p>However under our constitution and laws, being expelled from college, by a college, is no more a criminal penalty than being fired from a job. In fact it seems that college students in general have many more protections than do employees.</p>
<p>
That’s a good question, and it gives me an opportunity to clarify what I think. I don’t think that a college’s disciplinary procedures should have to include all the protections of the criminal justice system. But I do think that it should include some of the basic protections, especially if it is going to be adjudicating allegations that are similar to crimes, and handing out significant punishments.
So, for example, I would not approve of a college using a mere preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating an allegation of cheating, especially if the sanction was expulsion (as it would be at, for example, the University of Virginia). I just don’t think that standard is protective enough of the interests of the accused.</p>
<p>BBD: Okay this is it: We are discussing criminal activity being regulated by colleges, I am a decorator if I go into a Client’s home and say "Oh my god, your taste is appalling, it’s a good thing you hired me!’ That may be criminally tactless, but it’s not a crime, (unlike some people’s taste, kidding, kidding). If however I help myself to a knick knack or two that I admire, that’s criminal. My husband has fired people “at will” but never without cause. My S’s boarding school expelled kids every year for violating the rules, which also happened to be crimes; alcohol or drug use, when and ONLY when they were caught in the act. I think you are veering off on a tangent.</p>
<p>“So, for example, I would not approve of a college using a mere preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating an allegation of cheating, especially if the sanction was expulsion (as it would be at, for example, the University of Virginia). I just don’t think that standard is protective enough of the interests of the accused”</p>
<p>I appreciate that, and would like seeing this debate in that context.</p>
<p>Heres what is ticking me off about this thread, and some of the public discussion of the cases referenced here. When I was in college, there was considerable debate about our colleges discipline procedures. The student body maintained a decade long boycott of the faculty-admin-student committee that was supposed to deal with discipline. At the time the boycott began (BEFORE I attended) the driving issue was discipline of students who had participated in antiwar demonstrations connected to the War in Viet Nam. I do not recall institutions like the WSJ being concerned with the issue - most people outside the college walls considered it a private college matter. I suspect most of the folks who shared the broader agenda of the WSJ and the blogs focused on this, would at that time have sided with the administration, and dismissed the concerns of the “silly students.”</p>
<p>I get the very strong impression that many people who otherwise have no difficulty with Univ discipline procedures that deny defendant rights, and a fortiori no problem with employment at will (and indeed are very unhappy with such limits on employment at will that exist in current law) have grabbed this issue - because A. The clarification issued by the OCR (which has been misconstrued as new policy) can be used as a stick to beat POTUS and his admin - and B. Its part of a larger narrative about feminism and victimization</p>
<p>Note I am referring MOSTLY to the media and blogs referenced, not by any means to all the posters here. I think some of them have been unduly frightened, however, by the meme being spread here.</p>
<p>"Okay this is it: We are discussing criminal activity being regulated by colleges, I am a decorator if I go into a Client’s home and say "Oh my god, your taste is appalling, it’s a good thing you hired me!’ That may be criminally tactless, but it’s not a crime, (unlike some people’s taste, kidding, kidding). If however I help myself to a knick knack or two that I admire, that’s criminal. My husband has fired people “at will” but never without cause. My S’s boarding school expelled kids every year for violating the rules, which also happened to be crimes; alcohol or drug use, when and ONLY when they were caught in the act. I think you are veering off on a tangent. "</p>
<p>No, Im not veering off. Thats exactly my point. If a college expels a student for an act that is NOT a crime, we have no difficulty with them adopting any arbitrary discipline procedure. If they impose the SAME penalty for an act that is a crime, we react differently. Thats what i meant by the halo effect. Its not the severity of the punishment, its that because the act is ALSO a crime (though the college is not punishing it as such) we react differently. Thats quite understandable - I dont know that its logical though.</p>
<p>as for your husband, its very nice that he never fires without cause. However under the law in every state that I know of, he could do so if he wished (with certain defined exceptions).</p>
<p>Not really, some things are covered by law. Those things should be dealt with in a court of law. Some things are violations of policy and can be dealt with by companies and colleges. Rape is covered by law. Staring and harassment are primarily coverd by policy (and dependent on the form, severity and degree - potentially law.) If a girl is raped she needs to go to the police. Having a bunch of college administrators investigate and sit in judgement of something that is clearly a crime is wrong. Now if she wants to claim that she was harassed or stalked or something like that, then it can normally be dealt with under policy. Cheating is not against the law (in the narrowest sense) and can be dealt with on policy. Stealing money from a college club or organizataion is a crime and should be dealt with in the courts. I just don’t think you mix up stuff…if we don’t need laws and legal systems and these types of decisions can be made outside of the legal system what does that say? The addendum seems to give colleges a right and actually ask them to address and make decisions on punishment in the case of rape. That is wrong. If it’s rape, it goes to court. If it’s not going to court, it’s not rape.</p>
<p>colleges can and DO expel for things also covered by criminal law, such as drugs. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillsdalesites.org/collegian/127/127_17/features/drugpolicy.htm[/url]”>http://www.hillsdalesites.org/collegian/127/127_17/features/drugpolicy.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0134p.pdf[/url]”>http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99d0134p.pdf</a></p>
<p>or even for murder</p>
<p><a href=“http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/black-college-student-shot-and-killed-at-harvard/[/url]”>http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/black-college-student-shot-and-killed-at-harvard/</a></p>
<p>note, well in the murder case was the student was banned from campus even before the police investigation was complete</p>