<p>BBD- with reference to antiwar protests and Hunt’s ref to UVA- yes, my friend was suspended for protesting.</p>
<p>Mom3 some things are covered by law. Those things should be dealt with in a court of law<br>
And, while they are, the U should not suspend it’s usual investigation. Would you say, if it’s cheating, go ahead and investigate? If it’s rape or theft or drug sales, don’t?</p>
<p>How many schools have honor boards? Haven’t read through this whole thread, but I think that it is reasonable for schools to administer their own disciplinary procedure that is not tied to police jurisdiction. Things can be tied up in the courts for months/years and IMO it is not in the best interest of students or the college if something can be handled more quickly on campus.</p>
<p>
Well, that’s not me. I’m Joe Liberal. But I’m also Joe Civil Liberties. As I mentioned upthread, I’m concerned about anything that looks like an effort to move procedures out of the courts and into an arena that has fewer protections–this is why I mentioned military tribunals. And the element of the OCR letter that sets my civil liberties alarm off is that it focuses on something which is really criminal, sexual violence.</p>
<p>"Having a bunch of college administrators investigate and sit in judgement of something that is clearly a crime is wrong. "</p>
<p>scenario</p>
<p>You own a store. You notice funds missing from the cash register. You think Frankie took the money. You want to immediately fire Frankie. Do you have an obligation to continue to employ Frankie, until A. you have notified police B. the police have completed their investigation C Frankie has been indicted and D. Frankie has been convicted</p>
<p>what if the police decide they are too busy to pursue frankie. what if the DA thinks the case is too weak (but you disagree). What if Frankie gets off cause the jurors decided there was reasonable doubt, but you disagree. Are you obliged to continue to employ Frankie? What if Frankie is indicted, but technicalities delay the trial for a year. Are you obliged to employ him till then?</p>
<p>Mom3-
You have a a good basic point. However, the letter leaves that up to the complaining student. That is an important right, and it is being preserved carefully in this new document. In the past, some have feared that colleges are “hiding” these incidents, and that has limited the due process both within and outside (with police and so forth).</p>
<p>This does put a good amount of onus on a perhaps frightened young adult to use judgement and try to understand his/her best options/rights. Which may still be a bit too much to ask. Having a police report be automatic- not sure how that would fly… I see pro’s and cons… But maybe that is what you think is best. Certainly, relying on the college, which has its own vested interests in such cases (reputation, liability, etc.), to actually advise a young adult on how to proceed, does smack of self-dealing. </p>
<p>Again, I feel all this is significantly complicated by:
<p>“Well, that’s not me. I’m Joe Liberal. But I’m also Joe Civil Liberties. As I mentioned upthread, I’m concerned about anything that looks like an effort to move procedures out of the courts and into an arena that has fewer protections–this is why I mentioned military tribunals. And the element of the OCR letter that sets my civil liberties alarm off is that it focuses on something which is really criminal, sexual violence”</p>
<p>But if something is NOT criminal, its okay for equally serious punishments to be given with less than criminal protections? Are we really going to prevent colleges from using arbitrary procedures in cheating cases?</p>
<p>And if colleges are to be in that position, then why not employers? IIUC there ARE european countries that do NOT have the doctrine of employment at will. abolishing employment at will would be coherent position, but it would be a radical change in American society. </p>
<p>I dont think most people commenting here have thought through the logic of their position.</p>
<p>Hunt- Not move it out of the courts.
Allow the U to proceed, in accordance with it’s code, while the courts do their thing. Not wait months to act on a rape, assault, or other issue while the outside case meanders through the legal system.
Let’s remember college justice systems are not all old communist tribunals. I daresay many college admins and others are more savvy to what kids, in general, are up to. They deal with it daily, first hand.</p>
<p>*And if colleges are to be in that position, then why not employers? IIUC there ARE european countries that do NOT have the doctrine of employment at will. abolishing employment at will would be coherent position, but it would be a radical change in American society. *</p>
<p>I am confused re what you are arguing.
We mostly do have at will employment in USA. Is this what you are saying?
You can be fired for any reason. ( outside of a specific contract)</p>
<p>
I don’t think we should confuse what colleges are required to do, and what we think they should do as a matter of good institutional policy. I think a college (at least, a private college) is free to use whatever standard it wants to adjudicate cheating allegations. But I have opinions about what standard it should use.
When it comes to sexual violence, though, the federal government is telling colleges what standard to use, which is why we are having this conversation.</p>
<p>“But I have opinions about what standard it should use.
When it comes to sexual violence, though, the federal government is telling colleges what standard to use, which is why we are having this conversation.”</p>
<p>I dont particularly see any colleges objecting to these standards as violations of their autonomy. I see parents (and pundits) objecting to alleged unfairness.</p>
<p>"I am confused re what you are arguing.
We mostly do have at will employment in USA. Is this what you are saying?
You can be fired for any reason. ( outside of a specific contract) "</p>
<p>thats exactly what Im saying. Many seem to be indicating that is howlingly unfair, tragic, even, that a life changing penalty can be imposed on someone without due process - wait, WITH due process, but NOT full protections available in criminal procedure.</p>
<p>yet people are subject to life changing penalties with NO due process whatsoever, in our society, EVERY DAY. </p>
<p>In the case of posters, they seem to be somewhat naive about employment law. In the case of some of the places where outrage is being expressed, like Reason magazine and the oped page of the Wall Street Journal, the hypocrisy is rank.</p>
<p>
Another reason that such cases seldom reach the stage of punishment is that the offense is very difficult to prove. This is because it closely resembles actions that are not criminal and that are very common–something that makes it different from most other crimes.
And? Perhaps they’re not as concerned about civil liberties as I am.</p>
<p>* the federal government is telling colleges what standard to use*</p>
<p>I don’t see the govt telling colleges what standard to use. Can you refer us? They are telling them to respond, offer supports, etc. They are not telling them what standards to use. As BBD suggests, it’s parents objecting to a perceived potential for excessive punishment.</p>
<p>The letter specifically tells colleges that they must use the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating claims of sexual violence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? The Federal government is not “forcing” them to do this. They choose to do it or not. If not they lose money.</p>
<p>This tactic is legal as was already decided when the Federal government did the whole “Louisiana has to raise it’s drinking age or it gets no highway money” bit…</p>
<p>Let me see if I can make this simple enough: I don’t think the federal government should be telling colleges to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating sexual violence cases, because I think it’s the wrong standard to use. I don’t think colleges should choose to use that standard to adjudicate any serious disciplinary cases, because I think it’s the wrong standard to use.</p>
<p>Preponderance. Subjective. Not judged by a bunch of old church ladies in an isolated area.<br>
Context. Awareness of college behaviors and situations, some easy to judge and some not-so-easy. A Code of Conduct that spells out the policy and procedure. </p>
<p>500+ posts and only a few namings of excessive punishments meted in cases where we could see the greyness.</p>
<p>Preponderance refers to more or most likely. There is no quantitative thing going on- committes can still say, nope, doesn’t look like lack of consent to me. (That’s scary in it’s own way.)</p>
<p>"I dont particularly see any colleges objecting to these standards as violations of their autonomy. I see parents (and pundits) objecting to alleged unfairness. </p>
<p>And? Perhaps they’re not as concerned about civil liberties as I am. "</p>
<p>Possibly, but I doubt it. More likely they dont consider the fact that the Feds impose standards about sexual harassment (as they do on employers under a different statute) to raise different civil liberty questions than their own codes of conduct wrt cheating, drugs, etc, etc do just because in this instance the procedures are endorsed by the feds. And they also, unlike some posters here, do not dispute that sexual violence can be a form of sexual harassment.</p>
<p>I’m not persuaded by the idea that we should relax because the results will come out OK. If that’s true, why did OCR feel it needed to dictate what standard of proof to use? Obviously, they think that there was something wrong with the different standards some colleges were using, and certainly they thought the results would be different with the newly required standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? We use that standard for everything else except criminal cases.</p>
<p>Even civil cases are based on the preponderance of the evidence. What other standard would you use? If it’s good enough for civil trials surely it’s good enough for a college?</p>