<p>"500+ posts and only a few namings of excessive punishments meted in cases where we could see the greyness. "</p>
<p>two cases, actually. One that isnt grey to those of us who see vomit as a pretty clear indication of extreme inebriation (and happened over ten years ago). And one that was caused NOT by the evidentiary standard, but by other incompetence on the part of the University. </p>
<p>Both cases propagated widely around the internet.</p>
<p>
D’oh! I guess you got me there! Seriously, don’t just read the last couple of posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, hold up while I read all 522 posts…</p>
<p>SMH.</p>
<p>Don’t people who support the OCR letter think there should be a lot more punishments than there are? Isn’t that the very reason that you’d want to go to a more lenient standard of proof?</p>
<p>You don’t know if it’s going to come out ok- male or female, parent or child. You agree to the terms. Our responsibility is to educate our kids, over and over- and to actually go fight laws you feel are unjust. Not just protest on a college forum.</p>
<p>
Well, it’s your business how you want to appear. I’ve explained in detail already why I don’t think the preponderance of the evidence is the right standard to use in such cases.</p>
<p>I think the word “lenient” is a value judgement. I don’t think preponderance is lenient because I think (ok, IME) colleges are not duty-bound to accept the accuser’s side, not obligated to take a complaint as a proof. They are obligated to respond and review. The actual punishments are not regulated. It can be a hand-slap. fgs. There is no quantitiative weighing of hers vs his evidence. It’s subjective. </p>
<p>xslacker- this really is an intense, somewhat volitile thread, with many twists and turns and much emotional investment, especially from concerned parents of boys. Please do read it or trust us that we’ve covered immense ground already.</p>
<p>Odds are that in 36 pages someone else might have brought this up, but there is no way I am going to read this whole thread to find out. Apologies in advance…</p>
<p>Today, I believe there are dramatically more instances of sexual harassment coming from the FEMALE gender in junior highs, high schools, and colleges compared to a generation ago. I have not witnessed males as the perpetrators in my children’s time, only females. Really shocking things, too. I can’t be specific because the stories could be traced, and the perps were minors. These were things that occurred on campuses, and in every instance the problems continued longer than they should have because school officials could not wrap their heads around the role reversal. Also, the victims were too embarrassed to speak up without a lot of encouragement. There is way more stigma for a male reporting harassment than for a female. </p>
<p>Schools should be safe learning environments for BOTH genders. I do agree that this new legal direction is frightening, but it just goes on the list of many other ways that are our rights are being trampled on these days. This is the era of the victim (justice be damned).</p>
<p>"Don’t people who support the OCR letter think there should be a lot more punishments than there are? Isn’t that the very reason that you’d want to go to a more lenient standard of proof? "</p>
<p>I havent specifically said I support the OCR letter. I would indeed like to see the expressions of discontent with the previous policy (actually my impression is that there was no clarity about standard of proof before, not a higher standard) and the problemantic cases caused by earlier policy, or lack of clarity. I am merely taking issue with a range of what IMO are faulty arguments against it.</p>
<p>[Riskmablog:</a> NCHERM Reaction to the OCR Title IX Dear Colleague Letter on Campus Sexual Violence](<a href=“http://riskmablog.blogspot.com/2011/04/ncherm-reaction-to-ocr-title-ix-dear.html]Riskmablog:”>Riskmablog: NCHERM Reaction to the OCR Title IX Dear Colleague Letter on Campus Sexual Violence)</p>
<p>The National Council on Hire Education Risk Management</p>
<p>"Our hope is that this guidance will lead to policy and practice changes on college and university campuses that will more effectively empower and embrace the rights of complaints, and further the goal of an equitable result via an equitable process. </p>
<p>The hesitation to embrace correct standards of proof and rights such as complainant appeals, moving an accused student to alternate housing, and keeping a complainant apprised of the investigation have resulted in years of successful legal challenges to and liability for colleges and universities. We are optimistic that OCRs action will bring about a sea change now.</p>
<p>Acting on the Dear Colleague letter with revised policies and practices will *more effectively shield campuses from liability because it offers campuses a roadmap for *delivering prompt and effective remedies to campus sexual violence. </p>
<p>Yet, it is important to recognize that the substance of the Dear Colleague letter is not new. With this Dear Colleague letter, OCR has not expanded Title IX. What OCR has done is finally to promulgate guidance that reflects the substance of its enforcement. </p>
<p>To date, that enforcement has been accomplished campus-by-campus, without public dissemination of the findings and compliance requirements. Weve had to read tea leaves to discern OCRs expectations. Now, we have greater clarity on a number of key issues."</p>
<p>Seems like the colleges WANTED this, to help them avoid being sued.</p>
<p>"Michael Gregory, an expert on education law at Harvard Law School, highlighted three key areas the guidelines are attempting to clarify in an interview with the News Monday. The guidelines place sexual assault under the umbrella of sexual harassment, affirm a schools responsibility to address sexual harassment and clarify the amount of proof a school must collect before it can discipline a student for sexual harassment.</p>
<p>Often, Gregory said, school administrators feel that sexual harassment cases are out of their hands once they turn them over to law enforcement agencies. Even when they do pursue internal punishments in such cases, he added, schools may overstate the burden of proof required under Title IX. "</p>
<p>[OCR</a> versus the One-Trick Pony » Richard T. Olshak](<a href=“http://olshak.com/2011/05/13/ocr-versus-the-one-trick-pony/#more-734]OCR”>http://olshak.com/2011/05/13/ocr-versus-the-one-trick-pony/#more-734)</p>
<p>“This was followed by revelations that OCR is actively investigating complaints regarding possible violations of Title IX at Yale University, Harvard University, Hofstra University and the University of Virginia. (Update: Schools cited are by virtue of the link, but I have also been informed that both Duke and Princeton are under investigation as well.)”</p>
<p>“My response has been very simple; we have at least fifty years of case law (dating back to Dixon v. Alabama, 1961) which has instructed colleges and universities on how to manage conduct processes and protect the rights of the accused student. But with the exception of a few forward-thinking programs, those same rights are rarely granted to the person bringing the complaint in sexual misconduct cases. While many institutions across the United States have done their best to accommodate aggrieved parties, other institutions have not, and a culture has been created for many aggrieved parties (the overwhelming majority of whom are women) where reporting, investigating, and bringing these cases through our conduct processes has not been a priority. In 2010 this culminated in the publication of an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, where a review of many campus conduct processes entitled, Sexual Assault on Campus: A frustrating search for justice was very critical of numerous conduct systems who failed to adequately address these cases.”</p>
<p>BBD- Lawsuits and public opinion are always bubbling under the surface of (IMO) many things colleges do. </p>
<p>So, now I go look up NCHERM-- and they are a fee-based * law and consulting firm that is dedicated to best practices for campus health and safety. *</p>
<p>BBD- so, are you now agreeing the OCR biz is a clarification, an attempt to promote fairness? Any residual issues?</p>
<p>[Sexual</a> Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice - A Center for Public Integrity Investigation](<a href=“http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/#]Sexual”>Sexual Assault on Campus Archives – Center for Public Integrity)</p>
<p>"A year-long investigation by the Center for Public Integrity demonstrates that the outcome in Margauxs case is far from unusual. The Center interviewed 50 experts familiar with the campus disciplinary process, as well as 33 female students who have reported being sexually assaulted by other students. The inquiry included a review of records in select cases; a survey of 152 crisis services programs and clinics on or near college campuses; and an examination of 10 years of complaints filed against institutions with the U.S. Education Department under Title IX and the Clery Act. The probe reveals that students deemed responsible for alleged sexual assaults on college campuses can face little or no consequence for their acts. Yet their victims lives are frequently turned upside down. For them, the trauma of assault can be compounded by a lack of institutional support, and even disciplinary action. Many times, victims drop out of school, while their alleged attackers graduate. Administrators believe the sanctions commonly issued in the college judicial system provide a thoughtful and effective way to hold culpable students accountable, but victims and advocates say the punishment rarely fits the crime.</p>
<p>Additional data suggests that, on many campuses, abusive students face little more than slaps on the wrist. The Center has examined what is apparently the only database on sexual assault proceedings at institutions of higher education nationwide. Maintained by the U.S. Justice Departments Office on Violence Against Women, it includes information on about 130 colleges and universities receiving federal funds to combat sexual violence from 2003-2008, the most recent year available. Though limited in scope, the database offers a window into sanctioning by school administrations. It shows that colleges seldom expel men who are found responsible for sexual assault; indeed, these schools permanently kicked out only 10 to 25 percent of such students.</p>
<p>Just more than half the 33 students interviewed by the Center said their alleged assailants were found responsible for sexual assault in school-run proceedings. But only four of those student victims said the findings led to expulsion of their alleged attackers *two of them after repeat sexual offenses. *The rest of those victims said discipline amounted to lesser sanctions, ranging from suspension for a year to social probation and academic penalties, leaving them feeling doubly assaulted. An examination of Title IX complaints filed against institutions with the Education Department revealed similar patterns: Eight students whose complaints stem from reported acts of sexual assault, rape, and sexual misconduct objected to the schools punishment of their alleged perpetrators. All but one of these eight complaints involved lesser sanctions than expulsion and three ended in no punishment after responsible students appealed. Survey respondents reinforced the belief that schools fail to hold abusive students accountable. One respondent summed up the sentiment this way:</p>
<p>Judicial hearings almost NEVER result in suspension, let alone expulsion. Alleged perpetrators still remain on campus, in fraternities, and on sports teams.</p>
<p>*By contrast, some students, including Margaux, reported dropping out because of what they considered lenient discipline for their alleged perpetrators, whom they feared seeing on campus. *Others said their alleged attackers violated school-imposed sanctions, often with little repercussion.</p>
<p>This answers some questions I had as I mulled over this last night and today. To me it appears that, as you mentioned, we got off topic yesterday discussing what are probably very rare cases and the actual statistics show that the majority of accusers rarely see results that are in their interests or make their situation remaining easy. </p>
<p>Also I find your earlier comments about the motivations behind some of this anti-rhetoric very troubling. The motivations, not your comments, your comments were very insightful.</p>
<p>It appears to me that this is just an attempt to clarify and make clearer an ongoing issue and to use the power of the purse to push for better enforcement by the schools. Sounds good and sensible to me, especially considering that the number of “events” probably far exceeds the number reported.</p>
<p>Thinking this through I doubt that this clarification of what constitutes sexual harassment or assault will matter probably one way or the other as far someone being wrongfully accused. I guess one has to rely on the hopeful belief that wisdom and common sense will prevail and that those making these judgments are sensible enough to know when “staring” is not okay.</p>
<p>One last thing, I’m used to the expressions “right to work” (meaning more protection for the worker" and “right to hire” (meaning more protection for the empoyer). I thought that some states (including Washington) were still right to work or has that all changed now?</p>
<p>from my experience expecting college administrators to behave reasonably is not something I would want to rely on. </p>
<p>I find it deeply disturbing that someone’s life can be ruined by a preponderance of evidence standard.</p>
<p>What do you suggest be done?
Should all complaints of harassment automatically be turned over to the police?</p>
<p>
Well, there are several possible standards of proof. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the least exacting possible standard (short of a strict liability standard). Under that standard, if it appears to the factfinder that the weight of the evidence favors one side of the controversy, no matter how slightly, that side must prevail. I certainly think “lenient” is a fair term for this.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with what the appropriate penalties for this kind of misconduct should be.</p>
<p>From the legal defense fdn: A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.</p>