<p>It is very upsetting to read what happened to your son. How can the administrators of UND be so obtuse. The total lack of common sense is breathtaking, something I have come to expect of many academicians. Yes, what happened to your son is indicative of the consequences of this “preponderance of evidence” standard foisted on colleges by a political agenda-driven OCR. I hope for you and your family that justice will be served, which hopefully will mean vindication for your son and maybe monetary damages against the university.</p>
<p>Parent 57 go back and look at the Georgetown letter I posted in 552 that was issued during W’s administration. It calls for preponderance of evidence for all investigations involving VI, IX, 504, and Age discrimination. I was in OCR from 1989 to 2004, through three three plus Republican administrations, and that was always the standard.</p>
<p>tsdad, I read the letter and it really doesn’t make any sense to me. He say the courts use the preponderance of evidence standard in resolving allegations of DISCRIMINATION (clearly only civil cases) and then goes on to say it should also be applied to sexual harassment grievances. I don’t see why this standard should be used for sexual harassment ( if we are talking about date rape), which is treated as a criminal matter in the courts and requires the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as far as I can tell the Bush Administration OCR did not threaten to withdraw the school’s funding if it did not comply.</p>
<p>PS. I don’t think the letter addresses date rape or incidents of this nature. It would seem they are referring to verbal sexual remarks, not the more serious harassment cases we are discussing in this thread.</p>
<p>Date rape may be a crime but colleges don’t have the power to put anyone in jail. They have one very blunt instrument available, suspension or expulsion. We’d like to think that in most instances a punishment should fit the crime, but, here is an instance where we have a punishment that is roughly the same whether it’s for underage drinking, destruction of college property, or for not maintaining a passing gpa. Why should someone accused of date rape be protected by a higher standard of proof than than someone accused of public urination?</p>
<p>Yes johnwesley, but what we have been talking about is what happens to someone who is wrongly accused. Shouldn’t the person accused of date rape be protected by a higher standard of proof than someone accused of public urination?</p>
<p>What makes you think colleges use the preponderance of the evidence standard for other offenses? This whole thread was about pressure to make them use a lower standard of proof than they would otherwise use.</p>
Because they carry the same punishment they are equal in your mind? Really?</p>
<p>Which would you rather have on your permanent record, to be explained when you try to enroll in another college and at every job interview for the rest of your life:</p>
<p>A) You were expelled because someone accused you of urinating on the dean’s car. </p>
<p>B) You were expelled because someone accused you of raping them.</p>
<p>They’re both the same, right? Everyone will look at both of these scenarios with the exact same sense of, oh I don’t know, youthful indiscretion? Horror?</p>
That’s sort of the whole point, isn’t it? Half the people on this thread already think date rape is youthful indiscretion at work. College women who allege they have been raped by a fellow student are already forced to accept the fact that AT MOST their alleged attacker will be treated like a slightly out of control party-goer. That seems to be what this whole thread is about. </p>
<p>You raise an important point: should someone’s reputation be a part of the equation, along with the issue of punishment? That’s something women are certainly familiar with.</p>
<p>^^^^^^
Why bother with that, let’s just electrocute him and get it over with. We know anytime someone is accused of date rate, they must be guilty, so why bother with due process, a minor inconvenience.</p>
<p>I would say any violation (for either sex) which results in expulsion from the university should require a standard of proof of at least “clear and convincing”.</p>
<p>^^^So, basically, we’ve gone full circle. All offenses are the same. All offenses get punished the same way – except now, even the public urinator has a right to Miranda warnings.</p>
<p>^^^ I wasn’t aware the public urinator could be expelled. I doubt that any school would punish a student accused of this violation in such a draconian manner.</p>
<p>*do you think the answer to these problems is to take away the rights of an accused? *
Omg, as I wrote too many times, read the OCR and it’s sister letters. It does NOT take away the rights of the accused. And, it does not state what the punishment should be. The college can yield a slap on the hand- or less- depending on its Code of Conduct. It is so inflammatory to talk about expulsion and suspension- gets a rise out of readers. IMO, it’s just a way of keeping the outrage alive on a thread.
But that’s just not what the OCR is asking for. Anyone can go back to the links.</p>
<p>let’s just electrocute him and get it over with.
What an awful idea.</p>
<p>“…must draw conclusions about whether particular conduct rises to the level of sexual harassment using a preponderance of the evidence standard.”</p>
<p>In other words, a college cannot insist on the clearest, most conclusive levels of evidence, in order to judge. Remember, what happens after that (punishment) is left to the individual colleges to decide, again, based on their CoC. The point is to take action on the complaint. NO action risks losing funding. What action is defined in the OCR Dear Colleague Letter. NOT what punishment.</p>
<p>The OCR DCL also clearly states how sexual harassment (and its subset, sexual violence) can be forms of discrimination.</p>
<p>IF a victim takes a rape complaint to the police and it reaches the court system, it will be judged by the standards that apply. Back on campus, the school must apply preponderance, then act according to its standards. The court action does not mean the college can sit back and ignore the situation- except when the police/courts ASK the college to temporarily put their investigation on hold.</p>
<p>Having said all that, I do think Caleb W got a horrible deal. I fault the school, as well as the accuser.</p>
<p>But the school followed the procedures that you and johnwesley and mini and others–some of whom seem to be adopting the stance that any male accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent–approve of. Frankly, there are some on this thread and other threads on the subject who would seem to think that the accusation in and of itself–with NO standard of proof–should be enough to have the male student ostracized, moved from his dorm, restricted in his movements, and generally treated as if guilty. Caleb W and all other possibly innocent men are roadkill: there are more unreported rapes than reported, so the Indian wars standard of kill them all now and let the Lord sort the innocent from the guilty is the way to go. I think that this represents a gross over-reaction to the days when a rape victim was viewed as almost guilty party and treated as such.</p>
<p>Those of us who are, perhaps, the parents of sons have been called all kinds of names on these threads. Although a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, I have been called a sexist and all kinds of nasty things.</p>
<p>I can’t remember any poster saying the man was guilty until proven innocent. (Barring someone who may have used some ineffective sarcasm.)<br>
There were posts where many said, even any parent’s “good and decent” kid has to be concerned that his actions could be misinterpreted. That’s true.</p>
<p>The accusation itself shouldn’t be enough to make him guilty- no one says that. But, per the OCR, it is enough to make the college swing into action- including investigating and taking steps to protect the victim, all the while protecting the accused. That’s in the DCL info. Protecting the accused includes his privacy (though there are many possibilities for slip up, I agree) and the issue of moving him from his dorm depends on the case. </p>
<p>Any school can have a fiercer Code of Conduct than others- and, that should be checked out by any concerned parent- whether it’s public urination, alcohol, sex, pulling a fire alarm or whatever. And, any school could just as likely decide sex was consensual, based on what’s presented. But, they have to investigate. </p>
<p>I believe UND’s latest position on CW dates to Feb (and earlier) and the OCR letter came out in April-? In the CW issue, IIRC, the school refused to reopen his case because the girl has not been proven guilty of her offenses, by the police, including false accusation and refusing to appear, etc. I believe the school should have been willing to reinstate him, based on that “preponderance.” </p>
<p>This shouldn’t turn into a line-up of parents of sons vs others. I agree there is a lot of fear- but you have to examine more than a few notorious cases, especially those that are pre-April. In the case DH sat on, on advice of a lawyer, the male refused to say anything. Anything. And, I believe, later even refused to show up for meetings. That made it one-sided. Not the OCR directives. That kid was suspended until the girl graduated.</p>