<p>Oh, please. IF the Dartmouth story is accurate, the evidence didn’t meet the preponderance of the evidence standard either.</p>
<p>The case had NOTHING to do with Title IX or the OCR.</p>
<p>And I don’t believe for a nanosecond that the blogger didn’t check out where the accuser is now before identifying her.</p>
<p>From the Dartmouth blog:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s assume for a moment that it wasn’t the unkind treatment he received while at Dartmouth that drove this guy over the edge, into borderline megalomania. Let’s just assume that he was like that even at age 17. Hunt and others have a point: under any system of trial by a jury of your peers, the witness’ behavior while on the stand will be given an incredible amount of weight. This is why most defense attorneys won’t even allow their clients to testify in a criminal trial, that and the fact that, under the US Constitution, a criminal jury is not <em>supposed</em> to infer guilt by reason of a defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights. I emphasize the word <em>supposed</em> because who knows what actually goes on in any one juror’s head? IMHO, most people DO infer something negative from an accused’s refusal to testify.</p>
<p>But, this fellow did testify and he lost. The interesting thing is even when he returned as a student in good standing, bad things continued to happen:</p>
<p>
Let’s assume all that was true and wasn’t part of a preexisting pattern of paranoia. Would things have been any different had he been acquitted under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard? What’s a college to do when barely eight months into their freshman year, two students are obviously unable to work out their own problems? Do they wait until things escalate out of control? There are a lot of things that don’t quite add up about the Dartmouth student’s account (I mean, when exactly did he let the COS know about his prior relationship with his accuser?) But, even under the circumstances he describes, I’m not sure a year’s time-out before something terrible really happened, was unreasonable.</p>
<p>I agree that the story raises a lot of questions, but I certainly think that he would have been better off if he had been found not guilty. He wouldn’t have had to leave, and he wouldn’t have been labelled (at least officially). It’s impossible to say whether that would have been more just or not without realing knowing all the facts, but I certainly think it would have bee better for him.</p>
<p>This is not about people not being able to work out their problems–if people can’t agree on who owns the stereo system, then you can use a preponderance of the evidence standard to decide who gets it. This is about deciding whether somebody has done something that is essentially criminal in nature and for which the consequences are serious.</p>
<p>Suppose it was your kid.</p>
<p>Suppose she is in hs, to bring this closer to home. Suppose she accused a young man of sexual misbehavior- let’s skip rape and call it more than fondling, less than penetration. Now she’s freaked. In your eyes, is the guy innocent until proven guilty? Wait for the police to initiate and conclude an investigation? Insist she has to come up with proof beyond a reasonable doubt?</p>
<p>Or march into the school office and demand they be separated, demand the situation be investigated promptly and be thinking that, per that school’s code, if enough people believed her, the boy would be punished?</p>
<p>Suppose you believe your daughter. Maybe she admits she was drinking. Would that change your desire to protect your daughter? Just asking. Because, I think when we look at this from the perspectve of parents of sons, we see it differently than as the parents of daughters.</p>
<p>I wonder if unjust treatment by Dartmouth fomented some psychological problems in the guy.</p>
<p>lookingforward, the scenario you suggest doesn’t make it clear exactly what he is “guilty” of or why she is “freaked” and what we “believe.” Are we talking about an attempted forcible rape or an outright sexual assault? You say she was drinking. Was he drinking too? Was this a situation in which drunken sexual exploration between two drunken teens got out of hand? </p>
<p>If she literally escaped an attempted forcible rape or was the victim of a literal sexual assault, drunk or sober, then I would have gone to the police, and the accusation and investigation would be official.</p>
<p>BTW, surely you don’t think that sons are immune from threat and trauma, and that their parents have no protective instincts?</p>
<p>Good point, sewhappy.</p>
<p>Communism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. This is why we have a legal system. If she feels like she was assaulted or raped she has the avenues already in place to pursue.</p>
<p>And, they continue to associate? As classmates? It’s up to her to steer clear of him? Because I really think if it were your daughter- not a son- you would expect the school to also take action. Wouldn’t you expect the school to be a safe place for her, not just let things ride as before, until the police made decisions? (Whether or not it hits the level of attempted rape.) Could you look your daughter in the eye and say, wait it out, the police are involved?</p>
<p>^^^^^
Whether you like it or not, everyone deserves the presumption of innocence in America; that’s what separates us from most countries in the world. Also, it is possible your daughter is lying, no matter how much you would like to protect her. </p>
<p>As for the Dartmouth fellow, even an obnoxious and dislikable person needs the same protections (maybe more) from a dishonest and mentally unstable accuser. It is the person who everyone dislikes that is most vulnerable to being scapegoated by people who are emotionally influenced by their personal preferences and biases.</p>
<p>^ What if both sides appear to be emotionally unstable? I don’t think there is any judicial system in the world that is designed to protect someone from being their own worst enemy.</p>
<p>Daughter could be lying…same basic probability as the boy lying. Parent wanting to protect daughter…same probability of parent wanting to protect son.</p>
<p>Not saying presume guilt. Saying take steps to work out the immediate situation. Why Not???</p>
<p>I DO get the grey areas in this. I DON’T get why there is a somewhat callous attitude here toward the females. Can someone explain? Isn’t that a throwback to “she must have provoked this?”</p>
<p>lookingforward,</p>
<p>I think many parents of sons are somewhat sensitized to the possibility that their sons could be unjustly accused of sexual harassment because of cases like Duke lacrosse.</p>
<p>
It’s a reaction to the outright callous attitude here towards the males. It’s not a throwback to “she must have provoked this”, it’s a reaction to the new “he must have done it”, because she said so.</p>
<p>Yes we must protect our girls, but we can’t throw our boys under the bus to do so.</p>
<p>
Yes. I hope I would maintain my cherished values even if they affected me and my family directly. And it’s not her who has to come up with proof–it’s the prosecution.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that your views about this would change if your son was falsely accused?</p>
<p>I think parents of sons and daughters are sensitized to the possibility that their kids could be unjustly victimized. </p>
<p>I think the DCL puts a burden on the college to weigh harassment (and sexual aggression) for the context of its own community. And, according to the college’s own standards, expectations, awareness- and tolerances. (And, the police to handle the criminal aspects.) It worries me that most families don’t know a college’s particular position and have not read a Code of Conduct- not just how it applies to sex, but also to cheating, drugs, damage, pulling a fire alarm and on and on. Or, even who will sit in judgment and what their qualifications are.</p>
<p>I think we entrust many different “communities” with our kids’ security and well-being- schools, churches, athletic groups, Scouts, neighborhoods- and that, when our child complains, we do run quick mental, factual and probability assessments. In some cases, to be good parents, we don’t stop at “presumed innocent.” Look at all the trouble that caused for young boys.</p>
<p>In the college context, our sons and daughters are kids and we have afforded them an incredible amount of freedom- with very little introduction to it. Nothing says they will always make the right decisions. The answer, to me, is not to pick out hot-button examples of kids who were reputedly unjustly accused. Not to assume our sons only have sex with a clear yes and that our daughters never entice or mislead. We’ve got to face the fact that they still need plenty of our guidance, before trouble hits.</p>
<p>If either my son or daughter were accused, I would want “the system” to allow reasonable protections, if not maximum protections. But, that works both ways- protections for the accused as well as protections for the accuser. If my son were being bullied or attacked, I would hate to think the situation was allowed to continue, while we waited things out. No, it’s not clear and not always fair. In the end, the college makes the final judgment for its own community. And, if involved, the courts will make their judgments for the greater community.</p>
<p>What you say in post 616 is, to my ear anyway, much more even-handed and reasonable than what you suggested earlier.</p>
<p>I originally wrote, but did not post, an answer to your earlier question about what to do in the hypothetical HS situation that envisioned talking to the boy’s parents, and trying to get them to agree to a meeting of kids and parents facilitated by a neutral person accustomed to counseling teens. (This was if the situation seemed to be that they were both drinking and things went farther than the D could live with afterward, not in a situation involving outright attempted rape or outright assault. In the latter case it is a police matter.) My hope would be that both of them would benefit from being able to express their feelings in a safe and confidential environment, and that perhaps they would both learn that mixing excessive drinking with sexual activity can lead to all kinds of damage to both parties BEFORE either of them found themselves embroiled in a truly serious situation. </p>
<p>If it is a police matter–assault of any kind, directed at either gender–certainly one would talk to the administration and see what steps could <em>reasonably</em> be taken to safeguard one’s child while the investigation was proceeding. What is reasonable would depend on the nature of the alleged offense, the level of upfront proof, and so forth. If the police arrived and pulled an attacker off of your kid, that’s at one end of the spectrum. If there were no witnesses and no physical evidence, that’s another matter. It’s a tough situation.</p>
<p>If anyone can please answer this, I would be grateful. I understand that OTC meds are often used now rather than Roofies and GHB. Been told that a mixture of OTC works as well but is harder to detect and use as evidence. State lab has the urine but the wait is long for results. This is about our daughter who was at the hospital near her college within 3-3.5 hours of having the drink. It did result in rape and she remembers little but the boy has been identified. Any help would be appreciated. Just can’t find an answer to this one.</p>
<p>^^I’ve never heard of this but I’m sure if the police are involved the prosecutor is involved and if this is the “newest” thing the prosecutor’s office or the police will know. You could always google date rape + whatever drug you’ve heard it is and see what pops up.</p>
<p>smilemaker, sending you a PM. I’m so sorry your D is going through this.</p>