Cornell fraternity president arrested
 

This is hitting major news circles today:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/us/cor...ons/index.html

I totally disagree with closing the entire Fraternity down because of actions of one member!

Agreed. In a situation where only a handful, or a few members are responsible for an incident, I don't believe the entire chapter should be punished.

I would usually agree, but the alleged assault occurred in their fraternity house, so it's not surprising that they would at least temporarily suspend operations.

This guy is the president, and it happened in the house. I would strongly suspect that this is not an out-of-the-blue incident, and HQ is right to figure out what is going on.

To both of the above posters, it was one member, not the entire chapter. We do not know if this was a one time only incident do we?

If we use an example, if a kid rapes a girl in his parents house, should they be arrested?

If a girl is raped in a certain kind of car, should the car maker be blame?

So why should each member be penalized????

They didn't arrest the entire chapter, nor is anyone blaming them. They temporarily suspended operations. The chapter hasn't been shut down.

And if a person rapes someone in their parents home, then yes, I imagine an investigation would take place and the parents would be questioned (just like with this fraternity chapter). The car manufacturer example isn't even comparable to the present situation, so I won't respond to that.

I am personally unaware of any situation where an otherwise 100% upstanding individual who respects women suddenly rapes someone. YMMV.

Let's be clear that whether he committed the rape remains to be seen. He is accused, not proved guilty. I recall similar allegations in a case occurring at the University of Virginia and at the word "go," many here were ready to lock up the accused and throw away the key.

From the Title IX standpoint, it can be very frustrating for the accused because you're put into a position where you either take the stand and possibly unknowingly say things a prosecutor will have a field day with, or you exercise your right to silence and get convicted by the Title IX panel because you stay silent knowing that a single misstatement could mean imprisonment, registering as a sex-offender, etc. Suddenly a he-said/she-said becomes a she-said and the preponderance of the evidence standard is met. Don't confuse the school's action as any indication that anyone has proved anything happened.

The pendulum has swung so far in favor of the rights of alleged victims that I think we have forgotten the need to protect the rights of the accused.

I can see an incident like the ATOs at IU, where multiple people were involved, is reason to suspend, or shut down, a chapter. But we're talking about one individual arrested - yes, he's the chapter president, but he was the only person arrested.

This wasn't a gang rape, it was a one-on-one incident where a woman has stated that non-consensual sex took place. So, why should the entire chapter be punished for an incident involving just two people, only one of which is member of the fraternity?

The issue is that the alleged incident happened at the fraternity house. However, unless it happened out in the open - vs. behind closed doors - then it was an incident between two people that nobody else was a witness to, or participated in, and that's why I don't think the entire chapter should be suspended.

Right, I was responding to the "just one person" aspect, not the "guilty or innocent."

Maybe there was no rape, but if there was, I have a hard time believing that the guy isn't an ongoing problem, and moreso, that a group of guys who elected him are living up to the highest standards of their fraternity.

Interestingly, I think this is one of the reasons that so many people are afraid of "he-said, she-said." They are afraid they could be the target of an out-of-the-blue accusation which would cause them serious damage.

In every case with which I have experience (which is a frighteningly large number for a single person), the accused had a pattern of behavior that would suggest they did not respect boundaries, would make people uncomfortable, etc. I don't have any good citations to back this up, but my general perception is that these are rarely isolated incidents.

In my experience, this concern is a rational one.

Please mansplain' some more of this to us.

If that car is a Saab, yes. Everyone knows Saabs are real rape wagons.

--seriously though, chapter cultures can be toxic. While this is probably not something you've ever had to deal with at Lambda Chi Alpha at Gorilla State, the sort of climate you maintain within your chapter can be conducive to sexual violence. Nationally, we're implementing some pretty serious programming about sexual violence awareness. Most chapters take this stuff very seriously, but I'm sure there are chapters who just fart it off.

I'll agree with your basic premise though that the idea that simply because the President is accused of doing something badly, and that possibly, it looks worse than the evidence would show because the school's Title IX process [and here's where I totally speculate] doesn't really afford a presumption of innocence and considers the accused's invocation of his 5th Amendment rights to be an admission of probable guilt.

Regarding this situation, it's waaay too early to be making judgment calls.

But I'll always welcome a discussion as to why the Title IX process is complete bullshit with regard to the manner the accused's rights are handled--not to mention the fact that school officials are not required to involve law enforcement when being made aware of sexual violence. I'm happy to discuss those things anytime.

Right. This is where you and I are in agreement. I don't think it's so strange that HQ wants to put chapter activity on hold and poke around to see what's up.

He's been released from jail:

http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index....from_jail.html


The part that sounds interesting to me is how they both ended up in the bathroom. Unless he dragged her there, she had an opportunity to not follow him in there. This article states that he "led" her there.

The HQ might be negligent not to do that. "Suspending all activities" sounds kind of harsh and it somehow never makes the papers when the organization is completely restored and reinstated, so we don't really know what that means, the duration, etc. For all we know, things were suspended a week so that alumni volunteers could conduct interviews and let HQ know whether there were any real concerns... but again, speculation.. that's all there is to do now.

It is irrelevant whether she willingly went to the bathroom for whatever consensual activities she had in mind. It is only relevant as to whether consent existed when whatever did happen happened.

If you think the fact that she willingly went into the bathroom with him rather than being forced is even somewhat exculpatory, then you would be wrong.

He is apparently being charged for this: "Ballinger allegedly forced the student to engage in oral sex, sexually violated her with his hands and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her." I would assume that the victim is saying she did not consent to that activity, and whether she was dragged into the bathroom or went there willingly and enthusiastically, if there's no consent, that's all that matters.

I don't doubt her story, but I also don't doubt his.

If no one else was a witness to what happened, it comes down to he said/she said or what she is able to prove. Only the two of them know what happened inside that bathroom and it will be up to the court to decide which story is more accurate.

I do feel bad for him, though. Because he's being treated as if he committed the crime. He hasn't been convicted yet and he's already been banned from campus, and likely removed from his post at the fraternity, if not possibly deactivated. If the allegations prove to be true, then take action. But in the meantime, why ban him from campus? Why not a restraining order instructing him to remain xx number of feet from the victim at all times, which could allow him to attend some of his classes or at the very least voluntarily take this semester off.

You can't have it both ways.

Wonderful. More mansplainin'.

Are we to assume that every woman who alleges she was raped was indeed raped?

She very well could have been, and that is really unfortunate. Therefore, he should be locked up for years.

But if she wasn't raped, if there's a more credible story to what happened, then why treat him like a criminal guy now. Wait for the investigation and the trial to take place first.

So if he did it, he should be punished. If he didn't, he shouldn't be punished.

Thank you for your profound insights.

You know nothing about either story except what has been printed in the media. Who are you to doubt either or believe either? How the hell does anyone form any conclusions based on so little information?

And here's where you and I have a bit of common ground. I don't think these VAWA Title IX things go far enough in protecting the rights of the accused. And just about every state, maybe every state has remedies for victims of domestic violence available in the civil court system. It all goes back to my argument that there are real legal consequences in these cases and it's kind of bullshit to assume an assortment of college faculty is equipped to deal with these things. I don't think the college student should be treated any differently or have any different access to remedies than someone who decided to go straight into the workforce after high school.

There are two stories:

1) Hers - Went into bathroom with alleged rapist unknowing of what would transpire, and he forced her to have oral sex, put his hands on her body and tried to have sexual intercourse.

2) His - As he's already plead not guilty, he states that he didn't rape her.

Obviously, as details surface and the investigation is done, there will be more added to each story. Will we ever know exactly what happened in there, or are we just going to get two versions of events, two completely different stories?

And no one should be punished for something they didn't do. If/when he's convicted, give him the maximum sentence. But already, he's been banned from his campus, so he's forcibly been removed from his house and community, not to mention the disgrace and humiliation. All I'm saying is wait to punish him when we know for sure he actually did it.

That's what Title IX basically does.

Please don't be Psi U, please don't be Psi U, please don't be Psi U. *Reads* God Dammit!