|
I don't believe the standard for "guilt" should be anywhere near that of the formal judicial system. If the accused is assumed innocent, the accuser is therefore assumed to be lying. Why doesn't the accuser get the benefit of the doubt? You cannot simultaneously believe in the innocence of both parties. If it's his word against hers, SOMEONE is lying.
Now, do I think we should just go around kicking people out of school every time there is an accusation? No. But I think, in a university setting, the burden of proof should be much more akin to that of a civil trial, i.e. 51%, and that they should be able to look at things like patterns of behavior, e.g. if someone is accused three times but none of them can be "proven," you need to look at why this individual keeps getting accused.
|