The "fair and just process" that Duke claims it follows:
Quote:
the accused student is consigned to an “advocate” who cannot speak in the hearing that will determine whether Duke brands him a rapist;
consent is vaguely defined, on grounds that “alcohol or other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and effectively given”;
a preponderance of evidence (50.01 percent) threshold is used;
the accused student cannot directly cross-examine his accuser;
the accused student only has a maximum of five days to examine the evidence that Duke has compiled against him, while he lacks the power to subpoena potentially exculpatory evidence from the accuser;
double jeopardy exists, in that the accuser can appeal a not-guilty finding;
Duke is allowed to use evidence from anonymous parties against the accused student.
|
Seems fair, no?
