Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I should rephrase- they should not be the ones determining whether someone is guilty of a crime and being the only entity doling out punishments. I agree they have to deal with the repercussions.

They shouldn't be the *only* entity, but there's no reason that violations of a school's code of conduct shouldn't be investigated in parallel with violations of criminal law. There are lots of reasons the criminal justice system fails victims.

For example, if most rapes are indeed committed by serial rapists, the school can take that into consideration in making decisions, while that may or may not be admissible in a criminal justice situation. If a guy commits three rapes, and none of them can, individually, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but a school has records of three separate women accusing a guy of rape, I'm really quite alright with them kicking him out of school.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

For example, if most rapes are indeed committed by serial rapists, the school can take that into consideration in making decisions, while that may or may not be admissible in a criminal justice situation. If a guy commits three rapes, and none of them can, individually, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but a school has records of three separate women accusing a guy of rape, I'm really quite alright with them kicking him out of school.

Really? Even if all three of those accusations turn out to be false? Or is the assumption that if there are accusations from three separate women, then the accusations must be true?

I'd be very uncomfortable with that. And I think the school might be leaving itself open for a lawsuit.

ETA: I'm just catching the "If a guy commits three rapes" part of your example, which somehow I missed before. Sorry about that.

I'm not clear exactly what you're suggesting. Is it that if there is some evidence that rape was committed, but not enough evidence per incident to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, that the three accusations should be enough to "push it over" for disciplinary purposes?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Really? Even if all three of those accusations turn out to be false? Or is the assumption that if there are accusations from three separate women, then the accusations must be true?

I'd be very uncomfortable with that. And I think the school might be leaving itself open for a lawsuit.

ETA: I'm just catching the "If a guy commits three rapes" part of your example, which somehow I missed before. Sorry about that.

I'm not clear exactly what you're suggesting. Is it that if there is some evidence that rape was committed, but not enough evidence per incident to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, that the three accusations should be enough to "push it over" for disciplinary purposes?

I'm saying that a university can and should operate on a lower standard of proof than the criminal justice system. Much in the way we accept "the preponderance of evidence" in a civil suit, there's no reason we should expect the universities to take no action just because someone was criminally acquitted.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I'm saying that a university can and should operate on a lower standard of proof than the criminal justice system. Much in the way we accept "the preponderance of evidence" in a civil suit, there's no reason we should expect the universities to take no action just because someone was criminally acquitted.

Let's just accept this as okay, I still don't see how even this lowered standard helps in so many of these cases. The accuser says she was raped, the accused agrees they had sex (so no need for DNA evidence to prove they had sex) but says the sex was a consensual hookup. What does a college administrator or misconduct tribunal base their decision on? Even with a preponderance of evidence standard, the bottom line is there frequently isn't any evidence one way or the other of what really happened. And as was already pointed out, that doesn't always mean one of them is intentionally lying.

I don't know if anyone read the link I posted to Drew Sterretts lawsuit against the University of Michigan but it's really instructive.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C422124157.PDF

[Low D Flat]

it's women who are overwhelmingly complaining about the status quo and men are not. That would suggest that women perceive and react to hookup culture differently than men do

Are you suggesting that rape on campus results from hookup culture? Because I think rape was going on for decades before "hookup culture" was a thing. There was no hookup culture in 1964 when Animal House took place, but there was definitely campus rape.

[Low D Flat]

So how come there was campus rape before hookup culture existed, and before second-wave feminism in the 70s? Or do you assert that there wasn't campus rape before then?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

So how come there was campus rape before hookup culture existed, and before second-wave feminism in the 70s? Or do you assert that there wasn't campus rape before then?

No of course I don't assert that. The radicals who are pushing so hard on this issue are conflating and defining rape in ever more expansive ways. In the survey that produced the often cite 1 in 5 stat, the definition of rape was expanded to include any sexual contact that took place after drinking. Obviously there is a huge variation between incapacitated/passed out, which is inarugably rape, and having a drink and then having sex. The hookup culture is fueled by binge drinking men and women. And so we have a lot more sexual encounters that are ambiguous and impossible to adjudicate because one or both parties doesn't remember the events with clarity. Add to that the double standard and the stereotypes of both genders and we have a total mess where it's impossible to behave fairly to both parties when an allegation is made.

[Kevin]

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=Duke+Lacrosse

Remember the Duke LaCrosse incident in which nearly all posters simply assumed that because some black stripper (race was material in that thread) accused 4 men of raping her, it simply must be true. They ignored the defense attorneys, they assumed that because charges were filed by now disbarred Mike Nifong, the allegations must be true.

That is the sort of prejudice men have to face when accused of rape. The standard of proof at the criminal level and the standard of proof for a university to expel someone basically on someone else's word should be and is high for a reason.

Some of the language associated with rape carries such negative connotation. For example, if you engage in victim blaming, i.e., pointing out that a victim quite possibly could have taken steps to not find herself in a compromised position, you're a horrible person. In the above-linked thread, when someone pointed out that going to a private residence to strip for a bunch of college athletes seemed to be an unsafe choice, they were savaged over it.

God I loved that thread... so illustrative of how quick some on here are prone to side with alleged victims--even if they are strippers trying to make a quick buck or two by accusing innocent men of rape, potentially ruining their promising lives.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=Duke+Lacrosse

Remember the Duke LaCrosse incident in which nearly all posters simply assumed that because some black stripper (race was material in that thread) accused 4 men of raping her, it simply must be true. They ignored the defense attorneys, they assumed that because charges were filed by now disbarred Mike Nifong, the allegations must be true.

That is the sort of prejudice men have to face when accused of rape. The standard of proof at the criminal level and the standard of proof for a university to expel someone basically on someone else's word should be and is high for a reason.

Some of the language associated with rape carries such negative connotation. For example, if you engage in victim blaming, i.e., pointing out that a victim quite possibly could have taken steps to not find herself in a compromised position, you're a horrible person. In the above-linked thread, when someone pointed out that going to a private residence to strip for a bunch of college athletes seemed to be an unsafe choice, they were savaged over it.

God I loved that thread... so illustrative of how quick some on here are prone to side with alleged victims--even if they are strippers trying to make a quick buck or two by accusing innocent men of rape, potentially ruining their promising lives.

Oh, thank you for the link. I wasn't on GC then, and I'm sure it will be fascinating reading.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

Most people in the thread in which you are posting did not say the accuser should automatically be believed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Most people in the thread in which you are posting did not say the accuser should automatically be believed.

I don't think anyone has actually said that the accuser should automatically believed. However, in practice, that Duke LaCrosse incident certainly showed the intense biases of many here to believe the accuser no matter how much her story doesn't pass the smell test. (or in that case, the DNA tests)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think anyone has actually said that the accuser should automatically believed.

Because many of us do not believe the accuser should automatically be believed. ETA1: That was covered in the first two pages of this thread.

ETA2: Do not go based on a 2006 thread in which much of the tone was rooted in GC Race Wars and overall U.S.A. racial dynamics; how people feel about college athletes; and how people feel about strippers. That 2006 thread was about more than rape allegations and woman-man sexual relations.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Because many of us do not believe the accuser should automatically be believed.

And yet "many" thought the Duke LaCrosse accuser should be taken at her word. Many do a pretty piss poor job of accounting for their own personal biases.

[agzg]

[Kevin]

Yes.