Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honorgal

My point is that there are gender and biology differences . . . .

And what, specifically, do you think the biological differences and the gender differences relevant to this discussion are?

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.

Okay, but going back to the earlier post, are you suggesting that when a male student is accused of violating the school's code of student conduct by engaging in sex without the consent of the woman involved, that earlier similar accusations should be considered as evidence that he is guilty of the "current" accusation? Evidence of that sort wouldn't even be admissible in a civil case in court.

As I said before, my problem with lowering the standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard as in most civil cases is that the consequences are more akin to criminal consequences. Civil cases are about liability, not guilt. When the consequence is expulsion, with the long-term ramifications that can have (especially if the expulsion is viewed as being for commission of a felony without actually ever being tried for that felony), I just don't think "more likely than not" can cut it. Perhaps something closer to a clear and convincing evidence standard—higher than preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt—might be workable, but I would still question that.

I understand the concern that victims' rights are being minimized. But I'm concerned when any corrective to that simply trades one problem for another, and that's the case if things shift so that an accused's rights are minimized. An ideal system would balance the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused. And I have my doubts that most schools are equipped to pull that off.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Okay, but going back to the earlier post, are you suggesting that when a male student is accused of violating the school's code of student conduct by engaging in sex without the consent of the woman involved, that earlier similar accusations should be considered as evidence that he is guilty of the "current" accusation? Evidence of that sort wouldn't even be admissible in a civil case in court.

As I said before, my problem with lowering the standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard as in most civil cases is that the consequences are more akin to criminal consequences. Civil cases are about liability, not guilt. When the consequence is expulsion, with the long-term ramifications that can have (especially if the expulsion is viewed as being for commission of a felony without actually ever being tried for that felony), I just don't think "more likely than not" can cut it. Perhaps something closer to a clear and convincing evidence standard—higher than preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt—might be workable, but I would still question that.

I understand the concern that victims' rights are being minimized. But I'm concerned when any corrective to that simply trades one problem for another, and that's the case if things shift so that an accused's rights are minimized. An ideal system would balance the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused. And I have my doubts that most schools are equipped to pull that off.

I disagree that being kicked out of college comes anywhere near a criminal penalty, and FERPA would prevent the university from saying anything about it being a rape case, anyhow. Nobody has a constitutional right to a college degree, and college kick people out routinely for things that aren't criminal acts.

Of course the balance is tricky, but as I said upthread, there is research suggesting that one of the reasons rapists continue to rape is that they know there will be no consequences. By *not* holding rapists accountable, it's not just a matter of denying the victims any sort of justice, it's also causing more rape.

And yes, if you have someone who multiple women accuse of rape, who says he didn't rape...well, Occam's Razor.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And what, specifically, do you think the biological differences and the gender differences relevant to this discussion are?

Biological and evolutionary differences in sex drive/sexual motivations. I think they are quite relevant.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Biological and evolutionary differences in sex drive/sexual motivations. I think they are quite relevant.

How exactly are they relevant? Are you saying that biology and sex drive/sexual motivation trump personal responsibility or excuse ignoring the difference between right and wrong? Or that boys will be boys?

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I disagree that being kicked out of college comes anywhere near a criminal penalty, and FERPA would prevent the university from saying anything about it being a rape case, anyhow.

When I took the bar exam, my application had to list every instance of school discipline I had ever received from high school on. I also had to provide transcripts from college. I can assure you that had I been kicked out of college, I would have had to explain why, and I would not have been able to sit for the bar exam until the expulsion had been fully explained and the bar was satisfied of my moral fitness. To say that being expelled from college for a felony I didn't commit would have had a significant impact on my ability to sit for the bar exam and earn a living is something of an understatement.

Obviously being expelled from college isn't the same as being sent to jail, but it is more like a criminal penalty than a civil one. The loser in a civil case generally pays money damages to the winner.

Like I said, I understand the challenges and the real consequences of not holding rapists accountable. But I can't support a remedy to that problem that ignores the real consequences of declaring innocent people guilty. That's simply trading one form of injustice for another form of injustice.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Like I said, I understand the challenges and the real consequences of not holding rapists accountable. But I can't support a remedy to that problem that ignores the real consequences of declaring innocent people guilty. That's simply trading one form of injustice for another form of injustice.

I couldn't agree more.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

How exactly are they relevant? Are you saying that biology and sex drive/sexual motivation trump personal responsibility or excuse ignoring the difference between right and wrong? Or that boys will be boys?

When I took the bar exam, my application had to list every instance of school discipline I had ever received from high school on. I also had to provide transcripts from college. I can assure you that had I been kicked out of college, I would have had to explain why, and I would not have been able to sit for the bar exam until the expulsion had been fully explained and the bar was satisfied of my moral fitness. To say that being expelled from college for a felony I didn't commit would have had a significant impact on my ability to sit for the bar exam and earn a living is something of an understatement.

Obviously being expelled from college isn't the same as being sent to jail, but it is more like a criminal penalty than a civil one. The loser in a civil case generally pays money damages to the winner.

Like I said, I understand the challenges and the real consequences of not holding rapists accountable. But I can't support a remedy to that problem that ignores the real consequences of declaring innocent people guilty. That's simply trading one form of injustice for another form of injustice.

I didn't say universities should declare innocent people guilty. I said they should have a lower standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Personally, I don't think not being able to go to law school is worse than rape. And what's your alternative? To just keep ignoring rape?

Let's say I catch a student cheating on an exam. Should the university not discipline them because it's their word against mine?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Let's say I catch a student cheating on an exam. Should the university not discipline them because it's their word against mine?

if all you had was your word and no evidence, then yes, a university should not (and wouldn't) discipline.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I didn't say universities should declare innocent people guilty. I said they should have a lower standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Personally, I don't think not being able to go to law school is worse than rape. And what's your alternative? To just keep ignoring rape?

If you were a college administrator, based on the factual evidence that has been released, how would you rule on the Jameis Winston' case?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

How exactly are they relevant? Are you saying that biology and sex drive/sexual motivation trump personal responsibility or excuse ignoring the difference between right and wrong? Or that boys will be boys?

Oh good grief, no. They are relevant for the self evident reason that 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, and while some of that difference is socialization, it's also biological and evolutionary differences in males and females. The former is amenable to forced change, the latter is not.

So, the big question is how do we reduce the risk of women being victimized? Telling them that they are sexually equivalent to men doesn't seem to be doing much for a lot of college women. It seems the new method will be to impose an impossibly unfair adjudication standard that, in your own words, is trading one form of injustice for another form of injustice. And turn our colleges into lawsuit factories.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Oh good grief, no. They are relevant for the self evident reason that 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, and while some of that difference is socialization, it's also biological and evolutionary differences in males and females. The former is amenable to forced change, the latter is not.

So, the big question is how do we reduce the risk of women being victimized? Telling them that they are sexually equivalent to men doesn't seem to be doing much for a lot of college women. It seems the new method will be to impose an impossibly unfair adjudication standard that, in your own words, is trading one form of injustice for another form of injustice. And turn our colleges into lawsuit factories.

Explain the biological sex differences that are less subject to change. What are the differences?

As for gender differences: While I am a feminist gender egalitarian, the average person around the world (and average college student) does not subscribe to the belief that women and men are or should be (socially) the same. Therefore, most people believe in gender differences (there is longstanding debate about differences and whether any type of difference is bad) and forms of gender inequality are alive and well on most college campuses despite co-ed classrooms (and some schools have co-ed residence halls) and some women being more sexually liberated. There is more to gender equality and challenging gender norms than a free flow (pun intended) of drinking and sex.