Teach boys and men not to rape!

Do a google search on rape on campus and you will see plenty of examples for which you can look into and see how colleges clean up for their sports teams and campus reputation. If after you do that you wish to form an opposing position to what I say using those examples that you see, i will be glad to correct you with citations. However, proving that college rape happens and that it is covered up for sports teams and in general by campus administration and "campus law enforcement" is too easy for someone so young and in need of far more than I can provide in learning.

I agree that the college should not be involved until afterwards. I also think that they should not be dealing with the victim and potential evidence either. There is a certain reality to rape where the victim has to immediately give physical evidence from the assault in order to have evidence. The police, doing their proper role, are supposed to be about collecting that evidence and not letting it be damaged. The college administration and security has other motives. Some of those motives are not bad ones either. The college is probably going to be more foccussed on counseling and healing than the police will be. However, one might have to be firm in getting evidence like DNA samples and a rape kit in the beginning, and the police are the ones who should be gathering that evidence. Also, the suspect has rights which the court can protect better than a college administration can. The college administration may have leaks and there might be rumors that go around, but a court of law can offer a non-public trial much better than a college can.

The University of Louisville is leading the nation in combating sexual violence. Buying prostitutes for their athletes should pay dividends both on the field and on campus, with fewer sexual assaults occurring. The program needs to be expanded to cover all students, though, despite a necessary increase in tuition.

"!"

You are aware that we have differing levels of guilt now. We have civil courts where evidence and guilt are a whole different thing from criminal courts. The college could have it's own System to review evidence, but that system should come after criminal and civil courts. Criminal and civil courts may decide not guilty, but the college might decide to simply expel or suspend a person anyway. Before you go there, the student who is expelled would have the ability to be heard in civil court over damages and not have limit themselves to a biased corporate ruling. The campus might think it is better to shuffle off what they think is a rapist with a financial settlement instead of allow the possibility or just the suggestion to frighten off other potential customers. In that case the expelled might perhaps get the records sealed or to show something else so they can move on.

Civil courts could establish consequences that would influence a college to not trash someone's record over something that could not hold up to criminal or civil scrutiny. There is a big difference between a record showing a person dropped out as to was expelled. In this case the accused could eliminate the stigma by using the civil courts, or the institution could simply offer them a deal that says they are leaving, but puts the reason as something neutral because they cannot prove any allegations. It sucks, but you move on. Then if there is suggestion of malice in bringing charges that might be false the school could also wash their hands of the accuser by expelling them but calling it dropping out.

I am assuming you meant to say it is a crime to swear out a false criminal complaint about someone, which it is. It is also very hard to prove a person is lying in cases like this. You would have to have a lot of evidence of intent backing that accusation in a case of consent, which is really what rape is about. Most places do not require a victim to make the statement if evidence is presented showing a crime was committed. Yes, I agree with that sort of thing because there is a public interest in punishing a criminal for breaking the law, and victims are not always willing to make that sort of statement due to many reasons other than lying.

Okay, I've done a little reading on the Sulkowicz case that these guys keep bringing up. One, the guy wasn't even expelled, he actually graduated from Columbia this year along with his accuser. He was cleared of any wrong doing by Columbia so I'm not entirely sure why they keep using this case as some sort of example of college over-reach. Secondly, he isn't suing the school for some violation of his civil rights. Since he was cleared of any wrong doing his name was supposed to remain private and Ms. Sulkowicz is the one who outed him against the rules of the school. He is suing Sulkowicz for harassment from her outing him against school policy and her continued smearing of his name along with her "performance art". Columbia is being sued for allowing the harassment to continue without taking action. They are not being sued for having their own hearing and again they cleared this man of any wrong doing. In fact Sulkowicz is also mad at Columbia for not expelling him despite the lack of evidence. Her "performance art" was in part born out of the fact that Columbia refused to expel him. Columbia was really caught in a tight spot because they didn't find cause to expel this kid and they didn't want to punish Sulkowicz for outing him because they didn't want to appear to be picking on someone who many already viewed as a victim of assault and college campus indifference.

I do actually think she should have faced some punishment if not expulsion for outing him after he was cleared by the committee. I can understand why the school was reluctant to but they should have anyway and will probably end up having to pay him for not taking any action. This is still a poor case to be trotting around as some grievous example of the trampling of mens rights. If Columbia ends up losing the lawsuit it wont be for having their own investigation it will be for not acting on the outing of his name and allowing Sulkowicz to continue to harass him and smear his name which I'm guessing is a violation of their own rules and standards. One of the reasons I don't have a problem with colleges conducting their own inquires alongside criminal cases is because the length of time a criminal case can take to investigate and prosecute. It could take years and if they college is reasonably certain the accused is going to be found guilty then they need to do what is necessary to protect the victim and the rest of the student body from a likely rapist.

Not guilty under the legal system is not innocent in real life. All it means is there was not enough evidence to live up to the standards of the US criminal court system. So before we go saying this guy did not rape her we have to understand he is innocent as per the law. As most people know reality does not conform to the decision of the court. They are not magical places that can change events.

I do not know whether or not she is restricted by the school's decision. I think that might be a bit of a reach. He had the records of the school removed from his history, but it does not seem he had any binding legal silence over her. I would imagine that if it was handled under the arbitration of the school then she might have a case that she never was bound by that decision. It will be hard to prove the accusations false. Innocent uintil proven guilty is a standard we hold the government to. It is not a standard we hold people to. He would have to prove damages and directly associate them to her, and it is his right to have that heard in court. I suspect he will find the courts do not award him very much if anything at all. You are talking about a very low bar for her to get over while he has a very high bar to prove he did not rape her. As long as she does not declare he is legally convicted of raping her she remains in the area of unproven allegations.

Not to mention we do not really want to go down that road where every person in public has to be able to prove what they say. If you required all apeech to match that which is evidence for a criminal case it would certainly infringe on our freedom of speech. There is a responsibility that the person who hears such speech has to evaluate the speaker. If it is the standard college case of date rape and a question of whether or not she consented most people end up blowing it off as a bad choice.

There were no criminal charges pursed by the police due to lack of belief that a crime was committed and he was cleared by the school's committee which has a lower standard than a court of law. Also on further reading her story sounds pretty dubious considering she continued to date and sleep with the guy for months after the alleged rape. I'm not saying I know for certain what went down, no one does except for them but you can color me dubious. Anyway, she called him a rapist over and over again, a crime he was never convicted of. There is a reason news organization use the word accused when talking about suspects who have yet to be convicted. Even as an individual you can't call someone a rapist or murderer if they've never been found guilty of those crimes without opening yourself up to law suits.

But... but... I'd been repeatedly assured his rights were violated by the school. His entire life has been ruined. It must be true, because why would anyone lie about that?

A couple of courts have ruled that the accused rights were violated, and written some very strong opinions. Americans cannot be compelled to testify in front of kangaroo courts.

But since you think the university has every right to run a system completely at odds with the Constitution and all established legal protections that we insist on, would it be okay if universities investigated these cases more thoroughly? My suggestion is that the accused be interviewed by campus security, because rapists lie. Keep him up for 24 or 36 hours straight, and if he still protests his innocence then beat the living fuck out of him until he confesses. Break his fingers one by one. Crush his balls in a vice. Do whatever it takes to make him sign a full confession. Then throw him down an elevator shaft in the name of justice and equality.

Have they now? Everything I've read says his lawsuit is pending, I've seen no mention of these rulings you speak of. You have a link?

Gturner is the guy who claims Hillary Clinton is going to prison for 10,000 years. His grasp of legal issues is limited to say the least.

He doesn't seem alone in that regard judging by this thread.

The judge's decision

While the Court respects the university's determination to address sexual abuse and violence on its campus, after reviewing the Administrative Record, the Court finds that in this particularly case, the hearing against petitioner was unfair.

In this particular case, the Court is concerned about petitioner's due process right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. In almost every proceeding "where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses." Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 269. People involved in an administrative proceeding have a right to cross-examine witnesses, this right "is considered as fundamental an element of due process as it is in court trials." McLeod v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1970) 14 Cal. App.3d 23, 28. "An improper denial of the right of cross-examination constitutes a denial of due process." Priestly v. Superior Court (1958) 50 Cal.2d 812, 822 The right of cross-examination is especially important where findings against a party are based on an adverse witness's testimony.

Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 705, 711-12. Here, cross-examination was essential. The Student Conduct Review Report made findings regarding the credibility of Ms. Roe and the outcome turned on her testimony.

The university unfairly limited petitioner's right to cross-examine the primary witness against him, Ms. Roe. Based upon the Administrative Record, Petitioner followed its guidelines (The Hearing Procedures for Alleged Sex Offense, Harassment or Discrimination), which provides in Section III Subparagraph P for the parties to provide questions to the Hearing Panel Chair "to be asked of the other party or witnesses at the Chair's [...] discretion." (Exhibit 14, 1:21-26.) However, as conceded in the First Finding in the Student Conduct Review Report, only nine of Petitioner's thirty-two questions were actually asked by the Panel Chair.​

And on and on. And that's from a judge who supports the university's position and goals. There's just no way around an accused right's to due process and a fair hearing.

That's a broken link


Edit: I actually don't know what that is since closer examination reveals the broken link references dayton, paladin, Anna and dinner.

Broken link. Did gturner make it up? No way to know, I suppose.

Although, some googling does reveal the truth, which is that the case regarded a public university. I can see why gturner didn't want to provide complete information.

Oops: court decision

The other link was a to really good random scientific paper generator at MIT.

Paper generator. You can add up to five authors, so I was seeing if it would be worth a WF joke by showing that people here are conducting top level research into computer networking and other areas.

The generator made the new recently because about 200 of its papers got published in top science journals.

ETA: Here's A Washington Post story about that particular court ruling, which should be much easier to read than the ruling itself.

As far as I know, the Occidental case(same link as before) hasn't been concluded yet, but the accused did manage to get a preliminary injunction against the school that prevents them from reporting that he was expelled.

I'm not going to argue that the schools can't have their own disciplinary committees to deal with these issues, but there have been a few high profile cases where they've done a spectacularly poor job at giving due process to the accused. They do seem to apply a double standard that says two drunk students having sex means that the male student raped the female student. In the Occidental case, this was despite the alleged victim indicating in writing her intentions via text message to have sex with the alleged rapist and asking about condoms, and even saying that she's fine when asked by a 3rd party after the act.

There was a similar case at Amherst which appears to be ongoing, and another at the University of Michigan.

Because drunken consent is not legal consent at all.

Drunken consent is perfectly legal. That's why there are no SUI (sex under the influence) laws.

If it were actually illegal, bars would refuse to sell alcohol to women.

A person can become so drunk that they are incapacitated and unable to consent, but one isn't necessarily incapacitated if drunk. If that were the case, I've been raped in about 50% of my sexual encounters. For the sake of argument, even if it were the case, shouldn't the alleged victim also be expelled for breaking the same rule?

By "drunken" I was referring drunken tot he point of incapacitation. In regards to the latter there is a widely held belief that a woman cannot force a man to have penetrative sex with her unless she is wielding a weapon. That is a whole separate debate of course.

Consent is an erroneous concept that has no basis in reality.

What does that mean?

Yes, but as was pointed out, it means the girl could just as easily be labeled a rapist too under that definition.

In theory, this should go both ways.

Is that what your Dom tells you?

In college I was sexually assaulted in a stairwell by two really drunk, hot, sorority girls who pinned me to a wall. Unfortunately if only happened once, goddamnit.

What a disgusting waste of time. Boys and men know, instinctively, not to rape. And those are the only boys and men who even *can* be taught not to rape. The remainder cannot be taught. Muslim boys and men, for example, cannot be taught not to rape, because they've already been taught, all their lives, that rape is acceptable. And here you come, Johnny-Come-Lately, thinking you can undo that? What a terribly pathetic joke.

And yet only one was accused of rape and punished for it.