I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
We've already seen what happens when a university jumps the gun. Just look at the Rolling Stone / UVA case. UVA suspended a frat immediately, based just on the Rolling Stone story, even though police investigation that followed showed zero evidence of a crime. Hell, the police report practically said that everything in the Rolling Stone story was a lie. Thus, the answer is, wait for the prosecutor to convince a grand jury that a crime occurred.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Why? (And considering some of the gooseshit we've seen with grand juries as of late, I'm not sure that's a good argument.)
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
Or to put it another way, it's not having sex that isn't a crime - it's having consentual sex that isn't a crime.
No it isn't.
This has been explained to you at length Hedgie.
If you can't prove the dishonest appropriation you cannot prove the offence.
And this comes into play all the god damn time in courts. The defense will emphasis it every single time.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
I don't think anybody is saying colleges can't improve their justice systems, but I think that barring colleges from taking any action on crimes without a criminal conviction is a ridiculous standard to hold them to, regardless of the specific crime involved. Forcing colleges to investigate or make a pretense of investigating doesn't seem reasonable either.
Public colleges are part of the state. Should the state be able to punish people for crimes it can not convict them of?
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
I don't think anybody is saying colleges can't improve their justice systems, but I think that barring colleges from taking any action on crimes without a criminal conviction is a ridiculous standard to hold them to, regardless of the specific crime involved. Forcing colleges to investigate or make a pretense of investigating doesn't seem reasonable either.
I agree with all of this
who said the bolded, did I miss a post?
it's just expelling students because they've been accused of a crime is ludicrous, you could well be ruining their lives
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
I'm just arguing that that standard of evidence and due process does not necessarily need to be identical to the formal legal system's.
And when we're talking about the judicial punishments for rape, I'd say they're roughly equivalent to or worse than expulsion. I mean, try doing some number of years in jail and then getting out and trying to enroll in a new college with a rape conviction on your record.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
The University is responsible for providi ng students with a safe environment. Simply waiting the six months or year or more places other students at risk.
Maybe a temporary suspension until the case concludes with reinstatement if the case was baseless would be a more reasonable?
Keep in mind as well that even if the particular crime itself isn't proven, there are often other disciplinary violations the school can take action on. So if, for example, someone denies rape but acknowledges giving the underage accuser alcohol, they could certainly be disciplined on those grounds.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
I don't believe colleges can or should have anything to do with this. They have too much incentive to fuck people or situations over just to make them go away. Victims and accused alike deserve the protection of the law, that doesn't change because you're going to school.
I think colleges absolutely have a responsibility to set and enforce policies for student behavior on campus. The policies should be transparent and fair, but they have an obligation to ensure the safety of their students on campus. There is no reason those policies can't hold students to a higher or different standard than criminal proceedings.
I also think that colleges should have an obligation to involve law enforcement in criminal matters that happen on campus. While they may have sworn law enforcement that is involved in the initial investigation due to their relationship to the student body, schools should under no circumstances sweep crimes under the rug.
On top of that, people are arguing in favor of (regardless of the case) neutering the school's ability to take action in disciplinary matters. Not just sexual assault either - they are basically arguing to tie the school's hands on essentially any discipline whatsoever. Everyone brings up rape, but what about vandalism, theft, or assault? Should the school be powerless to act until the person is prosecuted?
I think it's goosey (not that you are) that schools should have no power over their student body. Or they are arguing that sexual assault is so different from other crimes / accusations that it needs to be treated through an entirely different process...which, I guess there could be arguments to that effect, but I don't see them being made.
I think you are confused because the argument is that sexual assault should be treated as a separate matter-just not from the side you think. California for instance just reversed the burden of proof onto the accused in college disciplinary hearings, but exclusively those involving sexual misconduct.
As far as I know, schools are not pushing to apply this standard to any of the other crimes you list. Or even non-crimes, like cheating.
Affirmative consent is not "reversing the burden of proof". In fact, it's actually bringing rape in line with other charges, as demonstrating consent as a defense would be on the defense in every other crime out there.
Having sex is not a crime. Therefor the accuser(prosecutor) needs to show both the occurrence of the sex AND the lack of consent, rather than just the former to prove a rape claim.
The affirmative consent standard the schools are applying removes the second part of that. The accuser just needs to prove sex(a non-criminal act occurred). It's telling that they did not amend the penal code the same way, it is as they knew it wouldn't withstand scrutiny.
Being given a gift isn't a crime either. And yet if you were to use that as a defense against a charge of theft, the expectation would be on the defense to prove that the item was given freely.
The defense doesn't have a burden of affirmative proof of anything in a criminal case. Defendants are assumed not guilty by default. The burden would be entirely on the prosecution to prove that the item was not given freely.
They do if they use an affirmative defense - for example, self-defense, or duress.
Introducing an affirmative defense into our legal framework does not, in and of itself, invert the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." If it did, we wouldn't be able to treat self-defense that way in criminal cases.
In fact, we already use consent as an affirmative defense in some types of civil tort cases.
With both of these facts in mind (that affirmative defenses exist in criminal cases, and consent is an affirmative defense in civil cases) the legal ramifications of using consent as an affirmative defense in criminal sexual assault cases aren't remotely as disastrous as certain chicken littles claim.
That said, affirmative consent as a criminal justice paradigm overlaps with, but is not precisely, the topic of this thread. Even if we were to adopt affirmative consent in criminal courts (and I strongly believe we should), that doesn't mean that I want college administrators enforcing it. I'm passionate about affirmative consent, but I'm ambivalent on how much of a role I think college administrations should have in enforcing sexual assault policies on-campus.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
Anyway, students are profoundly ignorant of the power they wield, and universities should have as black a record as the students they wrongfully fail
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
The justice system needs guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A university does not.
Further, again, I am objecting to measures that require some level of involvement of the criminal justice system for some acts before the university is allowed to be involved. In the vast majority of cases I expect that the justice system and the university would agree on the crime, but in many cases I do not expect them to, and in many cases things that are serious academic violations are not remotely serious enough for the police to deal with. And arbitrary standards for "when the police need to be involved and exclude the university" don't make any sense to me, since there's no difference between a faculty member discovering an expulsion-worthy misdemeanor or noncrime and an explusion-worthy felony (again, assuming the staff is not doing their own investigations; I don't support that).
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
I can live with this
Yes but what if you got a six figure settlement and a clean slate transfer
What if you got FAFSA and state tuition and loans on top, and you can't afford a bus pass let alone a good lawyer?
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
are you serious with this?
yes, yes there is!
hearing liberals talk about one of the worst most regressive parts of our justice system and say "yeah we should bring it over to college campuses while we're at it" is maddening
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
I dislike the "well if you have enough resources maybe you can get this rectified after years of court cases" paradigm. Kinda something you should design to avoid.
Also I'm sick of the public at large getting stuck with huge bills for government employees who make all kinds of maleficent fuck ups but have qualified immunity.
Anyway, students are profoundly ignorant of the power they wield, and universities should have as black a record as the students they wrongfully fail
students don't have any power at all, universities grind them underfoot, lie to them, rob them, and there's nothing they can do unless they're wealthy enough to hire a legal team
I spend almost every day with a pit in my stomach over the fact that my graduation was delayed, again, because my advisor lied to me, and my complaints again go nowhere
because what's a student going to do? leave with no degree while in huge debt?
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
Now, I'd like to stop you there: expulsion from college is a far more severe punishment than plenty of punishments that the criminal justice system metes out. If I had to choose, back when I was in undergrad, between expulsion or spending a week in jail, for example, I'd pick the week in jail and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Expulsion will effectively blacklist you from a college education, as pretty much any other reputable college will require your college disciplinary record as part of the applications process, and a college isn't a social club or a restaurant or whatever other silly analogy we're throwing up today, it's basically the gateway to the middle class. Getting thrown out of college would have more severe effects in the short or long term than a whole range of actual criminal punishments.
Which isn't to say that a college shouldn't be allowed to expel anyone for anything other than a criminal conviction! But there needs to be some standard of evidence and due process, doesn't there?
I'm just arguing that that standard of evidence and due process does not necessarily need to be identical to the formal legal system's.
And when we're talking about the judicial punishments for rape, I'd say they're roughly equivalent to or worse than expulsion. I mean, try doing some number of years in jail and then getting out and trying to enroll in a new college with a rape conviction on your record.
Well, if we're broadening the scope beyond rape, the punishment for, say, drug possession may be harsher or less harsh in the courts than at college, depending on which college and what legal jurisdiction.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
are you serious with this?
yes, yes there is!
hearing liberals talk about one of the worst most regressive parts of our justice system and say "yeah we should bring it over to college campuses while we're at it" is maddening
So you think cases judges shouldn't be able to deny bail when they believe the accused is a danger simply because the accused hasn't yet been convicted?
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
are you serious with this?
yes, yes there is!
hearing liberals talk about one of the worst most regressive parts of our justice system and say "yeah we should bring it over to college campuses while we're at it" is maddening
So you think cases judges shouldn't be able to deny bail when they believe the accused is a danger simply because the accused hasn't yet been convicted?
Yeah that's exactly what I said, those dangerous drug dealers, we gotta make sure they're incarcerated before they're convicted or they might sell more pot
if there is a decent standard of evidence determining someone to be a threat to themselves or others, then I am absolutely for preemptive action of the minimum necessary level to keep all parties safe (everything from house arrest, monitoring anklets, to incarceration if there is compelling evidence of the danger they pose)
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
are you serious with this?
yes, yes there is!
hearing liberals talk about one of the worst most regressive parts of our justice system and say "yeah we should bring it over to college campuses while we're at it" is maddening
So you think cases judges shouldn't be able to deny bail when they believe the accused is a danger simply because the accused hasn't yet been convicted?
In general the objection to the bail/bond system is more on the systemic racism in how bail is applied and the fact that it is frequently set in such a way as to deny the poor bail and/or destroy them on collection.
There is less of an objection to holding somebody on no bail for presenting a clear and present danger, but you still picked a really truly awful example.
We had an affirmative consent thread less than a year ago, and like all rape threads it got locked when people got too goosey about it. Can we maybe stick to the question of campus justice, to which the notion of affirmative consent is extremely tangential?
On that issue, I don't buy the argument that campus police shouldn't be involved in rape because they sometimes are incentivized to sweep it under the rug--if we were disqualifying organizations from handing out justice due to corruption we wouldn't have anybody handling this.
The university definitely has a responsibility to keep its students safe, and if it fails in that responsibility we go after them for it--isn't covering up a crime already illegal?--but that doesn't mean we exclude all campus police everywhere automatically.
University discipline committees may indeed have different standards of proof, guilt, etc., but this is fine because they also have different punishments compared to the real police. Actual legal proceedings need higher standards because they can give you a criminal record, or take your rights away; at worst a college can expel you, which isn't nearly as severe. Yet it's sometimes very important that, say, a college ensures that a rape victim won't have to see his or her rapist at school. There's definitely a gray area where there may not be enough evidence for a an accused rapist to be convicted, but there's enough evidence to warrant measures being taken to discipline the accused or separate them from the alleged victim.
The argument that is made is that an expulsion for sexual assault is such a grievous black mark that can close a number of doors, so it has to be treated differently. Of course, there are a number of other grounds for expulsion that are just as much of a black mark in the academic world, such as plagiarism, and yet there's no real outcry over students removed on those grounds.
Ok, I'm not sure how I feel with respect to the rest of this discussion but, at least at my school, neither of these statements regarding plagiarism are accurate.
1) Every case of plagiarism I have seen as both an undergraduate and a TA has been cut and dry. We don't see people copying CONCEPTS or whatever other nonsense is in your academic dishonesty section of your syllabus. We see people blatantly pasting material from other sources or each other. Sure, I probably can't prove you cheated when your "Hello World" script looks the same as another. But I sure as shit will catch you when you're entire code base for solving differential equations is lifted from someone else in your class. Or that entire sentence is taken from somewhere else.
2) Students raise that outcry every time a real punishment is leveled against them. I've seen parents brought in, trying to claim their kid is "just a good kid!" when they've been caught submitting the aforementioned copy pasted work 3 times, and been before a tribunal twice already regarding the behavior.
There is a very real and involved process when it comes to academic dishonesty. If the same level of rigor is applied in campus handling of rape cases, then there shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. My concerns stem from oversight ensuring the university actually holds themselves to that standard in all serious cases that are brought before it.
a school should be sure enough if they pull the trigger on expelling a student who is later found innocent that they have to repay the student for economic and emotional harm they suffered
without going to court if possible, because poor students cant afford lawyers
Anyway, students are profoundly ignorant of the power they wield, and universities should have as black a record as the students they wrongfully fail
students don't have any power at all, universities grind them underfoot, lie to them, rob them, and there's nothing they can do unless they're wealthy enough to hire a legal team
I think this differs greatly from institution to institution.
At an Ivy league or other expensive private university, the student is a cash cow.
It comes down to the old Fight Club formula: if the probability that keeping the student will lead to a lawsuit times the number of students who face disciplinary action is less than the total tuition value of the student over four years, then the university is incentivized to kowtow to the student.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
well now that I'm in my last year they've dropped all pretense of customer service with me, I have to graduate here, they know it and they know there's nothing I can do about it
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
When it comes to felonies, the university should wait until the case goes to grand jury before making a decision.
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
I can live with this
Yes but what if you got a six figure settlement and a clean slate transfer
What if you got FAFSA and state tuition and loans on top, and you can't afford a bus pass let alone a good lawyer?
That's a problem that really highlights the vulnerability of the student population. They do have power, but only to screw things up after they leave.
As the practical owner of most of these students and their bondsman to the universities, the government may be able to assist in laying the smack down - with the federal funds it pays into the school's themselves. Or there can be some sort of insurance scheme that pays for the admin.
The fact that students are made of balsa wood creates problems with reporting, too: it diminishes real reports and encourages false reports as the stake is easily the accused's life.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If a movie theater can throw you out for texting, why can't a college throw you out for raping?
There is a very real and involved process when it comes to academic dishonesty. If the same level of rigor is applied in campus handling of rape cases, then there shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. My concerns stem from oversight ensuring the university actually holds themselves to that standard in all serious cases that are brought before it.
The whole reason we are arguing is because this is not what happens currently for rape cases at universities. Currently, it goes one of two ways: if it's a popular staff member or popular student, the rape gets hidden, otherwise, the university assumes the student is guilty, and drops the hammer, before the investigation even begins. You can just look at the recent Rolling Stone / UVA case to see the latter happen, where UVA dropped the hammer on a fraternity (effectively forcing about a dozen students to withdraw due to harrassment) over a rape story that's since been proven to be a complete work of fiction.
In reality, both methods currently used by universities are horrible. Instead, universities should defer to the police and wait for the prosecutor to make a decision. It should be "go to police or lose your job" when it comes to felonies.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter?
All felonies should be handled by the police, full stop. Rape is a felony.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
The point I am trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy, and the university should not have to wait on the police to expel somebody. If they are willing to expel somebody because a security guard caught them smoking pot, they should not have to wait for a police investigation because the security guard caught them selling pot. Universities absolutely can and should be able to take their own disciplinary action independent of a police investigation.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
We have a complex and thoroughly tested system for establishing the facts of a criminal case and coming to conclusions w/r/t responsibility; when universities try to go outside that they inevitably wind up making a mess of it, as in this case or that fiasco at Columbia. I see little reason that universities should even be trying to serve this function, to be honest.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter?
All felonies should be handled by the police, full stop. Rape is a felony.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
The point I am trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy, and the university should not have to wait on the police to expel somebody. If they are willing to expel somebody because a security guard caught them smoking pot, they should not have to wait for a police investigation because the security guard caught them selling pot. Universities absolutely can and should be able to take their own disciplinary action independent of a police investigation.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
We have a complex and thoroughly tested system for establishing the facts of a criminal case and coming to conclusions w/r/t responsibility; when universities try to go outside that they inevitably wind up making a mess of it, as in this case or that fiasco at Columbia. I see little reason that universities should even be trying to serve this function, to be honest.
I literally said, in this post, that I do not think that universities should try to serve as criminal investigators. I do not believe this means universities should only be allowed to take action based on the police.
If a movie theater can throw you out for texting, why can't a college throw you out for raping?
One is throwing you out the door, the other is throwing you out the third story balcony
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
To people saying schools should tie punishment to conviction of a crime: at what point does it jump from being solely a school matter to being a police matter?
All felonies should be handled by the police, full stop. Rape is a felony.
A university should never, ever investigate a felony without police involvement, as that's basically contaminating evidence.
The cutoff line should be somewhere in the misdemeanor list. As in, maybe handling drug possession internally, but referring drug sales to the cops. There's a whole list of misdemeanors and the university should just have a checklist of which ones get automatically bumped up to the police, which ones they're willing to handle internally.
The point I am trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy, and the university should not have to wait on the police to expel somebody. If they are willing to expel somebody because a security guard caught them smoking pot, they should not have to wait for a police investigation because the security guard caught them selling pot. Universities absolutely can and should be able to take their own disciplinary action independent of a police investigation.
I agree with you that universities should probably not mess up actual legal investigation when there is doubt about the outcome, but I disagree with the implication (apologies if this is not your position) a university cannot take action based on the police investigation or reports from their own personnel.
We have a complex and thoroughly tested system for establishing the facts of a criminal case and coming to conclusions w/r/t responsibility; when universities try to go outside that they inevitably wind up making a mess of it, as in this case or that fiasco at Columbia. I see little reason that universities should even be trying to serve this function, to be honest.
I literally said, in this post, that I do not think that universities should try to serve as criminal investigators. I do not believe this means universities should only be allowed to take action based on the police.
they're either investigators or they aren't
a university can have policies that let them expel/suspend/whatever a student who assaults another student; this seems noncontroversial. But there's imo little evidence that they can be trusted to do their own fact-finding and if they can't, they shouldn't be levying punishment on that basis until someone trustworthy has done so.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If a movie theater can throw you out for texting, why can't a college throw you out for raping?
One is throwing you out the door, the other is throwing you out the third story balcony
It would be great if students realized the gravity of the situation then, and stayed a little more grounded. Don't give them any reason to drop you if they have you dangling like that.
Puns.
But seriously, it's not that hard to avoid possibly having your life ruined while in college, just like it's super easy to avoid getting a DUI or any of the other hundreds of stupid things that young people get up to.
it's not difficult to go through life without committing any serious crimes; and yet, we need a reasonable way of dealing with people who may have committed serious crimes
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I literally said, in this post, that I do not think that universities should try to serve as criminal investigators. I do not believe this means universities should only be allowed to take action based on the police.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here is willing to say indictment by a grand jury is a fair line in the sand.
Temporary suspension upon indictment, to be made permanent if convicted.
Before the grand jury convenes, the results of the investigation are still unknown.
Until then, do nothing, because you don't ruin a kid's life based on conjecture.
it's not difficult to go through life without committing any serious crimes; and yet, we need a reasonable way of dealing with people who may have committed serious crimes
I know. I just hate all this hand wringing about false accusations of rape like it's an easy situation to fall into. Even the high profile cases, there was usually a lot of poor decision making going on that led up to it.
And that's really what we're worried about here, right? People getting their lives ruined even though they didn't actually commit the crime.
Posts
Basically, if there's not enough evidence for a prosecutor to convince a grand jury, then there's not enough evidence for the university to suspend a student.
We've already seen what happens when a university jumps the gun. Just look at the Rolling Stone / UVA case. UVA suspended a frat immediately, based just on the Rolling Stone story, even though police investigation that followed showed zero evidence of a crime. Hell, the police report practically said that everything in the Rolling Stone story was a lie. Thus, the answer is, wait for the prosecutor to convince a grand jury that a crime occurred.
Why? (And considering some of the gooseshit we've seen with grand juries as of late, I'm not sure that's a good argument.)
No it isn't.
This has been explained to you at length Hedgie.
If you can't prove the dishonest appropriation you cannot prove the offence.
And this comes into play all the god damn time in courts. The defense will emphasis it every single time.
Public colleges are part of the state. Should the state be able to punish people for crimes it can not convict them of?
I agree with all of this
who said the bolded, did I miss a post?
it's just expelling students because they've been accused of a crime is ludicrous, you could well be ruining their lives
Assuming grand juries were efficient, fast, and incapable of error I'd find this more reasonable, but again, this prevents a university from expelling a student they discovered selling drugs* until an appropriate amount of time through the justice system. That seems a bit off to me.
*or committing any other felony a campus security officer could discover, but your specific example was drug sales.
What's the big hurry?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm just arguing that that standard of evidence and due process does not necessarily need to be identical to the formal legal system's.
And when we're talking about the judicial punishments for rape, I'd say they're roughly equivalent to or worse than expulsion. I mean, try doing some number of years in jail and then getting out and trying to enroll in a new college with a rape conviction on your record.
I'm not seeing a compelling reason universities shouldn't be able to expel somebody whom a credible staff member found committing a crime as soon as possible.
Because staff members can be wrong or lie, and it's an action that is profoundly hard to undo
why shouldn't we just throw everyone in prison without trials if a credible witness testifies to police? if they're innocent itll sort itself out later
The University is responsible for providi ng students with a safe environment. Simply waiting the six months or year or more places other students at risk.
Maybe a temporary suspension until the case concludes with reinstatement if the case was baseless would be a more reasonable?
Keep in mind as well that even if the particular crime itself isn't proven, there are often other disciplinary violations the school can take action on. So if, for example, someone denies rape but acknowledges giving the underage accuser alcohol, they could certainly be disciplined on those grounds.
They should be able to expel anyone at any time
And then get sued to oblivion and suffer immensely if they get it wrong
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
but hey you know, why have a burden of proof or anything
I can live with this
They do if they use an affirmative defense - for example, self-defense, or duress.
Introducing an affirmative defense into our legal framework does not, in and of itself, invert the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." If it did, we wouldn't be able to treat self-defense that way in criminal cases.
In fact, we already use consent as an affirmative defense in some types of civil tort cases.
With both of these facts in mind (that affirmative defenses exist in criminal cases, and consent is an affirmative defense in civil cases) the legal ramifications of using consent as an affirmative defense in criminal sexual assault cases aren't remotely as disastrous as certain chicken littles claim.
That said, affirmative consent as a criminal justice paradigm overlaps with, but is not precisely, the topic of this thread. Even if we were to adopt affirmative consent in criminal courts (and I strongly believe we should), that doesn't mean that I want college administrators enforcing it. I'm passionate about affirmative consent, but I'm ambivalent on how much of a role I think college administrations should have in enforcing sexual assault policies on-campus.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We do hold people prior to their trial if they are believed to be a danger to others.
Bail / bond can be denied, and people quite frequently can't post bail / bond. Their lives are frequently ruined as well, but there isn't much outcry ti abolish the bail / bond system.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The justice system needs guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A university does not.
Further, again, I am objecting to measures that require some level of involvement of the criminal justice system for some acts before the university is allowed to be involved. In the vast majority of cases I expect that the justice system and the university would agree on the crime, but in many cases I do not expect them to, and in many cases things that are serious academic violations are not remotely serious enough for the police to deal with. And arbitrary standards for "when the police need to be involved and exclude the university" don't make any sense to me, since there's no difference between a faculty member discovering an expulsion-worthy misdemeanor or noncrime and an explusion-worthy felony (again, assuming the staff is not doing their own investigations; I don't support that).
What if you got FAFSA and state tuition and loans on top, and you can't afford a bus pass let alone a good lawyer?
are you serious with this?
yes, yes there is!
hearing liberals talk about one of the worst most regressive parts of our justice system and say "yeah we should bring it over to college campuses while we're at it" is maddening
I dislike the "well if you have enough resources maybe you can get this rectified after years of court cases" paradigm. Kinda something you should design to avoid.
Also I'm sick of the public at large getting stuck with huge bills for government employees who make all kinds of maleficent fuck ups but have qualified immunity.
students don't have any power at all, universities grind them underfoot, lie to them, rob them, and there's nothing they can do unless they're wealthy enough to hire a legal team
I spend almost every day with a pit in my stomach over the fact that my graduation was delayed, again, because my advisor lied to me, and my complaints again go nowhere
because what's a student going to do? leave with no degree while in huge debt?
Well, if we're broadening the scope beyond rape, the punishment for, say, drug possession may be harsher or less harsh in the courts than at college, depending on which college and what legal jurisdiction.
So you think cases judges shouldn't be able to deny bail when they believe the accused is a danger simply because the accused hasn't yet been convicted?
Yeah that's exactly what I said, those dangerous drug dealers, we gotta make sure they're incarcerated before they're convicted or they might sell more pot
if there is a decent standard of evidence determining someone to be a threat to themselves or others, then I am absolutely for preemptive action of the minimum necessary level to keep all parties safe (everything from house arrest, monitoring anklets, to incarceration if there is compelling evidence of the danger they pose)
In general the objection to the bail/bond system is more on the systemic racism in how bail is applied and the fact that it is frequently set in such a way as to deny the poor bail and/or destroy them on collection.
There is less of an objection to holding somebody on no bail for presenting a clear and present danger, but you still picked a really truly awful example.
Ok, I'm not sure how I feel with respect to the rest of this discussion but, at least at my school, neither of these statements regarding plagiarism are accurate.
1) Every case of plagiarism I have seen as both an undergraduate and a TA has been cut and dry. We don't see people copying CONCEPTS or whatever other nonsense is in your academic dishonesty section of your syllabus. We see people blatantly pasting material from other sources or each other. Sure, I probably can't prove you cheated when your "Hello World" script looks the same as another. But I sure as shit will catch you when you're entire code base for solving differential equations is lifted from someone else in your class. Or that entire sentence is taken from somewhere else.
2) Students raise that outcry every time a real punishment is leveled against them. I've seen parents brought in, trying to claim their kid is "just a good kid!" when they've been caught submitting the aforementioned copy pasted work 3 times, and been before a tribunal twice already regarding the behavior.
There is a very real and involved process when it comes to academic dishonesty. If the same level of rigor is applied in campus handling of rape cases, then there shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. My concerns stem from oversight ensuring the university actually holds themselves to that standard in all serious cases that are brought before it.
a school should be sure enough if they pull the trigger on expelling a student who is later found innocent that they have to repay the student for economic and emotional harm they suffered
without going to court if possible, because poor students cant afford lawyers
I think this differs greatly from institution to institution.
At an Ivy league or other expensive private university, the student is a cash cow.
It comes down to the old Fight Club formula: if the probability that keeping the student will lead to a lawsuit times the number of students who face disciplinary action is less than the total tuition value of the student over four years, then the university is incentivized to kowtow to the student.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's a problem that really highlights the vulnerability of the student population. They do have power, but only to screw things up after they leave.
As the practical owner of most of these students and their bondsman to the universities, the government may be able to assist in laying the smack down - with the federal funds it pays into the school's themselves. Or there can be some sort of insurance scheme that pays for the admin.
The fact that students are made of balsa wood creates problems with reporting, too: it diminishes real reports and encourages false reports as the stake is easily the accused's life.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In reality, both methods currently used by universities are horrible. Instead, universities should defer to the police and wait for the prosecutor to make a decision. It should be "go to police or lose your job" when it comes to felonies.
We have a complex and thoroughly tested system for establishing the facts of a criminal case and coming to conclusions w/r/t responsibility; when universities try to go outside that they inevitably wind up making a mess of it, as in this case or that fiasco at Columbia. I see little reason that universities should even be trying to serve this function, to be honest.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I literally said, in this post, that I do not think that universities should try to serve as criminal investigators. I do not believe this means universities should only be allowed to take action based on the police.
One is throwing you out the door, the other is throwing you out the third story balcony
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
they're either investigators or they aren't
a university can have policies that let them expel/suspend/whatever a student who assaults another student; this seems noncontroversial. But there's imo little evidence that they can be trusted to do their own fact-finding and if they can't, they shouldn't be levying punishment on that basis until someone trustworthy has done so.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It would be great if students realized the gravity of the situation then, and stayed a little more grounded. Don't give them any reason to drop you if they have you dangling like that.
Puns.
But seriously, it's not that hard to avoid possibly having your life ruined while in college, just like it's super easy to avoid getting a DUI or any of the other hundreds of stupid things that young people get up to.
it's not difficult to go through life without committing any serious crimes; and yet, we need a reasonable way of dealing with people who may have committed serious crimes
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Temporary suspension upon indictment, to be made permanent if convicted.
Before the grand jury convenes, the results of the investigation are still unknown.
Until then, do nothing, because you don't ruin a kid's life based on conjecture.
I know. I just hate all this hand wringing about false accusations of rape like it's an easy situation to fall into. Even the high profile cases, there was usually a lot of poor decision making going on that led up to it.
And that's really what we're worried about here, right? People getting their lives ruined even though they didn't actually commit the crime.