Colleges Not Properly Addressing Sexual Assault" class="article-topic-image" />another BFD from the Obama administration… please carry thru with the threat to with hold funds… enough is enough…
I have a great idea!
How about tying rape reporting requirements to be implemented on campuses to accepting federal funding.
Oh, I forgot, that Congress’ job to pass legislation first, them bills are sent to President for signature to formally enact the law.
Well, they’re not going after funds just yet, and since graduation season is over with only a few months left for this administration, is this really a big deal?
It puts a spotlight on the situation and puts colleges on notice, as such, it seems more of a “bully pulpit” thing than anything else.
I’ll take it, but I hope there is more to come.
What a wonderfully creative way to use the WH’s bully pulpit for real influence and change! Yep, definitely a BFD, thanks, Joe and Barack.
I think it is. Someone has to start it. Besides, won’t it be just a tad more difficult on any subsequent administration if they say they’re not going to continue the policy, and will happily visit colleges who don’t do everything possible to address the issue?
It’s a really big deal for the thousands or millions of women who have been sexually assaulted.
No big deal?
This is yet again bullying by the administration, under the Title IX cover, to force them to prosecute sexual differences of opinion with a “preponderance of evidence” standard.
Men and women engage in conduct. In some cases, a rape occurs. In other cases, a difference of opinion about the conduct is noted. These differences of opinion are now effectively criminalized.
If rape is a crime, it should be handled by the criminal justice apparatus, not assistant professors of Spanish Literature and adjunct professors of kinesiology. Let the DA prosecute rape.
In the Yale case, a Title IX administrator persuaded a person to file a rape charge against the captain of the b-ball team:
“Stern argues that Montague was in a consensual sexual relationship with another Yale student — including sleeping together four times. According to Stern’s statement, the woman went to the school’s Title IX coordinator a year after the alleged misconduct and that a school official, not the accuser, filed the complaint that resulted in his expulsion.”
While rapes occur, there are plenty of false accusations as well. It is really important that a system fair to both men and women be used to determine what happened. Differences of opinion cannot and should not be used to destroy the lives of men and women. It is inappropriate and inflammatory of the WH to use the great club of Title IX, which was never designed for this purpose, to force higher education institutions to do inappropriate things.
For those not familiar with the Yale case, here is a link:
We keep telling the women not to get raped and not telling the men to NOT rape the women.
What a curious circumstance.
I just finished-- a few minutes ago-- reading the 13-page letter that Stanford All-American swimmer and convicted rapist Brock Turner’s victim read directly to her rapist in court on June 6th.
Perhaps you should give it a read and balance your certitude and X-chromosomal-allegiances–
with another case-- where there was an attempt to portray the event as consensual.
One of the most gut-wrenching accounts of not only the crimes-- but of the post-rape reverse-persecutorial actions of the rapist through legal and psychological means. I stopped several times; and made myself continue.
Both of the accused in these cases are individuals of privilege and means.
Where neither should tip a scale.
jw1
Did you read about the Yale B-ball player?
The point is that there are a variety of cases, and many are dreadful, such as the Stanford case. Note, however, that the Stanford case has proceeded through the justice system. Where he was sentenced, convicted, etc.
As if rape was an actual crime, which is the notion that many have. It should go through the justice system.
Of course, what stops the pro-Title IX proponents from pursuing the justice system approach is that a vast, overwhelming number of cases would not result in the conviction of the man. And that is a horrible problem for the date-rape proponents, who need convictions on the thinnest of evidence. They are, in fact, rape hustlers. Like Al Sharpton is a race hustler. Same deal.
Many are dreadful in the other way. In the Yale case, he was convicted by a 3-2 vote of professors of something or other, based on the whining of the Title IX coordinator, who desperately needed to castrate a high-flying person to keep her job. Disgusting travesty of justice. Now the b-ball player did not play on the team during the tournament, did not get his diploma, will have great difficulty getting his degree.
That’s a fucking piece of crap, and your vindictive little need to get scalps of innocent men (and there are plenty of those) is just as disgusting. As Holmes noted, better a hundred guilty men go free rather than a single innocent person be convicted. Except in pretended rape cases, where all men are already guilty, and no trial need be held.
Disgusting. A horrible travesty of “justice”.
Here’s an idea - why not lower the legal drinking age back to 18, so college age people can imbibe in public at bars and restaurants instead of private parties. People will know what they’re drinking, bartender can cut them off if they’ve had too much, call them a cab, and more people can get home safely and unmolested.
Exemplary Nick.
No unwinding necessary.
Per Yale Univ via Jezebel:
Yale’s procedures for addressing allegations of sexual misconduct are thorough and fair: The allegations are investigated by an impartial fact finder, heard by five trained members of the Yale community, and decided by the accused student’s dean. Throughout the process, all parties have advisors, which can be legal counsel, and they can appeal a decision.
Where cases involve judgments about the witnesses’ credibility, all of the available corroborating or contradictory information is carefully weighed to determine who is telling the truth.
One out of five formal sexual misconduct hearings ends without a finding against the accused, and, in two out of five cases, the accused student receives a reprimand or probation. Only about one out of 10 cases ends in expulsion, and the decision to expel a student is made only after the most careful consideration, based on the facts and, when appropriate, disciplinary history.
The accused will get his day in a civil court.
But hey, it’s Obama’s fault!
Not the accused’s.
Do I have that right Nick?
jw1
Watching this thread, we see rape culture in action.
And that is not the same as a criminal trial. If he was a rapist, he should be prosecuted. By a DA.
But the point is that no DA would take this case. Waiting a year? Being talked into the case by the Title IX officer? Sleeping with him after the incident in question? There is no fucking way in hell that this would be prosecuted.
As it stands, he was convicted in a vote of the preponderance of the evidence. That is wrong, and a travesty of justice. If it was you, you would be very unhappy.
Note that the statistical points of 1 in 10, 2 in 10, etc, are irrelevant. Each case is treated by itself. Justice is not a statistical process. As a statistician, I know this for a fact.
As to the “conviction”, the “University-Wide COmmittee” consists of 45 members (this is on the internet). How many were present during the vote? Is it a secret ballot? Full committee or sub-committee? Random selection or by volunteers? Did the man have representation?
No one should be deprived of the tremendous value of the Yale diploma on the basis of the vote of a committee of untrained persons. It’s wrong. Yale will end up paying a lot money and granting him a diploma, as well as apologizing.
When the congress tries to repeal the rule they will then be shocked with new accertions of a war on women. They will be shocked when women get upset.
Because (1) a lot of students can’t afford to pay what a public drinking place charges, (2) a lot of students don’t want to be cut off before they’re totally wasted, and (3) a lot of drunken student behavior wouldn’t be permitted in public venues. Lowering the drinking age wouldn’t do a whole lot of good IMO; mostly it just interferes a little with a particular student buying the booze.
Well, you get to choose one of two options: 1) young age to drive cars, older age for drinking 2) young age to drink, older age to drive cars. In Europe, they go with 2) - you can drink at 14 or so, and you can drink distilled spirits at 18. It’s harder to get a license.
In the US, we have gone with 1). However, young people often get alcohol illicitely. So we have 1 and 2 together, which is bad. I prefer 2)