Current Events > What's your opinion on campus sexual assault?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Connelly-DeVos-reverses-Obama-era-rules-on-12222036.php
---

the 1 in 5 claim was never true and anybody who believed that was a fool.
---

Anything that backs away from liberal insanity such as being hit on = sexual assault is a good thing.
---

The new, temporary rules say universities can require "a clear and convincing standard" of proof in cases of sexual assault claims. The Education Dept., under President Obama, required colleges to use a lower "preponderance of evidence" standard.

Critics claim the new DeVos rules of proof will discourage young women from the already difficult and painful job of reliving a sexual assault.
---

YoshitoKikuchi posted...

The new, temporary rules say universities can require "a clear and convincing standard" of proof in cases of sexual assault claims. The Education Dept., under President Obama, required colleges to use a lower "preponderance of evidence" standard.

Critics claim the new DeVos rules of proof will discourage young women from the already difficult and painful job of reliving a sexual assault.

Good
---

YoshitoKikuchi posted...

Critics claim the new DeVos rules of proof will discourage young women from the already difficult and painful job of reliving a sexual assault

They're not wrong

....It's bad?


If you mean DeVos reversing Obama policy then that was fucking stupid and DeVos might be second to Trump in being the least qualified for their position
---

The Education Dept., under President Obama, required colleges to use a lower "preponderance of evidence" standard

But these are criminal allegations, and that's the standard for civil suits.

That's just not right.
---

It should be handled by law enforcement. It was a dumb idea to try to force colleges to take law enforcement into their own hands for some reason.
---

Axiom posted...

YoshitoKikuchi posted...

Critics claim the new DeVos rules of proof will discourage young women from the already difficult and painful job of reliving a sexual assault

They're not wrong

Critics of due process say it makes convicting criminals more difficult.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

But these are criminal allegations, and that's the standard for civil suits.

Not at that point.

The college does not have the power to impose criminal penalties on students. They are in effect civil violations because any decision made by the college would be limited to the student's ability to attend the school, not end up in jail, which is why that standard does make sense. Any criminal charges would be prosecuted separately by the local SA's office.
---

IIRC, the fraternity that was banned and then ransacked after the Rape on Campus article was published never fully recovered. Even after Rolling Stone retracted the story and disavowed the source.

A preponderance of evidence is totally subjective. An overly aggressive Rolling Stone writer is not enough evidence to get people kicked out of school.
---

They are in effect civil violations because any decision made by the college would be limited to the student's ability to attend the school, not end up in jail, which is why that standard standard does make sense. Any criminal charges would be prosecuted separately by the local SA's office.

And yet the penalty essentially makes the person unable to complete higher education. The penalty is far beyond a reasonable scope for a civil complaint to levy.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

And yet the penalty essentially makes the person unable to complete higher education.

Maybe you shouldn't rape someone.
---

DezCaughtIt posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

And yet the penalty essentially makes the person unable to complete higher education.

Maybe you shouldn't rape someone.

The penalty for being accused, not the penalty for the crime. An accusation should never be enough evidence to run someone's life. If there's not enough evidence to convict someone if a crime, there isn't enough evidence to essentially ruin their entire educational future.

As Rolling Stone said:

With its publication, we are officially retracting 'A Rape on Campus.' Weare also committing ourselves to a series of recommendations aboutjournalistic practices that are spelled out in the report.We would like to apologize to our readers and to all of those who weredamaged by our story and the ensuing fallout, including members of the PhiKappa Psi fraternity and UVA administrators and students.
---

Aww poor little rapists.
---

my opinion is that such an action should be handled by proper authorities and not by corporations acting like education facilities
---

DezCaughtIt posted...

Aww poor little rapists.

I guess the innocent people who are accused are acceptable collateral damage in your bullshit quest for justice?

Being accused should not doom you forever. You would've thought we'd learned that after the Salem Witch Trials.

Hollywood made a stink about how horrible the McCarthy era was; this is just 21st century McCarthy-ism, replacing communism with social issues.
---

If you can provide me proof that more times than not the accused turns out to be innocent I'll change my tone towards this.

But until then.


Aww poor little rapists.

Also you're comparing people accused of sexually assaulting someone to the witch trials. Two totally different events with much different context.
---

If you can provide me proof that more times than not the accused turns out to be innocent I'll change my tone towards this

This literally has no logic behind it whatsoever.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

And yet the penalty essentially makes the person unable to complete higher education. The penalty is far beyond a reasonable scope for a civil complaint to levy.

A lot of civil judgments carry significant consequences in other areas of life. Think about what foreclosure, bankruptcy, or having a driving license suspended does. I feel like I probably generally agree with you about how troublesome some of the actions colleges have been empowered to take are on the students but wanted to correct that response. Civil doesn't just mean law suit/money. There are real world consequences they just don't end up with jail time.

I practice civil and admin law so its an area I'm familiar with. Some of the procedures that the colleges have put in place for these types of hearings/cases is really crazy stuff that IMO can be violations of due process. It will be interesting to see what happens to some of these cases as they go through the courts. I don't remember which specific schools were doing what but they weren't allowing basic tenants of the American trial process. Relaxed or no hearsay rules, no right to see or respond to the petitioner's testimony, limited discovery. It just seems like the entire deck is stacked against an accused.
---

Also you're comparing people accused of sexually assaulting someone to the witch trials. Two totally different events with much different context

It's the same concept. If someone accused you, you're fucked for life, even if you win in court.
---

It just seems like the entire deck is stacked against an accused.

Worse. Even if you prove beyond any doubt that the accused was innocent (Duke Lacrosse, UVA fraternity case), you're still essentially screwed for life.
---

I think that what it was before the Obama-led rules was bad because of the amount of schools who buried everything and made real victims suffer for it, especially if the perpetrator was an athlete or other 'campus celebrity'
I think that the Obama-era guidelines also screwed over suspects who deserve a fair trial regardless of whether they're guilty or not
So like, I'm ok with some new guidelines, but I don't think going back to how it used to be will be good

I'm mostly concerned with two other things, though
1. I don't think Devos is qualified so anything she touches is gonna need more rigorous studying than someone like Mattis, for instance
2. I'm bothered that this is something the administration seems to want to focus on. They're arguing that innocent people have been punished under Obama's guidelines, but Trump turns around and is ok with telling the Suffolk County Police Department to be rough with their suspects? Not to mention the other countless statements Trump has made about "shooting first, questions later" style of LAW AND ORDER
I just flat out don't like the hypocrisy when it comes to this: we do need fair trials and representation for every suspect, even a serial rapist -- but don't turn around and support Stop and Frisk or beating up suspected MS13 members (or even just protesters in general).
---

This mob justice mentality we've adopted lately really bothers me. How many lives have been totally ruined over saying something sarcastic on Twitter and having a horde of offended babies dox them?
---

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/04/why_rolling_stone_deserved_to_lose_its_rape_on_campus_defamation_case.html

Eramo, whoreportedlywas in tears after the verdict was read, had received hundreds of angry letters and emails and faced protests following the story, CBS Newsreported. In closing arguments, one of her lawyersarguedthat the magazine turned her into a “villain.” Erdely’s editor, Sean Woods, argued that Eramo should have spoken with the magazine, implying that perhaps one of the biggest journalistic fiascos in recent memory might have been averted had she done so. But Eramo’s lawyers maintained that she couldn’t legally discuss Jackie’s account and that made her an “easy target” forRolling Stone.

Eramo demonstrated to the jury that the magazine had made her look "odious, infamous or ridiculous” over the course of the longer-than-two-week trial. She also had to prove a high bar of “actual malice” on the part of Erdely and her publishers, which meant demonstrating that they had known what they were reporting was false or published the information with reckless disregard for the truth.



It shouldn't require that much to clear your name
---

prince_leo posted...

I think that what it was before the Obama-led rules was bad because of the amount of schools who buried everything and made real victims suffer for it, especially if the perpetrator was an athlete or other 'campus celebrity'
I think that the Obama-era guidelines also screwed over suspects who deserve a fair trial regardless of whether they're guilty or not
So like, I'm ok with some new guidelines, but I don't think going back to how it used to be will be good

I'm mostly concerned with two other things, though
1. I don't think Devos is qualified so anything she touches is gonna need more rigorous studying than someone like Mattis, for instance
2. I'm bothered that this is something the administration seems to want to focus on. They're arguing that innocent people have been punished under Obama's guidelines, but Trump turns around and is ok with telling the Suffolk County Police Department to be rough with their suspects? Not to mention the other countless statements Trump has made about "shooting first, questions later" style of LAW AND ORDER
I just flat out don't like the hypocrisy when it comes to this: we do need fair trials and representation for every suspect, even a serial rapist -- but don't turn around and support Stop and Frisk or beating up suspected MS13 members (or even just protesters in general).

All of this

bump
---

Something to do when bored?

>.>
---

<_<
---

There's way more dudes getting away with sexual assault than there are false accusations of it. If you think otherwise, you're a fool.
---

It stinks
---