Okay, apparently the university won their case then.
Oh wait.
They lost because they didn’t follow their own rules, which is clearly unfair.
That’s good for John Doe, but it won’t matter much to everyone else who is accused by institutions that actually do follow their own rules.
And I left out the money quote (my emphasis):
Even in the case of a sexual assault accusation—where “[a] finding of responsibility will . . . have a substantial and lasting impact” on the student … the protection afforded to him “need not reach the same level . . . that would be present in a criminal prosecution.” … Review under Mathews asks only whether John Doe “had an opportunity to ‘respond, explain, and defend,’” not whether a jury could constitutionally convict him using the same procedures.
That means a university can potentially discipline a student even if the student is found not guilty at trial.
There are like… 25 “money quotes” in the opposite direction.
Defendants insist that Roe’s nonappearance did not impact the fairness of the proceedings
because Doe still had an opportunity be heard. The ARC panel invited him to “summarize what
happened” in his own words, and Doe took advantage of that opportunity. He disputed Roe’s
overall interpretation of events and a number of her specific claims. Because plaintiff was able
to draw attention to alleged inconsistencies in Roe’s statements, defendants argue that crossexamination
would have been futile. We disagree.
But whatever. I’m done because this is just as pointless as it was last time.
But it’s not enough usually.
No, you misunderstand dude.
Imagine you are gay, or a muslim.
I LIE about you committing some crime, because I don’t want you there. If you require no standard of evidence at all, beyond me saying you did it, then you are directly enabling that behavior.
I’m amazed that you don’t see the problem with punishing people for crimes without any sort of due process.
Your quote says that the university admits that they didn’t follow the rules, but argued that it wouldn’t have made a difference anyway if they had. Which is a weak argument, and rejected by the court.
Rules should be followed, I think we can all agree on that. You are trying to make this case into a judicial reprimand of how universities generally treat sexual assault allegations. But it’s not, and the court said so many times.
Timex, in this context, when you say, “due process,” what do you specifically mean?
I’m thinking a hearing that is akin to an actual trial. Some sort of evidence in support of the accusations made against them.
An eyewitness accusation is evidence. There are many, many criminal convictions where the only evidence was eyewitness testimony from a single accuser.
Sure, the accuser might be lying. The point of giving testimony directly to a jury is to try to detect liars. Humans are surprisingly good at it. There is also legal jeopardy to lying. The same is true in the university setting, except the accuser gives their account in front of a panel rather than a jury.
Such a thing would be extremely unlikely. Minimally, you’d need evidence establishing things like their presence at the scene.
We’ve already seen cases where folks straight up lied. Sorry dude, but that is not enough. If that’s literally ALL YOU HAVE, then no man, you can’t just ruin someone’s life.
Or maybe you can… but I’m going to say that such a thing is wrong.
Or black, since you know… half of these things are leveled against black dudes, who are less than 5% of the college population. Or maybe black dudes are all rapists. Or 10 times as likely to be rapists. I didn’t do the math, I’ll leave that up to Richard Spencer to run the numbers on.
Or back to this:
The alleged victim need not be a racist, because the Title IX process does not require the alleged victim to be the one filing the complaint. Consider the case of Grant Neal, a black athlete accused of sexually abusing a white woman, even though both of them agreed their sex was consensual.
The point is this: people on the left generally believe—correctly—the efficacy of the criminal justice system is affected by racial bias. Many of the most progressive leftists also think campuses are especially racist places, given all the students chalking #Trump2016 (a more dubious assertion in my view.) Why then do they think it’s such a stretch to suggest that Title IX, a powerful mechanism for settling scores, could be weaponized against vulnerable populations: black and immigrant students?
WHO’S DOING THE RAPING, SHIVA?
This argument is the epitome of liberal stupidity. Twist in knots to not be sexist, dodge arguments that might be racist, common sense need not apply.
It’s not unlikely at all. If you are mugged and you are all alone, it will be your word against whoever you identify as the mugger. Most likely there will be nothing to establish the mugger’s presence at the scene, apart from your positive ID. And no, they don’t need to recover your belongings to convict.
For that matter, if you are pulled over for reckless driving, it will probably be your word against the officer’s. Maybe there is video footage, maybe not. Do you think nobody was convicted of reckless driving before dashcams were invented?
Plenty of other examples. Simple assault, rape, witnessed vandalism, etc. A lot of them come down to one person’s account versus another’s.
It’s extremely unlikely that this would ever actually happen. Virtually impossible even. They wouldn’t even catch the mugger in that case.
The word of a law enforcement officer is inherently different from that of a random person, from a court’s perspective.
Yeah, and most of them don’t result in convictions when that’s all that it comes down to. Because due process means that it’s not enough.
Just to clarify my position here:
I’m not saying that you can’t be convicted on a single eye witness testimony. You certainly can.
But for such a prosecution to work, you need to establish the credibility of that witness. That’s key to such a case. And that is the due process that I’m talking about. Does their story make sense? Do they have reason to lie? Etc.
Wait. What? Are just going to ignore every case that’s wrongly convicted someone due to witness testimony?
I was just pointing out that in the case of a mugger, if literally all you had was an eye witness, how would you even have caught the guy?
The fact that the cops actually picked him up would mean that he was in the area, or was picked up for some other crime… assuming you weren’t mugged by a guy you actually knew.
Sure they can. I mean, the whole process of providing a sketch artist and going through a lineup is based on single witness events like this.
Look, if it helps just substitute “assault” for “mugging”, and assume it was just you alone with someone you knew. Convictions like this happen all the time.
Absolutely not. In fact, I was asked if all else equal I was more likely to believe a police officer than a random person when I went for jury duty. Answering “yes” would get you kicked off the jury.
It’s true that officers tend to be more trusted by juries than random people. But that’s a bug not a feature.
Yes, of course. But it’s the jury that makes the final determination of credibility. That’s pretty much their job.
Or was black.
You don’t have to because it’s in the article.
black male students were accused of 50 percent of the sexual violations reported to the university, and they made up 40 percent of the students formally adjudicated.
This means that an accused black male student is less likely to be formally adjudicated than an accused non-black male student.
the numbers did not allow OCR to conclude that race was a statistically significant factor in Colgate’s adjudications—in any given year the number of men of any race referred for formal hearings was in the single digits.
Single digit counts could easily be the result of chance. It is useless to speculate about racism based on these data. We could literally be talking about two black guys.
But they are way, way, way more likely to be accused.