Tue September 12, 2017 12:39 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 12:40 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 1:03 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 1:09 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 2:11 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 3:05 pm
simple schoolboy wrote:Green Habit wrote:Not me.BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"From the letter itself:simple schoolboy wrote:The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.
Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?
https://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices ... 01104.html
I tried to google words like "suspend", "expel", or "expulsion" and came up empty. It's pretty nondescript on what disciplinary action should be taken against the offender. And I think that's fine: there should be room for mitigating factors as appropriate, but I also wouldn't take expulsion off the table altogether.Most of the complaints stem from the insistence on using the preponderance of the evidence standard in these cases. But I don't see why that's unreasonable. This doesn't deal with throwing the offenders in jail, or even seeking civil remedies. At worst, it's kicking offenders off a campus in which they've been deemed to make life a living hell for at least one person among the campus population. That shouldn't mean that the offender can't pursue higher education at a different school, but does mean that their presence at the school where this happened has become so toxic that their continued presence is harming the student population as a whole.simple schoolboy wrote:Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.
Preponderance of evidence is one of the lesser issues. There is no due process. The normal Title IX type hearing entails getting notice a few days before a hearing, and receiving no indication of what the accusations are before the hearing. Generally, the accused is barred from bringing a lawyer, or anyone allowed to advocate on their behalf. The accused is not allowed to introduce evidence, or at least the investigator is not required to accept any submissions.
Its wholly one sided, and completely unfair. This also goes beyond alleged sexual misconduct. Professors have had complaints filed against them for writing papers that are insufficiently pro rape hysteria.
If being kicked off campus is an un-serious punishment, then it seems totally inappropriate for this to be the sanction that rapists get.
Tue September 12, 2017 3:27 pm
McParadigm wrote:I sure do appreciate how we will never have to wonder about Ted Cruz and porn. Yup I sure do appreciate that. It's all we have left: the absence of Ted Cruz porn weirdness.
Think I'll check my morning twitter feed now.
Tue September 12, 2017 3:28 pm
Tue September 12, 2017 4:30 pm
Wed September 13, 2017 1:35 am
Wed September 13, 2017 6:30 am
Wed September 13, 2017 3:24 pm
Thu September 14, 2017 9:57 pm
Tue September 19, 2017 12:22 pm
bune wrote:Yeah, after FIVE charges.
Sun September 24, 2017 3:09 am
Mon September 25, 2017 9:17 pm
Tue September 26, 2017 4:15 pm
Wed September 27, 2017 11:21 pm
Thu September 28, 2017 4:22 am