[Grange]

Probe Finds Princeton University Violated Title IX In Its Handling Of Sexual Assault Cases
http://www.huffingtonpost.comxxx/2014/11...07756.html (remove xxx but whole article posted below)

Quote:

Princeton University violated the gender equity law Title IX in its handling of sexual assault cases by favoring the rights of accused students over those of their reported victims, the U.S. Department of Education announced Wednesday.

The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights ended its four-year investigation of the school with the unusual announcement that the New Jersey university violated federal law and will have to reimburse some tuition for three reported sexual assault victims, in addition to making other changes outlined in a resolution agreement.

OCR determined in the case of the three students "that the University failed to provide a prompt and equitable response to complaints of sexual harassment, including sexual assault/violence, as required by Title IX," and in at least one case allowed "the continuation of a hostile environment."

The agency also said Princeton violated the rights of rape survivors by using a standard of proof for sexual assault cases higher than the federally recommended standard, which requires a "preponderance of evidence" for responsibility.

S. Daniel Carter, director of 32 National Campus Safety Initiative at VTV Family Outreach Foundation, who was involved in filing the complaints that prompted the investigation, said the evidentiary standard had been an ongoing challenge that contributed to the lengthy federal review.

OCR determined that the higher burden of proof was one of a number of examples in which Princeton tilted the scales in favor of the accused. For example, accused students at Princeton could appeal a decision made by the university committee investigating sexual assault cases, but students who reported an incident could not.

Accused students also were provided reports that detailed the alleged misconduct, as well as the names of the committee members. During the committee review process, accused students could request that anyone with information about the accusations appear before the committee and could question them; accused students were permitted to have an adviser in the process, could submit character statements in writing and could make a closing statement, according to OCR. Reporting victims were not allowed any of these.

The investigation concluded that Princeton did not provide any timeframe for complaint resolution or appeals, did not provide clear information about how to file a report, and the policy did not provide an assurance that the university would take steps to prevent ongoing harassment.

On its face, Princeton corrected many of its mistakes in a new sexual misconduct policy implemented earlier this year, OCR said. Princeton will now have to provide OCR with documentation of its response to and handling of reports of sexual misconduct, and summarize any allegations reported to the university in the last year, their resolution and the outcome of any associated Title IX investigations.

"I applaud Princeton University for its commitment to ensuring a community-wide culture of prevention, support, and safety for its students, staff, and community," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with Princeton to implement this agreement."

Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber said in a statement that the resolution agreement "reaffirms our commitment to address all matters of sexual misconduct in ways that are fair, effective, and transparent, and our determination to ensure a campus climate that places high priority on prevention and support, and on ensuring safety and freedom from discrimination for all members of our campus community."

OCR's investigation included a review of each of the three students' cases from the academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, as well as documents from those years through today.

In one case during 2009-10, a student was found responsible for sexual assault and suspended. However, the offending student appealed and then withdrew from the university without telling the reported victim. Upon appeal, the university once again found the student responsible for sexual assault and reimposed the suspension. OCR determined the "appeals process was unduly long," and the university didn't impose a "no contact" order between the two parties until nearly a year after the victim had filed the complaint.

A student in a second case from 2010-11 said the university discouraged her from filing a complaint. When that student ultimately did file a complaint, the school conducted an investigation and did not find in her favor. While OCR ruled that the case was conducted promptly, it noted that the accused student was allowed many opportunities not provided to the reported victim.

OCR has faced pressure from student activists and sexual assault survivors who have suggested the feds take it easy on schools and avoid finding universities in violation of the law. Lhamon told a group of college administrators in July that she's not afraid to get tough, and that prior criticism has arisen due to a lack of transparency from the department.

Alexandra Brodsky, a Yale University law student who filed a complaint against her school in 2011, told HuffPost that she doesn't want schools to lose all of their federal funding -- currently the only financial sanction OCR can impose. Legislation proposed this summer would allow OCR to fine a school up to 1 percent of its operating budget -- which in Princeton's case, for example, could have meant a penalty as high as $16.4 million.

"I do think that, in the meantime, the public declaration of noncompliance is important," said Brodsky, a co-founder of the advocacy group Know Your IX. "That was one of our main demands in our first meeting with OCR: You have to tell the public when schools are violating the law. That's not something they had done before this year, and the change in practice shows the department is listening to student voices."

Carter said he's glad to see "justice done" for the victims at Princeton, but is disappointed it took four years.

"I don't believe that justice is truly done for the students involved, or for the university for the matter, when all the people who were involved were likely to have graduated [by now]," Carter said. "It's not timely."

I am so goddamn glad that I graduated years ago. The war on college sex is about to get more vicious.

[Sp5]

Well, it does seem unfair that only one side had the right to present witnesses and appeal a ruling.

[Grange]

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

[Renzy]

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if all of this is part of a long-term attempt by feminists to turn future men into second-class citizens economically by making college inherently hostile to men.

I realize that there are many here on this forum who eschew the idea of college entirely (debt avoidance), but it doesn't change the fact that college graduates earn nearly twice as much as workers with just a high school diploma [1]. Fewer men going to college in the future means worse economic prospects for men in the future.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-educated/

[Sp5]

(11-06-2014 11:26 AM)Grange Wrote:  

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in almost all civil cases. A school disciplinary hearing may be more consequential than a lot of civil cases, but it can't put you in prison like a criminal case which use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I know there is a push towards kangaroo courts on campuses, but having litigated cases against a couple of elite universities and posh prep schools, I also know they have a tendency to cover bad things up to protect their "brand." It's easy to see how they might try to railroad a legit victim in order to protect their reputation. If the article is true, that's what this Princeton policy could accomplish. Only one side, the accused, gets to present witnesses, have a lawyer, and appeal? How would the criminal justice system work if it was that way?

[poutsara]

the agency Wrote:

The agency also said Princeton violated the rights of rape survivors by using a standard of proof for sexual assault cases higher than the federally recommended standard, which requires a "preponderance of evidence" for responsibility.

Is that like being 51% certainty of something? That would be a preponderance of "certainty". Interesting that is the recommended standard.

[Ryre]

(11-06-2014 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 11:26 AM)Grange Wrote:  

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in almost all civil cases. A school disciplinary hearing may be more consequential than a lot of civil cases, but it can't put you in prison like a criminal case which use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I know there is a push towards kangaroo courts on campuses, but having litigated cases against a couple of elite universities and posh prep schools, I also know they have a tendency to cover bad things up to protect their "brand." It's easy to see how they might try to railroad a legit victim in order to protect their reputation. If the article is true, that's what this Princeton policy could accomplish. Only one side, the accused, gets to present witnesses, have a lawyer, and appeal? How would the criminal justice system work if it was that way?

I see what you are saying. Allowing the accused, but not the alleged victim, to question witnesses etc. would be fair if there is a campus official acting as a sort of prosecutor. Otherwise not.

I think Grange is right that the big news here is it is now a "violation of rape victims' rights" not to adopt the low preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. Previously that was just a recommendation. Here, although technically it may only have been a violation of Title IX in combination with Princeton's other problems, I would not be surprised if the nuances get lost. I'll be any schools that haven't adopted preponderance yet do so pretty damn quick.

[The Beast1]

(11-06-2014 12:05 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if all of this is part of a long-term attempt by feminists to turn future men into second-class citizens economically by making college inherently hostile to men.

I realize that there are many here on this forum who eschew the idea of college entirely (debt avoidance), but it doesn't change the fact that college graduates earn nearly twice as much as workers with just a high school diploma [1]. Fewer men going to college in the future means worse economic prospects for men in the future.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-educated/

I wouldn't be surprised.

We need businesses that hire non college degree'd employees.

[Grange]

(11-06-2014 02:55 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

You libertarians are fill of shit. Our society is the fattest ever in the history of humanity. We are eating ourselves to death, beauty is dying at the hands of corporate food and idiots who cant make choices for themelves.

Free market my ass, make a move for beauty.

So many problems in America are tiedto obesity, out of control behavior of chicks because the SMP is so skewed because of all the fat women...

(11-06-2014 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 11:26 AM)Grange Wrote:  

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in almost all civil cases. A school disciplinary hearing may be more consequential than a lot of civil cases, but it can't put you in prison like a criminal case which use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I know there is a push towards kangaroo courts on campuses, but having litigated cases against a couple of elite universities and posh prep schools, I also know they have a tendency to cover bad things up to protect their "brand." It's easy to see how they might try to railroad a legit victim in order to protect their reputation. If the article is true, that's what this Princeton policy could accomplish. Only one side, the accused, gets to present witnesses, have a lawyer, and appeal? How would the criminal justice system work if it was that way?

I can see how the CYA policy would be a problem, but maybe it's balanced by the fact that public opinion and SJW administrators are already stacked so high against the accused? Maybe not, just guessing.

That they can't put you in prison is cold comfort to somebody who gets expelled from an elite university on these grounds. Forever after they'll be judged by employers based on a "legal" finding that wouldn't necessarily hold up in the real world. It also seems unrealistic to believe that universities aren't a testing ground for expanding this policy.

[DarkTriad]

(11-06-2014 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 11:26 AM)Grange Wrote:  

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in almost all civil cases. A school disciplinary hearing may be more consequential than a lot of civil cases, but it can't put you in prison like a criminal case which use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I know there is a push towards kangaroo courts on campuses, but having litigated cases against a couple of elite universities and posh prep schools, I also know they have a tendency to cover bad things up to protect their "brand." It's easy to see how they might try to railroad a legit victim in order to protect their reputation. If the article is true, that's what this Princeton policy could accomplish. Only one side, the accused, gets to present witnesses, have a lawyer, and appeal? How would the criminal justice system work if it was that way?

This sounds rather unlikely. If the prosecution can't provide witnesses, how do they even make a case? And what University doesn't have lawyers on staff? And was there some law preventing the accuser form hiring a private attorney like the accused did?

[Duke Castile]

(11-06-2014 11:14 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Well, it does seem unfair that only one side had the right to present witnesses and appeal a ruling.

Am I understanding that if a guy is found not guilty of something that you think a female should be able to appeal this verdict and he should be retried?

Also, why would an accuser need to bring witnesses after she tells investigators the names of them. Isn't it up to prosecutors to do this?

I'm not sure how this process works on campuses as well in normal courts.

[Native Baltimoron]

(11-06-2014 01:15 PM)Grange Wrote:  

That they can't put you in prison is cold comfort to somebody who gets expelled from an elite university on these grounds. Forever after they'll be judged by employers based on a "legal" finding that wouldn't necessarily hold up in the real world. It also seems unrealistic to believe that universities aren't a testing ground for expanding this policy.

Which is why students are suing schools for breach of contract. The courts will likely side with the universities in all but the most egregious of cases, though.

With respect to shifting or lowering the burden of proof in criminal sex offense cases, I think the courts will be diligent, c.f. the recent decision in Washington state, and ensure that due process remains uncompromised. That said, the rape hysteria on campuses will spill over into wider society as the Millennials raised on a diet of "Yes means yes" graduate. We can expect that criminal convictions will be relatively difficult to sustain, but that trial-by-media, c.f. Pax Dickinson, will become more common.

I, too, am glad I graduated before this came down the pipe.

[Rang off the Pipe]

I had a friend that went to Cornell recently and we'd have discussions about this kind of thing. Schools like Princeton are very cognizant of their image and don't want incidents like these getting out into the mainstream media. They're quick to jump on any kind of accusation, however flimsy, as a result. I remember he was telling me of one instance where a girl claimed she was roofied and then "sexually assaulted" at some fraternity (which got into serious trouble), and her claim was later found to have little to no credibility or something to that extent. I'm sure there are many more examples.

[lurker]

(11-06-2014 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 11:26 AM)Grange Wrote:  

I thought the more important point was that it was unfair to use the standard of proof used in the normal legal system. The Dept. of Ed. "recommends" using a much lower standard. That was the priority (out of the specific things) in the article, too.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in almost all civil cases. A school disciplinary hearing may be more consequential than a lot of civil cases, but it can't put you in prison like a criminal case which use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

I know there is a push towards kangaroo courts on campuses, but having litigated cases against a couple of elite universities and posh prep schools, I also know they have a tendency to cover bad things up to protect their "brand." It's easy to see how they might try to railroad a legit victim in order to protect their reputation. If the article is true, that's what this Princeton policy could accomplish. Only one side, the accused, gets to present witnesses, have a lawyer, and appeal? How would the criminal justice system work if it was that way?

Civil cases also have evidentiary standards. College disciplinary hearings are basically quasicriminal attainder hearings with no right to object to the relevance or admissibility of testimony and no right to confront witnesses to ensure veracity.

Moreover, look at the outcomes. Civil cases, with the exception of strictly-capped punitive damages, are designed to provide restitution to the victims of malfeasance. Disciplinary hearings, like criminal matters, are designed to punish, incapacitate in the campus context, and deter the perpetrator.

These Star chambers are designed as workarounds to due process protections. The schools may be placed in a difficult situation by the Department of Education, but they still deserve to be sued for the manner in which they're handling the hearings.

[Jevioso]

Radicals always end up cannibalizing moderates.