The CardBoard
Don't have sex at Stanford. Not that Redrum ever did, anyway. - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Don't have sex at Stanford. Not that Redrum ever did, anyway. (/thread-1792.html)


What a piece of crap - Redrum - 08-12-2011

"Stanford University recently lowered its evidence standard from “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the standard used in criminal cases) to “preponderance of the evidence” right in the middle of a student’s sexual assault case. He was found guilty of violating Stanford’s Princeton-like rule about drinking and sex. The verdict was unsurprising considering that Stanford’s “training” for student jurors included advice that acting “persuasive and logical” is a sign of an abuser, and that “everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence.”

Stacking the deck like this would never pass muster in a real court; imagine how unfair it is when the jury only needs to be 50.01% certain someone is guilty."

Ummmm.  It was a TRAINING exercise.  Or, was it?  Who could tell whether this was an ACTUAL  case for sexual assault or some mock exercise?    I don't know for what or for what reason,  but that's all the more justification for KICKING AUTHOR'S ASS for not providing vital context.  I can't imagine you, garvin,  accepting this from a journalist if you were the editor and he submitted it for publication.  But it works as advocacy,  running with a limp along with the herd of anecdotes the author tries to run past the reader.

Read it again, folks.  What does this have to do with the ACTUAL conditions or safety of students on campus?  What does it have to do with Stanford's actual policies on sexual assault?  And what would Stanford be doing "trying" a case of sexual assualt?  Daily Caller doesn't say.  Why mess up the theme of the article with facts?




Yikes! Well, we know one thing - Redrum - 08-12-2011

The Stanford Daily > Daily Caller.  Or, at least they have their moments.  Good on the Daily.  But even the Daily op-ed piece is lacking.  The authors cite certain materials the juror "trainees" were provided.  Were they provided only with those?  Were they provided other materials?    How often do these jurors actually decide some person's academic fate?  Once a year?  Five times a year?  So many they have to work weekends?  What are the actual results of the process?  Are the statistics valid i.e. enough trials.  If valid, do the statistics appear out of whack in favor of complainant or defendant?

Good material for more Daily follow-up.  Wonder if they did it.  Wonder if they tried.

So....did the whole preponderance of the evidence switch - Redrum - 08-12-2011

...and the materials highlighted in the Daily op-ed piece actually have an impact on the outcome of THIS case?  Seems like the critical piece of evidence (still missing for us here)  are the guidelines referenced in the ruling.  Perhaps the explicitness of the guidelines make the whole "preponderance"  irrelevant.  Perhaps the 4-0 ruling indicates that most reasonable people might find the same.  (Perhaps the 4-0 result means they brainwashing took beyond everyone's wildest dreams)