[simscitizen]

Looks like this article just hit the NYT about a player who got regular snaps on our team this year, although the allegation stems from 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports...ation.html

[simscitizen]

Looks like this article just hit the NYT about a player who got regular snaps on our team this year, although the allegation stems from 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports...ation.html

[burger]

That's a pretty damning article.  Shouldn't a sexual assault finding result in automatic explusion?  Etchemendy basically said that expulsion was too harsh a punishment.  He comes off lacking any empathy for assault victims.

You'd think that with all of the negative publicity over the last couple of years, the university would be doing things better by now.  I guess not.

[burger]

That's a pretty damning article.  Shouldn't a sexual assault finding result in automatic explusion?  Etchemendy basically said that expulsion was too harsh a punishment.  He comes off lacking any empathy for assault victims.

You'd think that with all of the negative publicity over the last couple of years, the university would be doing things better by now.  I guess not.

[dabigv13]

To me, the article was damning of Title IX. It is absurd to expect a university to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, and to get something approximating justice out of it.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

[dabigv13]

To me, the article was damning of Title IX. It is absurd to expect a university to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, and to get something approximating justice out of it.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student. This is (somewhat) consistent with criminal procedure as I understand it. Let's take this statement as an example: “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality," which is a professor's statement regarding the new system.

That all sounds well and good, but it's also the foundation of the criminal justice system -- that a jury needs to convict unanimously. I'm pretty comfortable with that standard for the criminal justice system. Obviously an educational system's internal adjudication is different, but that in of itself doesn't prove that a majority vote is ipso facto an inappropriate standard.

Not to comment specifically on the facts of the case, but there have been several instances in which false accusations of rape have been leveled. While in general sexual assault victims have not been taken as seriously as they should be,* there have been instances in which advocates for the victims have pushed matters beyond evidence and due process.**

I don't pretend to have a good answer to these problems, but I don't think Etchemendy's position is entirely without merit.

I also wonder about some of the vagueness of the article, which I assume is intentional. Take the accuser's complaints about the statements. It's impossible to evaluate her arguments without actually knowing what the football players' statements were. They could range anywhere from "[XXXX] wasn't anywhere near [the accuser] all night" to "[XXXX] is a great guy who would never do anything to disrespect a woman."

Again, I don't want to trivialize the accuser's experience. She's been through a lot. I just think it does journalism and the public debate a disservice to present things in this manner, because it's really difficult to evaluate anything that's going on.

*http://deadspin.com/how-two-investigations-into-minnesotas-sexual-assault-s-1790211835

** e.g.: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...veals.html

[washingtonismoney]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student. This is (somewhat) consistent with criminal procedure as I understand it. Let's take this statement as an example: “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality," which is a professor's statement regarding the new system.

That all sounds well and good, but it's also the foundation of the criminal justice system -- that a jury needs to convict unanimously. I'm pretty comfortable with that standard for the criminal justice system. Obviously an educational system's internal adjudication is different, but that in of itself doesn't prove that a majority vote is ipso facto an inappropriate standard.

Not to comment specifically on the facts of the case, but there have been several instances in which false accusations of rape have been leveled. While in general sexual assault victims have not been taken as seriously as they should be,* there have been instances in which advocates for the victims have pushed matters beyond evidence and due process.**

I don't pretend to have a good answer to these problems, but I don't think Etchemendy's position is entirely without merit.

I also wonder about some of the vagueness of the article, which I assume is intentional. Take the accuser's complaints about the statements. It's impossible to evaluate her arguments without actually knowing what the football players' statements were. They could range anywhere from "[XXXX] wasn't anywhere near [the accuser] all night" to "[XXXX] is a great guy who would never do anything to disrespect a woman."

Again, I don't want to trivialize the accuser's experience. She's been through a lot. I just think it does journalism and the public debate a disservice to present things in this manner, because it's really difficult to evaluate anything that's going on.

*http://deadspin.com/how-two-investigations-into-minnesotas-sexual-assault-s-1790211835

** e.g.: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...veals.html

[burger]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student. This is (somewhat) consistent with criminal procedure as I understand it. Let's take this statement as an example: “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality," which is a professor's statement regarding the new system.

That all sounds well and good, but it's also the foundation of the criminal justice system -- that a jury needs to convict unanimously. I'm pretty comfortable with that standard for the criminal justice system. Obviously an educational system's internal adjudication is different, but that in of itself doesn't prove that a majority vote is ipso facto an inappropriate standard.

WIM, if what you're saying is true, then why do many other schools only require a majority vote to "convict"?  This isn't a criminal trail, and the sanctions involved are far less significant than the sanctions that can be brought by the criminal justice system.  Getting kicked out of Stanford is hardly a prison sentence.  That's why the "preponderance of evidence" standard applies here.

As for false rape accusations (as in those that are made up completely), the actual number is likely far smaller than the reported number due to inconsistent or biased reporting: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files...rting.pdf  Legitimately false accusations that come to light get disproportionate coverage in the media.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

I would like to agree that universities are not qualified to hold "trials" for any types of violent crimes, but if universities can only take action when there is a rape conviction, then a lot of rapists are going to be free to continue at their schools.  The criminal justice system is only marginally better than universities when it come to sexual assault cases.

[burger]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student. This is (somewhat) consistent with criminal procedure as I understand it. Let's take this statement as an example: “The victim should not need to garner three votes to win while the respondent needs to garner only one. That is basic inequality," which is a professor's statement regarding the new system.

That all sounds well and good, but it's also the foundation of the criminal justice system -- that a jury needs to convict unanimously. I'm pretty comfortable with that standard for the criminal justice system. Obviously an educational system's internal adjudication is different, but that in of itself doesn't prove that a majority vote is ipso facto an inappropriate standard.

WIM, if what you're saying is true, then why do many other schools only require a majority vote to "convict"?  This isn't a criminal trail, and the sanctions involved are far less significant than the sanctions that can be brought by the criminal justice system.  Getting kicked out of Stanford is hardly a prison sentence.  That's why the "preponderance of evidence" standard applies here.

As for false rape accusations (as in those that are made up completely), the actual number is likely far smaller than the reported number due to inconsistent or biased reporting: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files...rting.pdf  Legitimately false accusations that come to light get disproportionate coverage in the media.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

I would like to agree that universities are not qualified to hold "trials" for any types of violent crimes, but if universities can only take action when there is a rape conviction, then a lot of rapists are going to be free to continue at their schools.  The criminal justice system is only marginally better than universities when it come to sexual assault cases.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, if what you're saying is true, then why do many other schools only require a majority vote to "convict"?  This isn't a criminal trail, and the sanctions involved are far less significant than the sanctions that can be brought by the criminal justice system.  Getting kicked out of Stanford is hardly a prison sentence.  That's why the "preponderance of evidence" standard applies here.

As for false rape accusations (as in those that are made up completely), the actual number is likely far smaller than the reported number due to inconsistent or biased reporting: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files...rting.pdf  Legitimately false accusations that come to light get disproportionate coverage in the media.

1) I don't know! I'm just saying, "some trials have some standards, others have other standards" is not, in of itself, evidence that a supermajority requirement is bad. It is evidence that different people have different standards.

2) I'm aware of this research. Accepting the 2-10% figure provided by that site, however... 2-10% is, shall we say, a lot. Worth thinking about, I would argue. Again, I'll reiterate that sexual assault victims are not taken seriously enough. But I'm not satisfied that this requires discarding traditional protections for due process, among others.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, if what you're saying is true, then why do many other schools only require a majority vote to "convict"?  This isn't a criminal trail, and the sanctions involved are far less significant than the sanctions that can be brought by the criminal justice system.  Getting kicked out of Stanford is hardly a prison sentence.  That's why the "preponderance of evidence" standard applies here.

As for false rape accusations (as in those that are made up completely), the actual number is likely far smaller than the reported number due to inconsistent or biased reporting: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files...rting.pdf  Legitimately false accusations that come to light get disproportionate coverage in the media.

1) I don't know! I'm just saying, "some trials have some standards, others have other standards" is not, in of itself, evidence that a supermajority requirement is bad. It is evidence that different people have different standards.

2) I'm aware of this research. Accepting the 2-10% figure provided by that site, however... 2-10% is, shall we say, a lot. Worth thinking about, I would argue. Again, I'll reiterate that sexual assault victims are not taken seriously enough. But I'm not satisfied that this requires discarding traditional protections for due process, among others.

[oman]

To me, the article was damning of Title IX. It is absurd to expect a university to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, and to get something approximating justice out of it.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

The police and legal agencies should handle it criminally but the university should handle as it sees fit, free to act outside the specific due process structures of the criminal system.  I'm not an expert on how Title IX can hamstring a university but letting the criminal system handle it gives too little protection to the school and the victims. 

[oman]

To me, the article was damning of Title IX. It is absurd to expect a university to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner, and to get something approximating justice out of it.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense and should be handled as it would be if the two parties were not students. The system as it is now does disservice to both the accusers and the accused, unsurprisingly.

The police and legal agencies should handle it criminally but the university should handle as it sees fit, free to act outside the specific due process structures of the criminal system.  I'm not an expert on how Title IX can hamstring a university but letting the criminal system handle it gives too little protection to the school and the victims. 

[Robbie]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student.

Etchemendy also says that a lower bar of evidence is needed to expel a band.

[Robbie]

Well, Etchemendy says that a higher bar of evidence is needed to expel a student.

Etchemendy also says that a lower bar of evidence is needed to expel a band.

[washingtonismoney]

Ethemendy also says that a lower bar of evidence is needed to expel a band.

Which is pretty dumb!

[washingtonismoney]

Ethemendy also says that a lower bar of evidence is needed to expel a band.

Which is pretty dumb!

[oman]

The purpose of the justice system and the purpose of a university system in regard to sexual assault should be very different things.  So saying one is better than the other isn't particularly helpful.

The criminal justice system may be better in terms of getting to the truth or achieving justice.  But it's not better if your goal is to achieve an environment at a university where students feel safe and secure.

[oman]

The purpose of the justice system and the purpose of a university system in regard to sexual assault should be very different things.  So saying one is better than the other isn't particularly helpful.

The criminal justice system may be better in terms of getting to the truth or achieving justice.  But it's not better if your goal is to achieve an environment at a university where students feel safe and secure.

[JohnR34231]

The purpose of the justice system and the purpose of a university system in regard to sexual assault should be very different things.  So saying one is better than the other isn't particularly helpful.

The criminal justice system may be better in terms of getting to the truth or achieving justice.  But it's not better if your goal is to achieve an environment at a university where students feel safe and secure.

It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

[JohnR34231]

The purpose of the justice system and the purpose of a university system in regard to sexual assault should be very different things.  So saying one is better than the other isn't particularly helpful.

The criminal justice system may be better in terms of getting to the truth or achieving justice.  But it's not better if your goal is to achieve an environment at a university where students feel safe and secure.

It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

[oman]

To me what is odd is the way that the professor put the issue. 

To me the issue isn't what the victim has to prove.  To me the issue is what is required to expel a student.

I think 3 of 5 professors deciding it is okay to expel a student -- for whatever reason (in this case, danger to the student population) makes sense. 

This is the decision making process a company might go through in removing an employee who may have assaulted another (or even a third party).  The company doesn't have to determine guilt or innocence.  The company just needs to determine whether there is a legitimate reason to remove an employee.

The employee, or student, would then have legal recourse if the decision of the committee were based on something impermissible - race, retaliation, etc.

[oman]

To me what is odd is the way that the professor put the issue. 

To me the issue isn't what the victim has to prove.  To me the issue is what is required to expel a student.

I think 3 of 5 professors deciding it is okay to expel a student -- for whatever reason (in this case, danger to the student population) makes sense. 

This is the decision making process a company might go through in removing an employee who may have assaulted another (or even a third party).  The company doesn't have to determine guilt or innocence.  The company just needs to determine whether there is a legitimate reason to remove an employee.

The employee, or student, would then have legal recourse if the decision of the committee were based on something impermissible - race, retaliation, etc.

[oman]

It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

I'm more or less saying it is okay to give out punishments that aren't unlawfully discriminatory.  I'm not applying a criminal standard to a decision regarding an individuals "right" to attend Stanford.

[oman]

It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

I'm more or less saying it is okay to give out punishments that aren't unlawfully discriminatory.  I'm not applying a criminal standard to a decision regarding an individuals "right" to attend Stanford.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16338.msg183885#msg183885 date=1483029639]
It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

I'm more or less saying it is okay to give out punishments that aren't unlawfully discriminatory.  I'm not applying a criminal standard to a decision regarding an individuals "right" to attend Stanford.
[/quote]

So in other words you are perfectly OK with handing out punishments that would be considered unjust under the criminal law system?

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16338.msg183885#msg183885 date=1483029639]
It almost sounds like you are saying it's OK to give out unjust punishments as long as doing that makes students feel safe and secure.

I assume that's not what you mean.

I'm more or less saying it is okay to give out punishments that aren't unlawfully discriminatory.  I'm not applying a criminal standard to a decision regarding an individuals "right" to attend Stanford.
[/quote]

So in other words you are perfectly OK with handing out punishments that would be considered unjust under the criminal law system?

[oman]

So in other words you are perfectly OK with handing out punishments that would be considered unjust under the criminal law system?

Yes, because in a situation where neither Stanford nor I have the power to deprive someone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, I am not concerned with the same kind of due process or the same kind of justice.

We're just depriving someone of the right to go to school at Stanford.  We need to be ethical and fair.  And we are a big organization so we need to have a system in place to avoid claims of discrimination or bias.  But the book in my prior post talks about the problems associated with a school being forced not to act because of criminal law protections. 

[oman]

So in other words you are perfectly OK with handing out punishments that would be considered unjust under the criminal law system?

Yes, because in a situation where neither Stanford nor I have the power to deprive someone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, I am not concerned with the same kind of due process or the same kind of justice.

We're just depriving someone of the right to go to school at Stanford.  We need to be ethical and fair.  And we are a big organization so we need to have a system in place to avoid claims of discrimination or bias.  But the book in my prior post talks about the problems associated with a school being forced not to act because of criminal law protections. 

[CornFed]

I don't think that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is, in fact, justice.  I believe the priority is to give a systematic structure to the enforcement of law while protecting the rights of all parties to the litigation.  The "rule of law" is a fundamental underpinning of the success of our society since our founding.

A university has many of the same objectives but priortize them differently.

[CornFed]

I don't think that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is, in fact, justice.  I believe the priority is to give a systematic structure to the enforcement of law while protecting the rights of all parties to the litigation.  The "rule of law" is a fundamental underpinning of the success of our society since our founding.

A university has many of the same objectives but priortize them differently.

[TreeWeird]

As a general rule, civil trials in California require 75% of jurors to agree on a verdict.

[TreeWeird]

As a general rule, civil trials in California require 75% of jurors to agree on a verdict.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is, in fact, justice.  I believe the priority is to give a systematic structure to the enforcement of law while protecting the rights of all parties to the litigation.  The "rule of law" is a fundamental underpinning of the success of our society since our founding.

And, court cases aren't about finding truth as much as they are convincing people what most likely or did happen out of a certain set of facts and circumstances.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think that the primary objective of the criminal justice system is, in fact, justice.  I believe the priority is to give a systematic structure to the enforcement of law while protecting the rights of all parties to the litigation.  The "rule of law" is a fundamental underpinning of the success of our society since our founding.

And, court cases aren't about finding truth as much as they are convincing people what most likely or did happen out of a certain set of facts and circumstances.

[terry]

Shouldn't a sexual assault finding result in automatic explusion?

According to this article, there wasn't a sexual assault finding. The procedures at the time required four votes for a finding of sexual assault; in this case, there were only three votes.

[terry]

Shouldn't a sexual assault finding result in automatic explusion?

According to this article, there wasn't a sexual assault finding. The procedures at the time required four votes for a finding of sexual assault; in this case, there were only three votes.

[jacketree]

I'm still having trouble understanding why this case is not in Santa Clara County Superior Court. I understand the alleged victim sought to avoid the trauma of a police investigation, but there are institutions geared to make those investigations and adjudicate the situation.  Stanford, like most universities it appears, is not one of those institutions.

It seems that anyone can be expelled for violating the Fundamental Standard, without the need for a unanimous panel decision, or 75% or whatever, although I didn't get too far into the actual mechanisms for expulsion. Seems to be case-by-case.  Interestingly "sexual assault" is not specifically listed as an act of misconduct but "physical assault" is.  However, it is very clear that sexual assault falls under the Fundamental Standard.

https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/...l-standard

[jacketree]

I'm still having trouble understanding why this case is not in Santa Clara County Superior Court. I understand the alleged victim sought to avoid the trauma of a police investigation, but there are institutions geared to make those investigations and adjudicate the situation.  Stanford, like most universities it appears, is not one of those institutions.

It seems that anyone can be expelled for violating the Fundamental Standard, without the need for a unanimous panel decision, or 75% or whatever, although I didn't get too far into the actual mechanisms for expulsion. Seems to be case-by-case.  Interestingly "sexual assault" is not specifically listed as an act of misconduct but "physical assault" is.  However, it is very clear that sexual assault falls under the Fundamental Standard.

https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/...l-standard