Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[AndaliteBandit]

http://www.theatlantic.com/education...-starr/484544/

“In one instance,” the investigation found, “those actions constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault.”

Possibly referring to Ukwuachu's victim, a soccer player who had to transfer to another school when her athletic scholarship was revoked after she accused him. The school reached a settlement with her earlier this year.

[Jotaux]

I don't understand why universities are handling sexual assault complaints at all.

[Deleted]

I don't understand why universities are handling sexual assault complaints at all.

A local dispute under the campus/guideline of the local institute, what is the issue?

Just like Uni's can have cultures, rules and home brews of things, they are their own organisms, technically.

This is no different for internal conflicts.

[Crissi]

This is what I've been complaining about for months. This is a huge and valid title IX problem since it was all to protect their football team. More heads need to roll because it wasn't just Briles and Starr. All the coordinators and probably a lot of the admin need to go.

This is also not a new problem. They had a coach try and cover up a murder 13 years ago

- - - Updated - - -

A local dispute under the campus/guideline of the local institute, what is the issue?

Just like Uni's can have cultures, rules and home brews of things, they are their own organisms, technically.

This is no different for internal conflicts.

Except here it wasn't done properly, and they colluded with Waco police to keep it hushed

[Deleted]

Except here it wasn't done properly, and they colluded with Waco police to keep it hushed

I see, i did not catch up on that part.

It is a shame to see that such things happen, tho i imagine that it could happen just as well with "formal" authorities.

I have had personal experience of similar incidents ; as far as i see it, Corruption is a wierd mix of mob mentality and the most rotten sides of humanity. At least when it comes to the really bad stuff.

Oh well.

[AndaliteBandit]

I don't understand why universities are handling sexual assault complaints at all.

They're clearly not qualified to handle these situations. They have a vested interest in either appearing to have no tolerance for rape at the expense of the accused's rights, or in sweeping the incident under the rug to protect the accused and the reputation of the university.

This university in question considered a polygraph test to be admissible as evidence, but a rape kit to not be. This is a place of higher learning?

[Deleted]

They're clearly not qualified to handle these situations. They have a vested interest in either appearing to have no tolerance for rape at the expense of the accused's rights, or in sweeping the incident under the rug to protect the accused and the reputation of the university.

This university in question considered a polygraph test to be admissible as evidence, but a rape kit to not be. This is a place of higher learning?

To be fair, any party can have interests in things ; It is not exclusive to someone related to the incident itself or the situation itself.

Tho, yes, this sounds like a rotten university, if anything.

[Deleted]

I don't understand why universities are handling sexual assault complaints at all.

Because if they wont then those rich spoiled kids will find a different adult nursery that will cater to them.
That's why.

[Endus]

I don't understand why universities are handling sexual assault complaints at all.

1> Campus police are often part of the actual police.
2> Because often, an accusation doesn't carry enough merit to be worth a criminal trial, but is grounds enough for adminstrative action. Same basic reason you can be fired for leering at coworkers and making salacious comments, even if none of that's explicitly illegal.

[Pangean]

If this isn't evidence of the existence of Karma for Starr I don't what would be.

[Deleted]

1> Campus police are often part of the actual police.
2> Because often, an accusation doesn't carry enough merit to be worth a criminal trial, but is grounds enough for adminstrative action. Same basic reason you can be fired for leering at coworkers and making salacious comments, even if none of that's explicitly illegal.

These seems kind of fucking awful to me. So you are innocent as defined by the law but someone accusing you has the power to completely fuck up your life?

So many of these cases turn out to fraudulent it is becoming a meme like blm.

There honestly should be laws that prevent administrative action until a guilty verdict is reached by the courts.

[Crissi]

These seems kind of fucking awful to me. So you are innocent as defined by the law but someone accusing you has the power to completely fuck up your life?

So many of these cases turn out to fraudulent it is becoming a meme like blm.

There honestly should be laws that prevent administrative action until a guilty verdict is reached by the courts.

Well, to turn this back onto Baylor, 2 of the guys were convicted of rape. 1 guy hasnt but has been arrested. So at this particular university, the problem is systemic in its cover ups. Oh, and the murder thing 13 years ago also had a conviction.

[Endus]

These seems kind of fucking awful to me. So you are innocent as defined by the law but someone accusing you has the power to completely fuck up your life?

The law fundamentally does not define anyone as "innocent". The furthest it goes is determining that, given the evidence presented in court, it can not determine guilt at this time. That's what a "not guilty" verdict means. It may mean they're innocent, it may also mean they're guilty but the evidence failed to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you don't have any right to a post-secondary education. They have rules of conduct and such, and if you break them, they're absolutely free to expel you, and this is what that falls under. If the accusation really is groundless, you should be able to defend yourself from that accusation even at the administrative level, but the standards of criminal courts do not apply, there. No "beyond a reasonable doubt", just the standard of "yeah, that's probably how it went down".

There honestly should be laws that prevent administrative action until a guilty verdict is reached by the courts.

This is a completely ludicrous point of view. Are you seriously claiming that you can't fire an employee for calling their supervisor a "raging cockbag dillhole", just because they can't be found guilty of anything in court for doing so? That a student should be freely able to plagiarize without repercussion because it's not actually criminal? That's literally your argument, here.

[Deleted]

Well, to turn this back onto Baylor, 2 of the guys were convicted of rape. 1 guy hasnt but has been arrested. So at this particular university, the problem is systemic in its cover ups. Oh, and the murder thing 13 years ago also had a conviction.

Right and I agree they should be thrown out. I still don't agree with universities destroying lives because they want to pretend to be law enforcement...

[AndaliteBandit]

If this isn't evidence of the existence of Karma for Starr I don't what would be.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[Deleted]

The law fundamentally does not define anyone as "innocent". The furthest it goes is determining that, given the evidence presented in court, it can not determine guilt at this time. That's what a "not guilty" verdict means. It may mean they're innocent, it may also mean they're guilty but the evidence failed to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you don't have any right to a post-secondary education. They have rules of conduct and such, and if you break them, they're absolutely free to expel you, and this is what that falls under. If the accusation really is groundless, you should be able to defend yourself from that accusation even at the administrative level, but the standards of criminal courts do not apply, there. No "beyond a reasonable doubt", just the standard of "yeah, that's probably how it went down".



This is a completely ludicrous point of view. Are you seriously claiming that you can't fire an employee for calling their supervisor a "raging cockbag dillhole", just because they can't be found guilty of anything in court for doing so? That's literally your argument, here.

The law defines everyone as innocent until proven guilty it is what the civilized world has been built around.

I am saying that you shouldn't have your life destroyed by a accusation. I am surprised I have to actually defend that ideal to be honest. Does the university refund all tuition payed to up to that point? Do they immediately reinstate him in a not guilty ruling?

How many false claims and law suits do we really need before people realize this is a awful idea? I honestly thought mattress girl would of been the straw that broke the camels back.

[Jotaux]

This is a completely ludicrous point of view. Are you seriously claiming that you can't fire an employee for calling their supervisor a "raging cockbag dillhole", just because they can't be found guilty of anything in court for doing so? That a student should be freely able to plagiarize without repercussion because it's not actually criminal? That's literally your argument, here.

Being fired from your job will likely not result in your life being ruined while the fallout of being accused of sexual assault will.

[Endus]

The law defines everyone as innocent until proven guilty it is what the civilized world has been built around.

This is not correct.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a premise that defines how convictions and incarcerations work. If that principle didn't exist, courts would work by arresting whoever the cops thought was guilty and throwing them in prison for whatever sentence they like. And then you, as a convicted felon, would have to sue for release, by proving your innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty" just means they need a trial before they can sentence you, that's it. It doesn't mean you can't be treated as a guilty party prior to conviction, at all; that's why you can arrest people and hold them in jail prior to trial.

It presumes innocence, it does not define you as innocent. Those are not the same thing. If it defined you as innocent, that would be an a priori defence that would confirm you couldn't be guilty, because the law would have declared you innocent.

I am saying that you shouldn't have your life destroyed by a accusation. I am surprised I have to actually defend that ideal to be honest. Does the university refund all tuition payed to up to that point? Do they immediately reinstate him in a not guilty ruling?

You don't have your life ruined by an accusation, you have your life ruined by an investigation determining you were at fault.

The only tuition the university might have to refund is the portion of your current term you won't experience. Every prior semester, you got what you paid for, there's no grounds for reimbursement.

[Pangean]

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

I wonder how many in this forum even understand what we are talking about here.

[Jotaux]

You don't have your life ruined by an accusation, you have your life ruined by an investigation determining you were at fault.

Well that is an outright lie.