Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[Deleted]

There is no such thing as "legally innocent". And no, a "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence. If it were, you couldn't face a civil trial over the same circumstances and lose, as OJ Simpson did; his prior "not guilty" verdict would, if you were anything close to right, have been an ironclad proof of "innocence" at that civil trial, if things worked the way you claim.

A civil trial is not over guilt, it is about liability.
You can be found to be liable for something the justice system found you innocent of - Because those are not the same thing.
You are innocent going into the trial, and you stay that way unless the court finds you guilty.

Highly unlikely, given that it's the standard used in civil courts, too.

Except of course, that this is not a 'civil trial' - From the 'dear colleague letter'

With regard to due process, OCR’s April 4 letter requires colleges and universities investigating and hearing allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence on campus to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to determine if someone is guilty. This standard merely requires that it is "more likely than not" that someone is responsible for what they are accused of, and it is our judiciary’s lowest standard of proof. This is because whoever is serving as the "jury" in such a case need only be 50.01% certain that the accused person is at fault.

See its not actually a court that found that this standard (misnamed by me as the 'balance of probabilities') its an unelected non legislative or judicial body that made that consideration - The odds of the courts finding this passing the standard is really low, its being challenged in courts, and some states have explicitly said that if they follow it, they will withdraw state funds.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the acts state that a lower burden of proof is allowable that what is given in criminal cases.

yes, nor would even i suggest that it 'should be' the same standard as in a criminal case - but the 50.1% is unjust - Especially since it was no court that found that standard right.

[Endus]

Except of course, that this is not a 'civil trial' - From the 'dear colleague letter'

See its not actually a court that found that this standard (misnamed by me as the 'balance of probabilities') its an unelected non legislative or judicial body that made that consideration - The odds of the courts finding this passing the standard is really low, its being challenged in courts, and some states have explicitly said that if they follow it, they will withdraw state funds.

The same standard is the one used in civil courts. There is zero reason to apply the criminal law standard of evidence to this kind of hearing.

yes, nor would even i suggest that it 'should be' the same standard as in a criminal case - but the 50.1% is unjust - Especially since it was no court that found that standard right.

Again, it isn't "unjust" in civil courts, so why the heck would it be for these hearings, which have even less impact and power than those civil courts?

[Crissi]

I don't see how.
I would not want my local butcher to be the one handling criminal harassment in their shop, a political party carrying inquiry into corruption, nor would I want the church to be investigating pedophilia among their ranks.
It's fundamentally a bizarre implementation of "think of the college students", to then not think about them at all. If the state is interested in crime in campus, the state should be entirely handling it; ensuring every single protection to victims and being merciless with the perpetrators.

Because then you get a culture like Baylor, where safety of women and sports integrity is an afterthought compared to winning. Especially when even the local authorities who SHOULD handle it, are not doing their jobs so "the state should handle it" is not possible due to corruption.

[Alvito]

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

Old habits die hard. It isn't like we would leave it up to their crack team of investigators if their was a murder. It shows how little some areas and institutions care about these things. Saving face for the university is the prime directive all else falls way behind.

[Deleted]

The same standard is the one used in civil courts. There is zero reason to apply the criminal law standard of evidence to this kind of hearing.
Again, it isn't "unjust" in civil courts, so why the heck would it be for these hearings, which have even less impact and power than those civil courts?

Because civil trial are over money - Traffic violations usually run on a lower standard too -
And i am not suggesting it should be the criminal standard - but there is a huge range there from 95% to 50.1% - What about 80%?

[Pangean]

Then charge the state with doing so. A university is not an institution to deliver safety but education. If someone has an injury within their premises, they're sent to a nurse, or to a hospital; if someone if suspect of committing a crime, they should be sent to court.
Requesting universities to deliver justice is completely unprofessional, and an absurdly gross attitude by the state in not handling what it's required to do.

"As safe as possible" is not a reasonable demand. We request a standard of safety and health from any institution. But that's nitpicky.

No I charge the University to do it, as it's the organization responsible for it own environment. Just like I would expect child care facilities to not have child molesters working for it and churches for not having pedophiles as ministers. I further expect them to also have a process to deal with issues when accusations are brought up of said behavior. Just like I expect a University to deal with sexual harassment and sexual violence. I also expect them as part of the process to report to the authorities if they reach a conclusion said activities have occurred. You seem to think that this process replaces the judicial process. It doesn't. It simply addresses in an immediate manner the issue to safeguard both the accuser and the accused while they are on that campus.

[Deleted]

Because then you get a culture like Baylor, where safety of women and sports integrity is an afterthought compared to winning. Especially when even the local authorities who SHOULD handle it, are not doing their jobs so "the state should handle it" is not possible due to corruption.

But Baylor didn't handle it - If instead the state would have been expected to deal with it, they would have been forced to do something!
Also, many 'victims' (i refuse to call one a victim who does not) do not report to the police, because they reported it to the college instead - they treat it as if they are comparable institutions - There are real rapists, who were not prosecuted, because the victims did not fucking report it!

- - - Updated - - -

No I charge the University to do it, as it's the organization responsible for it own environment.

College's are some of the safest places in the world - Whatever they were doing 5 years ago was completely fine.

[Crissi]

But Baylor didn't handle it - If instead the state would have been expected to deal with it, they would have been forced to do something!
Also, many 'victims' (i refuse to call one a victim who does not) do not report to the police, because they reported it to the college instead - they treat it as if they are comparable institutions - There are real rapists, who were not prosecuted, because the victims did not fucking report it!

- - - Updated - - -


College's are some of the safest places in the world - Whatever they were doing 5 years ago was completely fine.

except in the report, several actually did try to go to the waco police. They ended up working with the university to hush it up. So even going to the cops is not always going to work. Thats why Title IX is in place, so universities dont get a pass to pull this shit.

Which is why I think Baylor is going to still get hammered.

[nextormento]

Because then you get a culture like Baylor, where safety of women and sports integrity is an afterthought compared to winning. Especially when even the local authorities who SHOULD handle it, are not doing their jobs so "the state should handle it" is not possible due to corruption.

Baylor is exactly the reason why uni should not be involved at all. Because they have interests in the cases not existing, whereas the state doesn't. If they can solve these things in petit comité, they will easily sweep any wrongdoing under the rug.
I'm arguing that the state attitude is gross because it leaves the cases to other institutions, so the authorities are more relaxed about it. The entire thinking process behind this outsourcing is what corrupts both institutions: the university and the authorities.

[Deleted]

Not really.



Me recognizing that the court system has limits is not me lacking faith in it.

There are plenty of things that aren't illegal that should still carry the potential of administrative response.



All they need to demonstrate is that they had reasonable grounds to make that decision. Which isn't exactly difficult.

I still don't get why not let the criminal court handle criminal cases?

Hell it even protects the universities ass from the law suits that occur when they try to be the law..

[Crissi]

Baylor is exactly the reason why uni should not be involved at all. Because they have interests in the cases not existing, whereas the state doesn't. If they can solve these things in petit comité, they will easily sweep any wrongdoing under the rug.
I'm arguing that the state attitude is gross because it leaves the cases to other institutions, so the authorities are more relaxed about it. The entire thinking process behind this outsourcing is what corrupts both institutions: the university and the authorities.

All removing Title IX would do is make Baylor's behavior not illegal. It wouldnt stop it, it wouldnt fix corruption. It could possibly become the norm in smaller towns with successful football teams. Thats why I think Title IX is necessary: to pnish said universities from doing said shitty things.

It should obviously have mroe protections for the accused however.

[Deleted]

except in the report, several actually did try to go to the waco police. They ended up working with the university to hush it up. So even going to the cops is not always going to work. Thats why Title IX is in place, so universities dont get a pass to pull this shit.

Which is why I think Baylor is going to still get hammered.

I think the police dep, needs to be fucked a fair bit more - Still Title nine should require all college administrators to forward any complaints to the police, and mandate all support staff always instruct any students to report it - because otherwise you get those 'unfortunate' instances where a man was expelled for raping a woman, then as she did not file it with the police, he went on to rape some more and kill a girl - because apparently, they don't stop being rapist after being expelled, fancy that.

[nextormento]

I charge
I would expect
I further expect
I expect
I also expect

Your expectations don't need to be met. And, as it is, they are unproductive. See this very OP.

You seem to think that this process replaces the judicial process. It doesn't. It simply addresses in an immediate manner the issue to safeguard both the accuser and the accused while they are on that campus.

I think this process is entirely corrupt. But I don't doubt it's well meant and intended to be good and nice. It isn't: see OP. When you leave state matters to non-state institutions, you get corruption.

[Crissi]

I think the police dep, needs to be fucked a fair bit more - Still Title nine should require all college administrators to forward any complaints to the police, and mandate all support staff always instruct any students to report it - because otherwise you get those 'unfortunate' instances where a man was expelled for raping a woman, then as she did not file it with the police, he went on to rape some more and kill a girl - because apparently, they don't stop being rapist after being expelled, fancy that.

I'd be ok with that actually, because I also think reports to university about rape should also be reported to the cops.

[Deleted]

I think this process is entirely corrupt. But I don't doubt it's well meant and intended to be good and nice. It isn't: see OP. When you leave state matters to non-state institutions, you get corruption.

Also, at best, they are still incompetent.

[Deleted]

The same standard is the one used in civil courts. There is zero reason to apply the criminal law standard of evidence to this kind of hearing.



Again, it isn't "unjust" in civil courts, so why the heck would it be for these hearings, which have even less impact and power than those civil courts?

Because most people have a innate sense of fairness they wish to be treated with?

The post secondary education system is selling a service. If they want to refuse or back out of it why should the person who is innocent in the eyes of the law be the one who suffers financially?

It is why universities are getting sued for so much and loosing often...

[SandMax]

As people have pointed out here, it makes perfect sense that we shouldnt allow universities to expel people from school because of criminal accusations without court sentence. Criminal offenses need to be evaluated with appropiate level of burden of proof, and universities are not equipped to deal with such issue nor they should.

[Pangean]

yes, nor would even i suggest that it 'should be' the same standard as in a criminal case - but the 50.1% is unjust - Especially since it was no court that found that standard right.

You know why they use it since you have read the letter: "the institution "must use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred)." That is the standard of proof established for violations of civil-rights laws".

You have claimed that no court found that standard correct. Do you have cites for those cases where specifically they have ruled against the university for using that standard of proof. I would like to read them.

[nextormento]

All removing Title IX would do is make Baylor's behavior not illegal. It wouldnt stop it, it wouldnt fix corruption. It could possibly become the norm in smaller towns with successful football teams. Thats why I think Title IX is necessary: to pnish said universities from doing said shitty things.

It should obviously have mroe protections for the accused however.

My understanding of Title IX is that it's a complex and extensive thing. I'm not proposing removing it, but abolishing any piece that unprofessionally outsource the responsibilities of the state, and have the state go nuts and apply the law to its fullest extent.

If the state took these investigations in their hands, Baylor's behavior should be either impossible or equally illegal. If they're not the party victims are reporting to, they hardly can silence them. If they did threaten them with any retaliation, you should already have the legislative pieces to deal with it. As far as legislation goes, that behavior is unacceptable with or without Title IX.
Corruption won't be fixed through legislation. But labyrinthic legislation can easily enable or further it.

I still don't see how Title IX fights shit behavior. Just like I don't see how leaving pedophilia investigations to the church when it happens within their institution to be productive at all.

[Deleted]

You know why they use it since you have read the letter: "the institution "must use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred)." That is the standard of proof established for violations of civil-rights laws".

You have claimed that no court found that standard correct. Do you have cites for those cases where specifically they have ruled against the university for using that standard of proof. I would like to read them.

No, i said no court declared that, that standard were to be used.
And there are several cases pending regarding the 'fairness' of that standard - As well as i said some states who have said that if the university use that standard, they don't get any state funding.