Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[Endus]

your arguing for a powerful institution to punish its students on flimsy or nonexistent evidence with no regards for its students well being or the actual truth of what happened and arguing that no one should even be upset when it happens. that's very authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

The word means something. It does not refer to individuals having any sense of authority over the institutions they run.

[Canpinter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

The word means something. It does not refer to individuals having any sense of authority over the institutions they run.

Ok fine your not an athoritarian you just a person who like the idea of powerful institution punishing people you don't like for no justifiable reason.

[Endus]

And, in doing so, made being kicked out for being accused of rape comparable to being kicked out for plagiarism. The fact that you see no difference between these two makes it quite easy to figure out how little you actually care.

I didn't make any such equivalence. I've already explained to you what the comparison was between. Ignoring that to insist on your straw man isn't an argument.

the problem with your statement is the fact that you are "innocent till proven guilty" so if you aren't found guilty you then remain innocent

I've already explained several times why this is a grossly incorrect way to view the principle. You can be arrested and jailed for crimes before you're convicted, because you aren't actually deemed innocent in the way you're arguing. It just means your guilt has to be established in a court of law before you can be sentenced. That's it. And that only applies to the courts, not the rest of the populace.

No, as per actual rulings, You are constitutionally entitled to a 'reasonably fair hearing' - you are entitled to have an advocate with you - Those are things courts have said are required to discipline a student.
I cant wait for the day, when they say that they are entitled to ask questions at their kafkaesque 'trial'.

Not sure why you think that's much of a contradiction of my point. Fact remains, it's still not a trial.

Do you think this is a reasonable punishment? - Also does this mean you agree it is fucking them over?

Do I think expulsion is reasonable if someone rapes another student? Absolutely.

Which would matter if they were a court, or used a definition of rape that any jurisdiction wouldn't laugh at.

This isn't a court, so applying irrelevant standards is pretty pointless.

okay so, a non court should have the authority to declare someone a rapist, for engaging in legal conduct?
Yeah - I really see why i was wrong to call you an authoritarian - You are positively totalitarian.

So, another word you want to use incorrectly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Protecting the freedoms of the universities is not "totalitarianism". Come the hell on.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok fine your not an athoritarian you just a person who like the idea of powerful institution punishing people you don't like for no justifiable reason.

If by "for no justifiable reason", you mean "for raping another student", sure.

Because that's what's going on here. The university determines that they raped another student, and then they're expelled. This isn't just on a whim.

[Canpinter]

If by "for no justifiable reason", you mean "for raping another student", sure.

and again the "hearings" are so laughably unfair that they can not be used to prove the event actually happened

if these college hearings actually had decent standards of proof, open questionings and a standard of guilt high then a coin toss plus a bit, you wouldn't see so much backlash

[Endus]

and again the "hearings" are so laughably unfair that they can not be used to prove the event actually happened

They do prove it, beyond a preponderance on the evidence. Hence the ruling. Try again.

[Dextroden]

I didn't make any such equivalence. I've already explained to you what the comparison was between. Ignoring that to insist on your straw man isn't an argument.



I've already explained several times why this is a grossly incorrect way to view the principle. You can be arrested and jailed for crimes before you're convicted, because you aren't actually deemed innocent in the way you're arguing. It just means your guilt has to be established in a court of law before you can be sentenced. That's it. And that only applies to the courts, not the rest of the populace.



Not sure why you think that's much of a contradiction of my point. Fact remains, it's still not a trial.


Do I think expulsion is reasonable if someone rapes another student? Absolutely.



This isn't a court, so applying irrelevant standards is pretty pointless.



So, another word you want to use incorrectly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Protecting the freedoms of the universities is not "totalitarianism". Come the hell on.

- - - Updated - - -



If by "for no justifiable reason", you mean "for raping another student", sure.

Because that's what's going on here. The university determines that they raped another student, and then they're expelled. This isn't just on a whim.

Do you have proof that someone was raped, Endus? If not, you are expelling someone with no proof.

So, again, expelling women for making an accusation is fine in your warped reality.

[Berengil]

Ok fine your not an athoritarian you just a person who like the idea of powerful institution punishing people you don't like for no justifiable reason.

Yeh pretty much. His stance on this is philosophically disgusting. I'd simply refuse to attend a university that didn't require solid proof before sticking " got kicked out of university because probably a rapist" on your record.

I'm a leftie. I love women's rights and I think rapists should be punished if you can prove they did it and it's not some he said/she said bullsht.

All this kind of ultra SJW nonsense is going to do is cause a massive backlash against reasonable women's rights causes.

[Endus]

Do you have proof that someone was raped, Endus? If not, you are expelling someone with no proof.

So, again, expelling women for making an accusation is fine in your warped reality.

The universities do have proof. Beyond a preponderance of the evidence. If you don't agree with that, in a particular case, there'd be grounds to file a lawsuit, but that's the legal standard that's applied in these cases.

This entire complaint is that universities aren't beholden to criminal court standards in these rulings, when there's essentially no reason they should be expected to.

[Canpinter]

They do prove it, beyond a preponderance on the evidence. Hence the ruling. Try again.

when one side is bared from questioning witnesses how can you claim that preponderance of evidence has actually been reached?

- - - Updated - - -

The universities do have proof. Beyond a preponderance of the evidence. If you don't agree with that, in a particular case, there'd be grounds to file a lawsuit, but that's the legal standard that's applied in these cases.

This entire complaint is that universities aren't beholden to criminal court standards in these rulings, when there's essentially no reason they should be expected to.

no the complaint is that they are not beholden to ANY fair standard

[Berengil]

The universities do have proof. Beyond a preponderance of the evidence. If you don't agree with that, in a particular case, there'd be grounds to file a lawsuit, but that's the legal standard that's applied in these cases.

This entire complaint is that universities aren't beholden to criminal court standards in these rulings, when there's essentially no reason they should be expected to.

No reason? Here's a reason: so that a woman can't hang a " got kicked out of uni because probly a rapist" on a guy because she sobbed in front of some university committee and they are desperate to avoid a media shtstorm.

But theres no talking to fanatics. not 1 bit. So, instead of to Endus, I address this to all guys who may be reading.

Boycott these schools that use these drumhead courts to appease the far left sjw crowd.

[xskarma]

Just a friendly reminder that the topic of this thread is still Baylor and it's specific problem. Let's not get into a general debate about rape here and detract from the actual topic. University policy is fine, general rape debate is not.

[Endus]

when one side is bared from questioning witnesses how can you claim that preponderance of evidence has actually been reached?

This isn't a trial. Why do you people keep insisting that the university system is somehow "wrong" because it's not literally a criminal trial? It operates under similar standards of evidence as civil courts, and they have their own procedures. This is all laid out in the law. Complaining that it's not exactly like a criminal trial is just a baseless argument. There's no reason it should be. If a bunch of students got in a brawl in the locker room, you might not be able to establish who threw the first punch to criminal standards, but that doesn't mean you can't figure it out and expel the guy for it.

Regardless, the thread's supposed to be about Baylor, and it's failure to provide even the minimum expectations on these kinds of accusations. Ignoring sexual assault is worse than being overzealous about targeting it. I find it pretty odd that we're even in a position where you folks are attacking universities for doing too much in this, when the thread was sparked by a university not doing enough.

[Canpinter]

This isn't a trial. Why do you people keep insisting that the university system is somehow "wrong" because it's not literally a criminal trial? It operates under similar standards of evidence as civil courts, and they have their own procedures. This is all laid out in the law. Complaining that it's not exactly like a criminal trial is just a baseless argument. There's no reason it should be. If a bunch of students got in a brawl in the locker room, you might not be able to establish who threw the first punch to criminal standards, but that doesn't mean you can't figure it out and expel the guy for it.

i never said it was a trial. but yes how ridiculous of me to expect that at a hearing you should be aloud to actually defend yourself? you think the preponderance of evidence standard is fair for college administrative action and that's fine, but you can not reach an honest preponderance of evidence unless both sides are allowed to present evidence.

[Endus]

i never said it was a trial. but yes how ridiculous of me to expect that at a hearing you should be aloud to actually defend yourself? you think the preponderance of evidence standard is fair for college administrative action and that's fine, but you can not reach an honest preponderance of evidence unless both sides are allowed to present evidence.

The point was that "questioning witnesses" is something that happens in trials. In a university hearing, the admin staff running it may do the questioning, and not let either party question anyone. That isn't a problem.

If there's a particular university that's letting the accuser question everything, and not letting the accused defend themselves, by all means bring that specific example up, and I'll condemn it. Nobody has. They've just been talking in generic terms, which is why I've been responding on principles.

[Canpinter]

yes or no in a, trial, hearing, tribunal, or any other similar event using the preponderance of evidence standard both sides should have to follow the same rules regarding what evidence they can or can not submit in order to reach a fair verdict?

[Berengil]

Ignoring sexual assault is worse than being overzealous about targeting it.

Why?

Scenario 1: ignore a legitimate claim of sexual assault = a woman is victimized

scenario 2: be overzealous about a claim of sexual assault for which there is no proof = a man is victimized


In either case, someone is victimized.

But really, this is all an argument for men avoiding relations with any woman who's attending college. There's plenty of other places for a college guy to have his fun.

And with that, I'm out of here.

[Kapadons]

I think some people here are under the impression there is a widespread problem of colleges kicking people out simply because one student said they were raped. Colleges do internal investigations all the time. Some girl can't just say " that guy raped me" and they immediately kick the kid out. there has to be some sort of corroborating evidence.

Now there may be one story at one school where this may have happened, but it's not a widespread issue.

I think we will find more of the exact opposite. A student claims they were raped and school says " well there are no witnesses, no video, you did a rape kit too late or not at all, your story isn't 100% consistent and he is saying you are a liar" and then nothing is being done.

[Endus]

yes or no in a, trial, hearing, tribunal, or any other similar event using the preponderance of evidence standard both sides should have to follow the same rules regarding what evidence they can or can not submit in order to reach a fair verdict?

Tentative "yes". With an exception that the people leading the panel or whatever investigating this may have more questions for one party than the other, and that's not a demonstration of any unfairness, necessarily.

I'm not saying they should have kangaroo courts that are biased against men. I'm saying "beyond a preponderance of the evidence" is sufficient burden of proof for the university's purposes, and that they should absolutely have the right to remove students on that basis. That's it.

Why?

Scenario 1: ignore a legitimate claim of sexual assault = a woman is victimized

scenario 2: be overzealous about a claim of sexual assault for which there is no proof = a man is victimized


In either case, someone is victimized.

Because the former allows for a university culture to emerge where victimization is supported, if you're avoiding legitimate claims, as Baylor was. People know the administration won't pursue it, so they feel free to behave poorly.

[Canpinter]

The point was that "questioning witnesses" is something that happens in trials. In a university hearing, the admin staff running it may do the questioning, and not let either party question anyone. That isn't a problem.

when you are not aloud to ask questions or make statements in your own defense and must rely on someone who has a vested interest (saving face for the university ) in seeing you convicted that is a problem.

[Crissi]

and this is all null and void when a school like Baylor doesnt even bother with a process. The process failed, as it was completely ignored in favor of "football = win at all costs"

Seriously, get back to Baylor.