Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[Endus]

Involving criminal charges, somehow. Weird.

Unless criminal charges are filed, no they aren't.

And even if they are, that's completely separate from whatever decision the university makes. Again; can a university not expel you for plagiarism? Plagiarism isn't even criminal at all. You folks are literally arguing that a university should not be able to apply administrative punishments, unless there's a criminal conviction. It's a ridiculous and unworkable standard.

And these aren't cases where people are denied due process and expelled on no evidence. That largely isn't happening. Some universities go too far with this, others (like Baylor, here) don't go far enough. That's reason to take issue with that particular university, not the concept of administrative action itself.

- - - Updated - - -

You really think it is just to expel a man based on nothing but a story? With no hard evidence behind it?

What the actual fuck is wrong with you.

If it's more reasonable than the other guy's story, yes.

Also Endus, when we say you are an authoritarian, and you don't get why we think that - Your belief that 50.1% works as a 'just' system - Is one of the reason we think that.

It's the same standard as used in civil courts. And if this is why you think I'm "authoritarian", you do not have the first clue what the word means.

[Canpinter]

Unless criminal charges are filed, no they aren't.

And even if they are, that's completely separate from whatever decision the university makes. Again; can a university not expel you for plagiarism? Plagiarism isn't even criminal at all. You folks are literally arguing that a university should not be able to apply administrative punishments, unless there's a criminal conviction. It's a ridiculous and unworkable standard.

And these aren't cases where people are denied due process and expelled on no evidence. That isn't happening.

no we are arguing that if you are accused of a crime you should be treated under criminal law not administrative action, if my coworker said i murdered a customer and hide the body the cops should deal with it, if my coworker said i was rude to a customer my boss should deal with it.

[Anastacy]

If it's more reasonable than the other guy's story, yes.

Can "reasonable" be subjective?

[Canpinter]

It's the same standard as used in civil courts. And if this is why you think I'm "authoritarian", you do not have the first clue what the word means.

but in civil court standard of evidence are applied where as in many college hearings the defense is often severely hampered in witnesses it can call questions it can ask or even if it can be told the full details of the accusation.

[Dextroden]

Unless criminal charges are filed, no they aren't.

And even if they are, that's completely separate from whatever decision the university makes. Again; can a university not expel you for plagiarism? Plagiarism isn't even criminal at all. You folks are literally arguing that a university should not be able to apply administrative punishments, unless there's a criminal conviction. It's a ridiculous and unworkable standard.

And these aren't cases where people are denied due process and expelled on no evidence. That largely isn't happening. Some universities go too far with this, others (like Baylor, here) don't go far enough. That's reason to take issue with that particular university, not the concept of administrative action itself.

- - - Updated - - -



If it's more reasonable than the other guy's story, yes.



It's the same standard as used in civil courts. And if this is why you think I'm "authoritarian", you do not have the first clue what the word means.

Endus, stop comparing plagiarism to rape. That is one of the most dishonest things I've seen you do.

[Endus]

no we are arguing that if you are accused of a crime you should be treated under criminal law not administrative action, if my coworker said i murdered a customer and hide the body they cops should deal with it, if my coworker said i was rude to a customer my boss should deal with it.

It isn't one or the other. If you caught an employee stealing your computers, you should fire them immediately and kick them out, not keep them working at the store until the courts get around to convicting them. If the courts decide there isn't enough evidence (because he never actually got the computers out of the store), you're still free to have fired him.

This is no different.

[Deleted]

It isn't the accusation that's evidence. You need to read things more carefully.

Yeah - But many 'trials' wont let the 'respondent' actually, what the word - Question the putative victim, or any witnesses - He is generally entitled an advocate (as per rulings) said advocate is often not allowed to talk - Yeah we are really seeing a 'just' system.

And it isn't "fucking over someone's life". It's removing them from the university. Because they were found to most likely have raped someone.

There are three things wrong wit this sentence - One, It is fucking them over - They are out a lot of money, and now with no degree, and in many cases they are permanently unable to finish said degree - They are forever labelled a 'rapist' - and the absolutely most important thing that is wrong with that sentence:
Most colleges define things as 'rape' that not a single court would convict anyone for, even if they admitted to everything the victim said happened.
Its not even a burden of proof thing - Colleges treat things that are not illegal as if they were rape.

[Endus]

but in civil court standard of evidence are applied where as in many college hearings the defense is often severely hampered in witnesses it can call questions it can ask or even if it can be told the full details of the accusation.

Then take issue with specific cases by specific schools. Right now, you're opposing the entire concept of administrative action over anything.

Endus, stop comparing plagiarism to rape. That is one of the most dishonest things I've seen you do.

There aren't that many things you can see administrative action over. I'm not comparing the two actions to each other, I'm comparing the way that both can be handled by the administration, without a criminal charge being filed.

[Crissi]

Ha ha, I tend to ignore a lot of the conversations endus gets into. A lot of the people he talks to don't really care about the topic and are just there to talk at him and cry.

I think ours is more important and more fun anyways. Like, you have no idea how hard I am laughing that Baylor finally got the shitstorm they deserve. Its kinda why you need to hire a coach that has morals and is adamant about discipline.

[Canpinter]

Then take issue with specific cases by specific schools. Right now, you're opposing the entire concept of administrative action over anything.

and if these things are happening as a pattern rather then just a series of isolated incidents?

[Endus]

Yeah - But many 'trials' wont let the 'respondent' actually, what the word - Question the putative victim, or any witnesses - He is generally entitled an advocate (as per rulings) said advocate is often not allowed to talk - Yeah we are really seeing a 'just' system.

This is not a trial. You are not owed a trial. You're owed due process, which is whatever the university deems it to be, basically.

There are three things wrong wit this sentence - One, It is fucking them over - They are out a lot of money, and now with no degree, and in many cases they are permanently unable to finish said degree - They are forever labelled a 'rapist' - and the absolutely most important thing that is wrong with that sentence:
Most colleges define things as 'rape' that not a single court would convict anyone for, even if they admitted to everything the victim said happened.
Its not even a burden of proof thing - Colleges treat things that are not illegal as if they were rape.

The first is the consequence of that individual behaving poorly.
The second is, again, because they were deemed to have raped someone.
And the third, of course, brings us back to the fact that these colleges are not criminal courts. They don't have to abide by legal definitions, which only apply to those courts. If they want to decide that unwanted hugging is unacceptable and grounds for expulsion, then that's what goes at that school.

- - - Updated - - -

and if these things are happening as a pattern rather then just a series of isolated incidents?

Since this Baylor case (since I'm going to keep trying to keep this on topic) is about a school not pursuing these cases as they should, there clearly is not a universal pattern.

[Deleted]

It's the same standard as used in civil courts. And if this is why you think I'm "authoritarian", you do not have the first clue what the word means.

yeah, because authoritarians are really fond of giving criminals rights...

[Canpinter]

Since this Baylor case (since I'm going to keep trying to keep this on topic) is about a school not pursuing these cases as they should, there clearly is not a universal pattern.

a pattern doesn't need to exist in all places and times to be a trend.

[Endus]

yeah, because authoritarians are really fond of giving criminals rights...

Am I advocating for a dictatorship? No.

Am I arguing against personal freedoms? No, I'm defending the freedoms of these universities, to make these kinds of decisions.

My position's anti-authoritarian, here. Like I said; you don't know what the word means, and think it applies to anyone having any authority over anything ever. Which is false.

[Ripster42]

I think ours is more important and more fun anyways. Like, you have no idea how hard I am laughing that Baylor finally got the shitstorm they deserve. Its kinda why you need to hire a coach that has morals and is adamant about discipline.

And maybe an AD that didn't use a past sex scandal for political advantage. I also kinda wonder what companies who've signed promotional and broadcasting deals do in situations like this. Do they also sue the college? I could easily see a tort case there unless the contracts specifically mention things like this.

Edit: Tort, not torte. This isn't a cooking forum.

[Canpinter]

Am I advocating for a dictatorship? No.

Am I arguing against personal freedoms? No, I'm defending the freedoms of these universities, to make these kinds of decisions.

My position's anti-authoritarian, here. Like I said; you don't know what the word means, and think it applies to anyone having any authority over anything ever. Which is false.

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.

[Dextroden]

Then take issue with specific cases by specific schools. Right now, you're opposing the entire concept of administrative action over anything.



There aren't that many things you can see administrative action over. I'm not comparing the two actions to each other, I'm comparing the way that both can be handled by the administration, without a criminal charge being filed.

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.

Again, expel women that make these accusations. Literally nothing wrong with that.

[Vyxn]

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 a student should be freely able to plagiarize without repercussion because it's not actually criminal? That's literally your argument, here.

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

[Deleted]

This is not a trial. You are not owed a trial. You're owed due process, which is whatever the university deems it to be, basically.

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'.

The first is the consequence of that individual behaving poorly.

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

The second is, again, because they were deemed to have raped someone.

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

And the third, of course, brings us back to the fact that these colleges are not criminal courts. They don't have to abide by legal definitions, which only apply to those courts. If they want to decide that unwanted hugging is unacceptable and grounds for expulsion, then that's what goes at that school.

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.

[Crissi]

And maybe an AD that didn't use a past sex scandal for political advantage. I also kinda wonder what companies who've signed promotional and broadcasting deals do in situations like this. Do they also sue the college? I could easily see a torte case there unless the contracts specifically mention things like this.

True. Texas and TCU have been lucky in that regard. Both have had great ADs, great Presidents, and great coaches (although Mack wasnt quite as stringent as Strong is). Pretty much why the worst thing to out of TCU was "4 football players did Marijuana and were suspended" and from Texas "Girl claims rape against 2 football players, then is proven to be false".

Id imagine companies would want to put some space between them and Baylor ASAP if they can.