Heads Roll at Baylor University Over Sexual-Assault Reports

[Unionoob]

And now you're stating things that are blatantly false.

If you think an employer can't fire you because you raped another employee, you're nuts. Any kind of sexual harassment is sufficient for firing. That can be anything as simple as asking a girl out a couple times, or even once if you're her superior.

That's the same kind of thing we're talking about. How does HR decide that the sexual harassment happened? They "investigate", in the same sense that the colleges do.

It's reasonable to fire or kick student from colleges for such wrong doings.
But is there system what is done if person which is being accused isn't at fault? Like Statement from University that they were mistaken and that he gets refunded his money he paid for college?

[Dextroden]

Because colleges should be free to make administrative decisions about their students. You're trying to prevent them from being able to do so.

Like kicking out women who make rape claims to keep them from generating negative buzz. They need to be able to do that.

[Endus]

No, read the law. They cant say the person commited to such crime unless they have concluding evidence, since then employee could sue them for defaming. Employee can be fired though anyway, but they cant say that this was the exact reason.

Yeah, no. You absolutely can fire people for sexual harassment without filing criminal charges. No idea where you got the impression otherwise.

And you keep ignoring that the colleges have evidence to show that the guy they expelled committed that rape. That's why they expelled them.

It's reasonable to fire or kick student from colleges.
But is there system what is done if person which is being accused isn't at fault? Like Statement from University that they were mistaken and that he gets refunded his money he paid for college?

If he's accused in error, and can demonstrate his innocence, and was expelled regardless, he has grounds for a lawsuit, yes. Can sue for not just a refund of tuitions, but also the damage to his reputation and so forth. You'd need to be able to establish that they committed a fault in expelling you, however, by ignoring your defense or some such.

You aren't going to get a refund for getting expelled, in general, though. You got what you paid for. You aren't paying for a degree, and it isn't "unfair" to lose your opportunity to earn one. You got the education you paid for, in prior semesters.

[SandMax]

https://www.fisherphillips.com/resou...r-theft-part-1

In virtually every employment lawsuit arising out of termination for wrongdoing, the first step of the termination process, the investigation, becomes the most critical years later in front of a jury. This is even more important when theft is involved. An allegation of theft is a powerful accusation and one that should never be taken lightly. While an employer ordinarily bears no burden of proof at trial, the jury will look for the employer to prove an accusation of theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The employee's first tack in a trial will be to attack the quality of the investigation.

How the termination meeting will be conducted depends heavily on how strong the evidence appears. If all the evidence points to theft, but is not conclusive, an employee should not be told he is being terminated for "theft" or "dishonesty" or even "suspicion of theft." This does not mean the employee should not be terminated. But accusing an individual of a crime is per se defamatory in many jurisdictions and can result in the employer being practically forced to prove that the employee in fact stole.

[Endus]

Not sure what your point is. Most of the expulsions from universities over this stuff isn't specifically calling the offense "rape", to begin with. It's clear that's what the motivation is, but that's reading between the lines, in the same way that you would if someone's fired for "lack of trust" or the like, where the employer freely states they were pretty sure he was stealing office supplies.

[SandMax]

Not sure what your point is. Most of the expulsions from universities over this stuff isn't specifically calling the offense "rape", to begin with. It's clear that's what the motivation is, but that's reading between the lines, in the same way that you would if someone's fired for "lack of trust" or the like, where the employer freely states they were pretty sure he was stealing office supplies.

I believe that in this case "separation for sexual assault" is pretty much the same thing.

[May90]

Actually, you can use singular cases as a reason for why there needs to be procedural changes, without any issues at all. Tendency or no. The biggest argument against the death penalty here (together with "it's uncivilized"), for example, is that the risk of a singular case of an innocent getting the death penalty invalidates it as a punishment on any scale. I could give more examples like that, as well, but then our justice system outright abhors opinions like Endus' "better to be overzealous ('sentence' innocents), than to ignore the issue". I have to agree with that stance, both options are abhorrent from a justice-point of view.

The problem with this argument is that you can always find a singular case or a few that demonstrate procedural imperfection - doesn't mean you need to scrap the whole system and start anew. The problem discussed exists on some level, and yes, the world would be better off if this problem was solved, all other things equal. However, I'd say, the system has MUCH bigger problems, which dwindle the one discussed (not talking about universities, but about false rape accusations finding the accused guilty).

The entire system is fucking corrupt - The 'judges' have a vested fucking interest in always giving out a guilty verdict - Otherwise they get OCR on their ass and worried parents - That you cant see the moral hazards inherent in the system is beyond the fucking pale.

This is not an argument at all, since we are talking about a specific issue. Also, I can't take someone who uses the word "fucking" three times in a row seriously; makes you look like a very unintelligent person.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You realize that by "they", I meant "the administration of the college", right? I was in no way suggesting any kind of change to the criminal justice system. I was talking about the lesser standard of evidence we expect outside of that criminal justice system. Both in the civil courts, and in cases like these school hearings.

We're not talking about criminal convictions, here. We're talking about being kicked out of university. That's it.

That doesn't matter one bit. The philosophical idea behind "Innocent until proven guilty" SHOULD be always followed.

- - - Updated - - -

No argument that supports this has been presented. In many cases, there isn't enough evidence for criminal charges. That doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to warrant expulsion.

And there is the issue. Duke preemptively punished those players... and were sued because of it. Basing punishment around an accusation is wrong. Thats where witch finding came from.

- - - Updated - - -

Because colleges should be free to make administrative decisions about their students. You're trying to prevent them from being able to do so.

This is FALSE. No one is doing that. People are suggesting and standard for investigations and such before a punishment is doled out. Not just a "he said, she said" case...

[Endus]

That doesn't matter one bit. The philosophical idea behind "Innocent until proven guilty" SHOULD be always followed.

It is.

This is FALSE. No one is doing that. People are suggesting and standard for investigations and such before a punishment is doled out. Not just a "he said, she said" case...

Those standards already exist. You folks are arguing they should be ignored and the only thing that should matter is whether or not there is a criminal conviction.

[May90]

Those standards already exist. You folks are arguing they should be ignored and the only thing that should matter is whether or not there is a criminal conviction.

In such cases, I think, yes, that's the only thing that should matter. It is not university's business to deal with such cases.

That said, technically, universities are free to introduce all kinds of policies and rules for expelling or suspending people who do not follow them - as any private organization can; as long as those policies/rules do not contradict the general state laws.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It is.



Those standards already exist. You folks are arguing they should be ignored and the only thing that should matter is whether or not there is a criminal conviction.

I did not say that. And no, they aren't. They obviously aren't. If they were... the convictions would be the same as the findings by the administrators.