​New Bill Proposes College Transcripts Include Rape Charges

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The major issue is that campus activists just have too much power to try and enforce their sexual morality on the campus.

Typically the people who run my universities kangaroo court consists of 3 open lesbians, and 1 girl who is ace and a gay man (The token male in the gender studies dept.) and usually some administrator too afraid to ever challenge these people.

Speaking as a gay man, I've seen this happen for quite a while. Because people of the LGBT camp are so invested in politics - for good reasons, including but not limited to their own human rights - they often get in a position where they can have impacts on other spheres. The thing is, the LGBT movement is mostly an emotional one, which was perhaps the only way to fight off the evangelical right a few years/decades ago. But the fight is taking disproportionate resources and is starting to leak everywhere.

Not to say that the stereotypical school club is only run by minorities. But the mentality of human rights for all is starting to look more and more like privileging people who had to fight before to make those from a group you fought years ago pay for crimes they most likely never committed. Even if that means generalizing to a whole race.

[THE Bigzoman]

Well, you can't expect nothing less from neo-liberals, Crissi. I am all for the middle ground too, but it seems people on both sides of the argument don't want to meet in the middle because it means making a compromise for the other side, despite the fact that compromising is the best way to fix a problem.

In other cases, sure.

But it's hard to compromise on solving a problem when the crux of the argument is whether or not it even existed to begin with.

[God Save The King]

This also means transcripts are labeled if you are charged, even if found innocent you still get that label.

Sorry this bit confused me. From your own source:

"On Thursday, a California legislator filed a bill that would require college administrators across the country to note on a student's transcript if he or she had been found guilty of violating the school's sexual violence policies"

Did you leave out a piece of information? From what I understand, the mark will only appear if you are found guilty of violating a school's sexual violence policy.


Anyway, to actually contribute to the discussion, I agree. As long as the mark doesn't say "Rapist", and more like the marks you get for cheating/plagarism.

At my University such a mark, at the bottom of your transcript under disciplinary actions, would say "Found in violation of the University's Academic Integrity Policy"
I imagine a similar mark would be along the lines of "Found in violation of the University's Sexual Violence Policy"

[Xanjori]

Did you leave out a piece of information? From what I understand, the mark will only appear if you are found guilty of violating a school's sexual violence policy.

Yes, I already linked the proposition. https://speier.house.gov/sites/speie...ill%20text.pdf

[Jonnusthegreat]

I'm against any legislation that is obviously biased or has a clear agenda. Why would this legislation not include ALL crimes committed?

[Theodarzna]

Rapidly vanishing?

As long as black dudes trying to make it out the hood still exist, they'll be enough man to go around.

Not enough though, the 60+% ratio has proven to be a pretty hard ceiling for male to female ratio. Even if the whole sports team made a harem of the women going around it still wouldn't work.

College men to turn into boyfriends is ONE of the attractions for women going to college. If men are vanishing and women sense this school is just a "Women's College," enrollment collapses.

[Melkandor]

So schools are not permitted to record breaches of university policy, then?

LOL are you serious?
the law>university policy

[Endus]

what about murder? assault? stealing? etc... just add on their entire criminal history?

Criminal record checks are an entirely separate thing.

Like I say every time one of these threads comes up. A college/university are not the fucking police. It is not their job to handle rape crime. They need to get out of this mentality that it is their problem to fix, it is not. We have police, a court and judges for these kinds of things, not schools.

And there are plenty of cases where evidence for malfeasance does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard that's expected of criminal court. But may be convincing enough for administrative action. Which is what these universities are handling.

If there's specific instances you want to dig into where a particular school was far too willing to side with one party in the case, that's fine, but the concept that universities can apply administrative judgements against their own students, according to the standards of behaviour they expect of their student population, that's not a crazy idea that's somehow unacceptable.

There are plenty of cases where a student may not be able to be found guilty in a court of law, but absolutely SHOULD be kicked out of the college with a sexual infraction on their record. Same way you could be fired from your job for sexual harassment, even if that action wasn't actionably illegal according to the law.

[God Save The King]

Yes, I already linked the proposition. https://speier.house.gov/sites/speie...ill%20text.pdf

Oh thanks for that.

I'll have my legal friend look at it, since I find it challenging to really gather what Bills are saying without a lot of context, but from what I gather the note on your transcript will appear for 1 year if you leave the university once the proceedings have begun or for 5 years once the proceedings have finished and you are found guilty.

Here's the General Education Provisions Act, which is what the Safe Transfer Act amends if anyone reading wants to go through that mess. https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/G...ions%20Act.pdf

[satimy]

Torn on this. There seems ot be no middle ground. On one hand, this kind of thing is silly since it also includes in progress, not just finished - convicted. On the otherhand, universities doing NOTHING leads to Baylor like situations, which tarnish the entire campus for some time and give off a rapist university vibe.

The police being inept can be solved by democracy, some corrupt college chancellor playing god cannot

[Dadwen]

Criminal record checks are an entirely separate thing.



And there are plenty of cases where evidence for malfeasance does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard that's expected of criminal court. But may be convincing enough for administrative action. Which is what these universities are handling.

If there's specific instances you want to dig into where a particular school was far too willing to side with one party in the case, that's fine, but the concept that universities can apply administrative judgements against their own students, according to the standards of behaviour they expect of their student population, that's not a crazy idea that's somehow unacceptable.

There are plenty of cases where a student may not be able to be found guilty in a court of law, but absolutely SHOULD be kicked out of the college with a sexual infraction on their record. Same way you could be fired from your job for sexual harassment, even if that action wasn't actionably illegal according to the law.

Being I've never been in HR can a job record be picked up by the next potential employer with out the ex-employee permission like that is being proposed in this bill? so basically the current administration could be effectively blocking the student from ever getting into a another University.

[Endus]

Being I've never been in HR can a job record be picked up by the next potential employer with out the ex-employee permission like that is being proposed in this bill? so basically the current administration could be effectively blocking the student from ever getting into a another University.

Well, yeah. Your job history isn't private information. Your employers are free to tell other prospective employers whatever they want to about your employment history with them, with or without your permission.

Employees have significantly LESS protection in this than university students do.

And no; what would be preventing the hypothetical student from getting into another university is their official record of sexual impropriety.

[GreenJesus]

The one in 4 statistic is actually inaccurate. The method they used to ascribe 1 in 4 was to do a survey on women to find out if they had any unwanted sexual advances/sexual harassment and the criteria was shockingly vague, like "did somebody ever do something you were uncomfortable with". From that data they ascribe 1 in 4 women would be the victim of rape, which is a bit different than their criteria.

I was forced to do one of those rape prevention online things every person has to do to prevent getting fined 500 dollars by the university. The 1 in 4 number is bullshit. They included people who said they knew people who experienced it.

[Dadwen]

Well, yeah. Your job history isn't private information. Your employers are free to tell other prospective employers whatever they want to about your employment history with them, with or without your permission.

Employees have significantly LESS protection in this than university students do.

And no; what would be preventing the hypothetical student from getting into another university is their official record of sexual impropriety.

Ok just checking I had someone a while back tell me one company when contacting the last one was limited on what they could ask (limited to certain facts) and the previous one was not allowed to offer info (just what I've heard not sure how much weight it holds)..

google searching it, it seems it can vary from company to company but not legally binding but would bring up the question if you could prove what the last administration said about you was false it would lead to the ability to sue the school one would think https://www.monster.com/career-advic...rs-legally-say, so it would seem if the student was innocent it would be in his best interest to try and make it a police matter.

[Endus]

Ok just checking I had someone a while back tell me one company when contacting the last one was limited on what they could ask (limited to certain facts) and the previous one was not allowed to offer info (just what I've heard not sure how much weight it holds)..

Maybe some States have laws regarding it, but so far as I know, in most of the Western world, those employee records are the property of your employer and they're free to do with them as they will, subject to whatever agreements you may have attached to your contract with them.

They typically protect employee privacy because it's good to support your employees, but if someone calls and asks for a reference, they don't NEED the employee's permission to give it (or not).

[Theodarzna]

In other cases, sure.

But it's hard to compromise on solving a problem when the crux of the argument is whether or not it even existed to begin with.

There is no middle ground with the activists.

At last Feminists and Christian Conservatives have a common goal, to prevent young women from giving blowjobs ect.

In the end its activist cranks wanting to police campus culture and be able to curate it to their will.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry this bit confused me. From your own source:



Did you leave out a piece of information? From what I understand, the mark will only appear if you are found guilty of violating a school's sexual violence policy.


Anyway, to actually contribute to the discussion, I agree. As long as the mark doesn't say "Rapist", and more like the marks you get for cheating/plagarism.

At my University such a mark, at the bottom of your transcript under disciplinary actions, would say "Found in violation of the University's Academic Integrity Policy"
I imagine a similar mark would be along the lines of "Found in violation of the University's Sexual Violence Policy"

Considering how it takes a miracle to beat charges in the California University system, I think its a shit tier law.

Even if its "After found guilty of accusation," if its guilty by the CSU ect. systems in house kangaroo court it might as well say "If accused." Since the two are practically synonymous.

[Rudkobing]

Calgon take me away from this.

[Theodarzna]

I was forced to do one of those rape prevention online things every person has to do to prevent getting fined 500 dollars by the university. The 1 in 4 number is bullshit. They included people who said they knew people who experienced it.

You get a fine? Fuck these jack booted thugs in the Title IX office are insane.

I am surprised they don't claim its higher, after all under the OCR, Dept. of Education and Justices definition ANYTHING is harassment. It doesn't need to even be a reasonable claim, by a reasonable person. They completely cast out the Davis ruling on that. I am hopeful Trumps people will undo the damage brought in by Obama's people in this respect.

[Wells]

(source)



So..... California's list of whacky laws about the campus rape hysteria is to have ones transcript label if you've been charged with anything. When are we just going to sex segregate College's already?

Your quote says "found guilty", not charged.

[Kellhound]

Seems to be more an issue of the criminal justice system not working (or that its working and the feminists are mad because of it...).