"Pressured by the Obama administration, universities abandon any pretense of due process in sexual assault cases."
As much as we want to see the guilty restrained and punished, this method does NOT serve justice-
…OCR requires universities to render judgment using “a preponderance of the evidence” standard. This means that in a rape case, a campus disciplinary board of faculty, administrators and perhaps students serves as both judge and jury. Few if any of these judges are likely to have professional competence in fact-gathering, evidence analysis or judicial procedure. Yet to deliver a verdict of guilty, they need only believe that the accused is more likely than not to have committed the crime.
berkowitz sounds guilty…
really. these aren’t criminal proceedings. the rules for civil cases sound a lot more appropriate since the harshest penalty is expulsion.
really. these aren’t criminal proceedings. the rules for civil cases sound a lot more appropriate since the harshest penalty is expulsion.
Hey Chris-
What do you mean? Berkowitz is the writer, not the accused. Are you saying that you think Berkowitz has a guilty conscience?
Three words - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case] Duke Lacrosse Case
What do you mean? Berkowitz is the writer, not the accused. Are you saying that you think Berkowitz has a guilty conscience?
Three words - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case] Duke Lacrosse Case
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
yes, guilty conscience. i know he’s not under any invstigation currently, but it seems extreme to be pushing for criminal evidence rules in these cases. if i were accused of assault on a coworker, i’m certain my continued employment would be based on very similar ideas to these federal rules. why should tax dollars go to students and professors that create hostile environments?
The workplace comparison is apt. An employer or school could be liable if someone credibly (not necessarily certainly) accused of rape or some other act of violence strikes again. The majority standard in the workplace is whether the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s past actions. And these past actions need not have been ultimately determined in criminal court. For example, having been fired from a prior job for a related violent offense could be sufficient to establish the employer’s negligence should they hire or retain the employee.
I’m years removed from employment law, but expect similar potential liability could attach to colleges and universities.
I’m years removed from employment law, but expect similar potential liability could attach to colleges and universities.
In a workplace situation, the HR department will call the police to investigate the situation.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
i still think the workplace analogy is appropriate… even if the coworker decides not to press charges, i might still lose my job. and if i sent an email like mcfadyen’s from my work email like he did from his school email, i could be escorted out just from that one email regardless of whether i could convince the police it was only a joke.
Jay,
There is a difference between the determination made by our legal system and the determination made by an employer or school. The legal system is making a determination as to guilt or innocence. The employer or school is making a determination as to likely guilt or innocence.
If the prosecutors fail to establish the guilt of a guilty individual they are not liable in the event that the person commits a similar crime in the future. An employer or school may well be. And so they will neither require the same level of evidence nor are they able to impose the same degree of punishment.
Now among the employers and educational institutions, there is a distinction between public employers and universities and private. Due process rights present in the public setting are not the same or may be absent altogether in the private setting. One example of this is the fact that some public employees have a property interest in their jobs and they may not be deprived of this interest without due process. In the private sector, nearly all employees are at will. Very few have individual contracts and the number with collective bargaining agreements is shrinking.
But directly to your reply, police and employer (or school) are two separate tracks headed to two very different stations.
There is a difference between the determination made by our legal system and the determination made by an employer or school. The legal system is making a determination as to guilt or innocence. The employer or school is making a determination as to likely guilt or innocence.
If the prosecutors fail to establish the guilt of a guilty individual they are not liable in the event that the person commits a similar crime in the future. An employer or school may well be. And so they will neither require the same level of evidence nor are they able to impose the same degree of punishment.
Now among the employers and educational institutions, there is a distinction between public employers and universities and private. Due process rights present in the public setting are not the same or may be absent altogether in the private setting. One example of this is the fact that some public employees have a property interest in their jobs and they may not be deprived of this interest without due process. In the private sector, nearly all employees are at will. Very few have individual contracts and the number with collective bargaining agreements is shrinking.
But directly to your reply, police and employer (or school) are two separate tracks headed to two very different stations.
Discussion