ACLU Sells Out

[Bob001]

many, many many colleges, including the University at issue in the Sixth circuit opinion that I summarized and linked and that has been totally ignored in this thread involve State Actors, not two private entities.

The dispute is ultimately between the party accused and the party who made the accusation, as is the case in a civil trial or administrative hearing. In a criminal matter, the accuser is the state itself.

 

[lomiller]

No but you could end up being followed with the label for the rest of your life because of a lower standard of evidence.

A university doesn’t have this power.

 

[Belz...]

A university doesn’t have this power.

Individual humans have this power, so yes, it does. I'm not talking about a national registry, here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with the stigma of being accused of something is that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Yeah I'm tired of the way some people act as if being accused of certain crimes can't be life ruining, but at the same time... what can be done? That's a mentality, not a rule or law that can be overturned.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.

That's an ironic accusation, given that you're explicitly relying on the ACLU rather than applying and real thought to it yourself. And no, I don't need to read right wing op-eds to form an opinion about the rules. I can examine the rules themselves. I doubt you've done the same. Certainly you aren't actually interested in talking about them, because you never do.

 

[The Big Dog]

The dispute is ultimately between the party accused and the party who made the accusation, as is the case in a civil trial or administrative hearing. In a criminal matter, the accuser is the state itself.

that is completely erroneous, you clearly did not read the link or case I posted.

By the way, "administrative hearings"? Also involve State actors.

 

[theprestige]

You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.

Have you tried reading the new regulations themselves?

 

[Drewbot]

You know the college rulings are usually separate from the local jurisdictions?

For example, here is a video report about a student who has been completely cleared of the false rape charges, legally...

However he still faces the USC Board of Ethics, and could still be expelled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvSEGqwiUI

 

[The Norseman]

The dispute is ultimately between the party accused and the party who made the accusation, as is the case in a civil trial or administrative hearing. In a criminal matter, the accuser is the state itself.

True to a point but the issue I see people missing here is that the school/university is not a neutral third party, as a judge or even an arbitration firm would be neutral but has very much 'skin in the game' involving accusations of criminal behavior among students and/or faculty.

For this reason alone, I think the idea is fraught with uncertainty and calls into question any supposed fairness.

 

[Drewbot]

This article is about an application of the Title 9 rules that destroyed a man's career, even though he had already been cleared of the criminal charge.
Quotes throughout about how current Title 9 rules are totally stacked against the accused.

This is not an outtake from a bad men’s rights movie. Civil libertarians and legal scholars, including those with impeccable feminist credentials, have challenged the lack of due process in these Title IX proceedings, particularly for the accused. Twenty-eight members of the Harvard Law faculty, including prominent female and male liberal professors, recently signed an open letter in The Boston Globe.Their letter read: “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused and are in no way required by Title IX law.”

Much blame resides with a 2011 directive from the Obama administration’s Department of Education, which was sent to thousands of schools that receive federal funds. This “Dear Colleague letter,” as it is known, was no doubt well intentioned. Sexual assault on campuses is real, women are hurt, embarrassed and reluctant to step forward, and historically too many universities shrugged off the terrible as “kids will be kids.”Before the arrival of that letter, many colleges used “clear and convincing” as a standard of proof in in-house investigations of sexual assault and harassment. A few, such as Stanford University, applied the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

New rules are definitely needed.
https://www.myajc.com/sports/triple...-case-ends-nfl-career/YKw2hlXPqpGNScfAw9caQM/

 

[lomiller]

This article is about an application of the Title 9 rules that destroyed a man's career, even though he had already been cleared of the criminal charge.
Quotes throughout about how current Title 9 rules are totally stacked against the accused.





New rules are definitely needed.
https://www.myajc.com/sports/triple...-case-ends-nfl-career/YKw2hlXPqpGNScfAw9caQM/

This looks much more like a mistake by the school in implementing the process than a problem with the process itself. The issue here appears to be that he wasn’t properly notified of an appeal and therefor was denied the opportunity to present his own evidence.

The university sends an email to Mumphery at an address he no longer looks at. He knows nothing of the appeal. This time, Michigan State holds him responsible for relationship violence and sexual misconduct.

If anything this case seems to go against the ACLU position because the school’s error prevented him from presenting his own evidence. A higher standard of evidence probably doesn’t even make a difference if he’s not properly informed of the hearing.

 

[Drewbot]

IMO it is still double jeopardy.

If you are cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the justice system, you should not be tried by a 3rd party operating with it's own set of rules.

 

[lomiller]

IMO it is still double jeopardy.

If you are cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the justice system, you should not be tried by a 3rd party operating with it's own set of rules.

Not pursuing charges is not the same thing as being cleared. Even when a case goes to trial and there isn’t a guilty verdict it doesn’t prevent civil litigation for the same offence.

 

[crescent]

IMO it is still double jeopardy.

If you are cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the justice system, you should not be tried by a 3rd party operating with it's own set of rules.

You should let OJ know about that. Also let the KKK know, they've faced the same issue, getting exonerated by all-white juries, only to get their pants sued off of them in civil court.

 

[Drewbot]

Civil court is part of the justice system.

My point was clearly 3rd party groups should not be able to prosecute you.

 

[Tony]

Time to take the “CL” out of ACLU.

 

[Crossbow]

Civil court is part of the justice system.

My point was clearly 3rd party groups should not be able to prosecute you.

Actually, third party groups need to have their own process for dealing with their own organization.

After all, if a pilot screws up, then he has to answer to the FAA.
If a police officer screws up, then he has to answer to some sort of Internal Affairs organization.
If a person in the military screws up, then he has to answer to military justice.
If a doctor screws up, then he has to answer to his medical board.

And so on.

So, are you really so sure that your argument is correct?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, are you really so sure that your argument is correct?

For the present thread, it doesn't really matter. If you're categorically against schools handling these issues at all, then nothing about the new rules changes that. It's still the status quo in that regard. Wanting schools to not touch the issue at all is a separate complaint that deserves a separate thread to address.

 

[plague311]

Civil court is part of the justice system.

My point was clearly 3rd party groups should not be able to prosecute you.

If I get busted for driving around North Dakota with an ounce of weed, my job shouldn't be able to fire me?

Students represent the school they attend, on or off campus, just like I represent my job even if I'm not there. Why shouldn't they be able to decide?

ETA: If you want to throw organizations that receive funding into the mix, go ahead. No one is owed an education at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Students represent the school they attend

Not really. The relationship between a school and a student isn't equivalent to the relationship between an employer and an employee.

That doesn't mean that schools have no business adjudicating any of these sexual assault/harassment complaints, because those issues aren't equivalent to smoking pot either. But the parallel you're trying to draw is a bad one.

Plus, of course, it's all unnecessary. If you object categorically to schools handling these issues, then these new rules about how exactly schools should do that are irrelevant, and this thread isn't the place to address that objection.