Sexual Assault changes coming
- Thread starter CATS1945
- Start date
Neither were the hearings Lloyd Tubman had that led to him being expelled.
I know. I'm saying it needs to take place in the court system. I'm not arguing against your stance...
You got that right. In my mind I read it as "sexual assault charges coming"....and had all kinds of bad things flashing in my head.
Thanks for the insightful comment. I presented one case, you presented zero...then told me to do your research for you...bye Felicia
Good to hear, and thank you for that news! I hated what happened to him.
It happened to people on campus when I was in school. Nearly happened to a good friend. He was very thankful he had witnesses that nothing happened (friends of the accuser no less that testified against her). Wasn't her first false accusation, but he'd have been expelled before he breathed a word in defense, if not for her friends.
There is no perfect system, but we need to improve the campus system for the sake of everyone. How to do that without invading privacy.... well
However a student board decided that no matter what the legal system said that they ruled against him.
Don't know how they were given that right but I'm guessing it was largely made up of scared men and scary women.
But the case you presented doesn’t make your point. A campus hearing doesn’t equate to due process. Unless it includes certain rights for the accused and the accuser, it is no more than political expediency. If you can’t confront your accuser or be represented by council, for example, how is due process being carried out? Let me ask you specifically what took place in Tubman’s hearing at UK that made it qualify as due process and justice?
Last edited:
Academic political correctness has run amok the past years. When I was in school I saw girls do crazy things, but of their own free will. That's all I can speak to
That’s pathetic on UK’s part. At the very least they owed that man a public apology. That bs accusation was a big news story for awhile.
Weird...ever woman has to be "believed" unless it's a democratic politician being charged. You can't make this stuff up...they are something else.
"2011 guidance issued by the Obama administration...under the direction of Joe Biden!
An absolute lie. Answer the question, how many cases do you want me to present to prove you dead wrong. Put on your big boy pants and pick a number.
He was given due process and NOT indicted by the Grand Jury. But UK has a different standard than everyone else in the conference, same as with the TWO mj charges and you are gone while Thug U's standard is FIVE mj charges.
The grand jury decided they didn't have a case.
I think that the fact that the two were going together, probably no doubt sexually intimate, and the circumstances of what happened on the night in question (walking him to the door, no big scene) made the whole charge pretty questionable. As was her character.
Last edited:
I actually thought the case of the promising DB (VERY fast) that was kicked out of school when charged with "Fourth Degree Assault" with no word on what actually happened was another interesting case. I never did hear a word about what is involved in a FOURTH DEGREE assault.
I think Tubman got a rotten deal. I think he was innocent of the charges and that the girl should have been prosecuted, but not for the reasons most would assume. For every Tubman there are many many more girls raped on campus that never get help from administrations. The movie "The Hunting Ground" on Netflix and youtube is very good at uncovering how many girls are raped on campus and are not protected or supported after the rape. It shows the woman Jamius Winston raped and details a lot about how FSU protects it's athletes who do rape. I hope things are better now. BTW there appears to be two movies titled The Hunting Ground, the one I'm referring to and one about rape in the military. Tubman got a raw deal but the far bigger problem is rape of women who never get support. That in why the woman who falsely accused Tubman should be made to face consequences.
Ok, so here's the first part you are wrong on. Tubman was not afforded proper due process. This quote is from the judge handing the case the girl filed against UK. I guess you can argue against that quote but...
"It is undisputed that the university bungled the disciplinary hearings so badly, so inexcusably, that it necessitated three appeals and reversals in an attempt to remedy the due process deficiencies,” Hood wrote, the newspaper said.
Since you won't answer me, I'll just give you a few cases. I'd love to start with your fascination with the term "administrative process" or "administrative hearing". Simply having a hearing doesn't mean due process was ever followed unless of course you're in Russia, China, Cuba or Venezuela. That was blatantly true with Tubman. You're awful trusting of untrained laypeople deciding very serious issues. Here are a few more starting with a couple overviews of due process at universities.
https://dfkpq46c1l9o7.cloudfront.net/pdfs/due-process-2.pdf
https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=fac_works
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...g-opens-door-due-process-private-universities - this was at a private school.
https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/05...itle-ix-claim-over-sex-assault-investigation/
https://www.thefire.org/doe-v-university-of-michigan-no-218-cv-11776-e-d-mich-mar-23-2020/
https://www.thefire.org/averett-v-hardy-no-319-cv-00116-w-d-ky-mar-3-2020/
https://www.thefire.org/doe-v-purdue-university-928-f-3d-652-7th-cir-2019/
I could go on but I think you see the problem.
The issue there is that the legal system moves slowly, and a university must act more quickly to protect their student body. An actual rapist could make bail and continue to live in the dorms and attend classes for years before they ever have a final hearing in a court of law. That could be troublesome for a victim if they live in the same dorm or have the same or similar classes.
So, it would be hard for a university to just play the waiting game on that.
Not taking sides in this type of situation, but what if the accuser is the liar, is that fair? There's no black or white answers here at all.
100 percent correct that it isn't black and white and it's an extremely difficult situation. Ideally, the university holds and administrative hearing and the accused receives their due process. However, even that can be difficult as it is not advantageous for a criminal defendant to testify in an administrative hearing. It could harm their criminal case. So, it can be an uphill battle.
That is a valid concern and the only way to address it is to have some sort of disciplinary hearing but if there are pending charges against the accused, they cannot properly defend themselves. Tubman had that problem. If they have that type of hearing, records would have to be sealed and if the school decides the student must be suspended, fine, but if that same student goes thru the legal system and isn't found guilty, the school should be required to allow them back with no penalties.
I think that is difficult... not guilty doesn't always mean that you're actually innocent. May just mean that there was not enough evidence for a criminal court to meet a much higher burden than a civil or administrative hearing may have to meet.
I think your idea is certainly sound in premise but even it poses issues. Hell, everything about sexual assault is difficult.
Agreed but "not guilty" is a final statement. I despise these school kangaroo courts. Personally, I think they should be outlawed for anything that rises to the level of a felony. They are not experienced enough nor trained enough, nor able to adjudicate serious issues appropriately.
Technically, the level of criminal offense matter shouldn't matter to the university. They are not necessarily determining criminal guilt, but whether there was a violation of school policy that would warrant expulsion or removal.
Still, I agree that there needs to be more and better direction and consistency among the schools on these hearings so it is more clear how they work and so that someone accused can better defend themselves.
The reason I said felony is because once an alleged act rises to that level i dont think a school is appropriate to adjudicate it at all except perhaps for temporary suspensions pending an actual court decision. If a DA or grand jury thinks there isnt a case, a school shouldn't fabricate one.
This. Sexual assault is a felony. The courts should decide these issues. Being dismissed by a university for sexual assault leaves a label on a person the rest of their lives. It destroys their academic and upper level professional potential. It doesn't matter to other schools or employers if the label was applied correctly. To leave this type of power in the hands of college hearings where the defendant has no right to a full legal defense is patently unfair.
This all started with a severely flawed report based on unreliable data that stated there were literally thousands of unreported rapes on college campuses. The feminist lobby got the Obama administration to threaten the universities to perform these "trials" or possibly lose all federal funding. The universities didn't want to do this. It turned out that the number of sexual assault cases was much lower than they originally thought.
I don't know if you realize that you are mixing cases here. No one is suggesting that a rapist is allowed to remain at large. They are arrested and detained in most cases. If released the university can suspend them pending results of his legal case. That is not what this discussion is about.
These cases almost always involve two drunk college students in a dorm room. They know each other. It is almost impossible for an outsider to decipher the exact nature of anything sexual or otherwise that may occur in this setting and the two students may have no memory or understanding of what actually happened themselves. For one of the students to later decide that the interaction was assault is fine, I'm sure it happens, but there is no way to prove that claim either way.
UK treated Tubman like garbage. Terrible what the university did with him
I have no idea regarding Tubman's guilt or innocent only two people will ever know that, I do have some doubts. But my understanding of the events matches up with what @Dncmaxwell has presented here in detail.
Historically by far the larger issue, not at Kentucky in particular but in most all public universities was NOT arbitrarily dismissing the accused without due process but rather covering up and dismissing the charges despite strong evidence in some cases, in order to protect the reputation of the school and avoid bad publicity. Baylor was perhaps a very well known and egregiousness example of that. It was only when a few courageous young women brought Title IX charges against a school that the scales started to tilt the other way. There was a fact based documentary on this which I watched on Netflix a couple of years ago.
No one wants to see a miscarriage of justice, an innocent person wrongfully punished or a victim ignored and dismissed.
Historically by far the larger issue, not at Kentucky in particular but in most all public universities was NOT arbitrarily dismissing the accused without due process but rather covering up and dismissing the charges despite strong evidence in some cases, in order to protect the reputation of the school and avoid bad publicity. Baylor was perhaps a very well known and egregiousness example of that. It was only when a few courageous young women brought Title IX charges against a school that the scales started to tilt the other way. There was a fact based documentary on this which I watched on Netflix a couple of years ago.
No one wants to see a miscarriage of justice, an innocent person wrongfully punished or a victim ignored and dismissed.
One of the big questions is the attitude of the school you are at, at UK if you do anything wrong you are probably gone, proof or no proof. At Thug U just about anything goes if you are a star athlete, witness the star QB that vandalized the student's car because she turned him in. Then avoided any kind of prosecution because of some weird law that said if he paid for all the damage (he did, which to me admits guilt) he couldn't be prosecuted for the crime. Which also raises the question of where he got the money to pay for the damage. But this would be a minor infraction considering what all has gone on at that "Institute of higher learning".
Which makes their out recruiting us for the same players quite understandable in a lot of cases, it is nice when the DA calls the coach and tells him the details of some malfeasance before anyone else knows the facts.
No one with any character wants UK to stoop to the level of some of the competition but some things our administration does is highly questionable. Tubman just one of many cases that come to mind.
Which makes their out recruiting us for the same players quite understandable in a lot of cases, it is nice when the DA calls the coach and tells him the details of some malfeasance before anyone else knows the facts.
No one with any character wants UK to stoop to the level of some of the competition but some things our administration does is highly questionable. Tubman just one of many cases that come to mind.
Last edited:
To be fair, there can be a case at an administrative level even if there isn't a criminal one. They have different standards of proof required, and could be separate issues arising from the same event. For instance, they may not have to prove the rape to prove something like, 'conduct unbecoming of a student.'
In regard to the player much talked about in this thread....
It was and still might be the wrong time for men to be dating the crazy ones. The University President at the time wasn’t a positive variable for him either OMO... And the AD at the time wasn’t of much service to the young man either OMO because it appeared to me he lived in darkness somewhere behind the President. No one went to bat for the kid because it would not have been PC to do so... So the No Nut Sack gang gave him the heave-ho... so sorry about your bad luck.
I know nothing but I trust my nose and this guy was treated like crap....
It was and still might be the wrong time for men to be dating the crazy ones. The University President at the time wasn’t a positive variable for him either OMO... And the AD at the time
wasn’t of much service to the young man either OMO because it appeared to me he lived in darkness somewhere behind the President. No one went to bat for the kid because it would not have been PC to do so... So the No Nut Sack gang gave him the heave-ho... so sorry about your bad luck. I know nothing but I trust my nose and this guy was treated like crap....
I think that goes to my point. If there isnt evidence of a crime, they would be choosing to pick a side without any evidence of substance. They should not be allowed to do that with serious accusations. That takes us right back to where we've been.
It would kind of depend on the reason they are removed. We think of it as whether they are guilty of the crime, but the university might remove them for another reason, a violation of their own rules. Those could be vague enough to be anything. Such as the whole, 'conduct unbecoming,' stuff. So, they aren't attempting to prove that the crime happened and that the person is guilty, but whether they violated a university policy. This would be a much lower standard.
It's still the same tainted problem. A he said she said where they pick sides almost certainly without any actual evidence.
