That's not a criminal hearing thoughYes they could. If a student was accused of murdering another student UK could choose not to allow them back on campus.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not a criminal hearing thoughYes they could. If a student was accused of murdering another student UK could choose not to allow them back on campus.
That's not a criminal hearing though
I know. I'm saying it needs to take place in the court system. I'm not arguing against your stance...Neither were the hearings Lloyd Tubman had that led to him being expelled.
All I know is this is a terrible thread title.
Thanks for the insightful comment. I presented one case, you presented zero...then told me to do your research for you...bye FeliciaHow many cases would you like me to present? What I find interesting is you are so certain you are correct but you haven't even tried to research the issue. You are so wrong it's almost painful to watch. But, go ahead, how many cases do you need before you admit you are clueless?
100 K-Men signed a letter to Dr Capilouto asking
That Tubman get s 2nd hearing He never responded Tubman put his life together played 3 years at Austin Peay got married had a Daughter
Fine young man
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.
He was. Case went before a grand jury and dropped.
https://www.wdrb.com/news/charges-d...cle_e313dca2-1b4b-5164-aa63-fdccd29bed4a.html
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?Thanks for the insightful comment. I presented one case, you presented zero...then told me to do your research for you...bye Felicia
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 toI hear what you are saying but I don't think it's a good idea in any circumstances to allow administrators to punish an individual without due process. They should have to justify their actions just like anyone else. I think that is especially true of public universities that are supported by tax dollars. They shouldn't have the power to throw someone off campus or ruin a person's reputation because it's politically expedient. I also realize rape is a difficult thing to prove, so having to prove your case before a decision making body on campus, if you are a female subjected to sexual abuse, is a really tough situation. That being said, it's a horrible idea to throw out due process and justice for the sake of making it easier for people who claim to be victims of crime to get the accused punished.
100 K-Men signed a letter to Dr Capilouto asking
That Tubman get s 2nd hearing He never responded Tubman put his life together played 3 years at Austin Peay got married had a Daughter
Fine young man
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.I was really glad to hear that the Dept of Education are making changes to sexual assault changes being made on college campuses. Wasn’t there a UK football player that was charged and banned from UK for sexual assault without due process
"2011 guidance issued by the Obama administration...under the direction of Joe Biden!The new regulation will secure due process rights for students who report sexual misconduct and for those accused of it, by requiring colleges to provide live hearings and allowing students' advisers to cross-examine parties and witnesses involved. Under the new rules, institutions must presume that those accused of sexual misconduct are innocent prior to the investigative and decision-making process, addressing a repeated criticism of 2011 guidance issued by the Obama administration. Those in favor of a Title IX overhaul say the Obama guidance, referred to as the Dear Colleague letter, caused colle ges to overenforce campus sexual misconduct and led to students being unjustly removed from campuses for false accusations. DeVos rescinded the letter in 2017.
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.Thanks for the insightful comment. I presented one case, you presented zero...then told me to do your research for you...bye Felicia
It was Lloyd Tubman. He was not given due process.
He wasn't acquitted.
Sorry to dwell on the Tubman case, but it is a real world example of a university not “being able to just throw someone off campus because it is politically expedient.” people have thrown that around a lot in regards to this case.
I have yet to hear of a case where the university did not have an administrative process to suspend a student. That process may not follow every tenant of a criminal proceeding, the same way a civil lawsuit doesn’t have the same standard.
The University is not a person, it is an entity, and they are required to follow prescribed process. And I think they do a good job of complying. Now, That process may not follow every tenant of a criminal proceeding, but neither does a civil suit.
If the example of Mr Tubman is not sufficient, I would be interested to hear the case that helps demonstrate your point. I’m sure there is one, just curious on the basis of the argument.
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...Yes he was.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/72820840
“A grand jury declined to indict Tubman on rape charges in February, but a Title IX hearing at UK, which uses a preponderance of evidence as its burden of proof, had previously ruled against Tubman, permanently suspending him from the university, according to the Herald-Leader.”
there were also appeals and other activities.
to say the University just took action with no process is fine...it’s just totally untrue...
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.Sorry to dwell on the Tubman case, but it is a real world example of a university not “being able to just throw someone off campus because it is politically expedient.” people have thrown that around a lot in regards to this case.
I have yet to hear of a case where the university did not have an administrative process to suspend a student. That process may not follow every tenant of a criminal proceeding, the same way a civil lawsuit doesn’t have the same standard.
The University is not a person, it is an entity, and they are required to follow prescribed process. And I think they do a good job of complying. Now, That process may not follow every tenant of a criminal proceeding, but neither does a civil suit.
If the example of Mr Tubman is not sufficient, I would be interested to hear the case that helps demonstrate your point. I’m sure there is one, just curious on the basis of the argument.
I know. I'm saying it needs to take place in the court system. I'm not arguing against your stance...
Fair point.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.It's a step in the right direction but serious crimes should only be adjudicated thru our criminal court system. Period
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.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.
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.
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.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.'
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.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.