Student taking university to court
http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x867535053/Student-taking-university-to-court
http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x867535053/Student-taking-university-to-court
And if you think you're preparing these minnows for mahood...
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I applaud his willingness to take on the establishment, regardless of the outcome.
Others are doing it also,
Stanford Trains Student Jurors That 'Acting Persuasive and Logical' is Sign of Guilt; Story of Student Judicial Nightmare in Today's 'New York Post'
[Stanford last semester found a male student guilty of sexual assault solely because it determined that his partner was intoxicated (as was he). Stanford policy states that students cannot consent to sex-even with a spouse-if "intoxicated" to any degree.
Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent ... if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage. Further, under a policy like Stanford's, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.
Stanford's finding contrasts dramatically with the response of the Palo Alto police and prosecutor, whose investigation turned up so little evidence suggesting that a sexual assault occurred that the prosecutor declined to act and the police did not even detain the accused student for questioning.
The April 4 open letter from the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has guaranteed that such injustices will become more common by requiring all colleges and universities that receive federal funding to reduce due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. FIRE has repeatedly warned that the new requirements will drastically impact students' fundamental rights, and responded directly in a May 5 letter to OCR.
OCR's mandate that colleges lower their standard of proof to "preponderance of the evidence" (approximately 50.01% certainty) came during the Stanford student's proceedings. Stanford immediately dropped its "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and retroactively applied the new, low standard to the case.]
http://thefire.org/article/13401.html
The Politics of Campus Sexual Assault
[Nearly two years ago, in February 2010, University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner was thrown out of school with a three-year ban on reapplying after a campus disciplinary panel found he had violated criminal laws by sexually assaulting a fellow student. In fact, Warner was never actually charged with a crime in the justice system -- but his accuser, Jessica Murray, was. In May of the same year, the Grand Forks, North Dakota police department formally charged her with filling a false report after concluding its investigation. (Murray now resides in California and has never appeared in court to answer the charge.) Yet Warner remained banned from campus until last month, when he was finally reinstated after the indefatigable FIRE -- the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- interceded to publicize his plight.]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...politics_of_campus_sexual_assault_111968.html
Stanford Trains Student Jurors That 'Acting Persuasive and Logical' is Sign of Guilt; Story of Student Judicial Nightmare in Today's 'New York Post'
[Stanford last semester found a male student guilty of sexual assault solely because it determined that his partner was intoxicated (as was he). Stanford policy states that students cannot consent to sex-even with a spouse-if "intoxicated" to any degree.
Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent ... if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage. Further, under a policy like Stanford's, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.
Stanford's finding contrasts dramatically with the response of the Palo Alto police and prosecutor, whose investigation turned up so little evidence suggesting that a sexual assault occurred that the prosecutor declined to act and the police did not even detain the accused student for questioning.
The April 4 open letter from the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has guaranteed that such injustices will become more common by requiring all colleges and universities that receive federal funding to reduce due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. FIRE has repeatedly warned that the new requirements will drastically impact students' fundamental rights, and responded directly in a May 5 letter to OCR.
OCR's mandate that colleges lower their standard of proof to "preponderance of the evidence" (approximately 50.01% certainty) came during the Stanford student's proceedings. Stanford immediately dropped its "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and retroactively applied the new, low standard to the case.]
http://thefire.org/article/13401.html
The Politics of Campus Sexual Assault
[Nearly two years ago, in February 2010, University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner was thrown out of school with a three-year ban on reapplying after a campus disciplinary panel found he had violated criminal laws by sexually assaulting a fellow student. In fact, Warner was never actually charged with a crime in the justice system -- but his accuser, Jessica Murray, was. In May of the same year, the Grand Forks, North Dakota police department formally charged her with filling a false report after concluding its investigation. (Murray now resides in California and has never appeared in court to answer the charge.) Yet Warner remained banned from campus until last month, when he was finally reinstated after the indefatigable FIRE -- the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- interceded to publicize his plight.]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...politics_of_campus_sexual_assault_111968.html
I have often wondered why citizens allow government agencies to set up their own special rules when policing themselves. You often read about cases of Teachers or Students breaking State or Federal laws only to be sanctioned by the school. Not even reported to the proper authorities.
You hear about kids being suspended from school for carrying a firearm. That is a Federal crime I believe. You hear about cases of on campus rapes going unreported.
We are seeing a perfect example of this in the Penn State scandal that just surfaced. Also it shows up when a politician is suspected of wrongdoing.
Nothing good happens when agencies are allowed to police themselves. To many time the emphasis ends up being protecting the agency instead of enforcing the law.
Michael
This kid, successful in his lawsuit or not, will cruise through the pre-law program by reputation alone.
Or the next time he is caught underage drinking he will end up in the county jail instead of being sent back to his room.
I am willing to bet at some point during the admissions/enrollment process he agreed to the student code of conduct along with the way it is implemented. He did not like what the committee decided so he appealed. Then when his appeal did not work and they told him to take his punishment he had to find a different way to get what he wants. So I look forward to seeing him on TV later asking if you have taken this medication to call him about a class action suit.
nope, probably the opposite
Similar threads
