Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
College trumps Constitution?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 1651710" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>Others are doing it also, </p><p></p><p></p><p>Stanford Trains Student Jurors That 'Acting Persuasive and Logical' is Sign of Guilt; Story of Student Judicial Nightmare in Today's 'New York Post'</p><p></p><p>[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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.]</p><p></p><p><a href="http://thefire.org/article/13401.html" target="_blank">http://thefire.org/article/13401.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Politics of Campus Sexual Assault</p><p></p><p>[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.]</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/06/the_politics_of_campus_sexual_assault_111968.html" target="_blank">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/06/the_politics_of_campus_sexual_assault_111968.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 1651710, member: 1294"] 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.] [url]http://thefire.org/article/13401.html[/url] 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.] [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/06/the_politics_of_campus_sexual_assault_111968.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
College trumps Constitution?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom