Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="A Clockwork Orange, post: 4703856, member: 16"] It's a side effect of Title IX legislation. These judicial review boards on university campuses make these rules to give an alternative to young women who have been sexually assaulted (or claim to be sexually assaulted). When young women go to the Title IX officer, the officer can explain that they can go to the police or judicial review (which seems less intimidating). They also can do things like restorative justice. Still, it's mostly about giving the person options and giving the university legal immunity by claiming they gave the young woman all options and let her, as an adult, decide how she wanted to proceed. I apologize for seeming cynical about the process - Title IX officers I know want to help young people who are traumatized during their time in school. The problem is the university would LOVE for all sexual assault cases to go to judicial review, as it's private and confidential and won't put the university in a bad light. So as you say, the bug (undue burden on the accused) is a feature. Stacking it in the way they do, allows judicial review to punish harshly without the burden of proof needed in a court of law. This is also often discussed with the accuser in a roundabout way, especially if they're reporting the rape, etc.. days or weeks after the fact. The student will get justice (the accused suspended for semesters or forever), the accuser has little recourse to a university action sanctioned by students, faculty, and administration alike, and the university wins because a sexual assault doesn't become attached to the university in publications far and wide. Because it would look incredibly odd to create one set of rules for sexual assault and another for assault (possible lawsuits, etc.), the university instead created a blanket coverage. I find it funny when people say it's "woke ideology." Nope - it's high-priced lawyers explaining to the school what needs to happen to keep their institution as pristine as possible. It's jurisprudent PR. The fact it looks like it is advocating for victim rights is simply a nice side effect. So you end up with the LeQuint Allens of the world being railroaded by a process built without him or his circumstances in mind. It was built for a different reason, and he's just secondary fallout. To admit the penalty was too harsh is to admit the system is fundamentally flawed. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?