Due process no longer applies at Columbia University.

Great Debates
1

Apparently, the university changed the way it handles sexual harrassment charges at school now. The policy (from Columbia’s website, can be seen here:

http://www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/sexualmisconduct/policy.html

The highlights of this policy are:

A student no longer has the right to be present in the hearing when his accuser testifies, nor when any of the witnesses testify. In addition, they cannot cross examine the accuser or any of the witnesses.

The accused does NOT have a right to have an attorney present.

A five year statute of limitations. A person could be brought up on charges right before graduation for something he did (or might have done) as a freshman. A five year statue of limitations is akin to a five year suspension from college sports – it’s a lifetime.

According to an article in yesterday’s (Oct 4) WSJ (viewable here: http://www.thefire.org/offsite/wsj_columbia_100400.html ) (sorry, I couldn’t get a link directly to WSJ’s site.)

this policy was implemented because campus activits considered the procedures then in place a hinderance to punishment of offenders of sexual harrassment, date rape, etc.

HELLO??? Due process is a hinderance to punishment? Thank heavens it is!!

I realize that Columbia University is a private institution and it can set up any policy it wants, but, for heaven’s sake, why not just call the hearing room the Star Chamber already??

Personally (and I’ve never attended Columbia), I think this bodes ill for the direction this country is heading, if we are willing to accept the loss of due process for the “expediency” of punishing possible sexual harrassers.
Zev Steinhardt

2

I graduated from Columbia in May. For the past four years the student council and various gender campus groups have assaulted the administration, trying to force it to adopt a more severe sexual harassment policy. The issue was voted on several times, and several compromise policies were rejected.

In sum, I believe that the current sexual harassment policy is a procedural abortion and an embarrassment to the Columbia community. I only hope that the student organizations who lobbied for a stricter policy reject this one with the same fervor.

I’m ashamed to be using my columbia.edu email address.

3

Just remember, the worst thing Columbia University can do to one of its students in a sexual-harrassment case is expel him/her and refuse to put in a good word at other universities the ex-student tries to enroll in. They cannot put the student in jail. They cannot force the student to pay reparations. They are not enforcing any federal or state laws – criminal or civil – nor are they trying the student in a law court. The sexual harassment policies of the University are just that: policies. Unfair policies, perhaps, but not a violation of the Constitution or anything.

4

I never said it was in violation of the Constitution. In fact, I qualified my statements by saying that Columbia is a private institution.

I understand that they can’t put you in jail, etc. either. However, I’m sure that if you’re expelled from Columbia in mid-semester, you don’t get a refund on your tuition. That’s, what, $10,000 or $20,000 down the drain? That’s got to be worth something. So does the student’s reputation.

Zev Steinhardt

5

This is a classic example of a good thing taken to extremes and perverted beyond sense. Sexual harassment policies are supposed to be guarantees of a safe community, and instead at Columbia they have been turned into a system whereby an accusation is tantamount to a guilty verdict. I would not attend this school were I a freshman looking at my options.

6

This kind of iron-fisted policy is not uncommon, or so I remember. I recall several years ago that a student was hung out to dry at Brown on a similar policy. He was tried in absentia and expelled so fast it rolled his ears back. He could not reenter Brown, nor was he accepted at any other school he tried to transfer to. He was only given some modicum of restitution after a lengthy lawsuit.

7

I wonder if this lack of due process also applies to the Columbia Law School. If it does, that would certainly be an interesting irony.

Zev Steinhardt

8

We always have choices to give up some basic civil liberties for more protection.

Personally, I feel less safe when this happens, but what do I know?

Boy, would I hate to be the innocent guy who gets destroyed because some evil female student decided to make his life hell for whatever reason is enough for her to do such a thing…

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, six days, 3 hours, 2 minutes and 34 seconds.
7205 cigarettes not smoked, saving $900.63.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 25 minutes.

9

Due process applies to the justice system, not organizations such as schools and employers.

:cool:

10

No, the Constitutional requirement of Due Process applies to the government in general and Justice system in particular. However, that requirement exists in the COnstitution because it was beleived to be the best method toprotect the rights of the accused, and the logic of this decision applies in all situations.

Scott

11

No. Legally this is not the case.

Employers, for example, can terminate/punish/fine anyone without due process. Period. It’s not due process requirements that stop employers from doing so, although some do terminate, etc., without fuss.

What stops employers and such is fear of litigation from someone claiming to be a protected group. Minorities, women, just about anyone.

Due Process is part of the justice system, not organizations.

12

Ptahlis said:

Of course, since the policy is new, one would have to wait and see how it is actually put into practice. But at the moment, I think everyone is freaking out a bit too much.

Yes, it it true that the accused does not have the right to be present while the accuser and his/her witnesses are actually giving their statements. However the policy (at the link Zev provides) does say:

IMHO, the ideas behind keeping accuser and accused separate during testimony are a) keeping the accuser from feeling completely intimidated by the accused and b) giving the hearing panel the opportunity to hear each sides’ version first, before either side can “tweak” their story to get around what the other is saying.

Yes, the accused can’t have a lawyer present during testimony, but they can bring in anyone else they want for personal support, and consult a lawyer at any point outside the hearing. And should the accused be found to have committed sexual harassment, the penalty can be probation, suspension, OR dismissal; dismissal is not necessarily the punishment.

No, it would not be fun to be the target of a wrongful accusation, but in the event that happened, do you honestly think that having a lawyer present, or being there during the accuser’s testimony, would make a fat lot of difference to the accused’s reputation if word got out?

Satan said:

I’m disturbed to see that anyone would automatically assume that a woman filing charges has ulterior motives vis-a-vis the accused; I guess it’s not remotely conceivable that a female student might actually have a justifiable claim. :rolleyes: Besides, who’s to say that a female must be filing charges against a male? It could just as easily be male against female, female against female, male against male. Are all accusers to be looked upon with a jaundiced eye?
P.S. Zev, the policy does not extend to Columbia Law School. They have their own fuzzy policy, discussed here. While they have also have a detailed policy regarding the handling of student discipline, sexual harassment charges are apparently handled under the University Panel on Sexual Harassment.

13

Legally, that is absolutely right.

IMO, morally it is wrong.

And yes, that does mean I feel “employment at will” is a dastardly policy.

jrd

14

Not a jaundiced eye. A cold, dispassionate eye – on the part of the adjudicator.

Satan, of course, erred in casting the parties’ genders in the example, leaving the argument open to eye-rolling responses. However, once we compensate for that, we could conversely say that, “to Fillet, it is not remotely conceivable that someone might actually file a wrongful charge.” Sorry, there is always the risk of a loose cannon among any group (otherwise we wouldn’t needlaw enforcement, would we?)

IMO, a disciplinary adjudication system in an organization, like the courts in civil society, should NOT be the advocate for one of the sides in the dispute. The institution (or state) can, of course, take on the advocacy/prosecutorial role and bring to bear its resources on behalf of the purported victim. But the decisionmakers must be fully impartial and free of predisposition. As long as there IS a form of process that allows for defense and rebuttal, however byzantine, and the parties go thru the system rather than take up a character assasination campaign, there is hope.
jrd

15

fillet responds to Satan:

Good grief, man. Satan never made the assumption you credit to him. He’s certainly not saying that a woman automatically has ulterior motives, he’s just saying it would, like, totally suck to be falsely accused. Of course it is “remotely conceivable” that a woman could have a valid claim. Satan is posing an example, and your tarring him with the widest possible brush. Why is that? It doesn’t do anything to negate what is a very reasonable concern.

16

Yeah, I didn’t say what I was accused of saying. Thanks to those who defended my honor.

So, Fillet, if I was to knee-jerk as much as you just did, I could ask if you honestly believe a woman has NEVER falsely screamed rape?

Now then, the point I was making - that if we take away due process - that it makes it quite difficult for an innocent person accused of a crime - accidentally or intentionally - to defend themselves.

I do hope I have clarified matters, Fillet…

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, four weeks, 2 hours, 15 minutes and 25 seconds.
7243 cigarettes not smoked, saving $905.47.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes.

17

JRDelirious, of course I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that someone would abuse the system. I have no doubt that it does, in fact, happen, and I would be in favor of punishment for the accuser if it could be shown that they brought false charges to bear out of malicious intent. Reporting someone 2 weeks before graduation for an incident that occurred during freshman year, for example, would certainly raise concerns for me.

Satan - Frankly, I was sitting shaking my head at some of the earlier posts when you made yours. The concerns that people expressed were valid, but I think they are blown way out of proportion here. Your comment just sort of summed up the overall tone of this thread as I perceived it, so I responded to it. No “personal” attack intended.

I just don’t see much in some of the previous posts that expresses any understanding for the need to provide an environment in which a victim of harassment (male or female) would feel comfortable coming forward. It’s difficult enough to come forward under the circumstances; women in particular have struggled a long time to gain some credibility in reporting sexual harassment problems, so your example struck a really bad chord with me. Knee-jerk? Maybe, but having known people who were in these sorts of situations and had a hellish time of it, I’m a little sensitive to the issue.

Yes, there have been some highly publicized cases in which people were wrongly accused. These cases constitute what percentage of all accusations? Show me that wrongful accusations constitute more than a fraction of a percent of all harassment problems reported, and I’ll reconsider my stance.

In the meantime, I don’t see anything wrong with showing some empathy for the purported victim, and making it less stressful to report a problem. Note that this does NOT mean automatically assuming that the accused is guilty - not at all. There is always the possibility that (for minor occurrences) that a simple misunderstanding was involved, or that (for more serious infractions) there may be extenuating circumstances that would make identification of the true harasser difficult (e.g, the accused was drunk). As JRDelirious notes, this where the adjudicators’ neutrality is of paramount importance.

So you want there to be a procedure in whereby an innocent person can defend themselves? In reading the policy, I don’t see anything that takes that ability away. And believe me, given Columbia’s gun-shy attitude toward anything that might yield a highly-publicized law suit, I don’t think the enforcers of the new policy are about to produce a crop of unwarranted suspensions or dismissals owing to false sexual harassment accusations.

18

Umm…not being allowed in the room might make it harder.

As would not being allowed to cross examine witnesses.
The folks who wrote the Bill of Rights seemed to consider confronting the witness against you an important part of due process. No, Columbia does not have to conform to the Bill of Rights, but they might reflect upon the reason the Sixth amendment was included.

I agree with you. There should be empathy for the purported victem.
No one should feel the process is so stressful that they hesitate to cme foward with a legitamite grievence. But I think you can do that without removing the safeguards we have to make sure no innocent person is penalizes.

19

betenoir said:

It’s a hearing, not a trial. The policy clearly states that each side will be told what the other said and have a chance to respond to it; I think that’s fair. Since none of the participants are lawyers, I can’t see what useful cross-examination would come of this - I just have visions of undergraduates going back and forth with “You said!” “No I didn’t!” “Yes you did!” ad nauseum.

Crikey, this is a more formal procedure than I’ve ever seen for any other school I attended, and certainly far beyond anything an employer would do. Again, if someone can show me that more harm is the result of this type of policy, I will reconsider. I still think that the OP and some of the subsequent responses are blown out of proportion.

20

Why not let people have an attorney present? Maybe it’s not necessary, given the informal nature of the proceeding, but - what’s the downside?