I think Duke is most famous for its false rape accusations, the famous one a few years ago, and they were sued for a very large amount of money after 88 of the faculty wrote a letter condemning the defendants and the dean said they must be guilty and some teachers refused to teach them and so on.
You might think they would have learned a lesson from that. All in the past, lesson learned, staff changed, but no.
The current Dean of Student Affairs, I’m not sure if it’s the same one who declared the lacrosse players guilty, has this to say: “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”
That’s a Title IX violation.
Then there’s this:* ““[W]hen Mr. McLeod’s representative asked for a copy of the policy, Dean Stephen Bryan slammed the door in Mr. McLeod’s face and said, ‘You can get it when you sue us,’” according to the complaint.”*
They’ve learned nothing and I hope it costs them another fortune.
Yes, that’s completely wrong. It is the responsibility of the person seeking sex to gain consent from the other person before proceeding with sex.
The gender(s) of the persons involved are not relevant to the ethical behavior required (though I concur that in real life, statistically speaking, when one partner is more reluctant about having sex than the other, the gender distribution of the seeking partner vs. the consenting partner probably winds up being pretty asymmetrical).
So, someone at Duke worded something badly. And for that, they should be sued into oblivion. Yet, the groups you support repeatedly call for firebombing courthouses and killing women, and that isn’t a reflection on you or your beliefs. Also, this misstatement by an unnamed person at Duke is a bigger deal to you than the many many MANY rapes that go unpunished in universities.
Your movement is irrelevant. YOU are irrelevant. Your complaints stupid at best, and sociopathic at worst. The only people who aren’t laughing at you are the tiny minority of morons on your side. Equality is coming, whether you like it or not*.
You are stupid. I hope you jam your finger in a car door.
*and yes, I realize you consider yourself a champion of equality, but in this, as with everything else, you are wrong.
But I do think that Mr. McLeod has a fair case against the University. He alleges that they are trying to expel him, which is a pretty serious sanction for them to impose, after taking roughly $250,000 of his money. And they’re doing it as the result of an investigation that didn’t include basic elements of fairness. Duke cannot simply arbitrarily – or nearly arbitrarily – expel a student, says he. They don’t need to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of course, but he says they need to permit basic fairness in their fact-finding. These elements include the consideration by the hearing panel of statements allegedly made by anonymous witnesses. McLeod was not permitted to ask any questions of these witnesses, whose testimony was provided to the hearing panel by an investigator who recalled his conversations with them. A witness who appeared at the hearing to testify on behalf of McLeod was told to leave, and was not permitted to testify.
For what it’s worth, I agree with him: if what he alleges about the anonymous witnesses is true, then Duke has breached their contract with him.
Serious question: how could I possibly agree or disagree without having seen the contract they supposedly breached? I mean, if it includes a “we reserve the right to expel students at our sole discretion” clause, then of course I don’t agree. If it includes a “we promise any student a fair and impartial hearing before implementing any discipline,” then I might agree. If it includes a clause that says, “we will always value the safety of a community member first and may expel anyone suspected of committing sexual assault,” then I don’t agree.
What’s the nature of this contract you say they’ve breached?
There is so much that is fucked about this. How can anyone follow the rules of a policy that is unpublished? Denying him a copy even when it’s used to as the justification to expel him?
I do not know any of the particulars other than what is in the article, but Duke’s hearing seems laughable. A second-hand account of an anonymous witness (not the alleged victim)? Denying any witnesses on the behalf of the accused? I mean, even if you have made up your mind to expel the kid before hand, nothing can be gained by denying his witness’s testimony.
I have to think that Duke’s lawyers used the phrase ‘you shoulda talked to us before you did this’ a number of times.
Was the ‘witness’ anonymous the reporter or to the accused? or both?
The Duke University Duke Community Standard in Practice (PDF link), lays out the specific promised disciplinary procedures and procedural safeguards.
And every contract includes implied covenants of good faith.
In most states, if I recall my civil law correctly, a breach of that covenant is a tort. In North Carolina – pardon the law geekiness – it sounds in contract.
I mention this latter just in case someone is minded to read the Duke policy with an eye towards construing the provisions in a hypertechnical way against the plaintiff. For example, the hearing panel “…may exclude witness testimony deemed irrelevant or duplicative.” This does not give the hearing panel unreviewable carte blanche to exclude any witness just by calling it irrelevant – that finding must be made in good faith. In this case, McLeod was not permitted to call a witness that would, if called, substantiated a portion of his story and rebutted the testimony of the complainant.
I thought that was UCLA (Go, John Wooden’s Bruins! Seven National Championships in a row! W00T! Winning streaks of 75 games and 88 games! W00T! W00T!! Lifetime won-loss record of 664 - 162! W00T! W00T!! W00T!!!).
Duke is famous for their law school graduating the later disgraced former President Richard M. Nixon.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Serious question: how could I possibly agree or disagree without having seen the contract they supposedly breached? I mean, if it includes a “we reserve the right to expel students at our sole discretion” clause, then of course I don’t agree.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s say the contract did include such a clause. Do you think it should be given effect? That Duke should be able to kick out students whenever it likes without refunding their tuition?
The majority rule is that actions for breach of the covenant of good faith lie in contract except where the contract is for insurance.
That one I know from professional experience rather than education. It isn’t taught in contracts and is only taught in torts to the extent that a professor might mention that a bad faith claim against an insurer is a tort action.
