Employers do ot make “rulings”. They do no publish their “rulings”. If they dismiss an employee for rape, and later publish that fact, they could be on the hook for libel.
So, not similar cases.
Is a university appropriately equipped to discipline students for plagiarism?
ETA: Universities publish sexual assault findings?
Because the faculty would be the ones primarily enforcing the policy. If there are concerns from the faculty, for whatever reasons, they should have the opportunity to voice them.
I have no idea how factual the issues are in the OP, but if in fact the policy tells these professors to violate civil rights, and the Law School professors know it, there is no room for excuses - they are left either violating the policy or the law. Which one do you want them to be guilty of?
Too bad Harvard didn’t have a bunch of highly qualified experts somewhere on campus who could have weighed in on the ramifications of the policy…
Due process would not be as major a concern if there is no finding of fault.
Again, assuming the first paragraph is true, this process seems unnecessary: the “consistent policy” should be that all accusations are passed on to the police, rather than (a) buried, or (b) made the subject of extra-judicial process.
Why is it so important to have universities in effect “re-create” all of the apparatus of a fair trial, when we have courts that are already specialized in doing exactly that?
They certainly can be here in Canada, though the university retains the discretion to avoid publishing, or to avoid publishing the accused’s names. No idea what the case is in the US.
Given the stated purpose of such a policy - protection of the student body - wouldn’t you want the name of the person found ‘guilty’ to be published? How would a secret proceeding protect the student body?
Faculty do not enforce university student conduct policies. Not only not primarily, but not at all.
no, they wouldn’t. The administration would. They may want to use faculty members as witnesses but the faculty wouldn’t be making any decisions.
The opposite.
Since a student found to have committed a rape will be expelled, it seems unnecessary.
Because the courts have their interests, the university has theirs. It’s little different from a company firing an employee because they were indicted for ANY crime. The employee hasn’t been convicted yet, but do you dispute the company’s right to fire him/her?
Again, can’t say how it works in the US, but up here in Canada, the people administering university discipline as “hearing officers” and “investigating officers” are often members of the faculty appointed by the administration for such purposes - and drawn, where available, from members with some sort of legal background.
Sort of, but not exactly.
-
One important thing to come out of this was that every university official has a duty to report sexual discrimination violations of which they become aware. Not doing so opens the school to federal censure and civil litigation. Faculty, as high-contact members of university staff, are definitely called upon to at least pass info up to the Title IX coordinator.
-
While the initial determination is made by a member of the administration (usually not someone at the top level, or with other potentially conflict inducing conditions), there always a secondary appeal process. I cannot speak universally, but in every case I have seen, this forum for appeal is made of faculty, staff, and students from a pool of people trained for the task (serving as a member of these committees requires at least 8 hours of training per year).
Source?
Huh? They are expelled, and no-one is told why they are expelled, and that protects the students - this person’s friends and colleagues - how?
He’s not in jail, and if no-one knows about his alleged offence - what exactly is stopping him from hanging with the exact same crowd as before (and presumably, striking again)?
I’ll agree with those who say such complaints of sexual assault should be turned over to the police and the courts.
Over the past few decades colleges have repeatedly proven themselves incapable of handling the matter to the point where they’ve achieved the dubious distinction of repeatedly sweeping assaults under the rug while also having trials that resemble star chambers.
Your analogy doesn’t match, for a bunch or reasons.
Not least, in the case under discussion there is no “indictment for ANY crime”.
More significantly - at least in “at will” states, an employee can fire someone because they just don’t like him or her any more.
If he or she is no longer a student, they lose access to: fraternities/sororities, athletic teams and events associated with them, residence halls (all huge risk factors). It is also highly unlikely their friends will accept ‘reasons’ as why they were expelled.
Also, beyond expulsion is persona non grata status, so escorted off campus if identified.
College campuses tend to be very insular, so yes, expulsion does remove a LOT of opportunities for further offense.
I think it’s more to stop witch-hunts and libel accusations. “Hey, I heard that guy from Alpha Beta Zeta raped a girl! Let’s go burn down their frat house!” or “The university was hit with a lawsuit for libelious calling Mr. Smith a rapist, and plaintiff seeks ten bajillion dollars in compensation”.
Would be totally unworkable in the Universities I went to. For example, University of Toronto, which is right downtown. Attendance at athletic events was not limited to students - in fact, the stadiums tended to rely on non-students to put bums on seats …
Also, how can someone be identified as “persona non grata” if their offence is nowhere published?
Relying on the rumour mill strikes me as outright bizzare.
There is already a provision that makes it the University’s responsibility to stop retaliation against accuser or accused, just saying. So in theory, lynch mobs are right out.
And Malthus, not speaking of games, but rather parties and such that are only open to team members.
Persona non grata works if faculty and staff are aware of it, as they should be. But the institution should guard privacy in so much as is possible given the circumstances.
Whatever the problem may be, the solution is certainly: guilty until proven innocent.
I attended two US public universities, and I sat on the student conduct board at one of them. Ask Stonebow.