I think it’s much more likely that I just don’t know as much as other people.
~Max
You’re accepting the conditions of a hypothetical set by someone with an obvious agenda. I don’t.
By no means am I “name calling”. You may be the most woke and feminist man on the planet for all I know. But your posts are coming across badly.
It’s OK to have doubts, but in order to make those doubts valid you have to have something to hang your hat on. We have now shown you like three dozen studies, and they all same the same thing. No study, anywhere, I have found that supports that false accusations are in any way “common”. YOU have not found such a study or cite. There is a complete and total consensus on every expert on this subject- law enforcement, sociologists, social workers, and so forth. **NO ONE **disagrees.
And sure, on a individual case study it’s hard to know the truth, but this is based upon tens of thousands of them. Is everyone lying?
It’s like we’re arguing Global warming and you have doubts as to a study or two, and everyone is pointing to a huge pile of evidence.
So, despite the no doubt wonderful human being you are IRL*, *your arguments here, *in this thread- are coming across as misogynistic.
- and I know I come across on this board as being far more argumentative and hidebound that I am IRL also. I rarely get into (for example) gun control debates IRL.
I never suggested that false allegations are common. Never, not once. I have read these studies for years and have found the methodology wanting. If that makes me sound misogynistic then I’m not sure why. I hate women because I question the methodology of these studies?
And again, I don’t care if there are a million of them. If the methodology is poor, then the studies are poor. If I am in tin foil hat territory, then surely someone can point out some good methodology somewhere. And I’m not asking you to do my homework for me. I’ve tried to find them and cannot. I have paid experts to find them and they cannot. I have cross examined state expert witnesses on this point and they have no answer.
I simply think that in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we should not be passing off personal opinion as science.
These are examples of weighing evidence. Our scenario has none.
This is not an example of weighing evidence. The conduct of others has no bearing on my likely conduct.
The proposal is to automatically punish the accused based on the ratio of what other people have done. Without evidence. That’s not science.
You are correct, it’s called preponderance of evidence. It’s not like I go to small claims and the judge starts with the assumption that I’m correct because most landlords are correct, or vice versa.
Nobody is required to be harmed in this scenario; the school does not have to force anyone out of class. The scenario does not tell us if anyone was assaulted. And if someone was, the school may offer the option of alternative class accomodations. Maybe to both parties.
The evidence is eye witness first hand testimony of the alleged victim. Other evidence in the opposite direction is the denial by the alleged perpetrator.
If you do not count those giving claimed eye witness testimony as evidence then you are staking out an uncommon position.
Past experience with others informs on which of those two bits of evidence is more often truthful and which is more likely not.
A rape victim being forced to go to a small class environment with their rapist is a harm significant harm to the victim and even to other women in the class aware of the event. Forcing her to choose between that harm and the harm of not taking the class would only add harm. A no harm belief is only possible under the assumption that she is being untruthful.
Are there any studies on false accusations of any kind (sexual or otherwise) that you’ve found to have good methodology? For example, are there any studies about false accusations of robbery that you think have good methodology? If so, it might be relevant in terms of understanding how common it is to make a false accusation of any kind in the first place. And especially in the scenario in the OP, where it was said that the accuser has a clean record and is not known to lie. In a general sense, how likely is it for such a seemly honest and law-abiding person to make a false accusation of any kind?
Nobody is saying to ignore statistics. But how you are applying them here is insane. You don’t realize it yet, but it is.
Black people, for example, statistically, commit more crimes. Therefore, according to your logic, we should punish them. To be fair, let’s just punish those accused of crimes. Because what’s more likely, that someone mistakenly accused a random black person of a crime, or that they committed the crime? Occam’s razor does all the heavy lifting here, no need for expensive lawyers.
Who has the statistics on how many crime accusations are false? Not very many, I’m sure. I mean, trials and judges cost a lot of money, so let’s use those statistics and save a bundle by just caging black people! And we should check the statistics further, because if it turns out accusations are more likely to be true than not regardless of race, we could dispense with the justice system entirely! Can’t do the time? Don’t be accused of a crime!
And statistics don’t work anyway when you change the rules. Sure, maybe only 2% of rape accusations are false now, but once it is known that you can get anybody punished just by accusing them of rape, you think those statistics will stay the same? Should we constantly monitor the statistics and adjust our policies daily or weekly to stay current?
Also, I’m with UV here. It’s not wrong to examine methodology and to call bullshit when it looks bad. Scientific authors aren’t infallible. The whole point of publishing a study is to go over it with a fine tooth comb to see if it it can stand the scrutiny. It is absolutely not misogynist to be skeptical of what looks to be faulty science.
And I can’t even imagine a methodology that could conclude anything at all about what percentage of accusations are false. My ignorance isn’t evidence the study is wrong, but can’t you just explain the methods to us, anyway, to make us feel more comfortable with the conclusions you want us to accept?
I’ve been away for the holidays so this may have already been answered–but it has largely been through Department of Education written regulations and non-binding “guidance” (like the “Dear Colleague” letter the Obama DoE sent to universities), the universities have largely been pliant to this stuff because the alternative is litigating with the government the precise parameters of the statute, which ultimately would probably be a bad ball of wax for the universities whether they win or lose.
My trustworthiness vs any other rando’s trustworthiness is not dependent on the trustworthiness of other people accused of the same crime. Civil sexual assault cases rely on the same low standard of evidence, and I can’t get money from someone merely on an accusation plus historical data. Nor should I.
At least we have some acknowledgement that the accused is being harmed by being removed from class.
Although the idea that a third party would be harmed merely by knowing about an accusation is suspect.
Dr. Cube, again not criminal court, not same burden of proof.
Ruken your comparison to civil sexual assault is more on point. Those cases often hinge on who is believed as more credible. The fact that false accusations are rare and denials by guilty parties common is part of that balance.
Of course reality is that in no case is there no other evidence to consider. Did the alleged victim tell anyone else of the event after it occurred? Was there a change in the alleged victim’s behavior after the time of the alleged event (dropped classes, change in sleep habits, seeking of mental health services, etc.)? So on. A complete lack of any circumstantial corroboration is evidence of sorts as well, and might tip the scale of “more likely than not” the other way.
With all due respect, you’re still not getting it. The purpose of Title IX is to protect students from sexual assault and sexual harassment, which have been seen by the courts as forms of sexual discrimination as covered under Title IX. The rights of the accused are not a part of Title IX. So no, Title IX is not concerned with “safeguard[ing] both the accuser and accused’s rights to due process and equal access to education.” It’s concerned with protecting students from sexual assault and harassment and the negative impact those things can have on their education. YOU are adding the protections toward the accused. The accused certainly has the right to due process under the Fourth Amendment, but since Title IX is concerned ONLY with the protection against sexual harassment and assault, the accused’s rights are not covered under Title IX.
You keep saying you assume things about Title IX. Your assumptions are often wrong. Why not take the two minutes (literally) to read a brief explanationthan to continue to make false assumptions? If you still have questions, you might need to do 10-15 minutes of research to keep from continually assuming incorrectly. You can do that, right?
If we assume for the sake of argument that the text of Title IX requires these types of investigations, doesn’t it stand to reason that the process afforded the accused must be fair and designed to get at the truth? If not, and the proceedings are a sham, then the school is not protecting against sexual assault and sexual harassment because they have not had a proper inquiry to see if these things even happened in the first instance. Punishing innocent people does not help solve the sexual assault and harassment issues and if this disproportionately falls upon men, then those students are denied education “because of sex.”
That is beyond the constitutional due process requirements that the accused has and is implicit even in this expansive reading of Title IX.
Stop. Right there.
Oh jeez, and I’m going to use those statistics to my advantage. I’m not falsely accusing, how can I, when the statistics are too low for me to do so, and his denial is expected, because everyone denies everything. How about, in a given case, you ignore probability and decide the case on forensics? If a rape case can’t be forensically adjudicated, you’re suggesting rolling dice. This isn’t necessarily a rail against you, but the dumb thinking that a woman who claims she was raped must be telling the truth because of statistics.
If food in the student union (University cafe?) causes intestinal collapse (not wholly sure what that is), then a thorough scientific investigation would result, not a “who cares?” scenario. Rape. Food. Over-simplifying, you add.
Right, yes, correct, and I totally agree.
It is me who brings the accused’s rights into the picture, Title IX does not do this. Well, actually I think it does because of how I view the legal basis for Title IX. But that’s irrelevant - I would afford the accused person certain rights regardless of the text or meaning of Title IX. As the school administrator I have the responsibility of weighing the accuser’s rights (given by Title IX, etc) against the accused’s rights (given by Amend. V, etc). It’s a balancing act and it is my job to balance these two rights.
~Max
That’s insanity and it is not how it works.
Yes, criminal court has a higher standard of proof, but it is no part of that proof to use statistics in the way that you are. Let’s use the civil case so you don’t keep knocking down the strawman.
If I claim that my neighbor punched me and caused $2,500 in hospital bills, then the case is based on the evidence that is presented. It matters not if false allegations in this context are generally rare; it only matters if I am making a false allegation. Every person deserves that individualized consideration.
Or should we have as Dr. Cube said? What if my neighbor is black? Would you believe that it is acceptable to use statistics to show that blacks are disproportionately involved in violent crime; or if my neighbor was a woman that it should be pointed out that it is less likely for a woman to be involved in violent crime? If I am a rich white man accused of murder (under a wrongful death civil suit) should I get a benefit because murders by rich white men are shockingly rare?
We do not use general statistics to judge individuals, even if you could prove, which you haven’t, this 5% statistic. It matters not if I’m accused of rape and only 5% of allegations are false. I have every right to prove that I’m one of those 5% on an equal playing field, not starting out two scores down because of that fact.
If taken generally, your argument would destroy any semblance of fairness in anything. Those in privileged groups would keep getting a pass while minorities would continue to be wrongfully accused. And it would just get worse from there.