Not these Columbia University vigilantes who have taken it upon themselves to destroy the reputation of these young men anyway. Of the four listed one is termed a ‘serial rapist’, the others as having been “found responsible by the University”, whatever the fuck that means. I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean though, it doesn’t mean convicted of rape in a court of law. It doesn’t mean that a jury has found these men guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
No, to these dangerous idiots a woman’s word is sufficient to convict a man of rape, and, were the power in their hands, would be good enough to put away a man for life. I mean, why would a woman lie? Quite unthinkable!
Let’s be straight here, these men way well be guilty, they may be total scumbags, rapists to a man. Or they may not. And the fucktards putting these lists up cannot know for certain which it is. And anyway it’s for a jury to decide, not this bunch of lackwits, who’d be the first to bleat ‘unfair’ if their reputation was besmirched on the strength of one person’s word alone.
Were I the Chancellor or President or whatever at Columbia I’d track down the disseminators of this list and expel each of them. If I were one of the men (and innocent of the charge) I’d sue them for every cent they had. Not gonna happen though. Guilty or not these guys are toast. And if they’re innocent fuck you, you brainless little shits. And even if they’re not, fuck you anyway., you’re as big a danger as the evil you purport to be fighting.
When I consider how difficult it is for a woman to successfully sue a man for slandering her reputation (even if that slander literally puts her life at risk), I find myself completely unconcerned about the situation these male students are in. If anything I am vaguely amused.
Cite for the implication that it’s harder for a woman to sue a man for slander than vice versa, or for a woman to sue a woman, etc.?
Cite that males and females are two separate teams and a wrong done to a member of one team can be alleviated by another wrong done to an unrelated member of the other team?
I’d just finished reading this article and while it disturbs me that such slander is out there it does appear to have occurred out of desparation when Columbia officials failed to act to mitigate a possibly dangerous situation. What I’d like to know first is has Columbia done what it needs to to investigate the accusations and make tangible, appropriate steps to insure the safety of all its students? If so then I have a problem with the leaflets. If not then its administrators should be the target of additional ire beyond that for the original crimes.
My understanding is that these cases were handled by the University rather than the school calling in law enforcement, and the allegations are being made based upon the school’s findings which was that these fellas were deemed “responsible.”
I realize that’s not a court of law, but I can’t support the statement that the accusations are completely without merit. There’s some documentation indicating* possible *guilt. I’m not saying this is right or the right way to handle it, but I am saying there’s *some sort *of evidence for people appearing on this list.
Correction… I read an article on the list from another source. The linked FoxNY article actually provides a bit more information on what specific action Columbia has taken to date.
Sure. “Some documentation,” might be the accusation. And certainly it indicates possible guilt. But what if the accused student can prove, via an ATM receipt, that he was 100 miles away during the time the attack was claimed to have occurred?
That’s the reason the law has fact-finding hearings, which typically contain elements such as the right to confront and ask questions of his accuser.
Columbia University’s policy, in contrast, says:
Another key element in fact-finding hearings is an accurate record of the proceedings, because without such a record, an appeal is useless unless the appeal itself constitutes a new fact-finding hearing.
Columbia University’s policy does not permit tape or transcript of the hearing.
For these reasons, I don’t agree with you that we can meaningfully say there’s some indication of possible guilt; that phrase simply becomes identical in meaning to “there was an accusation.”
This is not the first I’ve heard of it, but I don’t like the idea of colleges encouraging students to take serious crimes to an internal justice system instead of going to the police. There’s the potential for some very serious conflicts of interest and I don’t think it’s good for the rest of the public either.
While the women writing these lists shouldn’t go around doing it, I feel that instances of colleges downplaying serious rape accusations is also a problem that needs to be addressed. If these women felt heard and taken seriously, I don’t think they would be doing this because there would be no need. I’m less convinced this started because some women felt that their made-up rape case didn’t get the guy in trouble, or that women are lying about it just for fun, though now with more eyes on the issue, there will probably be pranksters that will be writing fake names
Then he can take the school and/or students to court for libel or whatever. These are pieces of paper taped to bathroom stalls, not warnings sent out on administration letterhead. What if instead of paper on a bathroom stall, it was a text from one student to another warning them that another student has a history of behavior that approaches, if not is, sexual assault?
I doubt anyone is lying about anything “just for fun.”
But it’s now essentially undisputed that Crystal Mangum lied about her assault at the hands of the Duke lacrosse players. It certainly wasn’t 'for fun," but the fact remains that it was a lie.
Meg Lanker-Simons lied about being threatened with rape – she posted the offending message herself. But it wasn’t for fun – she wanted to highlight the issue. It was still a lie.
Morgan Triplett also lied when she claimed to have been raped at UC Santa Cruz. Her motive in fabricating a rape was, according to her, that she felt suicidal.
Their motives aren’t "for fun,’ but they are still creating false allegations.
Every allegations needs to be investigated. It’s often difficult to prove that a rape happened, and it’s often difficult for a false allegation to be disproved.
For this reason, we have developed a set of procedures that allow an accused to meaningfully test the evidence against him. The university’s internal process does not meet those minimum standards.
Well, when people start considering university internal review processes to be legal courts, I will share your outrage at their failure to follow legal standards.
What a failure of our society that all our legal prowess can be defeated with MS Word and a printer.
If you think students are not sharing information about other people regarding their habits and behaviors as warnings to other students outside legally mandated or controlled environments, you’re crazy.
Heck, you can scan any major metropolitan area’s craigslist personals and find ads calling out some person or another as being a scammer or lying in their own ads. The damage to the reputation is far less than the much more likely possibility that the called out person is exactly guilty of what they’re blamed for and the student body deserves to know that.
I agree. Internal systems may be good for the university (no visibility, no accountability) but they are highly problematical for the students, regardless of whether they’re accusers or accused.
Well, I suppose it all works out great for the guilty, but the costs are high for most everyone else.