If only someone in the OP said that we don’t know if this is really a he said/she said situation. Seriously, if you can’t be arsed to actually read what I wrote why bother responding?
I understand why a school would do its own investigation and take its own disciplinary action. I do not understand why it would be viewed as an either-or matter of taking it to the school or the police. Why did the accuser not go to both?
Probably because reporting a rape or other sex crime to law enforcement can be a horrible experience. Most rapes go unreported for that reason.
Of course, she may also have been lying and not want to risk being prosecuted herself.
Literally the sentence before that “Nor do I know that he didn’t receive a fair shake”. I’m not sure what is so hard to comprehend about this. I can’t say that Yale’s process was fair or unfair. But a confidential accusation tried in a secret process by interested parties gives me no confidence that it is fair.
Well, what’s your point then? Do you think a private university’s disciplinary proceedings should be public record?
From a New York Times article on the case, “The mechanism Yale has put in place to handle sexual misconduct complaints emphasizes confidentiality to make students feel comfortable coming forward. If the students choose, the matter can also be settled without the involvement of law enforcement.”
Central to this vignette quoted below is some men’s puzzlement that a woman would casually and quickly re-connect with someone who had just forcibly raped her and some women’s opinion that a woman doing that is easy to believe and does not impact her veracity.
Institutions can do as they wish in terms of administrative discipline but if someone’s college career and reputation is going to get nuked on a pure “he said - she said” there needs to be a fairly rigorous standard of proof or lawsuits are going to fall like rain and in the case of the elite institutions it will be from people who have the means to follow through.
I think where the issue becomes differentiated from usual administrative HR stuff is that a university, for students, is not exactly like a corporation. Few if any HR depts. I know would take on the investigation and prosecution of something as serious as a rape accusation completely separate from any legal determination or investigation but that’s what colleges are expected to do in some cases. At some point there will be enough legal pain inflicted to reform this process and that’s what we’re seeing now. When you have accusations as serious as rape being handled on extra-legal investigative and punishment justice tracks by non-law enforcement administrative boards with (effectively in some cases) the presumption of guilt flipped onto the accused you’re going to have a mess on your hands.
Redacted to protect privacy, sure. Otherwise, where is the oversight for the process going to come from?
Our basic legal rights (public trial, jury of your peers, right to confront accuser, call witnesses, evidence standards, etc.) have evolved over nearly a thousand years as a response to various abuses. If you remove the safeguards, it’s obvious that the abuse will return at some point.
No safeguards are being “removed.” We’re talking about a private university. For the most part, the legal rights you list apply only when the government is acting against you.
Yes I know that but this doesn’t address my point. The point is that these rights are there for a reason. A trial process without them has obvious holes where injustice can seep in.
It does address your point. You just don’t like the answer. If all these rights should apply to a collegiate disciplinary proceeding, where else should they apply? If my employer wants to fire me, should it be required to hold an open hearing in front of all my co-workers? If T-Mobile wants to cut off my cell service for nonpayment, should there be a mobile phone bill tribunal?
Anyone who has worked knows that the firing process, for example, is rife with abuse. Your example proves my point.
Still, the situations aren’t remotely comparable:
Yale is compelled by Title IX to respond to rape allegations and must follow certain processes. There’s no federal law requiring companies to fire people.
Employment is (generally) at will and it’s understood that an employment relationship can be terminated at any point. Universities are different. Once enrolled a student can expect to remain enrolled until graduation.
Firing someone (generally) doesn’t cost the employee anything of value. It only removes future earnings. A student who is expelled loses recognition of their past performance. If they transfer to another university, they almost certainly will not get credit for all of their classes. Thus, they lose the value they spent their time and money to gain.
Employers generally don’t declare that their employees are culpable of a felony while firing them. In this case, Yale is.
I expect that Yale will be forced to re-admit Mr Montague just as Harvard Law was forced to re-admit Brandon Winston. The Facts - Brandon Winston On Trial
And… what? This is just how disputes between private parties work.
True, but I think most people would agree that any standard of “best practices” would include those rights to the extent reasonably possible.
Best practices for what? Can you think of any other private dispute resolution system that involves a jury and takes place in a public forum?
This.
I kinda want life to be fair. Not just the government.
One interesting question: is there any way form me to get iron-clad proof of consent that will hold up in any kind of institutional tribunal or court?
Maybe a phone app and/or website where a woman can give iron-clad, non-retractable consent for say, a 24-hour period.
Well, that’s kind of a funny thing about consent: in the context of sexual relations, it is always retractable.
non-retractable? Seriously? If you’re at the short strokes and she says “I changed my mind, stop now!” your only legal move is to stop.