Ex-student suing U-M for disciplinary actions taken after sexual misconduct investigation
Don't mean to stir up the Gibbons hornets nest, but per MLive, a former student is suing U-M for disciplinary actions taken after an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him. A .pdf of the complaint is attached in the article and sheds some light on what the OSCR process looks like at UM. Plaintiff's counsel basically argues that the whole process is a mess, the OSCR isn't even close to being equipped with the resources or training to take on matters of this nature, and the result is 1st/14th Amendment Constitutional violations by the University.
Link:
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/05/lawsuit_claims_u-…
at UM or other colleges to better educate (warn) them about the risks of sexual misconduct, sexual assault situations, legal risks (criminal/civil) and university policy-related?
Somehow I doubt it.
Meanwhile, these investigations are poorly run, evidence-poor, and the punishments are decisive and harsh.
Maybe more could be done to raise awareness with incoming male students about this, since they are the object of the accusations in the majority of cases, and since the consequences are obviously devastating.
Gibbons lost a lot here. Expelled and branded for life. There are some huge lessons to be gained from his (and her) impaired judgement.
There was a required course to live in the dorms which is more or less required of freshman at umich.
I had to miss my male hall's course due to class so I got thrown into an all girls one, it was not a good/useful/informative session for men at all. However, many I have spoken to have said good things about their own course so it might have been just mine.
Damned if they do and if they don't. Rape is really hard to prove in a court because the nature of the crime is there's only one witness, and there's always a plausible explanation for the defense, and many victims don't want to come forward. So lots of rapes go unpunished, which is awful.
So under the White House's "I'm doing something really" instructions the schools are going around on limited evidence and picking off possible sexual assaulters, which absolutely means they will round up innocents as well as criminals who got away with it, and both will have the same case to make about the injustice.
Every way this works out is awful. I don't know what else to do. They've gone after fraternities and homeowners before, but in the case of the former they nail the national organization and the fraternity recharters as somehing else, and in the case of rental properties what good is it to charge rental property owners for undermanaged college housing?
I get thinking that this is just window dressing to look good but it has become clear over the last few years that colleges have a real issue with how they handle cases of sexual assualt. Students from across the country including schools like Amherst, and UNC have been sued by female students for the process they endured. It usually involves blaming the victim, pressuring not to move forward with a complaint and the person who comes forward has been punished more frequently than the accused.
Even as these suits have begun many women have come forward echoing that this is how they were treated when they came forward and many left school. Rape is a tough issue and the way it is being handled right now by a majority of academic institutions is most certainly not the right way
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/10/17/account-sexual-…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/education/students-initiate-inquiry-i…
Perhaps, but it's not like government throwing it's weight around to shift the pendulum too far in the other direction is the way to go either.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/17/cathy-young-guilty-until-proven-innoc…
but i don't think that the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction. expulsion from school for rape is a slap on the wrist compared to what the legal system would levy.
Because as flawed as the actual legal system is, the university's administrative process doesn't have the power to prove much of anything. Lesser punishments but also a lower standard for establishing "guilt."
Here's another article that popped up on my Twitter feed just today, relating a similar story about a sexual assualt investigation at Northeastern (apologies for the source): LINK
It's clearly a problem, both the assualts and universities subsequent handling (or mishandling) of cases that are reported to them. Hopefully all the press and attention it's getting these days is the impetus for some good changes in university procedures and especially campus culture.
One of the few things I can think of is that the culture of being a guy - and I use that specific word purposefully - in the US needs to change. The idea that you should try to get a girl drunk so you can take advantage of her should be attacked (I've seen an ad doing this). The idea that boys will be boys needs to change to the extent that it excuses bad behavior toward women. Part of getting to wear the mantle "man" should be that you're not a shit to women.
Of course, the assumptions that only men want sex, only men initiate sex, only men lie about sex, and only men use force, coercion, or chemically-impaired judgement to obtain sex should also be changed - and all of these assumptions appear to underlie the proceedings currently being used by OSCR and its counterparts at other universities (not to mention apparent assumption that sexual assault only occurs in heterosexual relations).
This discussion is better left to a site where men and women might both contribute.
And not just for this topic.
As one of the few, sometimes it's tough to be a poster on this site. Due respect here - I get the "stays in Vegas" man talk and it certainly isn't exclusive to this site. In fact, I feel like there are a good number of men here who try to keep it clean. Sports, and especially sports talk, is a man's world. We women who try to walk in that world have had to accept the Kate Upton posts ad nauseum.
I was once told by a poster I respect, when the subject was sexual assault and alcohol, that guys talk about "doing drunk chicks" all the time and it was something I just didn't understand. So I left that conversation, realizing I was vastly outnumbered. It would have caused me too much grief, and I know I'm not changing anyone's mind.
Weirdly, not all women could exist here, on a site like this. I've walked the line both here and professionally, working on an ad account that was a man's domain for years, and just turned it off when it got to be too much. Talking about rape is something I can't do here, because it's way too contentious, so I generally don't.
I try to keep myself from getting too preachy on here, but sometimes the culture and tone this board takes towards women and issues like rape can be really frustrating and upsetting. I definitely have caught myself in the past getting sucked into arguments about this stuff and probably should try to maintain a little more even tone.
But in this particular thread, pretty much every thought I've had has already been voiced by Erik_in_Dayton. So good on you, Erik!
I agree with whoever posted that the University is not equipped to 'try' cases like this that the police or DA do not. I also firmly believe that the best thing we can do, starting early, is educate kids about alcohol, consent and the difference between sex and rape. There is a lot of gray area and the more we can teach HS and college kids so they can be smarter and make better decisions, the better.
I'm a female but recognize this issue is complicated. My own views are complicated by the fact that I am a mother of a teenage son. Also the fact that I work for the University. And that when I was a student here, I served on OSCR for a year.
I have my own history of drunken stupidity & sexual idiocy to reflect on too.
I have a friend who was a victim of inebriated date rape and the way she describes the aftermath is really terrible. How she felt, how her university treated her, how her family reacted. It's been over a decade and she still carries this around with her. But here's the kicker: How she describes the start of that encounter? It sounds really similar to situations I was in, in college. More than once, even: Two drunk people, horny guy, semi-reluctant girl who eventually gives in (ie. gives consent at the time, after some pleading) and regrets it later. But these things had very different outcomes in terms of emotions and consequences.
So what baffles and concerns me (as an employee of an institution which houses young men and young women, all of whom are deserving of protection, and as the mother of a son who is a few years from college and intimate relationships himself) is that the facts of an encounter can be undisputed, but the ultimate criminality of them seems to hinge on something you cannot see, predict, or control. And that's how a woman reacts to a sexual encounter she is ambivalent about, and that she regrets afterwards. What determines whether a woman feels destroyed and violated, taken advantage of, illegally coerced? What determines whether a woman says "That was stupid on my part?" Which ones will suffer long-term emotionally, and which ones won't? Which ones are going to ask the University (or law) to intervene, and thus possibly change forever the lives of their sexual partner? What determines the outcome in these particular kinds of hook-ups? I don't know. Sometimes it feels like the only answer is don't drink, and don't hook up. Not so realistic.
ETA: I'm not referring to the case UM is being sued for; I'm talking about experiences I have had, as described.
Insightful post. Thank you.
I don't like the university role outlined by Title IX. Sexual assault is a crime. Universities don't have effective tools or experience to investigate them. Schools should be actively referring these cases to law enforcement rather than handling them internally.
I think Erik has it exactly right men need to be raised that its not ok to get girls drunk and sleep with them. One dumb hook up decision can wreck their future and there are women out there who have no problem lying because she may not want to be branded as a slut and would rather be a "victim" . I would just add that its hard when you add alcohol especially from the girls perspective we are a thousand times more vunerable.I know a girl who had a boyfriend and questioned the next day to herself if she really agreed to cheat on him.I know another girl from highschool who was clearly passed out and was raped by an adult and had to be told the next day that she was violated. I think there is a lot of truth that most girls have been kind of raped. Sitting and talking with girlfriends many have been in situations that they should not have been in. I teach my girls that they must take care of themselves first and to not depend on others to watch over them. I learned that lesson when I was young from my highschool friend. She expected people to look out for her but sometimes in that kind of situation people get scared and don't know what to do.
so vulnerable, why are they willing to put themselves in compromising positions? I just find the proposition that voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs can be used as an excuse to abolve women of their sexual responsiblites, preposterous. It wouldn't absolve her from being punished for a DUI or vehiclular manslaughter.
In other words, in the matter of sex, if she is inebriated, legally she hasn't the mental capacity to make an informed conscious decsion to give consent. However, she's at a frat party and she really wants to hook up with this guy because she wants to prove to her BFF that she's not a prude, and so drinks some liquid courage. She does engage in sexual intercourse, she's now worthy. She then leaves the party, jumps in her car and within a mile is arrested for DUI.
After sleeping it off in the drunk tank she relates that she had been raped at the party and an investigation is launched. The upshot, she is convicted of DUI because she chose to be drunk and she chose to drive while intoxicated and he was convicted of rape based upon evidence used to convict her of DUI.
Except that in many of these cases the issue isn't one of wanting to kiss the guy, its kissing the guy and then being unable to stop him from having sex with her. Being drunk and kissing a person is not a compromising situation to avoid and if it moves to sex against her wishes it is rape. The issue isn't waking up and thinking that was a bad idea, its waking up, realizing you said no and that it happened anyway, there doesn't have to be a physical fight for rape to occur and alchohol isn't absolving anyone.
As a father of daughters, I agree with most of your post. I especially agree with teaching girls the importance of making good decisions and staying away from bad situations.
However, the phrase "kind of raped" is just horrible. Rape is a serious criminal act. Rapists should go to prison for very long periods of time. You cannot be "kind of raped," any more than one can be "kind of guilty" of rape. Put another way, someone who is kind of guilty would also be kind of innocent. You simply cannot be both.
From your post, and without knowing anything but what you said, it seems like the first friend you mentioned did, in fact, cheat on her boyfriend. This may have been a poor or even implusive choice. It does not appear (based on your post alone) to have been rape. The second friend was (again only from the facts in your post) raped and I truly hope the man who did that to her is still in prison somewhere.
This may appear to be semantics, but some words do have real meaning which needs to be preserved. Words like "rape" and "sexual assault" have real meanings - and they need to. Decribing regretable or poor decisions as being "kind of raped" perpetuates not only a victimization culture, but diminishes the seriousness of the actual crime of rape. Someone who makes a bad decision and cheats on someone needs to accept they made a mistake, not claim to have been "kind of raped." Someone who is violated while passed out should be encouraged go to the police.
The FanMan I agree the first friend was definately not raped and just made a poor choice in who she slept with. If she had been a bad person she could have caused trouble for the guy she had slept with. When a girl says she was raped I think most people tend to believe the girl. A lot of women never come forward like my second friend because they fear the individual and most of all the process that is supposed to bring about justice. I don't think she felt like there could ever be justice for the aftermath of what she experienced.
So if a guy is drunk and has consensual sex with a girl he was raped by definition of the law? I wish it was just rape if the girl says no or was forcefully given alcohol. If a girl says yes and has sex with a guy while drunk then later claims he's raped her, it doesn't seem right. You can't being drunk as an excuse for a DUI so why is this any different.
GoBLUinTX I agree with you. I do believe that women are more vulnerable to rape in college but most girls don't understand or care that they put themselves in vulnerable situations by their actions. I am raising my daughters to understand that they need to take personal responsibility for themselves and drink responsibly and not depend on others to look out for them if they are passing out that is what I am saying. Obviously it is horrific for men to be falsely accused when the hookup was consensual. Women who falsely accuse of rape should be punished legally. I am not anti guy here I simply worry about my girls as they grow and that's my focus.
But realize this, as the law in many states now stands, what I described is not a false allegation and the hook up was not found to be consensual, so it was one of rape. True story.
At Ft Knox, at the club, and the night was wearing on and my vision not so clear. A fine looking lass asked if I'd like to share some peppermint schnapps with her. Who was I to argue that we'd have to drive half way to Louisville to find a liquor store. So off we went. By the time we got back to her place I was in no shape to give consent though she did take advantage of me.
The next morning we awoke to the sound of light rain pitter pattering on the window and her 15 year old daughter serving us breakfast in bed. I couldn't eat, not a bit. I'd lost my appetite wondering if her daughter had raped me too.
I'm not sure how you this becomes a left-right issue. Deborah Gordon is a civil rights/employment law attorney -- I don't know her party registration but most people in that area are liberal. While the federal government is investigating certain schools' policies that doesn't mean mandating what is described in the article.
If you know the details of this case then I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with the claims the plaintiff actually made. This is not about a war on men or the Obama administration. I have read the complaint and the gist of it is that UM failed to follow its own rules, namely it gave the plaintiff no notice of the alleged violation, considered no evidence (merely summaries of allegedly coercive interviews by the investigator/prosecutor/victim counselor), refused to consider affidavits and information provided by the plaintiff, refused to identify witnesses and offered no meaningful right to a hearing or appeal (among other things). There is a place for a university-based discipline process that addresses sexual misconduct issues. There must, however, be fair rules that afford the accused due process while treating accusers with respect and fairness, and without the conflicts of interest that appear glaring in this case. At the very least, universities need to follow their own rules. Finally, as a white male, the assertion that we are being victimized by a war on men (on campus or otherwise) is as irrational and immature as the ubuquitous whining about political correctness.
Here's a recent Wall Street Journal article on the subject (written by attorneys with extensive experience in sexual assault cases):
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023048313045795419704…
The important excerpt -
"Today at colleges across the country, a student accused of sexual misconduct has no right to find out the evidence against him, no right to be in the same room as his accuser, no right to a lawyer and no right to cross-examine the witnesses against him - all rights that, in a criminal proceeding, are fundamental. His case will be decided by a committee comprised variously of students, professors and administrators without oversight by impartial professionals who have criminal law experience."
"Due process" isn't even mentioned in the Obama administration task force recommendations.
The Obama administration task force is aggressivelly pushing for a low standard for guilt (preponderance of the evidence) and also encouraging universities to investigate and punish students using inadequate processes and inadequately trained personnel.
Your casual dismissal of these serious concerns and mockery of what amounts to "a war on men" is both ignorant and shameful.
...is not accused of a crime.
While the definitions of "assault" in Michigan statutory law and "misconduct" in the University student code of conduct may overlap, they are not the same. The university--many universities in fact, but I'll stay with Michigan--does not want its students to be subjected to certain non-criminal behaviors. They cannot rely on courts of law to do that for them and it's not at all clear why oversight by people with criminal law experience would be essential, or for that matter even helpful, in non-criminal cases.
article. Best quote: "The Obama administration has issued a federal hunting license to deputize fanatics at any university in America. They will define who gets arrested, and on what basis." Partisan, yes, but truthful.
Very sad.
This really bugs me:
"The University is reviewing the complaints and plans to defend them vigorously."
So, the University has already made up its mind that everything OSCR did was completely correct, before it's reviewed this complaint in full?