MgoBlueprint

January 30th, 2015 at 7:18 AM ^

The kid seemed to be caught red handed. Beyond that, my more general concern is the erosion of the presumption of innocence. In the click-bait shoot first society we live in the ramifications are larger.

My greater concern is kids lives can be ruined by the media and court of public opinion before they have their day in court.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending rape, I defending due process.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Ivan Karamazov

January 30th, 2015 at 8:58 AM ^

This was covered a lot during the Gibbons case here but the standard for Universities taking action with students, staff or employees is different than the standard in the court of law.

I dont have time to read all through THIS but I assume the policy described at Stanford is similar to what we have here at Michigan.  

Edit: Just found This As Well with a quick Google.  It seems regardless of the University local law enforcement is taking quick action. Five felony counts filed by the D.A. less than two weeks after the incident occured.

Jonesy

January 30th, 2015 at 3:58 PM ^

The standards should be different.

 

If a court convicts you of rape you go to jail for a long time and become a registered sex offender and your life is practically done.

 

If a University finds you guilty of rape you leave school and go to another one.

 

Big difference, the courts need to be absolutely sure, the university can afford to be only mostly sure since the punishment is so much less.

markinmsp

January 30th, 2015 at 7:04 PM ^

 Am in the Bay area and this is getting much play on local news and media over the last several days. The point they are stressing is not his innocence or guilt (though yes, he was stopped in act by two bikers on campus that heard him in bushes), rather the U is focusing on the safety of female students/employees for his dismissal.

Yeoman

January 31st, 2015 at 6:49 PM ^

...a university doesn't find you guilty of rape, it finds that you've violated the school's code of conduct. I doubt there's a school in the country with a code of conduct that precisely mirrors criminal law, and I don't know why anyone would think a code should.

Timnotep

January 30th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^

I'm fully aware that the standards are different than those within the legal system, within that policy there is room for exactly the response outlined above. Suspend the guy from university grounds and functions until such time as he's proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can still work within the universities standards without jumping to expulsion immediately.

"Students, faculty and staff found to be in violation of this policy will be subject to discipline up to and including termination, expulsion or other appropriate institutional sanctions; affiliates and program participants may be removed from University programs and/or prevented from returning to campus."

It looks, however that in this case the student in question removed himself from the university making the argument moot with regards to this specific case. Had this been the actions of Stanford I would argue that the previously suggested response (suspend him then expell him pending a preponderance of evidence) is a far more appropriate response.

Imagine a scenario wherein someone is falsely accused of rape; the standard response would be immediate expulsion without allowing due process.

leu2500

January 30th, 2015 at 8:46 AM ^

with legal system?

You attend a college/university, you agree to abide by the code of conduct.  There's no "innocent until proven guilty" with the code of conduct.  It covers more than sexual misdeeds. For example, the daughter of a friend of mine was living in on-campus housing operated by a 3rd party. The daughter's roommate was a real piece of work.  There were some serious issues which the housing staff blew off. But then the roommate took to posting threats against the daughter on Facebook.   Because the school policy allowed parents & such to also file complaints, my friend was able to report the Facebook threats to the school, which took action as this was a serious violation of the code of conduct.  That was the last semester the roommate was enrolled at the school.

 

west2

January 30th, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^

Seriously he was caught in the act in public with the woman unconscious by 2 guys that witnessed the act then the guy pulled his pants up and ran, was subsequently chased down and detained and arrested.  It doesn't get much more cut and dry than that.  Due process yes but when it's overwhelmingly obvious you suspend the student pending whatever legal process awaits.  In today's instantaneous world of info waiting months for the legal process to grind to a conclusion makes no sense when obvious action is needed to protect students.  

danimal1968

January 30th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

applies only to what the jury at the criminal trial is supposed to be told.  The defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty isn't the rule outside that context.  When it comes to expulsion/suspension/etc. if you're at a state college, you're entitled to due process, which may or may not mean you're only suspended pending trial.  If you're at a private school like Stanford, you are entitled to nothing more than whatever rights they give when you sign an "I agree to be bound by the code of student conduct" paperwork.

umumum

January 30th, 2015 at 3:08 PM ^

you were equally unhappy with Hoke's dismissal of Clark without an administrative hearing let alone a criminal adjudication.  Dismissal from a football program--particularly in situations like Clark's-- likely has as much adverse impact upon an athlete as dismissal from a college has for an ordinary student.

Tater

January 30th, 2015 at 8:20 AM ^

I agree with MGoBlueprint.  It looks like he is guilty, but it seems like the public has become the judge, jury and executioner nowadays.  No matter how a case pushes one's emotional buttons, we really should be evolved highly enough to wait until someone is found guilty in a court of law before we start clamoring for punishment.

Sometimes, though, this is easier said than done.  I guess it's part of being human.

The_Mad Hatter

January 30th, 2015 at 8:30 AM ^

not fond of the media identifying accused criminals before their trials.  In my opinion, their identity should be concealed until they are convicted.

There was a guy accused of sexually abusing a non-verbal autistic kid a few years ago (his own child IIRC).  He got slaughtered by the media before he was ever put on trial.  Turns out that the whole thing was a complete fabrication.  Charges were dropped and he filed a civil suit against the teacher who made the complaint.

His life was still ruined.

 

That said, if you're caught with your penis inside an unconscious woman in a park, you're guilty of something.

Heptarch

January 30th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^

As an HR person, I can tell you that if I Google someone and that situation arose, the articles about the case being dropped are just as easy to see.

That and you can't legally make hire/no-hire decisions based on a dropped charge.  It can only be based on convictions, and even then only for certain types of crimes.

coldnjl

January 30th, 2015 at 7:20 AM ^

I am glad Stanford did everything right; however, the author seems a little off base. The caught they guy mid act in the public eye...that is alot different then the challenging conditions found in a 'he said, she said' situation. 

...And then the point out UVa as an example of what is done wrong with how you handle these types of cases. The last thing I heard was that the Charlottesville police department said that they found "no basis to believe that an incident occurred at that fraternity...". I know that doesn't mean it happened, but don't point a finger at another school when you apparently aren't up on the situation enough to know wtf your talking about. 

leu2500

January 30th, 2015 at 7:55 AM ^

Not sure what his testimony ended up being on the stand, but the initial reporting was that he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a kid and instead of confronting Sandusky, calling 911, etc he turned & walked away. Then the next day he contacted Joe P re what he had witnessed.  And then the game of telephone began watering down what McQueary had seen.

But let's not forget that this wasn't the only red flag wrt Sandusky that PSU officials were aware of. And what did they do? They moved Sandusky's camp thing from main campus to Berend(sic).  Thanks, guys.    

 

CalifExile

January 30th, 2015 at 7:09 PM ^

"there are some other schools out there (cough cough UVA cough) who could benefit from their example . . . ."

If you follow her link to her UVA column you'll find she is complaining that people are criticizing the complainant instead of Rolling Stone magazine for their complete failure to report in a professional manner. Nothing in the column actually criticizes UVA for their handling of the matter.

RGard

January 30th, 2015 at 8:40 AM ^

McQueary did tell the AD (Curley) and Finance Guy (Schultz) what he had seen.  This didn't get watered down. 

I do think all along they (Spanier, Schultz and Curley) planned to say McQueary never said it was sexual.  Paterno dropped those 3 in the toilet when he testified under oath that McQueary told him it was sexual.  There are contemporaneous emails between Curley, Schultz and Spanier discussing the fact that they would be vulnerable if they didn't report it.

mgoblue0970

January 30th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^

Have you and @leu read Jay Paterno's OWN op-ed on the subject (Google it), Jay admits that Mike McQueary told JoePa about the incident in the showers in JoePa's living room.

Jay also writes that Mike McQueary said it was, and I quote, "extremely sexual" in nature.

So if what Jay writes is true then JoePa knew, even if only once, and so did Spanier, Schultz and Curley -- and they are all lying.  They were told, as quoted by Saint Joe's own son, that it was "extremely sexual".

 

 

 

Wendyk5

January 30th, 2015 at 10:15 AM ^

I don't get the connection to Penn State. There have been other more apropos cases he could have cited. Right now, there's a documentary out there called "The Hunting Ground" that's an expose on the rape culture on college campuses. I believe it was shown at Sundance and caused quite a stir, with Barbara Boxer saying that she believes the film will be a catalyst for change in how colleges handle these cases. Many victims came forward and agreed to be identified and filmed, including the alleged victim in the Jameis Winston case. The bottom line in the film is that colleges are trying to brush these assaults under the rug to keep the statistics in their favor. They're aware of the PR nightmare they're facing. The film calls out many schools, including Harvard. I believe CNN is going to air it sometime this year. But apparently it was pretty eye opening. 

 

As for the Stanford swimmer, I saw the story a few days ago. Stanford had no choice but to remove him. He's a danger to women on campus. But I didn't like the fact that his picture was posted all over the media. Let the guy be judged in a court of law first. 

HarbaughToMichigan

January 30th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^

Wait, it cited the FSU "victim" who was "hit on the head", wait or drugged, or drunk, or didn't know her attacker, or was a 5'6 black dude with dreads, who deleted Winston's number from her phone before turning it over to the cops?  She can't even keep her own story straight.  Embarassing that black men in the South are still being lynched here on MGoBlog and the media for fucking a white woman.  

CLord

January 30th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^

Couldn't disagree more with you. Dumb threads are "what's in your glass?" threads that have nothing to do with football, and a chance for feaux beer hipsters to spew microbrew gibberish.  "Oh man I have two six packs of Bad Axe Nag's Pig Wolf Gut Stout ready to go!"

This thread on the other hand provides the perfect contrast to what that idiot and coward McQuery didn't do, and what JoPa didn't do, and crystalizes why some of us despise Penn State 10 times more than Ohio State.  We're the guys who have a very clear code of conduct, that tells us that if we see certain things, like a man assaulting a woman or a child, we will set aside selfish thoughts of our own safety and career/life ramifications to immediately stop this activity if it is within our power.

We're the guys that, after the scandal, focus on the welfare of the child victims rather than on restoring football wins and preserving the legacy of a football coach.  Fuck Penn State.

Those two young guys on the bikes should be the ones with a statue in front of Beaver Stadium, not cowards like Paterno or McQuery.

Wendyk5

January 30th, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^

You must have missed the one unfathomably stupid comment that was removed that spurred my reaction. Honestly I don't care to rehash the Penn State controversy. We all commented for days and weeks on that, all in agreement. How could I not agree with you? This incident focuses on how universities address that problem of sexual assaults of women on campus, and Stanford, in this case, acted expeditiously and did what it had to do. See my comment below also. 

OccaM

January 30th, 2015 at 9:20 AM ^

The whole "preponderance" of evidence that schools need to justify expulsion of a student is downright embarrassing. It is heavily sexist against men. We have a legal system for a reason. Use it. 

Michigan recently had a male student sue the University for suspending him without proper evidence in a case in which the girl claimed rape about a year after they had sex once her mother found out about her sexual tendencies from her diary. I hope he wins every penny. 

Schools are not equipped to handle these cases. Shit even the legal system has problems with this stuff. 

EastCoast Esq.

January 30th, 2015 at 9:31 AM ^

Read some stories about how difficult it is for a woman to get justice through the legal system. And how traumatizing.

America's justice system is an unwieldy tool in rape cases.

EDIT: Here's an an article on the topic from Cracked. Obviously not the most professional journalism, but it does highlight some important themes.

http://www.cracked.com/article_21910_8-ways-legal-system-screws-rape-victims-like-me.html

OccaM

January 30th, 2015 at 9:39 AM ^

Right so b/c it is a shitty situation for a woman to get justice through the actual legal system, let's just throw that part out and expel kids with "preponderance" instead. 

You can't have this shit both ways. Of course it's going to be tough. That's the nature of it. Your article complains about rape kits... like cmon. 

Rape is a heinous crime. Obviously the legal system won't be pretty in the process. Of course the person will be slut shamed by the defense. Rape victims aren't the only people who have this "label" problem. See Trayvon Martin etc being labeled thug, gangbanger etc. 

That's the nature of the beast. Yet that beast ie the legal system is the best we've got. The police and legal system are better equipped than a bunch of academics to handle this stuff. Your point makes no sense. 

 

Ivan Karamazov

January 30th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^

I think one point to consider is this:

Is the legal system the best we can do or could we do better when handling rape and its consequences?  

Personally I don't feel like mgoblog is the place to have this discussion at length, but I'm in enough of a soapbox mood today to pose the question.  I do hope you consider that the current state of the legal system may not be fair to the victims of rape.