U.S. Department of Education Releases List of Higher Education Institutions with Open Title IX Sexual Violence Investigations
Title says it all. Both MSU and UM are on the list, as we knew, along with Indiana, Ohio, Penn State:
__________
Edit: It's important to keep in mind the quote from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon:
"I also want to make it clear that a college or university's appearance on this list and being the subject of a Title IX investigation in no way indicates at this stage that the college or university is violating or has violated the law."
Wasn't aware of a situation at OSU
I think it had to do with the cheerleading coach/team?
It might be that one, but I don't know for sure. The cheerleading coach at OSU was fired in December, I believe, for failing to report that she was notified that her assistants were sexually harrassing cheerleaders.
As I recall, one assistant would harrass female cheerleaders and the other the male cheerleaders. One of the male cheerleaders reported disturbing texts from one assistant, which the coach in turn did not report to Human Resources at OSU as required. I think the cheerleader who brought the offense to the coach's attention was kicked off the team by the now-dismissed coach too.
That is because it doesn't have to do with their football team. If bad things happen at OSU, they're OK as long as the football team is fine. That's how they prioritize there.
I have an obscure desire to find out whether, pending your cooperation, we can pull you out of a 165558215 hole. We could play the Muppets theme or something.
Is so deep that you are half-way to China. Perhaps you should stop of in Hawaii.
It's interesting that there's a disproportionate number of academically elite schools on there (Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Amherst, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Princeton, Michigan, Berkeley, Virginia, UNC, etc.). Does anyone know why that's the case?
but possibly because the level of entitlement that may go with being admitted to most of those schools. Kids with families who have a lot of money. I am generalizing, of course.
Most likely because these schools have a better-educated and more activist student body more likely and willing to take a stand on sexual assault.
Recall some of the earliest protests against the Vietnam War were at Michigan, Columbia, Berkeley. Actually you probably can't recall, you're probably too young.
This was my best guess, too. Because of that, I wonder if being on this list isn't much of an indictment.
There's an article on NPR (LINK) that makes this exact argument, specifically in regards to UofM's changing policies and increased reports of sexual assaults.
Short version: skyrocketing rates of sexual assault reports most likely reflects an increase in reports and enforcement rather than a change in the actual rate of sex assault occurrences.
Interesting article. Thanks for posting. That all seems very plausible to me.
that suggests one in five women nationwide is the victim of assault during her college career. So no one should feel too great.
They probably do a better job of tracking and reporting sexual assualt claims, and as a reult would have something that an agency could investigate.
Yeah, these schools have legal scholars who are having problems when trying to deal with the "preponderance of the evidence" standard that was introduced a few years ago, and which will be the yardstick used to ruin someone's life.
I'm being sarcastic, and don't want to get political, but my trust of some of the decisions that come down from Washington bureaucrats make my eyes roll in opposite directions.
I am very sensitive to and concerned with victims of sexual assault, but schools are being put into the position of the courts which would seem to not be a role they are terribly well equipped to fulfill.
they are not acting as courts. No one goes to jail. Colleges are merely processing their rules and regulations adminstratively like they have done ab initio. Bad behavior has always been a reason to get tossed from school. If cheating one time does it, I'm thinking sexual assault should as well. And dismissal for cheating doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt either. There is nothing new here--just a greater awareness of an under-reported problem.
I really couldn't disagree much more.
It honestly doesn't matter to me what happens when a student cheats or is caught drinking in his dorm room. I don't care what standard of proof they use for these types of transgressions. They really are nothing like a sexual assault allegation.
I keep posing this hypothetical and not a single person has ever responded. What would you think if the following occurred:
Your son is dating a girl and has what he believes is consensual sex with the girl. Later, he finds out that she claimed it was not consensual, and he is under investigation. Being that he's honest, he admits to having intercourse with the girl because that is in fact what happened. There is no other credible evidence. It's his word against hers seeing as to how he admitted to having sex. Because of the circumstances and the preponderance of the evidence standard, your son faces a 50/50 chance of expulsion depending on how truthful he and the girl are determined to be.
Would you want those odds for your son for something he swears he didn't do? I wouldn't. Sexual assault is simply not something a university can investigate. It also potentially forces the defendant to have to put statements on the record to defend himself, which could kill his case in a criminal trial. Doesn't really leave many options for the men accused of these assaults.
That's not how a "preponderance of the evidence" works. There has to be a REASON to believe that the individual is more likely than not guilty.
And do you know how I know this isn't a ridiculous haphazard standard implemented willy-nilly? Because it's the standard of proof used in every civil court. OJ Simpson's wrongful death suit was weighed on a preponderance of the evidence standard, and dude lost WAY more than a couple of years worth of tuition.
In the OJ Simpson civil suit and all other civil suits, there are rules of evidence at work, including broad rules of discovery to say nothing of the ability to formally depose wittnesses and cross examine witnessses in court. There is the opportunity to delve deeply into the background of witnesses.
Do you think the same rules are at play when U of M goes through the process?
It's one thing to break a light bulb in a dorm or do some otherwise stupid action which might get you reprimand or thrown out for a semester and which you can always say you needed to grow up, but when you are talking sexual assault the bar is raised and I, for one, don't trust university officials to make that decision.
when the school expells you for sexual assault, it doesnt go on your record, and you are not put on any sex offender list by a university, what is the actual difference from being expelled for cheating on an exam?
How's that working out for Gibbons right now?
How do I know that this probably is some ridiculous haphazard standard that should not be applied to these situations?
Well, prior to being mandated to change the standard, nearly every single University that investigated and punished students for sexual assault used the highest possible standard of proof, and this was almost always a departure from the standard of proof required for lesser offenses. The fact that nearly every independent vote of people closer to the actual situations resulted in a different outcome than the federally mandated rule leads me to believe that the people best suited for deciding this disagree with the federal government on this one.
Secondly, I fully understand the burden of proof in a civil trial. However, as pointed out above, the rules of evidence and procedures used in a civil trial are so far removed from that of the type of hearings we're discussing that comparing them seems pointless.
For instance, it costs A LOT of time and money to sue somebody. You also usually only do it if the responsible party has money to win. You also have to factor in attorney fees, time, travel, the duration of the proceedings, etc.
On the other hand, an alleged victim in one of these cases risks essentially nothing. It's a relatively short process. The alleged victim's name never gets out. She doesn't have to pay for anything, per se. I mean, it doesn't someone anything to make a false allegation it would seem.
I'm sorry, I just find this crazy and ridiculous, personally.
nearly every independent vote of people closer to the actual situations resulted in a different outcome than the federally mandated rule leads me to believe that the people best suited for deciding this disagree with the federal government on this one.This is if, by "this," you mean the social biases and parochial interests of the school. Or maybe you think the troublemakers and busybodies should have left PSU to sort out Jerry Sandusky on its own. After all, the school is always right.
I think it's a really good question and I'm still torn on it. On the other hand, you could think about your hypothetical scenario from the school's perspective.
Something just happened between a guy and a girl on campus. They're telling conflicting stories. She says that he raped her and he says that it was consensual. We have no idea who's telling the truth and who is not, or whether there are misinterpetations or bad memories involved. Let's say that the facts nudge us toward believing the girl but only at 51% or so. On one hand, if we expel the guy and he didn't do it, we've seriously wronged him. On the other hand, if we think he's probably a rapist and we're letting him stay unpunished, we're putting our students at risk and sending a scary message to people who might consider doing something horrible in the future.
It's a tough problem. Personally, I think I'd rather see the standard set closer to 75% than 51%, but those kinds of percentages probably aren't meaningful to people anyway.
between 51% and 75%.
Is the difference exact? Of course not. But everyone knows the 50%+ thing means anything making something more the claim more likely to be true than not true, whereas something like 75% means some degree of reasonable confidence in your assessment of the facts.
is not a preponderance of the evidence. Nor is it even 51-49. There is no percentage. A preponderance of the evidence is the more probable truth, the more convincing proof. The complaining party bears the burden of proof--which is no small thing in the law-- it is incumbant upon that party to prove his or her case.
Further, I am not sure what burden of proof is even applied in these administrative hearings.
My cheating analogy, while apt, probably wasn't the best one. So how about someone who beats the shit out of someone where there are no witnesses. It might be a difficult criminal case, but one that can be established by administrative standards.
Of course, and while studies differ, women are at least 10 times more likely to not even report a sexual assault than they are to falsely accuse someone.
Your approach and burden of proof would allow too many students who probably sexually assaulted (my daughter, for instance) to remain on campus and continue his repugnant behavior.
Nothing new here? Better open your eyes if you think there is nothing new here.
"Colleges are merely processing their rules..."
You have people's futures at stake. It's great to be so cavalier. If your ass were on the chopping block, you might think differently.
Let's look at Gibbons. Maybe he was guilty of sexual assault and maybe he wasn't. If he goes to court and is convicted, at least he had a chance for a sound defense, had constitutional safeguards in place and to be convicted, a jury of his peers had to be convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, which is a hell of a higher burden for a prosecutor to reach.
If he goes before the University of Michigan, and her evidence is just slightly more credible than his evidence, he is expelled and bears the scarlet "A" for the rest of his life.
And you find that acceptable? I sure as hell don't.
First, F. Scott Fitzgerald:
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft when we are hard, and cynical when we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.”
Then Ernest Hemingway (Snows of Kiliminjaro):
“The rich are different” ... “Yes, they have more money.More of a shot at F. Scott than the rich, if I recall correctly.
But I'd say that it's rare that I've ever run into a person who was extremely wealthy as a child who doesn't portray what Fitzgerald conveys. The sad part is when you do run into an extremely rich person who's just "really normal" for lack of a better phrase they a commended on it.
He was quite a nice guy.
An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation2 which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a "a large rope used to bind ships".Others cite OT passages to suggest a simple case of Hebrew/Aramaic hyperbole. More on this: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm .
But wasn't it Lauren Bacall's mother who advised Humphrey Bogart that "Money is never an issue or a problem when you have it"?
There are assholes who are rich and assholes who are normal working folks. The same thing with cool people: rich and poor. However, money makes existence a bit easier.
nerds got no game?
I kid, I kid
I'm guessing it has to do with those students typically being more inclined to speak up and bring these issues to light. Also, there might be something to be said for schools that "care" about these issues more are going to have the type of resources for students to report it.
but in a body of (generally) 20,000+ 18-22 year olds, all on the same campus. It's far more surprising to me if a school is not on the list than if a school is on it
Although your second point is quite obviously valid, I have to disagree with your contention that this "has nothing to do with athletics". While not exclusive to the behavior of student-athletes, it is a problem that impacts that athletic teams we follow and, unfortunately, of the five B1G schools listed, at least four of them are on the list due to the behavior of people in their athletic programs. That says something.
As of this coming weekend, MSU has officially dragged its feet long enough to get through the NCAA Tournament and Commencement without losing two of its top basketball players and having to deal with some nasty press.
And by "cynical" I mean "accurate".
Michigan's response to the Gibbons thing was far from perfect, but it was 1000x more responsible than MSU's response to the Appling and Payne thing. If I were affiliated with that school, I'd be out for blood right now.
Correct again. MSU gets an A in PR (especially with Payne and the girl suffering from cancer) and an F in ethics. Michigan gets a D in PR (esp. with Hoke's statements about family issues) and a B- in ethics.
There's no question that Michigan could have done a better job with Gibbons, but the Payne - Appling thing was as egregious as it gets (outside of Tallahassee).
that girl's story was as sad as it gets, and she seemed like a wonderfully brave, positive kid, but watching the media either turn a blind eye to or be too lazy to be aware of the Appling/Payne thing, well, it confirmed my low expectations of our mainstream media. Read another promo, Musburger.
celebrates Payne, but can't have a kid like Mitch around because of freaking weed.
How is this possible?
The NCAA and their corporate/TV partners traffic in insanity.
is even more true for Vanderbilt.
What happened at MSU was beyond disgusting.
How'd ND escape the list with how they handled the Seeberg.
It's a private school? This is a Title IX thing which means federal funding is probably the hook here.
Probably not the answer, but all I can think of.
Like pretty much every school in the US, ND couldn't operate without federal funds. Something like 2/3's of their research grants come from the federal government, and then there's federally-funded student aid.
Maybe nobody has lodged a complaint with OCR that would trigger a review?