In Sexual-Misconduct Cases, Hear the Facts

Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2014-09-15 22:35

Article here. Excerpt:

'Administrators are under intense pressure to hold students accountable for sexual misconduct. If that pressure results in eviscerated due process and ideological fact-finding—­basically, deciding cases before hearing them—aggrieved plaintiffs will turn to state and federal courts for relief. Early indications from several decisions this year suggest judges may be receptive to some of their arguments.

A decision last month in King v. DePauw University, for example, is especially instructive. The federal judge in that case issued a preliminary injunction requiring the fall-2014 reinstatement, "without restriction," of Benjamin King, a student suspended for sexual assault. The court rejected King’s argument that he was the victim of gender-based discrimination but concluded he was "likely to succeed in demonstrating at trial that DePauw’s decision to find him liable for sexual misconduct ... was reached in an illegal, arbitrary, or capricious manner."
...
Failures in addressing sexual misconduct run the gamut from a rush to judgment in the Duke-lacrosse case to many examples of inexcusable indifference to sexual misconduct by athletes. Furthermore, we’re subject to ethical questions too long swept under the rug. Are we creating "special" sexual-assault tribunals available to comparatively wealthy college students who want to avoid the indignities of the criminal-justice system? If so, do we help perpetuate those indignities for the less privileged?

Polarization over sexual-assault adjudication will accelerate as more lawsuits are brought by accused students. Educators who acquire the discipline to hear cases before deciding them will weather the storm. Those who follow ideological imperatives will foster a regrettable, but inevitable, result: national legislation requiring that sexual-assault cases be resolved in criminal courts, not on university campuses.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... posted as follows:

The author says it'd be regrettable if there were national legislation requiring sexual assault accusations to be heard in a criminal court. There is already, it's called the Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection clause in the Bill of Rights.

And further, there is nothing in the Con'n that says private institutions can assume the role of courts in law enforcement. If a student commits a sexual assault (or is so accused) that fits the stat. def'n of an offense under the law, the alleged victim should not have his or her right to see justice done abrogated or delegated to an entity that has neither lawful authority nor lawful competence to investigate, enforce, or try a case involving an accusation rising to a criminal level. Likewise the accused has the right to all protections vs. presumed guilt and corruption of process.

In short, college admins have absolutely no business dealing w/ sexual assault accusations. The appropriate and only lawful such authorities are police and the courts. Neither legislatures nor courts themselves can delegate nor abrogate these fundamental rights -- not without acting unconstitutionally.

But rarely has it stopped anyone before. Not right away, anyway.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2014-09-15 22:38