In a speech at George Mason University, one of the few universities where she can speak without student protests, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced a retreat from the guidelines protecting victims of sexual assault on campus. She devoted equal time in her speech to the rights of the victims of rape and the rights of those accused of rape.
Her stance seems likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward, since doing so is already hazardous and puts them at risk of ostracism, especially when the alleged perpetrator is a popular athlete on campus.
Given that she was appointed by a man who has boasted of sexually assaulting women without their consent–just “grabbing them by” their genitals–her indifference to victims of sexual assault is not surprising.
When the subject was first discussed by the Secretary and the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Candace Jackson, Ms. Jackson said that most claims of sexual assault were bogus.
“Investigative processes have not been “fairly balanced between the accusing victim and the accused student,” Ms. Jackson argued, and students have been branded rapists “when the facts just don’t back that up.” In most investigations, she said, there’s “not even an accusation that these accused students overrode the will of a young woman.”
“Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” Ms. Jackson said.
“Ms. Jackson later issued a statement clarifying that the conclusion was based on feedback from cases involving accused students, and even if complaints don’t allege violence, “all sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously.”
“Such comments infuriate advocates for victims and women, who have spent the last six years waging a concerted campaign to educate college administrators, and the public, on students’ rights under the law, and how to combat what some have called “rape culture” on campus. A 2015 survey commissioned by the Association of American Universities found that more than one in four women at a large group of leading universities said they had been sexually assaulted by force or when they were incapacitated while in college.”
The current stance of the Department suggests that Jackson prevailed, that is, if anyone in her Office tried to persuade her that she was wrong. She meant what she said the first time. She believes that 90% of accusations are false.
The steady evisceration of civil rights continues apace.

Betsy’s comment, “If everything is harassment, then nothing is” just floored me. How clueless and heartless is she? So I tried an exercise using that logic:
“If all children are afforded educational opportunity, then none are.”
“If all people have access to quality medical care, then none do.”
“If everyone one wins, then we all lose.”
“If all cars speed, then none do.”
“If everyone inherited a billion dollars, then we’d all be poor.”
LikeLike
Can the students who have been sexually assaulted bypass the campus cops and campus reporting strictures and go straight to the local police wherever their school is located, or would the local police kick it back to the campus police?
LikeLike
I would think the answer is yes to that. The Rape statutes are State laws as to what constitutes rape or sexual assault.
Perhaps I am wrong but what we are talking about is the Universities response in an area where State laws may be vague or prior to conviction. The University does not get to say what assault is. Nor the Department of Ed.
Not being a lawyer ,I wonder how universities would react to law suits, if the previous guidelines by the Dept of Ed . said that certain actions encourage a culture of abuse . Than civil juries in many states may side with the victims in lawsuits The costs could then force institutions to adopt the guidelines as a code of behavior to avoid future law suits.
If students have to sign that code of conduct than violating it subjects
that student to discipline or expulsion .
Just throwing that out there . Lawyer anyone .
As OSHA inspections disappeared, the insurance industry has taken over . Strictly out of greed , not out of a concern for workers. . They don’t want to pay the tab . Occasionally markets do work. Of course if your are fly by night unscrupulous employer you take a chance on having minimal insurance ..
From the B.S. ratings publications to social media, Schools could then be rated. Would you go to Trump University or send your daughter there. . Not unless you expected to be grabbed by Donald. (Sarcasm )
LikeLike
Zorba, that’s a good question. I think it depends on the school’s agreements with the local police, or maybe state law in the case of public universities.
LikeLike
Size of the college or university and budget for on-campus police also plays a role.
LikeLike
Yes, I just wonder if a student has been sexually assaulted, and if that students feels that they cannot receive a fair hearing or justice at their college, can they go to the local police. Joel Herman thinks that the answer is yes.
I would hope that is true.
LikeLike
DeVos sounds like a member of the Christian right Taliban. After all, it is always the woman that brings these problems on herself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are absolutely right. Together we can stop this.
LikeLike
Retired teacher, Molly Ivins used to call such types “Talibaptists.”
I miss Molly.
LikeLike
Another day, another depredation
LikeLike
According to a HuffPo story on Betsy’s press conference, “She dedicated nearly half of her speech to anecdotes about those who have been wrongfully accused of assault.” Yet, just between 2 and 10 percent of reported rapes turn out to be false claims, DeVos devoted equal time to the stories of sexual assault survivors and those wrongly accused as if the group is the same size as survivors of sexual violence.” In other words, both sides, many sides. This will continue to be the modus operandi of this dangerous administration.
LikeLike
I would not wish it upon any man or woman, but I wonder if Betsy DeVos were outright raped, would she feel differently about her position currently?
LikeLike
Outright raped?
LikeLike
Will never happen because of her $1 million security team and Erik Princes army
LikeLike
She’s EVIL and a DITZ.
LikeLike
Why did you change the description of George Mason University? You referred to it as right wing and then it got changed.
LikeLike
David,
I just finished reading Nancy McLean’s “Democracy in Chains.” She describes how Koch brothers funded George Mason U. A former faculty member contacted me and said that description applies to law and economics, not the whole university. So I made the change.
LikeLike
Thanks Diane
LikeLike
I am not so sure it is confined to the law and economics departments
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george-mason-university-reprimands-edward-wegmand-/1#.WbKKUJ4pBJ8
There are clearly members of the George Mason faculty who either don’t know what plagiarism is or don’t consider it any big deal.
Is that right wing? It is if it is done to advance a right wing agenda, in this case climate change denial.
LikeLike
I also got the impression from Jane Mayer’s book “Dark Money” that Charles and David Koch basically own the political science and economics departments at George Mason, as well as the law school.
LikeLike
The Kochs have bought many economics departments. Endowed the one at GMU
LikeLike
I think the US Department of Education will just become increasingly irrelevant to people.
They don’t support public schools, they don’t enforce civil rights, they don’t regulate for-profit colleges or student loan vendors. The list of what they don’t do is longer than any positive contribution they make.
That would probably make the far Right happy. They want to abolish the department anyway. A couple more years of making themselves completely irrelevant and no one will notice if they do abolish the department.
LikeLike
Making the Department of Ed irrelevant is DeVos’s goal. Pruitt wants to do the same with EPA but the climate refuses to cooperate
LikeLike
Our nation seemed to survive until 1979, without a federal department of education. I have read the US Constitution, and I have yet to lay a finger on any specific mention of an authorization for the federal government to get involved in education at all. It should be left to states and municipalities, which are closer to the people, than faceless bureaucrats in WashDC.
Abolish the department, It’s about time.
LikeLike
With DeVos in charge, the ED has no purpose
LikeLike
Aggravating article in today’s Washington Times: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-teachers-unions-became-the-paper-tigers-of-education-reform/article/2633676
LikeLike
I mean in The Washington Examiner.
LikeLike
You know I value and respect your contributions immensely. Not sure if you know that the Washington Examiner is a relatively young newspaper with a fairly extreme conservative agenda and is owned by right wing billionaire Philip Anschutz. The Washington Times, founded by the Sun Myung Moon (not sure if that’s sic or not) has been the go to right wing rag for years, but even it has become a bit of joke among conservatives, hence the market for the Examiner. The Post, which used to be very good, is hit-and-miss, it can’t decide if it wants to be a legitimate news source—I think it is on the reporters’ side—or fears cozying up to DC power centers—which guides its editorial department. It’s op-ed page has mostly become a “both sides” megaphone of former Bush types like Michael Gerson. But beware of the Examiner, even its reporting side comes at everything with a “free market,” gun-toting, anti- any kind of regulation, science denying perspective.
LikeLike
…fears losing its cozying…
LikeLike
This posting and all of the comments here are yet another example of the decline of principled liberalism, which used to be the loudest advocate for due process rights for everyone. The vast majority of women’s claims of being sexually assaulted are valid. But that fact is no solace to men who are wrongly accused and have their lives severely disrupted. Many colleges don’t allow accused men to have an attorney present for administrative hearings regarding rape charges, and they don’t allow the accused to question the accuser. There have even been many cases of women saying they weren’t assaulted but colleges punished men anyway. Many law professors have criticized this kangaroo court system. Colleges have been sued and forced to pay large settlements to wrongly accused men who were denied due process.
This blog’s readers badly need to access information sources outside the left-wing bubble that merely confirms what they already want to believe. And can we have back a principled liberalism that believes in due process for everyone, no matter what political correctness mandates?
LikeLike
Don’t allow the accused to question the accuser?
You’re kidding, right?
Please point out the part of our Constitution (including Bill of Rights) that guarantees that the accused can directly question the accuser.
It mandates that the accused “be confronted with the witnesses against him” but that is NOT the same as allowing the accused to be questioned by the accuser.
LikeLike
Should have been ” Not the same as allowing the accused to question the accuser”
LikeLike
I’ll make it easy for you to read the Sixth Amendment for the first time by citing the exact wording here: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
This right is only applicable in criminal cases, and politically correct colleges can and do ignore the principles enshrined in the Sixth Amendment in their kangaroo court proceedings which are stacked against the accused. It is a long established practice that Assistance of Counsel is interpreted to mean that the accused – usually through an attorney – has the right to cross-examine witnesses for the accuser, including the accuser herself. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this principle to be observed for 200+ years.
It’s pathetic how poorly educated about basic civics most of the population is, including the vast majority of “educators.”
LikeLike
“…court proceedings which are stacked against the accused.”
Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility. On campuses across the nation it has been almost impossible for women (and men) who have been sexually assaulted to get any form of justice against their rapist, especially if said rapist is an athlete, member of a fraternity or otherwise “elite”. The victim is routinely silenced, her (his) word taken at no value, even threatened with his/her grades, housing or otherwise. These victims are then forced to make the choice between continuing to go to school with their rapists and see them on a daily basis or else drop out of school.
Just because there have been a very, very small number of highly-publicized contrary cases like UVA does not change the long standing patterns that led to the Obama-era victim protections in the first place.
It’s actually pretty easy for men not to get accused in the first place. Act like a gentleman, keep your hands to yourself and understand that no means no (actually, better yet, yes means yes – the absence of resistance does not constitute consent; best to make sure of affirmative consent). The vast majority of men who have been “falsely” accused were hardly gentlemen, even if they weren’t as guilty as they were made out to be. On the other hand, it’s not so easy for women (and men) to avoid getting raped.
LikeLike
I suggest you actually read the part of the Bill of Rights that you quoted (and the relevant part that I first quoted) because What you wrote “allow the accused to question the accuser” is most certainly NOT in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and NOT what it says or even implies.
It is very ironic that you are decrying the poor understanding of others.
LikeLike
Despite your pathetic attempt to twist what you wrote to suit your purpose, awing a lawyer to question an accuser (for which there is also no guarantee) is most certainly NOT the same as “allowing the accused to question the accuser” which is what you wrote.
LikeLike
“allowing a lawyer”
LikeLike
In my first comment I stated that ” The vast majority of women’s claims of being sexually assaulted are valid.” What I’m addressing here is the frequent lack of due process which has led to some innocent men being falsely accused and wrongly punished at great harm to the men.
SomeDAM poet obviously knows nothing about U.S. Supreme Court precedents regarding the right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses (including the accuser). SCOTUS has ruled many times that the right to counsel implies a right for the accused – usually through an attorney – to cross-examine all witnesses for the accuser, including the accuser herself. This is a long established, bedrock principle in criminal prosecutions. I know Ed schools don’t require future teachers to know very much, but this is basic civil liberties.
Get outside the left-wing bubble and read things that don’t just confirm what you want to believe.
LikeLike
You’re just trying to change what you wrote.
Pathetic.
LikeLike
OK, respond to this posting from Cornell Law School, which corroborates everything I’ve written about the Sixth Amendment. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
LikeLike
“Accused” means something very specific.
A lawyer representing the accused is NOT the same as “the accused”.
Perhaps you would like to claim that the lawyer is also on trial for rape?
LOL
LikeLike
Accused means the accused. The defendant.
LikeLike
“I know Ed schools don’t require future teachers to know very much….”
Further disqualification from being taken seriously.
LikeLike
Not incidentally, there is a reason why our Constitution and legal system do NOt mandate that accused rapists, murderers etc be allowed to directly question their accusers.
I’ll let you figure out what that reason might be — if you are up to the task.
LikeLike
Can you even read and comprehend the English language? SCOTUS precedent – as the Cornell Law School article states – allows the accused to cross-examine the accuser. A defendant can represent himself and do the cross-examining; almost always the defendant has an attorney do this cross-examining. If he can’t afford an attorney, SCOTUS precedent requires the government to provide one for him (hence public defenders). This precedent is an outgrowth of the famous 1966 SCOTUS ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona. Ask any criminal defense attorney or prosecutor: 100% of them will back up what I’ve written here.
Due process means all relevant evidence is heard and is open to testing by cross-examination. Following due process has resulted in conviction rates of over 90% in sexual assault cases. Many innocent men have been exonerated as a result of cross-examining the accuser; even better, DNA evidence has helped free hundreds of men wrongly convicted of rape, and has helped to convict the truly guilty.
I support due process for everyone. Most of this blog’s readers don’t. Another sign of the decline of pricipled liberalism.
LikeLike
John,
I don’t like your uncivil behavior and insults. If you can’t behave in a decent manner, go away, this is my blog, my living room, and your attitude towards others is nasty. No one censored you. Be mannerly or leave.
LikeLike
I think SDP is referring to the line of case law that says that while a criminal defendant has the right “to be confronted” with the witnesses against him, the defendant does not have an absolute right to question his accuser in a face-to-face meeting. This is sort of a hypertechnical dispute, anyway, given the original point you were making.
LikeLike
John
It’s clear that you also don’t know what cross examination means.
Cross examination of a witness can only take place if a witness has already testified in court — in this case, been subject to direct examination by lawyers for the plaintiff.
There is no legal or Constitutional RQUIREMent for a rape accuser to testify on her own behalf — and hence open her up to cross examination.
In some cases, it might make conviction more difficult to get a conviction if the accuser does not testify (though there are cases where that is unnecessary, eg because there were other witnesses and/or physical evidence of the crime) but that is actually another matter entirely.
…which makes your claim about cross examination a red herring.
And your original implication/claim that the accused has the right (under our laws and Constitution) to question the accuser is simply false.
LikeLike
I never said an accuser MUST go on the witness stand; if she does, the defendant himself or (almost always) through his attorney has every right to cross-examine her. ALL evidence allowed in by the trial judge is subject to cross-examination by the defense or the prosecutors. There’s only one murky area: this weekend I’m going to ask my prosecutor nephew (for 10+ years) about an accuser’s written statement to police, if that evidence is allowed in if she claims her right not to testify and be cross-examined in open court.
Do you not want accused people to have the right to challenge evidence presented by the prosecution? My God, that right was established long ago. How can college-educated people not know that most basic principle of civil liberties?
LikeLike
Sounds like hearsay to me.
LikeLike
“Do you not want accused people to have the right to challenge evidence presented by the prosecution? My God, that right was established long ago. How can college-educated people not know that most basic principle of civil liberties?”
Oh, poor John, he’s being insulting, er, I mean, insulted. Or something.
LikeLike
FLERP
That is precisely the point I was making, but I don’t think it is merely a technical point.
Far from it.
John made a very specific claim that is actually false and is now trying to wiggle his way out of it by claiming, among other things that the “accused” includes ” lawyer for the accused” and that an accused rapist has the right to question his accuser because he can represent himself AND cross examine the accuser, which, as I pointed out above, is not true if the accuser has not already testified.
John could have simply admitted he misspoke, but now is digging himself in deeper with BS with each successive comment.
LikeLike
Fair enough. But I took his main point to be that (1) unlike in criminal proceedings, the accused has no Confrontation Clause rights in campus sexual misconduct hearings, and (2) that this is not a trivial distinction. In that context of that point, it doesn’t seem especially important whether a criminal defendant’s right to a face-to-face cross-examination of the alleged victim is absolute or qualified, or how the Confrontation Clause comes into play when the alleged victim does not testify at trial, etc.
LikeLike
John says
“I never said accuser MUST go on the witness stand”
Just implied/claimed that the accused has the right (under our laws and Constitution) to QUESTION the accuser.
If not in a court of law, perhaps you meant in a dark alley?
Molly Ivins had some good advice about holes that John might take to heart at this point.
LikeLike
FLERP
Not sure what your “Sounds like hearsay” comment refers to, but if it is to the case where a rape accuser will not testify, that is certainly not necessarily simply hearsay.
There are many cases of rape that are witnessed by people other than the victim. Also, physical evidence — eg bruises and internal bleeding can also be powerful evidence of rape for a jury.
I’m kind of wishing at this point that I never got into this argument because it has turned to pure bullshit.
LikeLike
I was thinking of the example where a victim makes a statement to police, that statement is entered into evidence at trial, but the victim does not testify at trial. The written statement in this context would be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, which is the definition of hearsay. Perhaps some exception might apply.
LikeLike
“Sounds like hearsay” clearly meant that an accuser’s written statement to the police would most likely be excluded by the trial judge if that statement can’t be challenged in court, in front of the jury, which probably means that the accuser would be required to submit herself to cross-examination by the defense. This rule would apply to any criminal case, not just sexual assault cases.
LikeLike
Accusers written statement to police would most likely be excluded by trial judge if it can not be challenged in court…which probably means the accuser would be required to submit herself to cross-examination by the defense”
So, now it is PROBABLY.
Losing our certainty, are we?
What hedge word can we expect next, “maybe”?
There are cases of rapes in public places that have been witnessed by multiple people and in some cases videotaped.
I hope you don’t actually believe a judge would “probably”exclude the victim’s statement simply because she would not testify in court in such a case.
This “debate” has be come absurd.
LikeLike
This stuff is pretty complicated, SDP. Here’s an excerpt from Ohio v. Clark, a 2015 SCOTUS opinion. Justice Alito lays out the groundwork much better than I can. And he reminds me that whether out-of-court statements implicate the Confrontation Clause hinges on whether the out-of-court statements are “testimonial” in nature.
*
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which is binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 66 (1980) , we interpreted the Clause to permit the admission of out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness, so long as the statements bore “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Such indicia are present, we held, if “the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ibid.
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004) , we adopted a different approach. We explained that “witnesses,” under the Confrontation Clause, are those “who bear testimony,” and we defined “testimony” as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Id., at 51 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The Sixth Amendment, we concluded, prohibits the introduction of testimonial statements by a nontestifying witness, unless the witness is “unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Id., at 54. Applying that definition to the facts in Crawford, we held that statements by a witness during police questioning at the station house were testimonial and thus could not be admitted. But our decision in Crawford did not offer an exhaustive definition of “testimonial” statements. Instead, Crawford stated that the label “applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations.” Id., at 68.
Our more recent cases have labored to flesh out what it means for a statement to be “testimonial.” In Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U. S. 813 (2006) , which we decided together, we dealt with statements given to law enforcement officers by the victims of domestic abuse. The victim in Davis made statements to a 911 emergency operator during and shortly after her boyfriend’s violent attack. In Hammon, the victim, after being isolated from her abusive husband, made statements to police that were memorialized in a “ ‘battery affidavit.’ ” Id., at 820.
We held that the statements in Hammon were testimonial, while the statements in Davis were not. Announcing what has come to be known as the “primary purpose” test, we explained: “Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id., at 822. Because the cases involved statements to law enforcement officers, we reserved the question whether similar statements to individuals other than law enforcement officers would raise similar issues under the Confrontation Clause. See id., at 823, n. 2.
In Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U. S. 344 (2011) , we further expounded on the primary purpose test. The inquiry, we emphasized, must consider “all of the relevant circumstances.” Id., at 369. And we reiterated our view in Davis that, when “the primary purpose of an interrogation is to respond to an ‘ongoing emergency,’ its purpose is not to create a record for trial and thus is not within the scope of the [Confrontation] Clause.” 562 U. S., at 358. At the same time, we noted that “there may be other circumstances, aside from ongoing emergencies, when a statement is not procured with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” Ibid. “[T]he existence vel non of an ongoing emergency is not the touchstone of the testimonial inquiry.” Id., at 374. Instead, “whether an ongoing emergency exists is simply one factor . . . that informs the ultimate inquiry regarding the ‘primary purpose’ of an interrogation.” Id., at 366.
One additional factor is “the informality of the situation and the interrogation.” Id., at 377. A “formal station-house interrogation,” like the questioning in Crawford, is more likely to provoke testimonial statements, while less formal questioning is less likely to reflect a primary purpose aimed at obtaining testimonial evidence against the accused. Id., at 366, 377. And in determining whether a statement is testimonial, “standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant.” Id., at 358–359. In the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the “primary purpose” of the conversation was to “creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” Id., at 358. Applying these principles in Bryant, we held that the statements made by a dying victim about his assailant were not testimonial because the circumstances objectively indicated that the conversation was primarily aimed at quelling an ongoing emergency, not establishing evidence for the prosecution. Because the relevant statements were made to law enforcement officers, we again declined to decide whether the same analysis applies to statements made to individuals other than the police. See id., at 357, n. 3.
Thus, under our precedents, a statement cannot fall within the Confrontation Clause unless its primary purpose was testimonial. “Where no such primary purpose exists, the admissibility of a statement is the concern of state and federal rules of evidence, not the Confrontation Clause.” Id., at 359. But that does not mean that the Confrontation Clause bars every statement that satisfies the “primary purpose” test. We have recognized that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the introduction of out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of the founding. See Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353 –359 (2008); Crawford, 541 U. S., at 56, n. 6, 62. Thus, the primary purpose test is a necessary, but not always sufficient, condition for the exclusion of out-of-court statements under the Confrontation Clause.
LikeLike
Poet,
I’ve just heard a disturbing accusation against you: someone has accused you of molesting her. There is no evidence to support that claim other than the accuser’s written statement given to the local police. The community is in an uproar against you, knowing that accusers of sexual assault should be automatically believed. That statement to the police will be the only evidence presented in court against you; the accuser will not be required to justify her claim.
I think you’re being railroaded out of your due process rights. Do you?
P.S. I’m being ridiculous to make a point.
LikeLike
Let’s come back to reality here for a moment, shall we?
This whole “debate” started because John made an unequivocal and absolute statement about the (alleged) right (under our Constitution and laws) of the accused to question the accuser.
There was no “probably” involved and no need for a case by case consideration.
As I pointed out above, the accuser is under NO legal obligation to testify.
That that might make the accuser less (or even un) likely to win is a red herring.
It is not relevant to the falsity of the original claim.
All the reinterpretation of words (accused and cross examination) and hearsay and probably crap is pure bullshit.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I have a low tolerance for such crap
LikeLike
FLERp
I know that as a lawyer, you undoubtedly love wandering among the legal thickets.
And I respect your willingness (and glee) to do that.
Someone has to, right?
But, it’s not really relevant to John’s original claim/implication which was quite clear and quite absolute (no probably involved):accused has right to question accuser .
LikeLike
With all due respect, I think you’re reading John W’s original comment too narrowly. He was technically wrong, but he obviously was tying to make a more general point. His tone annoyed the heck out of you, so you sunk your teeth in on the very specific claim that was incorrect. And in fairness to you, his tone was offensive, i.e. intended to give offense by suggesting teachers (or commenters here) are stupid. Years ago (my god, how time flies), I used to do the same thing. But I find the longer you engage someone, rather than completely dismiss them, the more likely they are to turn down the rhetoric and act like reasonable people. Not true in all cases (see, e.g., any Trump supporter), but true enough of the time.
Personally, I’m not sure how I come out on the question of how campus disciplinary investigations and hearings should be conducted. I have a daughter. I have a sister who fought off a rapist when she was in elementary school and told no one until years later when she saw the guy’s photo in a local news story about a similar rape. I would physically attack anyone who called her story into question. I’m not an asshole, and I think sexual assault is really, really serious. But like a lot of people, I’m still thinking through this issue of how allegations should be handled on campuses. Thinking things through should be encouraged. The response to the statement “I am concerned about the possibility of false accusations that the accused aren’t able to defend themselves against” should not be, in effect, “Your concerns are stupid.” I suppose I’m talking more about myself now than John W., but I stand by the general point.
LikeLike
FLERP,
Thank you for posting that long comment regarding admissibility of statements to the police. What those SCOTUS rulings say is that except in very limited circumstances an accuser’s statements to police are not admissible in court – unless the accuser is subject to cross-examination.
Poet doesn’t understand what the meaning of an “accuser” in court is. It’s a live human being, an eyewitness or an expert witness like a forensic scientist. That live person’s testimony against the defendant is subject to challenge – cross-examination – in front of the judge and jury. An accuser can’t merely accuse someone of a heinous crime and expect to be automatically believed. With the huge advances in DNA technology, there is a much higher likelihood of guilty men being convicted and innocent men being acquitted. I think that’s great – dienne77 wants to just convict men solely on the assertions of accusers.
LikeLike
John
Let’s try not to get lost in the forest.
My challenge of your original claim has nothing to do with hypotheticals or with the way I might wish things were.
It is about the way they actually are.
But having said that, I actually believe there are extremely good reasons for NOT mandating that the accused be allowed to question the accuser (and that those reasons were very much on the mind of the framers of the Bill of Rights, which is why they wrote the words they did and NOt the words you wrote)
I can’t even begin to imagine how traumatic that would be for actual victim’s.
And it would add little (if anything) to the fairness of the process.
LikeLike
I think we’ve established that written statements to the police are usually not admissible in court unless the alleged victim is willing to subject herself to cross-examination. But any witness who goes on the witness stand is fair game for the opposite side (prosecution or defense). The only exceptions are young children, who are almost always questioned by the trial judge, sometimes with the assistance of a child psychologist, in judge’s chambers.
LikeLike
FLERP
Just to make things clear.
Are you in agreement with John on his original implication, which is what I challenged (yesterday? Last week?):
That “schools (not allowing) accused to question accuser” is a bad thing and that our Constitution and laws actually guarantee that.
John certainly appears to believe you are supporting his position.
LikeLike
SDP, the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS, which is the same thing) does not give a criminal defendant an absolute right to cross-examine an alleged victim at trial. It certainly does not guarantee anything of the sort in the context of a campus hearing. What rights the accused should have in the context of campus disciplinary proceedings regarding allegations of sexual assault, I truly don’t know what I think. I’m thinking it through.
LikeLike
Poet,
If you go way back to one of my my earlier comments, I wrote the following: “This right is only applicable in criminal cases, and politically correct colleges can and do ignore the principles enshrined in the Sixth Amendment in their kangaroo court proceedings which are stacked against the accused.”
The dominant belief in America – i.e. outside the far Left bubble – is that anyone accused of a crime, especially a serious crime, should have the right to defend himself against potentially false accusers. Do you support the right to due process on college campuses or not?
LikeLike
FLERP
John is the one who narrowed things to a very specific (and wrong) claim at the very beginning, not I.
I had an idea at the very beginning that he may simply have misspoken, but i wanted to see how he would respond.
And I found out!
Instead of admitting that he had mispoken, he stuck with his guns and came up with Bill Clintonesque reinterpretations of well defined words like “accused” to include the lawyers of the accused.
Rather than find it insulting, I find it pathetic.
LikeLike
You’re being mindlessly pedantic here. As I explained before, an “accuser” in court is a live person whose testimony can be challenged by the other side. That’s why FLERP’s long comment citing several SCOTUS rulings was so useful. SCOTUS was clearly uneasy about evidence being admitted at trial that couldn’t be challenged under cross-examination. A could accuse B of a crime in a police statement, but not have her statement subject to challenge. She could lie through her teeth just to get back at somebody and the accused would have no ability to refute her allegation. Again, NO ONE has the right to be automatically believed when he/she accuses another person of a crime. Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, as all prosecutors will admit. Sometimes even the most honest, sincere people mistakenly accuse others of committing a crime (e.g. the Central Park Five case). Fortunately, forensic science had made convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent much easier.
LikeLike
So, pointing out your misstatements about what the Constitution’s bill of Rights says about the rights of the accused amounts to being mindlessly pedantic?
That must mean that Supreme Court justices are also mindlessly pedantic.
Ha ha ha.
I’d rather be mindlessly pedantic than mindlessly pathetic
LikeLike
John Webster,
A college is not IMPRISONING a student accused of sexually assaulting another student. A college is telling him he is not welcome to attend the college in the future.
So, then we get into the question of whether a college can ever tell a student to leave without the student – through a lawyer – being able to cross examine every person involved in that decision to have him leave.
What do you think? If a professor accuses of student of cheating, does there need to be a trial in which the student’s lawyer may cross examine the professor?
If a professor gives a student a failing grade, the student should have a right to force the professor to be cross examined by his attorney.
Let’s be clear what you are saying here. You are saying that private organizations of any sort should be subject to the same rules as are used in criminal trials if they choose to expel a member or a student.
As if there is no difference between incarcerating someone in a trial and telling him he may no longer be part of your organization because of something he has done.
Is that really where you and flerp! want to go? Saying that private organizations can’t expel members without them being allowed to cross examine (under threat of perjury? with a judge?) the people who say he did something worthy of no longer being welcome to be part of that organization?
It’s not as if accused rapists go to “college jail”. There is obviously a procedure for investigating accusations by why your insistence that this is a criminal trial when it isn’t and there is no threat of jail.
LikeLike
Diane,
I made one comment about Ed schools not requiring teachers to know very much; I’ve personally heard and read many teachers who say the same thing. Most teachers, along with most other people, would benefit from much deeper knowledge of American history and Civics. And I’ll bluntly state the truth here: you consistently allow ad hominem attacks against people you disagree with.
But back to the issue at hand. You have two adult sons. Imagine that one of them was accused of rape by a female student back in his college days. They were in a room together for two hours; there was no one else present. Your son claimed that everything that occurred in that room was fully consensual; she claimed she was raped. There is no evidence of physical trauma to her. The local police do a complete investigation, and the local district attorney says no jury would convict on the basis of very inconclusive evidence.
Should the accusing woman be automatically believed? After all, the odds say that over 90% of accusations of rape are justified. Statistics also show that a few percent of men have been wrongly accused of rape, and in hundreds of cases wrongly convicted and sent to prison.
Should your son have been expelled from college and had his future prospects badly hurt? Or do you still believe in due process for everyone, unlike other commenters on this thread?
LikeLike
Of course I believe in due process and in the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. I can say it without insulting you. Stop insulting other commenters.
LikeLike
Should they also stop insulting me and everyone else with a differing opinion? Over and out.
LikeLike
That you think such a scenario is likely is the problem here. Most likely the woman would be told to go away – what was she doing in the guy’s room anyway (or allowing him in hers) if she didn’t want it? She would be given grief about “ruining” his life and told to “think about the university”.
LikeLike
Good grief – read more closely. If I think that such a scenario is likely, why did I just write that “over 90% of accusations of rape are justified”?
Admit it: you don’t believe in due process for men accused of sexual assault. I guess we’re just different: I want the guilty proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the innocent acquitted, following established procedures of due process. You apparently don’t.
LikeLike
Wow, talk about a need to read (or think) more closely. What you answered had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Again, the reality is that rape accusers, whether valid or not, are simply not believed when they accuse college men of rape. It doesn’t matter that 90% of them are valid. The point is, the chance that, with so little evidence as you say, a man would be faced with being thrown out of college is very, very small. Microscopic, in fact. Even with mountains of evidence it is usually extremely difficult to get the guy thrown out of college.
LikeLike
By the way, if you want any sympathy for your “oh poor me, I’m being attacked” schtick, you can knock off the strawman that other people don’t believe in due process. Invariably it’s the accused who gets way more “due process” than he should while the accuser gets silenced and shamed and threatened. I guess since we’re fighting with strawmen, you must support that, right?
LikeLike
I’m not worried about the personal attacks on me; that’s typical of this blog’s comments against anyone who dissents from the far Left party line. But let’s get down to reality. Did you automatically support the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, where three men were falsely accused of rape? Of course you did. Did you support the delusional “Mattress Girl” at Columbia whose accusations were refuted by law enforcement? Of course you did. Fortunately, the vast majority of women don’t support the right of any accuser to be automatically believed.
There’s a definite problem with sexual assault on college campuses. But due process rights apply there also. Due process over political correctness – always.
LikeLike
You know what happens when you ASSume, right, John?
LikeLike
dienne,
You’re deflecting. Admit it: you automatically believed the accusers I mentioned before most evidence was compiled.
LikeLike
“Dude Process”
I endorse dude process
The right of dudes to question
Accusers, with their crosses
Of rape by an erection
LikeLike
In conclusion, this blog officially endorses the belief that men accused of rape do not have the right to due process.
LikeLike
In conclusion, John officially endorses accusers being silenced and shamed so as not to “ruin” the poor young men involved or the university’s reputation.
LikeLike
I want all accusations of rape to be fully investigated by competent law enforcement officials, not by college employees with no experience in such matters. You clearly don’t care if men are ruined by false accusations. You don’t believe in due process in these cases, which is why you won’t admit that you believed the false accusers in the cases I cited at Duke and Columbia.
LikeLike
“law enforcement officials”
Ah, there we have it. There was no rape until and unless there is a conviction in a court of law, then? So in cases where there has been video evidence of gang rape, yet the accused were found not criminally guilty, there was no rape? So in cases that never make it to court, there was no rape? The only justice for rape is a criminal conviction. I get it. You have now revealed yourself.
The fact that less than 5% of all rapes ever get prosecuted and convicted means that 95+% of rape victims will have to go on living and going to school and working with their rapists, but that is how it should be, no? Sorry, little slut, you shouldn’t have gotten yourself raped in the first place. We certainly wouldn’t want to inconvenience these bright up and coming young men, would we?
LikeLike
Yes, I have revealed myself: I believe in due process for EVERYONE accused of a crime; I want the guilty convicted and the innocent acquitted. You have also revealed yourself: as someone who has a deep animus toward men; your comments just drip with hatred. You blithely make light of the harm done to men when they are falsely accused of a heinous crime. Just “inconvenience” these men? When they’re ostracized by their communities? When their legal bills ruin them financially? When they’re expelled from college and the false charges go on their records, making them unemployable?
A basic principle in America is that people aren’t punished in criminal courts until their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there even one man that you care enough about that you don’t want him to be falsely accused of rape?
LikeLike
John,
You are officially deranged and mendacious. I stated without qualification that I–the owner of the blog–believe in due process of law. Period. I also said unequivocally that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And you then conclude that this blog “officially” advocates the opposite of what I just said.
You are rude, aggressive, and boorish.
LikeLike
Diane,
I was imprecise in my comment. You clearly stated your support for due process. But I hold my ground on other commenters, one in particular. BTW, do you ever refer to people who agree with you as rude, aggressive, and boorish, even when some of them clearly are? I rarely read this blog because it is so fanatically one-sided, especially in the comments sections. You allow the most personal insults against people who disagree with you; I noticed that over two years ago. Does it ever occur to you and your regular commenters that other well-informed people can have differing views without them being evil and/or stupid? The tone of this blog is like a college campus – no dissent permitted, and almost anything goes when describing dissenters.
LikeLike
(I am a male rape victim). I support the rights of the accused. I support the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. Our legal system can and must provide adequate protection to the accused, and justice for the victims.
“Law becomes justice when it is administered with love” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.
see
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451191/betsy-devos-title-ix-campus-courts?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202017-09-08&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
LikeLike
Charles,
Enough with the National Review! Read something else for a fresh point of view.
LikeLike
Diane, you have far more patience for Charles and for John Webster than I ever could have.
LikeLike
Zorba,
I surprise myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
💝
LikeLike
Thanks! 👍
LikeLike
John Webster
Do you think this is the same as 4ch, Yahoo, or disqus???
Please go find the comments that indicate personal attacks/insults against her in the blog. They are wiped away before being posted and visible to the public. More like looking for a needle in the haystack.
LikeLike
“This blog endorses the belief that men accused of rape do not have the right to dude process”
And no, that’s not a typo.
“Dude process”: John’s own fantasy version of due process ( spelled out in John’s Alternate Reality Bill of Rights) including that most important of all rights, the “right of the accused ( dude) to question the accuser (dudette)”
LikeLike
John Webster officially endorses the belief that a private organization cannot take any action to tell a person he is no longer welcome in the organization without the person being told to leave having the right to cross examine all people involved in the decision to have him leave.
So if a bunch of teenagers walk into a fancy restaurant and start spitting and intentionally knocking over water glasses, the owner is forbidden to ask them to leave. The teenagers have the right to stay and force every patron and restaurant worker to sit for a cross-examination to make sure that they testify (under oath?) that they did something wrong before anyone may ask them to leave.
Because the Supreme Court requires this “due process”.
Because there is no difference between a private organization asking someone to leave and a criminal court proceeding where the defendant will be imprisoned.
And flerp agrees??
LikeLike
“there is no difference between a private organization asking someone to leave and a criminal court proceeding where the defendant will be imprisoned.
And flerp agrees?”
You’re doing that thing you always do, again. I don’t know how you could think that I agree with that proposition. Anyway, I don’t. I tried to express my feelings on this topic to SDP elsewhere on this thread.
LikeLike
By the way, referring to the Duke case is a very bad idea.
In my opinion, the Duke boys should have been expelled from college. We know for a fact that they illegally hired strippers (sorry, “exotic dancers” to perform for an athletic “team party”. We know for a fact that they illegally served alcohol. We know for a fact that a member of the squad sent an e-mail in which he made nasty remarks about how he planned “to have some strippers over” and would be “killing the b***ches” as soon as they walked into his dorm room. (And worse that I can’t write here). How many college rules were broken?
If they had not been rich boys but working class kids caught serving alcohol to underage students at a party in which exotic dancers were hired to perform, and they got caught red-handed, would they have been punished?
The secondary issue has nothing to do with the college. It has to do with a CRIMINAL charge of rape in which the punishment isn’t being told to leave the college, it is being imprisoned by the state of North Carolina.
LikeLike
“Dude Process”
I support “dude process”
The right of dudes to question
Accusers, with their crosses
Of rape by an erection
LikeLike
flerp!,
You are correct — after I wrote that I saw that you did acknowledge they are not the same thing. So I am sorry for implying that you did not.
However, I am not certain why there was so much reference to Supreme Court cases and legal precedent since this is about what “rights” anyone who works for a private organization should have when fired.
Should those accused of violating college policy and fired be given the right to cross examine accusers in all cases? Should those accused of rape have different rights than those accused of cheating?
LikeLike
” I am not certain why there was so much reference to Supreme Court cases and legal precedent since this is about what “rights” anyone who works for a private organization should have when fired.”
You’d have to read the entire thread to understand, in particular the back-and-forth between John W. and SDP.
LikeLike
Whatever one’s opinion of Secretary DeVos, as a former professor who was clearly falsely accused of sexual harassment and who has researched and had experience with misguided administrative practices including biased investigators and questionable appeal policies and procedures, there is surely some merit in asking that fundamental fairness and common sense be afforded to ALL parties in campus sexual misconduct situations. The same, of course, applies to court proceedings. We know that legitimate charges are made (or should be made), but, though a minority, false allegations also occur, and the falsely accused are victims whose reputations, employment and finances can be ruined. Based on considerable research, it appears the adventures I endured regarding administrative malpractice (including an important First Amendment opinion)
may be unique. Certainly they were bizarre, convoluted and unnecessary occurrences.
There are weaknesses in federal guidelines, flaws in campus policies and procedures that can be eliminated without endangering those who have actually suffered sexual abuse. I would be happy to share my experiences and recommendations with those who are seriously concerned about the need for improving approaches to campus procedures and for granting fairness therein. Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
(and if you’ll publish it: dougcatz attttt itstriangle dottttt com
LikeLike
You will find few sympathizer here.
LikeLike
You are wrong. I am sympathetic.
Isn’t this a problem whenever someone at work says that a co-worker or employee or boss has done something that would cause him or her to be fired? Isn’t there legal recourse if that firing was wrong? Is there a difference between the claim being that someone sexually harassed another person or someone has not turned work he should have turned in, or someone’s work is completely incompetent.
People get fired because other people lie. We assume it is rare enough that we don’t require the equivalent of a legal court trial, with cross examination under penalty of perjury, before someone can be fired.
However, wouldn’t the person being fired after a charge of sexual harassment have the same right to take it to a civil court as a person who is fired because his boss lies and says he is incompetent or has passed off someone else’s work as his own?
Should the person who gets fired because a boss says he is incompetent also have due process and the right to cross examine the boss before the company is allowed to fire him?
LikeLike
That’s an interesting claim. On what, specifically, are you basing it?
For the record, I also sympathize with anyone who has been wrongly accused and fully support due process (of the real, not fanciful kind: In particular, I won’t accept/let slide statements about the Constitution and Bill of Rights about due process rights that are patently false — which, I have been duly informed, makes me (and Presumably Supreme Court justices) “mindlessly pedantic”.)
So, that’s a couple sympathizers.
I know John probably sympathizes. Three makes a few, right?
If FLERP sympathizes, does that make more than a few?
Or do we need a few more to make more than a few?
Would any other sympathizers like to speak up?
LikeLike
There does make a few.
LikeLike
Three, that is
LikeLike
Educator-employees (professors, instructors, adjuncts) without tenure protections may be terminated for a reason or for no reason. Remedy through the courts may be difficult to impossible. My experiences over several years involve a unique effort to prevent my being rehired through the creation of a bogus rehiring process, the successful filing of an important First Amendment case in the federal court system, and my termination based on obviously false charges made by a manipulative, recovering-drug-addict student. Because federal courts do not all have the same standards, when I argued in court that my rights had been violated through bizarre and rigged procedures, my claims were rejected because, according to the court, I had been given “the opportunity” to respond to the false allegations. There was no requirement that the “opportunity”
had to be fair. Based on the above adventures and considerable research, it is clear to me that guidelines, policies and laws can be and must be changed to make as certain as possible that all parties in campus sexual misconduct conflicts are deal with fairly.
We know that many accusers have been dealt with unfairly, abusively by investigators and decision makers (in courts or in campus proceedings), and so have those been who are falsely accused. Denial of fundamental fairness, the imposition of “witch hunts,”
blatant bias and rigged procedures are all unnecessary, and they harm not only the victims but also the integrity of academic institutions supposedly existing to enlighten and educate, to shine light into the darkest corners of history and human behavior. In classrooms and in administrative mission statements, the highest levels of ethics and morality may be stated, and yet those statements can too-easily be left behind in classroom talking points and administrative pronouncements when some malevolent agenda plays its tune. I’ve written a book on this subject. I’ve offered to discuss my findings with Secretary DeVos and/or some in her Department of Education. There are available remedies to correct flaws regarding this highly-charged subject.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
LikeLike
I agree with you about how this can happen. But is there any evidence that a private organization fires employees because of a charge of sexual harrassment any more often than it fires an employee because of a charge of some other inappropriate behavior or substandard work? I suspect it is much rarer (although I don’t know).
Should employees always have a right to cross examine their accusers before the company can fire them? There might be an argument for that. But I would not give the right only to those employees accused of sexual harrassment and not accused of something else that leads to their firing (substandard work, etc.) Shouldn’t all employees have the same due process before they can be fired, and not just the ones accused of sexual crimes?
LikeLike
See my reply, below.
LikeLike
Private employees and public employees have different sets of rights, including variable contractual rights. In campus disputes, there are usually grievance policies and procedures, but they may be cosmetic or rigged to protect the administration. Both companies and private/public institutions may have an unwritten approach: Go ahead and sue us. Individual employees can find the costs of litigation too much to bear, especially when the employers have deep pockets and lots of attorney power. There are ongoing efforts to block the possibility of class action lawsuits, and the employer may
have “appeal” procedures designed to delay decisions and to spin out the time before the complainant can file a lawsuit — hoping the employee will give up for one reason or another. On the bogus rehiring process campus, I had a right to question wrongdoers before a selected-by-administration committee. However, the final decision was made by the school’s chancellor who ignored the committee’s wishes. In the sexual harassment case, I was denied the right to question the accuser. By campus policy, I had the right to a grievance hearing, but the school’s head denied my request for a hearing, stating that it would “not likely be productive.”. In many instances, the definition of “due process” is in the eye of those controlling the procedures. Even employee unions can be unhelpful. In the rehiring dispute, I was a union member, but the state union office declined to support me because my dispute was not “tenure related.” The campus union officials voted to not support me because they did not want to provoke the administration, even though my treatment and refusal to rehire were widely accepted as egregious and unethical.
Some academic institutions have detailed, explicit policies while others have very limited and weak policies and procedures. National standards could be set for pubic colleges and universities. Whether they’re followed and enforced is another kettle of fish or
fishiness.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
LikeLike
I find this deeply disturbing. My daughter is 22 and only has 5 women friends who have NOT been raped . None of the victims ever came forward; no charges were ever made. This includes friends from her high school and college. It is MUCH more prevalent than society is willing to believe. It’s why we got her a taser and taught her some basic self defense.
LikeLike
You’ve done the right thing and have reason to be concerned. However, and this is not regarding your daughter, her friends or many others, but the excessive prevalence of drinking (and now, various drugs) on campuses where young people are experimenting with freedom is not helpful. Nor are many fraternities, some sororities and dominating athletic programs where men are told to be men. Couple this with hormonal excesses and changes — the situations are ripe for bad behavior. As you note, many victims do not come forward, and various excuses are made for why that is so. As an example, some years ago at a major southern college, a student approached her professor (a woman who was just starting her teaching career), told the professor she’d been raped by an athlete, and when the prof brought up the subject to other more experienced professors, they told the young prof to not talk about it if she valued continuing her beginning career.
Unfortunately, like it or not, many cases of alleged sexual abuse must rely on the statements of only the accuser and the accused because the alleged incidents take place in private between just the two individuals. For ANYONE, campus authority or court judge or jury
to easily (or even possibly) evaluate guilt and innocence is a major problem. Based on your knowledge gleaned from your daughter and other information, would it be difficult for you to set aside bias?
Most all of us have biases based on many factors.
While the incidents that happened to me were relatively easy to determine, many incidents of harassment, abuse, rape are
murky at best.
Though they may sometimes be annoying, the presence of cameras in/on buildings, of cellphones and related photographic technology can be helpful. So can the taser, and maybe every woman, student or not, might be wise to carry one. (And I have no investment in taser stock.)
I wish you and your daughter and friends safety and pleasant sailing.
Doug
LikeLike
Fraternities should be banned from all colleges.
As the recent Penn State incident demonstrated, they bring out the absolute worst in people.
And it’s not just a few bad apple’s.
The whole drop is rotten.
LikeLike
Yes, that young pledge was killed by his fraternity brothers. First, they got him dead drunk. When he fell and hit his head, no one helped him. They stepped over his body as he lay dying. “Brothers.”
LikeLike
I was never a member of a fraternity but I rented a room in a frat house (SAE) for two months during one summer and that was more than enough.
It was a totally dysfunctional place.
I am not sure whether the people in frats are psycho before they join or if the frat makes them that way, but either way, the end result is the same.
LikeLike
Frat life: live like animal with no consequences
LikeLike
Anyone who doubts the existence of the rape culture on many campuses should read John HECHINGER’s riveting “True Gentlemen: The Broken Pledge of America’s Fraternities.” He gives a chilling and factual portrayal of the prevalence of binge drinking and sexual assault on big campuses.
LikeLike
The need to belong, the urge to develop contacts and “brothers” for later life, the manufactured (but also real) social importance of fraternities, what belonging can mean to obtaining desired employment and the enjoyment of being someone in a special group makes the fraternity (and the sorority) a potent force. Boorish group behavior lubricated by alcohol and drugs is to be expected, and adult maturity can wait until later.
One summer at a university I was attending, the night watchman, a friend of mine, surprised several young guys exiting the window of a womens’ dorm. The watchman was badly beaten, but because at least one of the assailants was the son of a very influential businessman,the assault was ignored until I called it to the attention of a compassionate visiting professor who was there only for the summer and not dependent on that particular school for employment. The pressures on campus administrators from deep pocket donors and from other influential groups are such that ethics and morality often take a back seat to c.y.a. expediency. Nothing really new about that. I’ve written a detailed, evidenced account of questionable academic governance. Sexual abuse and physical abuse are just two of many problems infecting higher education.
Doug Giebel,Big Sandy, Montana
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the “social importance” of fraternities persists long after college and into the highest levels of our government and business.
To call it “boorish group behavior” does not even begin to do it justice.
Boorish means rude.
But what we are talking about here (eg, in the case of the recent Penn State hazing/murder) is not rudeness. It is criminality.
Pychopathic and/or criminal group behavior would be a much better characterization.
LikeLike
That we “expect” such behavior from fraternities is the crux of the problem.
We don’t expect such behavior from other groups (eg, the boy scouts) — in fact, we expect that they will NOT engage in it — so why do we “expect” it from fraternities?
I would have to say that it is because we tolerate it.
“Frat boys will be frat boys” seems to be the underlying assumption.
LikeLike
You are right about cowardly college president’s who tolerate the behavior because clamping down might threaten donations.
LikeLike