College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

It wasn't long ago that I would have agreed with this article in full. I may have even posted here on HN to that effect before. I am still sympathetic to the point it makes. However:

Universities boot people out for other reasons which are not actionable in a criminal (or even civil) court all the time. Getting shitty grades, being a disruptive asshole in a class on a regular basis, and so on, can end your university career.

So, with that in mind, "creeps everyone the fuck out and is probably a rapist", isn't such a stretch. I would not put someone in jail for that for any length of time. But, I don't know if "deserves jail time" is the right comparison. Maybe "I would fire this person, if they worked for me" or "I would kick this person out of my social club" are more apt.

Now, I think that someone so expelled should have an easier time getting into another university than they currently do. Right now it seems that getting expelled because a university tribunal found you responsible for an alleged rape carries, for the purposes of college admissions elsewhere, nearly the same consequences as being an actual convicted rapist. This puts too much faith in the judgement of some other university's tribunal, which bring me to my next concern:

These tribunals are too often full of shit. There are a few horror stories going around and you've probably read a few. Some places I think are not requiring a high enough burden of proof. The regulations and standards at the federal and state levels ought to be improved, and in light of the fact that sexual violence on campuses is on the decline, the improvements should result in fewer students being expelled, not more.

But, in principle, I think it's fine for a university to do this, even if the accused rapist could not possibly be convicted in a court of law.

Should more of the disciplinary action [involving criminal activity] be moved from the purview of colleges to the courts? I can see this making sense not only for cases of allegations of rape but also allegations of censorship, bias, underage drinking, etc. Sometimes colleges exercise a little too much discretion in adjudication. On the other hand, if we move not only grievous allegations but other less grave cases to the courts altogether, the caseload may overwhelm courts.

Is there a divide between commuter campuses vs more residential campuses?

Uh, isn't the headline obvious? Crime such as sexual abuse should never be prosecuted by anyone other than the government!

This is precisely the reason why the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions were able to cover up child sexual abuse on a massive scale!

Australia is learning the extent of this now because the much maligned former Australian PM, Julia Gillard, established a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse within Institutions. This has been painful but cathartic for Australia - and a key thing that is emerging is that institutions who investigate the incidents themselves almost always cover up the abuse. This isn't just the Catholic Church - it's the YMCA, Buddhist organisations, dance schools, the Salvation Army, and numerous boys and girls homes. The Catholic Church is probably the most egregious offender, and its illustrative to note that rather than report serious sexual crimes to police, they shamed the victims and moved the offenders to different parts of the country (or overseas!) thus spreading the abuse.

I wonder how many Colleges have done similar cover ups?

>As far as I understand, an accusation should examine a perpetrator's perspective more, since that person is being charged with a crime.

It depends on the way the law is written. You can certainly be guilty of criminal offenses absent any understanding or intent.

Do you exist in isolation? Can you live a life without any politics? Use your head please