31–40 of 387 posts
The way this article conflates sex with sexual assault really creeps me out. The first sentence states: Four feminist law professors at Harvard Law School have been telling some alarming truths about the tribunals that have been adjudicating collegiate sex for the past five years. No tribunals "adjudicate collegiate sex". They adjudicate sexual assault.
Remember presumption of innocence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is in the article: Title IX requires them to. Specifically, the new federal guidance that was issued during the Obama administration.
I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of due process is odd.
The people pushing this aren't in it for fairness or due process.
The way this article conflates sex with sexual assault really creeps me out. The first sentence states: Four feminist law professors at Harvard Law School have been telling some alarming truths about the tribunals that have been adjudicating collegiate sex for the past five years. No tribunals "adjudicate collegiate sex". They adjudicate sexual assault.
They sit in judgment of "collegiate sex" to determine which acts are "sexual assault". Remember presumption of innocence?
I'm presumed innocent, but the crime of stealing cars isn't ever conflated with regular driving around.
For the life of me I don’t understand why government funded institutions run their own tribunals. Send it through the proper court system, if the accused is guilty you can expel them cleanly.
The problem is that it is reasonable to expel people (and, indeed, to want to expel people) with a much much lower burden of proof than would be required to lock them in a cage. There absolutely should be a different standard for “can continue to be in this school” and “can continue to walk down the public sidewalk”, and also decided by different people.
For the life of me I don’t understand why government funded institutions run their own tribunals. Send it through the proper court system, if the accused is guilty you can expel them cleanly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it is reasonable to expel people (and, indeed, to want to expel people) with a much much lower burden of proof than would be required to lock them in a cage. There absolutely should be a different standard for “can continue to be in this school” and “can continue to walk down the public sidewalk”, and also decided by different people.
Why should they have a lower burden of proof?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is in the article: Title IX requires them to. Specifically, the new federal guidance that was issued during the Obama administration.
I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of due process is odd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They sit in judgment of "collegiate sex" to determine which acts are "sexual assault". Remember presumption of innocence?
Sure thing. But my point is that, if I steal a car and get caught we're not "adjudicating cars". I'm presumed innocent, but the crime of stealing cars isn't ever conflated with regular driving around.