America’s New Sex Bureaucracy • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#381

Post by mikedilger » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

dragonsngoblins wrote: post #127

mikedilger wrote: post #25

This is a very difficult issue. Most sexual assaults happen in private, so there is rarely any evidence a victim can use to convict the perpetrator. Most accusations are real, but some are questionable as to whether a crime was committed, and some accusations are false. Given there is almost never any evidence, victims are at a severe disadvantage in the innocent until proven guilty paradigm. I can understand why som…

> Most accusations are real See, I want to believe that, but I'm not sure there is a way to know whether or not that is actually true. In much the same way that there is rarely evidence of guilt when an accusation is true there isn't likely to be evidence when an accusation is false. I keep seeing people say some variant of "X% of rape accusations are false" but none of the sources I have ever seen have had a particu…

You are correct that we cannot know. I've made some assumptions I can't prove. But I think they're likely.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#382

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #132

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is imposing penalties for criminal behavior. Classifying that as "civil" is a farce.

It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents. Because it's not a law, it can't be ruled on in court. Because it can't be ruled on, they use this form of arbitration to solve what would be a civil matter if the school was a private entity. Its not nearly as unreasonable as you make it seem.

> It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents.

The point in this case is that it isn't. Both the policy and the procedural rules are imposed by federal requirements.

If it was actually a policy of the school then it would be non-uniform and students could avoid schools with unreasonable policies, or push for changes to the local policy that are more achievable than it is for an individual to change federal policy.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#383

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

shawndrost wrote: post #118

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If firing you was a requirement to maintain the NSF grant? Yes, that would be objectionable, because then it isn't your boss (a private person/organization) but rather the government imposing the penalty without due process.

Unless I'm missing something, the principle you find objectionable is generally legal, widespread, and uncontroversial. In point of fact, the NSF requires grantees (and their scientists) to follow many requirements, and imposes penalties upon them without due process. Movie distributors force the same things on Netflix and their employees via partnership contracts. An umbrella organization like Boy Scouts imposes mem…

In this case the government isn't just allowing the school to use judicial procedures the government itself couldn't use without violating due process, it's requiring them to. That's different.

And movie distributors and Boy Scouts are not the government. And when a private organization deals unfairly with a private person, due process is still available in the form of a court proceeding (e.g. a suit for unfair termination), but in this case that would either be dismissed (e.g. because the school was following federal requirements) or put the school in an impossible situation where the federal requirements require them to use an unreasonable procedure that subjects them to legal liability by an innocent accused person.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#384

Post by selimthegrim » Fri, Sep 27, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #183

tzs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would bias toward gay people fit in with that? A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay, but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades. There was a recent episode of "Hidden Brain" on NPR that talked about this [1]. This part is particularly interesting: > In a thought experiment, Mahzarin and her colleagues have extended the trend lines…

but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades Online dating has proven to help gays with successfully finding relationships. Gays can be openly gay online while protecting their privacy. This has helped give people some exposure to gays and their problems who wouldn't otherwise have similar exposure in meat space. I also think the trend to identify as asexual where such people wer…

I don’t think confirmed bachelor means what you think it does.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#385

Post by LurkersWillLurk » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

kenneth wrote: post #336

LurkersWillLurk wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. I would argue that the rise of the victims' rights movement suggests that culturally, the United States is beginning to see the few false reports/convictions as an acceptable casualty to the vast majority of truthful reports. I mean, we have Marsy's Law being added to state constitutions left and right. One of its provisions is that the victim[1] can refuse a deposition before trial. This obviously con…

Innocent until proved guilty is a fundamental principle of American values. I don't at all see why we should throw that out the window and say that "a few people falsly convicted is an acceptable casualty" just so we can catch more perpetrators.

I mean, I agree. I'm not in favor of "acceptable casualties", I'm just saying that the mainstream opinion is changing.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#386

Post by naasking » Sun, Sep 29, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #355

naasking wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The requirement comes from the original Civil Rights Act. Say you're a minority student and some other students start using epithets to taunt you (as was common). Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Is it administratively efficient to require a student to make a federal case out of it, especially if all that's required is a firm rebuke from the administration to cease the hostile behavior? I'm confused,…

Because a university isn't investigating to determine whether a crime, per se, has occurred, but to determine whether allegations of discriminatory (racial, sexual, etc) harassment are credible. If such harassment is occurring, or something equivalent which creates a discriminatory hostile environment for the student, a university has an obligation under these laws to end it. A rape is a crime, but a rape followed by…

> The question was why are universities conducting these investigations. Rape plus ongoing presence of the rapist is considered a form of sexual discrimination by the university

This doesn't follow. The sexes of victim and perpetrator can be changed arbitrarily without affecting the argument, in which case this has nothing to do with the sex of those involved. So in what way is this sexual discrimination, even if it is a "hostile" environment for the victim?

> Shouting racial epithets isn't a crime or even illegal, but a university that doesn't stop such ongoing behavior among its students is considered to be illegally racially discriminatory against the target of the epithets.

Except we come again to the fact that racial epithets are literal expressions of racial discrimination, but as per above, I don't see how the rape scenario qualifies under any defined legal term of sexual discrimination.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#387

Post by naasking » Sun, Sep 29, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #331

naasking wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The presumption in your comment is that the system that replaces the legal system in these situations is equally or more unjust No, I'm actually presuming that injustice cannot be weighed and compared. Statements like "equally or more unjust" are fallacious. If injustice is demonstrable, then we know where the injustice is and so where to focus our efforts , since presumably our goal ought to be eliminating injusti…

>If injustice is demonstrable, then we know where the injustice is and so where to focus our efforts, since presumably our goal ought to be eliminating injustice. The central position taken by the authors comes from MacKinnon's Marxist Theory of the State which argues that such change cannot happen within the state as it exists, with all the relations which have constructed it - the argument being that sexist injusti…

> The central position taken by the authors comes from MacKinnon's Marxist Theory of the State which argues that such change cannot happen within the state as it exists, with all the relations which have constructed it

I've read many fallacious arguments with a veneer of plausibility, but in the end, speculation must explain the facts. The fact is that sporadic revolution followed by iterative refinement only is the only approach that has enjoyed any reliable measure of success in any sphere of human knowledge. The law is not exempt from this.

> Critical legal theory takes the metalegal position that this gradual evolution is impossible given the totality of relations which determine the law.

The clear evidence of social and cultural progress must be remarkably inconvenient for critical legal theory.

> That is to say, the law is a reflection of the society it rules over, its relations of power, of property, of information, knowledge and other things.

And the law only has power in so far as the governed consent to be ruled by it. If you attempt to change it too quickly, you will instead induce bloody conflict. Social and cultural inertia exist.

> Nevertheless, it circles back to the main point: there are different standards for the law governing society and the law governing a university.

I'm sure there are. I still don't see the justification for it, but thanks for the attempt.