Dartmouth College Administrator Finds Due Process Inconvenient
She asks why they can't just go with the "Off with their heads!" approach -- expelling students based on mere allegation of sexual misconduct. (Due process is such a bore.)
And guess whose due process rights are typically violated on campus? Yep -- the penis people.
Sterling Beard writes at campusreform.org:
The head of Dartmouth College's new center to prevent sexual assault asked last week why schools should not expel students who have been accused of sexual offenses."Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Amanda Childress, the newly appointed head of Dartmouth College's Center for Community Action and Prevention, asked last Tuesday at a two-day "dialogue" on sexual misconduct at the University of Virginia.
According to Inside Higher Ed, Childress posed the question to a panel of six college presidents whose campuses have seen high-profile allegations.
Childress said a full 90 to 95 percent of sexual assaults on college campuses are carried out intentionally by repeat offenders and go unreported. Though she acknowledged that two to eight percent of accusations are unfounded, she said that concerns about due process are overriding the protection of students.
"It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege," she said.
Dartmouth defended this woman's remarks, calling them "rhetorical." She was just asking a "provocative" question.
Campus free speech defenders theFIRE.org catch the wafting smell of bullshit. Robert Shibley wrote; on February 14:
Yes, Childress' statement was in part a question, but Dartmouth's statement pretty clumsily elides over the part of the "question" in which Childress says, "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege." (At Dartmouth, this "privilege" costs $63,282 per year, $0 of which you get back when you're expelled from the place simply because someone accused you of something.) Dartmouth's suggestion that this question was not a reflection of Childress' opinions about due process doesn't pass the laugh test. Dartmouth obviously hopes nobody will compare Childress' actual "question" with Dartmouth's lame attempt at CYA; attorneys representing students expelled from Dartmouth in the future might be interested in the implications of Childress' statement.The plus side of Dartmouth's response is that at least the college must be a little embarrassed by Childress, right? Well, maybe. But right before Childress made her statement at the UVA conference, Dartmouth gave Childress a promotion, appointing her head of the college's brand new sexual assault center. Looks like Amanda Childress' career is on the rise at Dartmouth. Let's just hope not too many students end up getting stepped on while she makes her way to the top.
Well, this person says "safety is a right"...
Not even close. Somebody's been out of the real world for too long.
Radwaste at February 25, 2014 2:31 AM
Here's the part that strikes me as, well, bizarre. Childress' remarks managed to be stupid and scary at the same time. What I don't understand is why someone would want to shell out more than $63K per year to put up with it.
All bullshit being equal, if you really wanted to go to school in New England, University of New Hamster costs less than 60% of what Dartmouth does, and less than 40% if you're a state resident. If you're going to get a Childress breathing down your neck wherever you go, why spend all that money?
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at February 25, 2014 4:06 AM
Rape should be treated the way other crimes are treated on campus. If the campus will expel you for a mere report of possession/theft/assault, then the same should be required for rape. If the campus requires a hearing first, the same should be required for rape. If the campus gives the benefit of doubt while you await your trial, same for rape.
Now, if there's a legal reason you can't be on campus like the victim has a restraining order against you it is another matter. Ultimately, I believe that the justice system is the best for determining guilt of a crime, and that churches/schools/places of employment are not the appropriate venue for it.
If it were up to me, I'd first make sure the crime (whatever it was) was reported. Then I'd hold a hearing to determine whether it was super obvious it happened... ie campus security walked in on someone smoking a bowl, or someone punched someone at a crowded party, etc, in which case expulsion would be in order. But if it comes down to hearsay or actual inquiries needing to be made, I'd leave it to the legal system, let the accused continue classes (or take a leave if they want), and get their degree. If the trial verdict is guilty, at that point the degree can be withdrawn if it's after they graduate, or if it is before then they can be expelled.
NicoleK at February 25, 2014 4:51 AM
Wouldn't it be even safer to simply ban all males from campus?
dee nile at February 25, 2014 5:04 AM
So...why does a college even get to investigate a claim of sexual assault?
They're a university, not a police force.
Even safer: Ban all women, that way not only will there be no assaults, but no false allegations of assaults.
Robert at February 25, 2014 5:29 AM
no false allegations of assaults.
Already the case. Womyn never lie about rape.
dee nile at February 25, 2014 5:56 AM
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" [asked] Amanda Childress""
Seriously, I hope she does get what she is asking for - and that she is the one that the allegation is made against.
But, I suspect that someone who is appointed to a position of "power" and asking such a "rhetorical" question wouldn't even understand the answer to her dumb question when she gets the boot herself.
Charles at February 25, 2014 6:11 AM
Rhetorical my ass. She truly believes her own shit.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does."
Flynne at February 25, 2014 6:43 AM
Because if they did that, a group of malicious girls (I know, absolutely unheard of in a college environment) could effectively expel every male student on campus, placing a serious setback in their lives.
Patrick at February 25, 2014 6:49 AM
Here's a proposal for the Dartmouth administrators:
QEFin'D. They'll be absolutely safe in your nice, tidy little cocoon. You'll also be out of business within 5 years.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 25, 2014 6:56 AM
"Childress said a full 90 to 95 percent of sexual assaults on college campuses are carried out intentionally by repeat offenders and go unreported."
This is another issue: If the assaults are unreported, how does she know how many there are? When I went to college, there appeared to be this wave of rapes that was going on around campus. However, none of them were reported. One professor theorized that one girl might have been assaulted, and that one girl likely told every single one of her friends separately. Each friend spread the word believing they were the only one the friend told without realizing that they were all talking about the same person.
Fayd at February 25, 2014 8:05 AM
The bottom line is, just what sort of laws do you want your male loved ones, such as friends and relatives, to be living under, and why? I have to wonder if anyone ever asked her that. Or whether parents of girls ever ask THEM that.
lenona at February 25, 2014 8:13 AM
I don't care anymore. I'm done.
adambein at February 25, 2014 8:14 AM
My first thought was how many are "children?"
I bet the majority of students are 18+ years.
Infantilize much?
Lauragr at February 25, 2014 8:35 AM
"University of New Hamster"
Best auto correct wrong word error this week.
Isab at February 25, 2014 8:55 AM
"Childress said a full 90 to 95 percent of sexual assaults on college campuses are carried out intentionally by repeat offenders and go unreported"
I smell a fact pulled straight out of someone's ass.
Mike at February 25, 2014 9:12 AM
At Dartmouth, this "privilege" costs $63,282 per year, $0 of which you get back when you're expelled from the place simply because someone accused you of something.
Has it ever happened that someone was expelled for this sort of reason and not given a tuition refund? Did they sue the school to get their money back? If so, what was the result?
Rex Little at February 25, 2014 9:21 AM
Rex Little,
That would be me you're talking about. But in my case it wasn't sexual assault - it was "sexual harassment." If you really want a laugh I can provide the details. Ten years later, still paying off the $100,000 loans and trying to explain to prospective employers that no, I am not a sexual predator. when I get a chance to explain, that is. You don't get your money back. You don't even get your basic humanity. Why would you get your money back?
Another day in the life of white male privilege.
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 9:53 AM
Rex,
Sorry, forgot to say - no, I couldn't sue the school. It was a private institution. I wanted to, because the "case" against me was so freaking ridiculous, and he said it would never survive summary judgment. Private Institution? Thay can make up their own rules if they want to - summary judgment for the respondent. I suppose the "logic" is that since I had the option to reapply after two years of "expulsion" and (IF readmitted, not holding my breath here, and anyway, WTF would I ever go back there) receive my credits means I'm not entitled to a refund.
I know what you are thinking - how is it "expulsion" if I can go back? The difference is if suspended, I am never withdrawn and go back after a date certain. Expulsion means I am eligible to reapply (and pay the fees again), but they are under no obligation to readmit me. In any event, I live with the option of trying to explain this to the HR department of anybody I wish to be employed by, or not tell them about it and try to come up with a plausible explanation as to why I left a professional position and didn't work for two years.
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 10:04 AM
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?"
Battlespace preparation, as they say.
This makes that allegation of rape, EQUIVALENT TO conviction of rape...
without all that bothersome evidence, and so forth.
If this was handled by the police, as should be REQUIRED, there would never be a question, about conflict of interest on the university's part.
Or, well at least it would be more apparent, Duke university, notwithstanding.
SwissArmyD at February 25, 2014 10:35 AM
Colleges expel students who commit crimes before they go to trial, though. I'm thinking of students getting caught smoking weed in their dorms and things like that.
They can be expelled for doing things against the rules, too, like lighting candles in the dorms. Obviously anything illegal would be against the rules.
There are two issues
1) The legal issue which should be resolved by the police and courts
2) The rules issue which is resolved by the school.
Rex, if you don't mind, I would like to hear your story... what happened? I mean I get the general idea, but...
NicoleK at February 25, 2014 11:35 AM
Just so. Particularly with the new standard detailed in the "Dear Collegaue" letter. Preponderance of the evidence means if an allegation is "more likely than not" true, legally defined as 50.01 percent more likely than not, the burden of proof is met.
Unless someone believes that more than 50% of rape or sexual harassment allegations are false, then an allegation is already more likely than not true. Ergo, guilt by accusation is already the standard.
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 11:47 AM
Did you mean my story, Nicole?
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 11:51 AM
I assume Nicole does mean your story, WolfMan; I don't have one.
As you say, a private institution can make up its own rules, but I would think that unless they made it real clear going in that someone could be expelled without a refund and without due process, they could be sued for taking your money under false pretenses. But I'm not a lawyer; if a lawyer said you have no case, then I guess that's how it is.
Rex Little at February 25, 2014 12:35 PM
I'm OK with that if employment by, or graduation from Dartmouth means one abides by the same rule of evidence in any court of law. I'm tough, but fair.
MarkD at February 25, 2014 2:34 PM
Somehow all these colleges and university need a dose of reality.
Somehow being a white, straight, male means you are guilty of something automatically. And most of them can't get a pardon.
But if you have any minority status whatsoever you get a pass, maybe, if the defendant isn't an even smaller minority.
Jim P. at February 25, 2014 3:33 PM
Nicole,
I think Rex is right and you meant my story. There is no way to lay it all out in this forum, but I'll give you the gist and answer follow ups if you have them -
Complainant #1 - I pinned her in the library stacks, stroked her neck and commented on her necklace. I pointed out that 1. The stacks are open on both ends, how could she have been pinned 2. I never touched her necklace, only asked if she had gotten it in Japan, as it appeared to be an eastern ornamental style, that I had not even been in the stacks when the conversation took place, we were in an open area of the law library and finally, since there are signs all over the library announcing to all and sundry that events on these premises are video and audio taped (Yes, these signs are also on the bathroom doors), shouldn't the videotaped evidence of this rather shocking assault be presented to the police, and shouldn't I be talking to right now instead of the Dean of Students? Ideally while in custody? This is, after all, assault and battery with not very subtle sexual overtones and anyone who does this is probably pretty dangerous. Her complaint was amended to say she "felt" pinned, and "perceived" that I had touched her. I was informed that what actually happened was irrelevant, what mattered was what she perceived the events to be. She felt "dirty," and that was that. This was a private school - "sexual harassment" was whatever they said it was. And they said that if these Womyn said they were sexually harassed, they were.
Complainant #2 - Short, fat and ugly enough to be a modern art masterpiece, she was walking down the hallway wearing a shirt that said "You Can't Keep a Good Vagina Down" ( Tshirt for the recently performed-on-campus-with-student-funds "Vagina Monologues," in which she had a part).I stopped her by saying "wait a minute. Can I see that shirt?" She stopped and spread her arms, revealing the shirt in all its glory. I chuckled, shook my head and continued on my way. Her complaint was that I blocked her path, forcibly spread her arms, leaned "inappropriately close" to her fat, sagging breasts, and "laughed ominously" before walking away. I responded the same as with number 1 - where is the videotape? I didn't block her path or force her arms apart - she was more than happy to stop and show me the shirt. Furthermore, we are establishing a pattern of physical aggression here - think the police are a good idea? I was informed again that what she perceived was what was important, and the fact that I thought the shirt was at all remarkable was evidence of my virulent misogyny; is "Vagina" a dirty word? Is there something wrong with putting it on a T shirt, MR. MAN? What matters is you made her feel "dirty" for wearing that shirt. Two of the board members and the "prosecutor" also played in that presentation of The Vagina Monologues, and when the "Prosecutor" asked if she was ashamed of her vagina, and if she was proud to have been part of the Vagina Monologues, she heart breakingly answered "No" in a whisper to the first question, and in a stronger voice, displaying her female strength and pride untrammeled by thousands of years of patriarchal oppression, answered with a resounding "Yes" to the second. The hearing then paused for an exchange of eskimos and butterflys between the Womyn of The Vagina Monologues, and pointed, poisonous glances at me.
Complainant #3 - Was wearing a shirt that said "Cowboys Make Better Lovers." I said "What is it? The ropes?" She testified that she interpreted that to mean I was implying she liked to be tied up for sexual gratification, and that made her feel "Dirty." She mentioned (in a fleeting moment of self awareness that was almost blinding in its incongruity)that perhaps it was less than appropriate for her to be wearing that shirt and not be prepared for comments. She was quickly shushed by the assembled Womyn and assured that she was the victim here. She can wear anything she likes or nothing at all and doesn't deserve to be "sexually harassed" for it. She was particularly adamant that I be expelled, because she and several of her friends had been at a party where they were discussing this case, and one of the friends mentioned that she had heard I was discussing the case, and she didn't think that was right because She had been told noone was to discuss the case.
Complainant #4 - A friend of mine, she was married with children and we had studied together on several occasions, even talking on the ohone to set up study dates/lunches. I used the word "Titty." She had been raised with seven brothers and was married with two children - and she had NEVER heard anything so obscene. Presumably she had also never watched network TV. She testified she had always found my behavior offensive, but never said anything because she "didn't want to hurt my feelings." So she reported me to the school and said when I used that word it made her feel "Dirty."
And finally, #5, my favorite. 70 years old, a librarian. I had asked her, in a desperate moment, to please help me find a law book during the dark days of the first semester of law school. She did so, and further explained to me how the system worked (it had been explained, I was just hadn't grasped it). I put my head on Aint Bea's shoulder and said, "Thank you so much." This made her feel "dirty."
Considered among the most damning evidence of my guilt was
1. I demanded a hearing. What monster would put these womyn through this? When my lawyer attempted to cross examine any of them, they would begin crying onthe first question. I don't mean sniffling - I mean loud racking sobs with snot flying. The room would be cleared until they regained what passed for their composure. So there wasn't much he could do. And My God, what a savage I was for doing this to them - making them go through this ordeal.
2. I denied being guilty of sexual harassment, and really, what more do you need than that? Sexual harassers always deny it. So I must be a sexual harasser. For a further explanation of this legal theory, Google "Witch Dunking."
After this all happened and I had been expelled, I saw the episode of "Sexual Harassment Panda" on SouthPark, which I rarely watch. I wanted to sue them - that is the most accurate representation of what happened I have ever seen. I think they stole my story.
That is a thumbnail sketch. You may be able to beat the evidence. But you will never beat the whispering campaign, and when they are making up the rules, you have no chance.
Rex, I didn't understand a lot of it either. But my lawyer was a good man as lawyers go, represented me Pro Bono because the case was such Bullshit, and if there had been a way, he would have found it.
I feel very strange right now and want to break something. So I'm going to go study for awhile and thank god for the beautiful wife I have.
We weren't married then. We were just friends. She testified for me as a character witness. There was much disgust and pity projected at her for her "internalized oppression," in that she would allow a monster like me around her daughters (now my beautiful steps and doing well) and further that she testified that not only did she not feel threatened by me, she had always felt very secure and protected.
I could write so much more about this, but that should do.
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 3:50 PM
P.S.
Complainants #3 and #4 also testified that they were so traumatized by the "attacks" that they could not sleep, study or enter the law library without panic attacks. For this reason they had received less than stellar grades for the summer semester. A member of the panel asked the names of their instructors and assured them she would "take care of that."
The WolfMan at February 25, 2014 3:56 PM
So if Dartmouth is so packed with rapists, why do women apply there? If it's too scary, don't apply. Or else get a concealed carry permit.
KateC at February 25, 2014 8:03 PM
Don't you know that all guns are evil and the mere possession will turn you into a psychotic, unstable, evil, horrible, abusive, fiend that will prey on every innocent that you run across?
Jim P. at February 25, 2014 9:10 PM
If it's too scary, don't apply.
That's blaming the victim, dontcha see? And male privilege.
Rex Little at February 25, 2014 10:34 PM
"Childress said a full 90 to 95 percent of sexual assaults on college campuses are carried out intentionally by repeat offenders and go unreported."
I wonder what it must be like to be omniscient like this Childress person seems to believe she is.
To not only know all events that take place that no one collects any evidence for... but to see into the hearts and minds of the people involved in those unreported events.
Childress should be encouraged to use her supernatural powers to prevent these sexual assaults before they occur.
Surely seeing the future to prevent these crimes from ever happening in the first place is surely within the scope of her supernatural powers.
That she doesn't prevent these assaults from occuring suggests one of two things:
1 - She doesn't actually possess these seemingly supernatural mental powers.
Or
2 - She doesn't actually care about reducing the incidence of sexual assault and just lets these individuals suffer due to her indifference.
Artemis at February 25, 2014 11:39 PM
Some enterprising guy on campus should lodge an accusation against Amanda Childress. Would love to watch that unfold.
Chester White at February 26, 2014 12:01 AM
I'm sorry to hear about your story, Wolfman, and I hope you were able to finish your degree somewhere else.
NicoleK at February 26, 2014 12:30 AM
Some enterprising guy on campus should lodge an accusation against Amanda Childress. Would love to watch that unfold.
I'd advise against blinking. He'd likely be expelled very quickly.
dee nile at February 26, 2014 5:39 AM
Did you think of the European defense, Wolfman? I mean, it's not like the star chamber is a court of law, so you could just say you were raised in a European style where you had no idea that any gestures or flirting with women could make them uncomfortable. Multiculturalism trumps sexual harassment, right? Or at least they'd have had to suppress some of the BS.
spqr2008 at February 26, 2014 6:35 AM
I'm part Hispanic (even though I don't look it, because that part is Basque), and if I faced any kind of star chamber, the race card would definitely be played (as dishonorable as it is, I'm cynical enough to use it as a defense against an institution that violates my constitutional rights).
spqr2008 at February 26, 2014 6:40 AM
Let's not be too shocked.
I recently had a face-to-face conversation with a pair of professors who insisted that exercising the right to bear arms does nothing to help citizens protect themselves from criminals.
They didn't produce data to support their contention when I disagreed; instead, they became incensed that I disagreed with them.
They make a very, very good living teaching your children and have enough free time to also run two side businesses.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 26, 2014 8:31 AM
Nicole -
Went back in the Army. Been there ever since. The cutbacks are making it prudent to seek work back in the private sector. A pity - twelve years total time is a lot to walk away from. But as we now seek work in the private sector, I get to once again try to explain this to HR departments, who are not known for their willing acceptance of risk - and certainly not the kind of risk that might result in any risk to Wimmen. Because Patriarchy.
Some Patriarchy.
It is not sour grapes when I say I never wish to darken the doorways of a law school again. Its not sour grapes because back then I really, really wanted it. I was the first man in my family to go to college. On both sides as far back as anyone could remember. Most of the men in my family were helpless drunks of the hopeless variety who died unwept, unhonored and unsung. I dropped out of High School at 16 to support myself, joined the Army, put myself through college on the GI Bill, established a professional career, and walked away from that career and an additional opportunity to go on as a professional fighter because ...Law School. To finally be the one that brought my family name out of ignominy and become a true, white collar professional. And they took that away from me because...Patrirchy. White Male Privilege. Or something. People who had never known need and hardly known want in their lives did that.
I now firmly believe that saying you are a lawyer establishes a rebuttable presumption that you are a moral cripple (with my apologies to moral cripples when I say that). The mountain of evidence I personally require to rebut that presumption has yet to be surmounted.
So I'm with adambein, above. I want no more of this system than I absolutely must participate in to pay my bills, fish, hunt, put food in the dog's bowls and hang out with my wife.
I am done.
The wimmens win.
Enjoy the victory.
I'll watch.
The WolfMan at February 26, 2014 9:21 AM
Is there anything more emotionally or physically fragile…than a strong feminist woman?
'lmao'
As a whole I find them to be pathetic, weepy little things, the first to expect sacrifice, the last to offer it, the first to claim victims tat us, and the last to actually be victimized.
They place high value on feeling and perception, because they are children, holding children's values, observe a small child, all they know and understand are their feelings, all they know is their childish way of percieving things, which, being children, is always extreme, be it joy, fear, anger…and they are the least able, like children, to understand and empathize with others. They are the center of their world, and worst of it is…people who have real strength are the ones that allowed that to happen, who provided for them, reared them, provided them with that sheltered bubble from which all their incompetence blooms.
If the women's rights advocates of the 20s had seen what women would do with the rights they were given, they'd have gone back to the kitchen to avoid seeing how their great grandchildren would turn out.
Robert at February 26, 2014 7:30 PM
Leave a comment