"Yes Means Yes -- Except On Campus"
There's evidence she falsely accused him of rape, and a warrant for her arrest. But, the fellow college student she accused is being kept from returning to school.
Harvey A. Silverglate, co-founder of campus free speech defender theFIRE.org, writes in the WSJ of a college student named Caleb Warner, a University of North Dakota student who insisted he had consensual sex with the woman who accused him of rape. The university didn't care. They suspended him for three years for violating the student code. Three months later, the state police filed criminal charges for filing a false police report against Warner's accuser. There's still a warrant for her arrest.
Among several reasons the police gave for crediting Mr. Warner's claim of innocence was evidence of a text message sent to him by the woman indicating that she wanted to have intercourse with him. This invitation, combined with other evidence that police believe indicates her untruthfulness, has obvious implications for her charge of rape.Nevertheless, university officials have refused to allow Mr. Warner a re-hearing--much less a reversal of their guilty verdict. When the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties group of which I am board chairman, wrote to University President Robert O. Kelley to protest, the school's counsel, Julie Ann Evans, responded. She wrote that the university didn't believe that the fact that Mr. Warner's accuser was charged with lying to police, and has not answered her arrest warrant, represented "substantial new information." In any event, she argued, the campus proceeding "was not a legal process but an educational one."
Six weeks before FIRE received this letter, Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, sent her own letter to every college and university in the country that accepts federal money (virtually all of them). In it, she essentially ordered them to scrap fundamental fairness in campus disciplinary procedures for adjudicating claims of sexual assault or harassment.
Ms. Ali's April 4 letter states that "in order for a school's grievance procedures to be consistent with the standards in Title IX [which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational institution receiving federal funds], the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred)." This institutionalizes a low standard previously eschewed by most of the nation's top schools. It also sends the message that results--not facts--matter most. Such a standard would never hold up in a criminal trial.
Following this outrageous diktat, Cornell University lowered its evidentiary burden in sexual assault cases. Now, determining whether an incident constitutes sexual violence is based on the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, instead of the school's prior "clear and convincing evidence" test. Stanford followed suit--in the middle of one student's sexual misconduct hearing. He was promptly found guilty and suspended for two years.
I see a constant degradation of rights in this country, from free speech rights to men's rights to Fourth Amendment rights at the airport, and I see a lot of people just looking the other way.
It just got harder for college women to laid or have a relationship. It started with skewed sex ratios having over 60 percent women at a college can be a killer. The ever present demand for equal or better partners. Hey a 20 year old good looking English grad will wanter an older guy who if possible is smart or as smart as her or on her social level - computer majors need not apply. Now with putting the presumption of innocence and evidence on the side burner. Why would any guy risk dating a fellow college student?
John Paulson at July 17, 2011 6:41 AM
The problem seems to be that there was a problem at one time with getting a rape reported on a college campus because no college wanted to list violent crimes as part of their stats. Its gone overboard though and instead of protecting victims, it now makes victims out of anyone accused of a crime, even falsely. Its so scary to me as a mom. I'm scared of the day my daughter goes off to college and hope I instilled some sense in her as far as the boozing and sleeping around and hope she doesn't have a bad night and end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm also afraid of the fact that my sons could end up the same way, the only difference being that they have consensual sex and find out a few days later, the girl regrets her actions and cries rape. Those are allegations that never seem to go away no matter what the legal outcome.
Kristen at July 17, 2011 7:02 AM
I'm glad there's a warrant out for her arrest. She needs it. And I hope she pays. It will send a clear message that guys are not scapegoats for bad decisions. And unless school code prohibits sex of any kind, he has grounds for a lawsuit.
She decided to have consensual sex, then has the guy arrested??? I can understand having sex with someone, then regretting it the next day...even attempting to rationalize a bad decision...but accusing him of rape?
(putting on best Willie Nelson voice) To all the ceorles I've loved...before...
Patrick at July 17, 2011 7:32 AM
Well, NOW assures us that women don't lie about these things, you know.
Except when they do, of course. But that's probably the man's fault anyhow.
brian at July 17, 2011 7:36 AM
I know what Kristen means about the accusation that never goes away. It's like being a child molester. You could 100% innocent of this crime, but try convincing your neighbors of that.
It's not often Brian and I find ourselves on the same side of the issue. Ah, well. We'll be character assassinating each other soon enough.
Patrick at July 17, 2011 8:16 AM
MAY THIS HASTEN THE DAY WHEN DISTANCE LEARNING COMES TO DOMINATE,
This and the obvious devaluation of a college education( think education bubble)
With more competition the ridiculous tuition inflation over the last couple of decades will be brought under control also
Silly institutions don´t even realize how they are helping to end this very overbearing control we see from them in so many spheres
Bobby at July 17, 2011 9:02 AM
I don't get it. If he has a text message from her saying she wants to jump his bones, how is he not innocent even by the "preponderance of evidence" standard?
Rex Little at July 17, 2011 10:01 AM
Bill at July 17, 2011 11:28 AM
... the campus proceeding "was not a legal process but an educational one."
Well, they sure taught Caleb a lesson!
dee nile at July 17, 2011 11:44 AM
A few things
1. How does one univeristy have the power to ban him from all other univeristies in the state?
2. If it is not a legal process, then arguably it can not be legally enforced.
3. Even if he is adjudicated guilty by fiat, as his guilt of innocence have no link to reality the argument can be made that his being found guilty is not proof that he violated the schools code of conduct. And is therfore entitiled to a refund
4. If I was this guy I would file a suit againt the college, the colleges lawyer, the colleges admistration officals, the state of ND, the US dept of Education, and the pscyho Russlynn Ali, for violating his civil rights, harassment, definamtion, lible, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
lujlp at July 17, 2011 12:21 PM
And Caleb's lawyer should be delivering them an expensive teachable moment as well.
lujlp: In smaller states (populationwise) like ND, though universities may be "niched," may operate in some ways as a single entity with reciprocity with certain classes but also a single enrollment system. Certain offenses may be "transferable" just like Eng 101. This SHOULD also expand the amount of damages he should claim since he is not able to take in-state tuition (if he's an ND resident) for a crime that the DA dismissed but for an "offense" that for which some administrative hack's spiteful pride can't let go.
Bill at July 17, 2011 12:46 PM
If nothing else, I am sure that there is some wierd note on his transcript which would give most schools he applied to pause. As Bill noted, many of the states' upper education is all in one system so extremely like to show up.
The Former Banker at July 17, 2011 3:23 PM
I don't get it. If he has a text message from her saying she wants to jump his bones, how is he not innocent even by the "preponderance of evidence" standard?
There is a small, not well known, codicil that is added to every Military's Court's martials. That is the Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. It is used when they can't find you guilty of anything else, but don't want you in the military anymore.
They can't do this same thing in schools and such. Why? Title IX and Title X. Another example of the 5000 lb. gorilla in a room, where a free market solution would resolve it.
Jim P. at July 17, 2011 4:36 PM
I don't think this applies only to campuses....it applies even to workplaces. Men will get fired from the job if anything saucy about them comes up since that will hamper the company from doing business..and they don't even have to indulge in the act to get fired...remember Mark Hurd of HP...he wes lucky to get something in Oracle...lots of people are not that lucky...and of course, now DSK still does not get back his job at the IMF even though he has not been proven guilty and the case against him has been dropped..
Redrajesh at July 18, 2011 1:46 AM
Why the hell are cornell and stanford getting federal money? Those buggers have endowments which are bigger than the economies of some countries and still those guys get govt. aid? Guess no one should pay any fees for going to these places and I guess its time for the alumni to stop giving them anything at all.
Redrajesh at July 18, 2011 5:38 AM
Leave a comment