when both parties were drinking

By Florida law, if someone is legally intoxicated, they are by definition unable to consent[*]. Of course, in the above case, that leads us to the inescapable conclusion that both parties were at once victims of rape as well as perpetrators of said crime.

[*] supporters of Jameis Winston cheerfully overlooked that legal definition, and there was no talking to them about it.

My advice to any young college man when a fellow student is busy stripping down, dry humping them, and yelling "I'm so drunk!" that they should excuse themselves to go buy some condoms, walk out the front door and head over to a friends house. Have them note the time and date, maybe take some pictures and post them online complete with date/time stamp and GPS location so you have a pretty solid alibi.

Otherwise, you could find yourself in Dez Wells predicament.

All I can think of when anyone mentions justice on a college campus is the Faber College Disciplinary Board

We all know how well that worked out.

Look at the the 1% of Rutgers staff and students got Condeleeza Rice essentially banned from giving a commencement speech. Think how the liberal wymen would treat an alleged rapist.

If a college wouldn't conduct a murder trial, it shouldn't be conducting rape trials, either.

They shouldn't, and they don't. These are not trials, they're disciplinary hearings. In a rape trial, the defendant is in danger of losing his liberty. In a college hearing. . . not so much.

They shouldn't, and they don't. These are not trials, they're disciplinary hearings. In a rape trial, the defendant is in danger of losing his liberty. In a college hearing. . . not so much.

Sorry, Rex, faculty do not have any particular aptitude for fact-finding of this character; nor do the bureaucratic microbes in the student affairs apparat; nor do sundry student-council twits.

Never said they did, Art. My point is that they don't have the power to impose a prison sentence. It's the entities which do have that power that have to give their defendants due-process protection before doing so.

The punishments a college can impose on its students are akin to what an employer can do to its employees. If my company wants to fire me for hitting a co-worker, they can do so based on whatever standard of proof, and whatever sort of investigation, company policy calls for. On the other hand, if they want me jailed for assault, they have to go through the legal system, and then I get a lawyer, the right to confront witnesses, etc.

The punishments a college can impose on its students are akin to what an employer can do to its employees. If my company wants to fire me for hitting a co-worker, they can do so based on whatever standard of proof, and whatever sort of investigation, company policy calls for. On the other hand, if they want me jailed for assault, they have to go through the legal system, and then I get a lawyer, the right to confront witnesses, etc.
Posted by: Rex Little at May 5, 2014 11:36 PM

I wonder what happens to companies that just willy nilly fire people right and left based on nothing more than the accusations of employees against male employees for conduct that takes place outside of the workplace.

My rule would be, if it happens on campus, it could be the business of the administration, but if it happens off campus, it is law enforcement business and not the school's business.

The mere fact that the accused and the accuser are both students should not give them any sort of jurisdiction over alleged conduct that takes place off campus.

Rex says:

"The punishments a college can impose on its students are akin to what an employer can do to its employees."

Students are not equivalent to "employees" of the university. Students pay enormous sums of money to be on campus in order to earn a degree.

When they are removed from campus they have paid for services not rendered.

What is going on would be the equivalent to you going to an auto dealership and paying for a new car... then having another customer accuse you of assault... then having the dealership kick you out on the basis of an internal "investigation", keeping your money, and refusing to give you the car you paid for.

I'd feel more comfortable with this whole scenario if the university was required to return all of the students tuition when they are removed in this manner.

They may have the right to remove the student from campus... but there is something rather shady about keeping their tuition after kicking them out.

To use the employer example alluded to... an employer may be able to fire you, but they can't legally keep your earned wages on the basis that you have been fired.

OMG THANK you!!!

Yes, I firmly believe that institutions such as schools or churches should NOT be the ones responsible for judging someone's guilt of a crime. They should not be held responsible for the wrong decision, they are not courts.

Now granted, private schools and businesses have their own codes of conduct when it comes to kicking people out and such which does NOT require a court of law... but to hold them responsible if they make the wrong call? No.

If a student is accused of a violent crime that wasn't witnessed by a bunch of people, I would suspend them pending trial and reinstate them if they are innocent.

If a student is accused of any crime, and you want to suspend him (it will be a him), you need to refund his tuition. Otherwise, you have stolen his money and deprived him of a semester.

This is obscene, but it doesn't stop there. A student at Lemoyne College was kicked out of a graduate program for writing an essay which postulated that there were instances in which corporal punishment was justified. The school basically stole his money (graduate school credits are not transferrable). Oh, the paper was given an A, until the heresy was brought to the attention of the inquisition.

These are not the people I want teaching anyone about morality, but form your own opinion.

"To use the employer example alluded to... an employer may be able to fire you, but they can't legally keep your earned wages on the basis that you have been fired."

Further, the employer cannot give the information they have on you to other employers, even if it's justified. Colleges, on the other hand, can expel a student over a rape accuasation, and then note it on the student's transcripts, which will prevent him from gaining admission to other colleges.

"Have them note the time and date, maybe take some pictures and post them online complete with date/time stamp and GPS location so you have a pretty solid alibi."

Over at Shrink4Men, we've talked about how men who are in the process of breaking up with a Cluster B ex need to document their every move and make sure they have a paper trail that can prove their whereabouts at all times. I'm beginning to wonder if this should apply to every man in America.

In a rape trial, the defendant is in danger of losing his liberty. In a college hearing. . . not so much.

Really? at the next institution of higher learning, the student who was expelled on a majority vote of administrators and other aparati will be asked:

Why were you expelled?

Lying will be just the ticket to get you expelled from another bastion of higher ed, and the truth will likely get you a rejection. An accusation of rape will be a stain that will be difficult to expunge[*]. At least if one goes thru the judicial system, one can come back with found not guilty.

[*] pretty sure that's the intention

If the school makes its policies clear to all students before they fork over their tuition, then the students have knowingly accepted the risk of being expelled without a refund.

That said, I wonder how many schools really spell it out that they'll do this on the basis of a he-said she-said accusation that would be laughed out of a court of law. Seems to me there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I wonder what happens to companies that just willy nilly fire people right and left based on nothing more than the accusations of employees against male employees for conduct that takes place outside of the workplace.

I should think they'd find it hard to get people to work for them. I should also think (and hope!) that men will be increasingly reluctant to attend colleges which have policies like this.

at the next institution of higher learning, the student who was expelled on a majority vote of administrators and other aparati will be asked:

Why were you expelled?

His answer: "for an offense I didn't commit, based on a false accusation and a hearing at which I was given no chance to defend myself." The college he's applying to has the choice to believe him or not, same as with any other information he gives them.

They shouldn't, and they don't. These are not trials, they're disciplinary hearings. In a rape trial, the defendant is in danger of losing his liberty. In a college hearing. . . not so much.

I a college trial the student can lose:
-A lot of money that won't be refunded, and a government that sees it as being expelled requiring immediate payments
-Get person accused plastered all over the town where thy would get denied housing
-Get denied entry to colleges
-Get denied jobs,
-Get harassed as badly as if they were on the sex offender's registry
-Forced out of town,
-Kicked out of their apartment or dorm with nowhere to go but "down the road somewhere" with little money and full of debt that no apartment would accept.

...Then the courts accept his conclusive evidence showing his alibi; months too late to undo everything above. Sometimes there are things worse than a temporary stint in jail or, for that matter, death.

The kid a while back who was going to be put on the registry for streaking who killed himself; not only don't I blame him, I think he made the right choice. His life was over before it began. If we allow colleges to do this pseudo-trial, it will easily spiral down to an unofficial registry.

In a college trial the student can lose:
-A lot of money that won't be refunded

As I said above, unless colleges are being very upfront with their policies, this should change as soon as someone sues to get their tuition back.

-Get person accused plastered all over the town where they would get denied housing
-Get denied entry to colleges
-Get denied jobs,
-Get harassed as badly as if they were on the sex offender's registry
-Forced out of town,
-Kicked out of their apartment or dorm with nowhere to go but "down the road somewhere" with little money and full of debt that no apartment would accept.

All this can happen if someone goes on Facebook or Twitter and says bad stuff about you. Other people can believe it or not as they choose, and the same applies to what the college says.

If my company wants to fire me for hitting a co-worker, they can do so based on whatever standard of proof, and whatever sort of investigation, company policy calls for.

What if they want to fire you for hitting a co worker at a ball game the next city over, wont allow you to question your accuser and wont allow you to present evidence that you werent at the ball game the next town over but seeing a movie?

is answer: "for an offense I didn't commit, based on a false accusation and a hearing at which I was given no chance to defend myself." The college he's applying to has the choice to believe him or not, same as with any other information he gives them.

Sure, that might work, aside from the fact that all college have Star Chambers these days

What if they want to fire you for hitting a co worker at a ball game the next city over, wont allow you to question your accuser and wont allow you to present evidence that you werent at the ball game the next town over but seeing a movie?

If company policy allows them to do that, and they made that policy known to me when I was hired, my bad for accepting the job. If they didn't make it known, some lawyer is looking at a fat contingency fee on my wrongful termination suit.

Actually, the employer-employee relationship wasn't the best analogy I could have chosen. A better one would be if I was a member of a private club whose yearly dues ran to five figures, and I was being expelled without a refund. Replace "co-worker" with "fellow member".

"If company policy allows them to do that, and they made that policy known to me when I was hired, my bad for accepting the job. If they didn't make it known, some lawyer is looking at a fat contingency fee on my wrongful termination suit."

A company cant just write anything they want into a contract. There are certain rights, that cannot be contracted away, and others that state and federal employment law cover.

And your second try, at an analogy was just as off as the first. Universities, have made themselves subject to federal law through accepting federal dollars.
They are not private clubs, and the tuition you pay is not 'dues'

These tin pot dictatorships, that call themselves universities are going to find out that the unintended consequences of their no tolerance policies may very well break them.

Parents, and college age boys are already voting with their feet.

Parents, and college age boys are already voting with their feet.

As they should. I never said these policies don't suck.

Universities are indeed subject to federal law, but that law does not require them to treat the subject of a disciplinary hearing like a defendant in a criminal trial. It also does not require anyone to take the risk of being in that position by enrolling in the first place.