Lawsuit: U of Tennessee Not Just Shuffling Those Accused Of Sexual Assault Through Campus Kangaroo Court; Giving Them Too Much Due Process
Unlike so many colleges these days, U of T has been modeled more on that Constitution thingie than the Obama admin take on Title IX.
And how dare they, really!
In the Tennesseean, Anita Wadhwani and Nate Rau report:
Six women filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday claiming the University of Tennessee has created a student culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, especially football players, and then uses an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward.
Legalistic, meaning they don't just do as so many other schools do and stack the deck against the accused in such a way that an accusation amounts to an expulsion, with some going through the motions of a panel of a few members of the university "hearing" the case:
The plaintiffs say that UT's administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge who hears the case is appointed by Cheek, the lawsuit says.
Oh, how horrible -- that we might give someone accused of something due process instead of just expelling them based simply on another person's word.
"has created a student culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes"
Do they stereotype much?
How about the fact that academics have created a culture in which it is okay to bash or even outright falsely accuse other students because of their race or gender (white males)
charles at February 13, 2016 6:22 AM
Because women cannot successfully be accused of sexual assault, these activists don't see the danger of voiding the presumption of innocence on which our legal system is based. They want their witch hunt.
And it's not a "legalistic adjustication process," it's the US Constitution.
Conan the Grammarian at February 13, 2016 9:31 AM
Interesting. Conan used the exact same citation, from beginning to end, that I had selected to use, before I even opening the comments. Ah, well. I have something of a different point to make.
It's not unusual. On the contrary, it's the way it's supposed to be. In our judicial system, the burden is on the accuser, not on the accused. Yes, you do have some obstacles to overcome when you accuse someone of a crime. Sexual assault, while a traumatic event to the victim, is not the exception to the rule.
Yes, it is biased against the accuser. The entire judicial process is biased against the accuser.
The prosecution represents the state. The state has no interest in prosecuting innocent people, so if evidence comes forward that favors the accused, the state is required by law to bring it forward. By contrast, the defense represents the client. His compelling interest is getting his client acquitted. If new evidence comes forward which goes against the accused, he is not required to bring it forward. It's the state's obligation to find it.
As Conan said, "And it's not a 'legalistic adjudication process'; it's the US Constitution."
Patrick at February 14, 2016 2:13 AM
Leave a comment