Columbia student carrying mattress until school expels her rapist

[grumbler]

That's what I said in my other post...criminal-level offenses like rape should not even be contemplated by a university panel.  Cheating, plagiarism, and smoking in the boys room?  Have at it.

Rape is not contemplated by a university panel.  Its a crime.  Student sexual misconduct IS and should be considered, though.  You cannot allow such misconduct on campus, as it endangers students.

[grumbler]

Speaking of Michigan...

http://www.examiner.com/article/university-of-michigan-says-that-withholding-sex-is-sexual-violence

lol wut

Not sure what is more confusing - the UoMichigan's policy or the article by this "news examiner".

Both seem kinda strange, but at least the U of M policy is just listing some 'examples" while the "news" article presumably is trying to be complete.  Seems like it cherry-picked a few phrases and wrote a story as though the cherry-picked portions are representative.

[Barrister]

I dunno, if you have a member of the tribunal asking questions like "dur, how can you even do anal without lubricant?", that doesn't sound very competent to me.  That sounds like a clown college court.

As I said, the idea of the college even thinking that having an administrative "tribunal" to decide a serious criminal issue such as rape is preposterous.  If a coworker at General Motors rapes you, you don't have the Board of Directors take witness statements and come up with a ruling.

We don't know that any of the details of the hearing except her self-serving claims.  And the idea that universities have tribunals to rle on student misconduct (not criminal cases - that's for the criminal justice system - isn't preposterous at all.  If a student cheats on a paper, or behaves in an intolerable manner, you don't go to court - the court would laugh the cases right back out.  I don't think that General Motors has a code of conduct to be ruled on.

That's what I said in my other post...criminal-level offenses like rape should not even be contemplated by a university panel.  Cheating, plagiarism, and smoking in the boys room?  Have at it.

Let's take a hypothetical though... person is charged with sexual assault.  There is actually quite compelling evidence to support the person's guilt - let's say it's caught on video.

The criminal justice system however moves slowly.  If this person gets bail (and despite even overwhelming evidence, if the person is of otherwise good character I suggest they will get bail) they could drag proceedings out for a year or longer, during which time they intend to continue attending the university.

Let's also say the rape was committed on or near university property.

Still think the university should just wash it's hands and say "we'll just let the system do it's work", or should they expel this particular student at the first opportunity?

[derspiess]

Speaking of Michigan...

http://www.examiner.com/article/university-of-michigan-says-that-withholding-sex-is-sexual-violence

lol wut

Not sure what is more confusing - the UoMichigan's policy or the article by this "news examiner".

Both seem kinda strange, but at least the U of M policy is just listing some 'examples" while the "news" article presumably is trying to be complete.  Seems like it cherry-picked a few phrases and wrote a story as though the cherry-picked portions are representative.

  Homer.

[garbon]

Speaking of Michigan...

http://www.examiner.com/article/university-of-michigan-says-that-withholding-sex-is-sexual-violence

lol wut

Not sure what is more confusing - the UoMichigan's policy or the article by this "news examiner".

Both seem kinda strange, but at least the U of M policy is just listing some 'examples" while the "news" article presumably is trying to be complete.  Seems like it cherry-picked a few phrases and wrote a story as though the cherry-picked portions are representative.

Yeah examiner.com is mainly just different bloggers. If you try to search for something like this story in google news, you just get a bunch of random blog posts.

[Martinus]

IOW every man's wife is sexually violent.

Admittedly, the document she quotes seems to talk about "sexual abuse", not "sexual violence" - she conflates the two, but I don't think they are the same.

[Viking]

For some reason I thought Ghana was not quite a shit hole.

Every country which is not in the OECD is a shithole. The converse does not apply, some OECD members are shitholes. However, the OECD list is a great rule of thumb.

[Martinus]

Incidentally (and a bit off topic), what is the US law (or a predominant state law, if rape is not a federal crime) approach to prosecuting rape - is rape an offence that the victim must press charges about or can it be prosecuted "ex officio" (in the same way as murder)?

I am not talking about evidence side of things (it would obviously be difficult to prosecute rape if the victim is not cooperative) but if the victim refuses to testify or "press charges", can the prosecution still prosecute?

There has been a huge debate in Poland about this last year and (in line with international conventions against violence against women and under pressure from numerous women's rights organisations), it was changed to the model where the public prosecution can prosecute even if the victim is not cooperating/is not "pressing charges".

[derspiess]

Admittedly, the document she quotes seems to talk about "sexual abuse", not "sexual violence" - she conflates the two, but I don't think they are the same.

She's just going by the document.  As I quoted, the document does claim clearly non-violent acts (or non-acts) as "sexual violence". 

[Martinus]

Admittedly, the document she quotes seems to talk about "sexual abuse", not "sexual violence" - she conflates the two, but I don't think they are the same.

She's just going by the document.  As I quoted, the document does claim clearly non-violent acts (or non-acts) as "sexual violence".

Oh sorry I thought you were quoting the article. This is really past bizarre. I wonder if this is some troll.

[garbon]

Admittedly, the document she quotes seems to talk about "sexual abuse", not "sexual violence" - she conflates the two, but I don't think they are the same.

She's just going by the document.  As I quoted, the document does claim clearly non-violent acts (or non-acts) as "sexual violence".

Oh sorry I thought you were quoting the article. This is really past bizarre. I wonder if this is some troll.

Of course, in all likelihood, it is probably just a mistake in what they stated the definition of sexual violence to be. Tempest in a teacup.

[derspiess]

One would think they'd exercise additional caution before publishing something like that.  Anyway, if it were a mistake it's still there and they've had more than a day to take it down or update it (looks like the article was posted yesterday afternoon).

[garbon]

One would think they'd exercise additional caution before publishing something like that.  Anyway, if it were a mistake it's still there and they've had more than a day to take it down or update it (looks like the article was posted yesterday afternoon).

Yeah because a big priority is probably a definition buried on one of their webpages. To be honest, I bet they aren't even aware of this blog chatter yet.  After all no actual news agency has picked up this "story."

[grumbler]

Admittedly, the document she quotes seems to talk about "sexual abuse", not "sexual violence" - she conflates the two, but I don't think they are the same.

She's just going by the document.  As I quoted, the document does claim clearly non-violent acts (or non-acts) as "sexual violence".

No questions the Michigan document is strange, at a minimum, I don't believe.

[mongers]

Maybe hers is an elaborate stunt to allude to another Michael Jackson scandal involving blanket's older step sister?