Stanford University – Where the accused are guilty until proven guilty
KC Johnson of Minding the Campus points to a disturbing new development at Stanford University.
Stanford Abandons Due Process
Students at Stanford are the latest to fall victim to the assault on due process mandated by the “Dear Colleague” letter. Last week, the university’s faculty senate approved the “Alternative Review Process,” an across-the-board diminution of due process rights for Stanford students accused of sexual assault.
The Office of Civil Rights’ “Dear Colleague” letter, to review, mandates that colleges lower due process in two respects: weakening the burden of proof from the clear and convincing standard to the preponderance of evidence standard; and introducing a form of double jeopardy by allowing accusers to appeal when an accused student is found not guilty in a college disciplinary process. In addition, the letter strongly encourages a third change–prohibiting an accused student from cross-examining his accuser–that, when coupled with the usual requirement that accused students not be represented by counsel in disciplinary proceedings, effectively ensures that no cross-examination of the accuser will occur.
Stanford’s ARP implements each of these OCR proposals. But, like most schools that have eagerly adopted the Dear Colleague approach, Stanford goes beyond even what OCR has demanded in weakening due process for accused students. For instance, through the ARP, students are judged by a five-person panel of “reviewers,” but can be found guilty by a vote of 4-to-1. (Even the “Dear Colleague” letter doesn’t require non-unanimous verdicts.) So if 80 percent of the review panel believes, with a 50.01 percent level of certainty, in an accused student’s guilt, Stanford can brand him a rapist.
Who exactly are these “reviewers”? I testified (via Skype) against the ARP. A pro-ARP witness assured the student government that it need not worry about weakening due process protections, because in his experience, no student accused of sexual assault at Stanford was innocent anyway. Moreover, he noted, the university specially trained the disciplinary panels on sexual assault cases to ensure that the panels would be able to discern the truth.
Comments
Someone needs to check the punishment for making a false Sexual Assault claim. Perhaps if there is no punishment, then someone should use the system and break it by making allegations against the top 5 Liberal leaders on campus. Or, be present at a situation where a person is likely to be “offended” by the conduct of said Liberal leaders, sufficient to make a “Sexual Assault” claim.
Lets see how fast they scream for their “due process.”
Time for chaos. Make the Statists and Marxists fight each other.
This is one area where the universities should be taken at their own words. I have no doubt that there are any number of things that women, including faculty, say to men that are offensive. In any case, the “suggested” standards specifically state that if someone thinks she’s offended, or at least claims so, then she is.
So why not follow that? I understand a lot of men don’t want to get involved and risk their academic careers, but what about some guys filing complaints. It would be fun to see how the university administrations deal with this. At least their rank hypocrisy will become inarguable.
Of course, there’s another reason why a lot of men won’t complain. Assume that Joe and Jack, roommates, are in their dorm room after dinner.
Joe: After class this afternoon a female student came up to me and said the nastiest things. She offended me on grounds of race, sex, and my physical appearance. [He then relates the details].
Jack: That’s really awful, She had no call to say anything like that. Anybody would find that offensive.
Joe: Damn straight. What time is the game on?
The obvious purpose of these regulations is to squelch speech and make sure that no one (meaning men) will dare say anything that any woman might possibly find offensive, and that covers a broad range of discourse.
My theory: The real goal of the left is power. Anyone with to refute me?