The Rest of College Football

[Hannibal]

I suggest it's more about the school doing it than the cross examination.. based upon what I've been reading/seeing on twitter.

Then who is supposed to do it? If the school is expected to expel students (thereby destroying their lives) then they also should be expected to gather evidence and cross examine as part of due process.

[iam416]

The problem is the DOJ and its "letter" has suggested that any process that requires the victim to be subject to questioning is a violation of Title IX.

[entropy]

Then who is supposed to do it? If the school is expected to expel students (thereby destroying their lives) then they also should be expected to gather evidence and cross examine as part of due process.

schools should be able to do it. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I think people are suggesting Tenn is not trustworthy. I don't know, but the current thought is Tenn was protecting players rather than finding the truth.

[Hannibal]

schools should be able to do it. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I think people are suggesting Tenn is not trustworthy. I don't know, but the current thought is Tenn was protecting players rather than finding the truth.

Part of finding the truth is questioning the accuser. The activists pushing this lawsuit don't want that. They want the university to act as a Court of Star Chamber.

[entropy]

The problem is the DOJ and its "letter" has suggested that any process that requires the victim to be subject to questioning is a violation of Title IX.

Players have to have their due process. I guess the question what do they mean by subject to questioning? Does that mean they don't want a public cross examination? Protect the privacy of the victim? Or no cross examination at all...?

[entropy]

Part of finding the truth is questioning the accuser. The activists pushing this lawsuit don't want that. They want the university to act as a Court of Star Chamber.

Don't disagree.. now what if the University is protecting a $$$ stream instead of female students?

[Hannibal]

Don't disagree.. now what if the University is protecting a $$$ stream instead of female students?

Keep universities out of the law enforcement business. Problem solved.

[entropy]

Keep universities out of the law enforcement business. Problem solved.

you said "Then who is supposed to do it? If the school is expected to expel students (thereby destroying their lives) then they also should be expected to gather evidence and cross examine as part of due process. "

so now the Universities shouldn't be involved??

[entropy]

just trying to understand what we are discussing.. exactly

[Wild Hoss]

Keep universities out of the law enforcement business. Problem solved.

IDK that being is considered part of law enforcement.

[Hannibal]

you said "Then who is supposed to do it? If the school is expected to expel students (thereby destroying their lives) then they also should be expected to gather evidence and cross examine as part of due process. "

so now the Universities shouldn't be involved??

It wasn't my idea for them to get involved. But once they are, then they have to be thorough. I don't think that it's practical for a University to have a court-ish system for dealing with non-academic behavior. Especially if it's off campus. But if they are expected to have that system, then it has to respect due process and put the burden of proof on the accuser. ITT that a lot of the anger over "rape culture", etc is just frustration with the fact that rape is really hard to prove. A certain segment of society wants to do with "innocent until proven guilty" WRT rape cases or they interpret "not guilty" as "not taking the crime seriously"

[iam416]

Players have to have their due process. I guess the question what do they mean by subject to questioning? Does that mean they don't want a public cross examination? Protect the privacy of the victim? Or no cross examination at all...?

Here's a link to the "Dear Colleague Letter" : https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...l_violence.pdf

Some important points -- the standard for finding a Title IX violation is preponderance of the evidence. So, more likely than not...50.1%.

It is "strongly discouraged" to allow the parties to question or cross-examine one another (page 12). "Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetrating a hostile environment."

So what you have is a minimal threshold -- more than 50% -- and not only can you not question or cross examine the victim, if you allow it the DOJ may nail you with creating a hostile environment. So, someone accused of sexual assualt has to convince the school that it didn't happen without benefit of cross-examination or more than likely get expelled. I should also note, this letter is technically "law" -- it's more or less saying what the DOJ thinks the law is -- and it works.

So I guarantee you that at Tennessee the University questioned the victims rather than allowing them to simply submit a statement. They probably weren't stupid enough to allow representatives of the alleged perpetrator to do the questioning, though.

Hanni is absolutely right -- it's a fucking criminal matter. Or should be.

[Wild Hoss]

"Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetrating a hostile environment."

I don't see how this prevents cross by counsel. It just has to be done without the accused present.

[iam416]

The University is under no obligation to allow the student to have counsel. I believe they typically deny counsel.

[Wild Hoss]

The University is under no obligation to allow the student to have counsel. I believe they typically deny counsel.

...but in this instance its the University who is the defendant, not a student. Surely the University of Tennessee will allow itself to hire a lawyer.