https://reason.com/2019/08/01/...all-student-lawsuit/

I have a few concerns here.

First of all, if both parties were drunk, why is only one held responsible for sexual assault? Was there a finding that the guy wasn't drunk?

Second, what about due process? The "don't worry about witnesses, because you aren't allowed to introduce any" bit is alarming. And why ignore exculpatory evidence?

Third, the notion that asserting your right to appeal is evidence of higher culpability is just wrong. I understand that remorse is one of the factors used in sentencing, but you really shouldn't punish someone for exercising the right to appeal, if they think the judgment was wrong.

I'll be interested to read about this one if it makes it to trial.

Agree with pretty much everything Quirt says above.
The erosion of rights to due process is worrying.

Hope the guy's lawsuit is successful.
Why only $75,000?

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
First of all, if both parties were drunk, why is only one held responsible for sexual assault? Was there a finding that the guy wasn't drunk?

If anything, I would think the initiator is more culpable, even if both "agree." Determining who initiates things can be rather difficult, of course.

I skimmed it.

The article is based on the man's complaint, so I wouldn't call it an unbiased view.

That he is only seeking $75,000 indicates something is off.

quote:

The article is based on the man's complaint, so I wouldn't call it an unbiased view.

I think we all stipulated that.

I don't know if everyone stipulated that.

It sounds like some folks are off to the races already . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
I don't know if everyone stipulated that.

It sounds like some folks are off to the races already . . .

I would imagine you understand what the word "if" means.

I'm certainly no expert on Title IX, so I'll have to leave that discussion to our lawyers and academics.

But, I questioned the reporting after reading the first paragraph.

"Should continuing to assert your innocence be seen as a sign of guilt? After issuing a three-semester suspension to football player "John Doe" for sexual assault, Carleton College in Minnesota gave him the option of appealing the verdict. He did so, to no avail."

According to this, after issuing the suspension, Carleton, "gave him the option of appealing the verdict."

This doesn't seem right to me. In other words, the reporting seems muddled. The appeal process would have been in place before the "trial."

The reporting does seem to be slightly biased in favor of John Doe.