Woodbridge Hall, meeting room where Yale’s top officials make decisions.
K.C. Johnson, at Minding the Campus, describes the truly Orwellian system of adjudicating complaints of sexual assault which has evolved at Yale as the result of threats of sanctions by Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights.
Yale, as part of an agreement with OCR (Office of Civil Rights), revised its procedures and promised biannual reports from Yale deputy provost Stephanie Spangler.
Over the past three years, these Spangler documents have provided a first-hand illustration of what passes for due process at one of the nationâ€™s leading universities. From them, we learned that more than a half-dozen Yale students (including former quarterback Patrick Witt) had been found culpable for sexual assault under â€œinformal complaintâ€ procedures that provide no grounds for an accused student to present evidence of his innocence. The latest Spangler report has now been released. It suggests that due process still stands in short supply on the New Haven campus. …
Seven cases this semester have gone through the â€œinformalâ€ processâ€”which can best be seen as a kind of â€œScarlet Letterâ€ approach. That is: given the limitations on the accused studentâ€™s ability to present evidence, itâ€™s almost impossible for an â€œinformal complaintâ€ to end without the accused student being branded a rapist. But beyond the branding, Yale allows only limited punishment through the informal procedure. Of the six students (one case remains pending) who faced charges of sexual assault through the â€œinformal complaintâ€ process, each received the same punishmentâ€”â€œcounselingâ€ and a prohibition on contacting the accuser.
For one student last spring, the allegation was just the beginning. Yaleâ€™s â€œformal complaintâ€ procedure prevents the accused from having an attorney as part of the process; brands the accused a rapist based on a 50.01 percent finding from a panel specially trained panel; and denies the accused any right to cross-examine the accuser. Even under these guilt-tilting procedures, one accused student was found not culpableâ€”meaning that Yaleâ€™s disciplinary panel concluded that it was more likely than not he was the subject of a false allegation.
The outcome of the case? The accused student was punished. He received a no-contact order with his accuser (there was no reciprocal order)â€”meaning that if the two happen to enroll in the same course, the accused student would need to drop the class; or if the two happened to be assigned to the same dorm, the accused student would have to move.
Yale also referred the accused student for â€œsexual consent training.â€ (Yaleâ€™s website contains no description of what this â€œtrainingâ€ entails, but hereâ€™s a summary from a feminist blog.) Again: Yale concluded that it was more likely than not that the accused student was the victim of a false allegation. Yet even though Yaleâ€™s own accuser-friendly procedures concluded that it was more likely than not the accuser leveled a false allegation, the accused was punished, while the accuser received no punishment of any sort.
In the several years of Spangler reports, there never has been any indication that Yale has punished even one student for filing a false claim of sexual assault. …
One of the Title IX cases from the spring provides a sense of the Orwellian nature of the Title IX coordinatorâ€™s work. â€œA third party reported,â€ according to Spangler, â€œthat more than one female [Yale] student, whom the reporter would not identify, [emphasis added] was sexually assaulted by a male Yale student.â€
Or, in plain English, a Yale student is now being investigated as a serial rapist, with the possibility of sanctionsâ€”even though none of the females he allegedly raped have filed a complaint, or have even been identified. How any student could defend himself against such a charge is unclear.
Read the whole thing, and feel your blood run cold.
Universities should not be investigating crimes nor punishing crimes. If a crime is committed the police should investigate, a DA should prosecute, a jury should decide guilt and the law and the judge should set the punishment. Anything else is unconstitutional.
What is really going on here is punishing based on gender not on criminal acts. These cases are more about regret the next day or next week or even in some cases the next year. There have been cases where the girl has used these charges in revenge over a breakup. Since this couldn’t be accomplished using the constitutional system and extra-constitutional system is required. But how? Well, first you hype the “crime” and distort the statistics. Then you assemble activists to demand attention and redress. Then you create committees and boards of likeminded people to create pseudo-regulations to accomplish the goal. Sounds like How to get around the Constitution 101.
Please Leave a Comment!