CHE article: Rape Procedures

[ergative]

This discussion about the value of statistical accounting is really interesting. We absolutely need the numbers: We need to know how prevalent the problem is, and whether attempts at amelioration are helping or hurting. The only way we can know that is looking at whether frequency of occurrence is increasing or decreasing. (Yes, yes, correlation, causation, I know, but it's the only tool we have for this kind of research!)

But when those numbers are widely available, they will be used in bad faith, or in misunderstood good faith, and that reflects badly not (only) on the people who misuse the numbers, but on the use of the numbers themselves as a tool. But I don't think the solution is to stop using the numbers. We need the numbers. We will always need the numbers. We can perhaps try to improve numeracy education, but that's only going to fix the misunderstood good faith misuse of numbers, not the bad faith misuse of numbers.

This is one reason I really like the 538 podcast's segment 'Good use of polling or bad use of polling?' They look specifically at poll numbers, but they dig deep into exactly this question: Are these numbers meaningful, can we learn anything from them, and are the people reporting them using them correctly?

[marshwiggle]

But when those numbers are widely available, they will be used in bad faith, or in misunderstood good faith, and that reflects badly not (only) on the people who misuse the numbers, but on the use of the numbers themselves as a tool. But I don't think the solution is to stop using the numbers. We need the numbers. We will always need the numbers. We can perhaps try to improve numeracy education, but that's only going to fix the misunderstood good faith misuse of numbers, not the bad faith misuse of numbers.

One of the easiest ways to differentiate bad faith use of numbers from good faith use of numbers is whether and to what degree they are stated in context of other numbers. Another factor is the precision of their definitions. Un- or vaguely-defined terms should be a big red flag. Anyone who wants to present numbers in good faith will be especially clear on exactly what quantities the numbers represent.

[smallcleanrat]

Maybe Title IX processes have changed since then, but what I saw was a kangaroo court. It was obvious that the main concerns of the university were avoiding bad publicity, maximizing tuition revenue, and avoiding scrutiny by federal regulators.

Of course alcohol consumption was involved in the incident. These situations make me sympathetic to zero tolerance policies -- "if you're too immature to responsibly consume a substance that will impair your ability to give consent, then you're too immature for college, and you're both expelled. Bye."

Zero tolerance for what? Alcohol consumption (even when of legal age)? Or, alcohol allowed but expelled if they ever get blackout drunk (even if no assault or assault accusations follow)? Or zero tolerance for making an accusation if you were drunk during the incident in question?

Is this your position?: "If you become vulnerable to assault through your own decisions (I.e. drinking to the point of incapacitation), then you are too immature to be in college. Bye."

What if their drink was spiked? Still too immature for college if they weren't more careful about watching their cup?

I don't really get this. If a student's roommate steals a term paper off his computer and turns it in as his own work, should *both* students be punished? If student had been more vigilant about password-protecting access to his documents, his roommate wouldn't have been able to steal.

If a student is walking alone after dark and gets mugged, does that student get expelled for not being responsible enough to travel in a group or call for a campus escort?

I've been told I "should have known better" after a classmate pinned me down and forcibly kissed me after I accepted his invitation to stop by his dorm room to watch a DVD. I struggled, but he was much stronger. Not sure how far it would have gone if his roommate hadn't walked in, causing him to back off and act normally again.

I never made any sort of official complaint, but I did talk about it with a couple of (male) friends (hence the 'should have known' comments).

Should I have been expelled from school for not being more cautious? For being too naïve to know that when some people invite you over to watch a movie, that's code language for something else? Did that make me too immature for college?

[Ruralguy]

Though I don't agree that excessive alcohol consumption (to the extent of incapacitation) should lead to expulsion in general, I do think, as I have stated upthread, that alcohol is a major factor in sexual assault and other sexual misconduct cases on my campus. So, I definitely think more has to be done in terms of curbing alcohol consumption and educating students on consent and alcohol/drugs.

[dismalist]

more has to be done in terms of curbing alcohol consumption and educating students on consent and alcohol/drugs.

Civilized alcohol consumption can be learned. It is learned in western Europe. The drinking age should be lowered to about 16. And parents can help teaching their kids.

[I feel a new Prohibition waiting in the wings, and we know where that led.]

[ciao_yall]

more has to be done in terms of curbing alcohol consumption and educating students on consent and alcohol/drugs.

Civilized alcohol consumption can be learned. It is learned in western Europe. The drinking age should be lowered to about 16. And parents can help teaching their kids.

[I feel a new Prohibition waiting in the wings, and we know where that led.]

Generational wealth for savvy immigrants who were otherwise blocked from polite society due to racism and religious prejudice?

[dismalist]

more has to be done in terms of curbing alcohol consumption and educating students on consent and alcohol/drugs.

Civilized alcohol consumption can be learned. It is learned in western Europe. The drinking age should be lowered to about 16. And parents can help teaching their kids.

[I feel a new Prohibition waiting in the wings, and we know where that led.]

Generational wealth for savvy immigrants who were otherwise blocked from polite society due to racism and religious prejudice?

And murders and violence and methyl alcohol deaths. 

[Wahoo Redux]

It would seem like an oversight not to include this in the discussion:

"Falsely Accused Students Stories".

[Ruralguy]

Keep in mind that most of these stories aren't particularly recent. That suggests to me that perhaps many of their concerns have been corrected, which to me would mean having a process that's clearly defined and adhered to and includes letting complainant and respondent know the precise accusation, know the results of any investigation, be able to have a hearing, and get the results of a hearing in a timely manner and be able to appeal.

Just as I would say about victims, it's not so much that I believe everything stated here, but I would take such claims seriously and see if these issues have been widely addressed, especially at theirs schools, but also everywhere.

[marshwiggle]

Keep in mind that most of these stories aren't particularly recent. That suggests to me that perhaps many of their concerns have been corrected, which to me would mean having a process that's clearly defined and adhered to and includes letting complainant and respondent know the precise accusation, know the results of any investigation, be able to have a hearing, and get the results of a hearing in a timely manner and be able to appeal.

Just as I would say about victims, it's not so much that I believe everything stated here, but I would take such claims seriously and see if these issues have been widely addressed, especially at theirs schools, but also everywhere.

The fact that these wouldn't have been ironclad requirements from the beginning is shocking.

[Ruralguy]

The short response is that your shock is understandable, but most colleges, after the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter just went with making small adjustments to pre existing policies, most of which had some basics of jurisprudence, but were operating from a position of typical (for is anyway) Dean of Students Put Out the Fire mode. It took several years for Dept. of Ed/OCR to craft standards, which I believe was an open process, similar to the last adjustment which took from about Oct 2017 to August 2020 to be implemented.  Plus, many schools have significant policy adjustment hurdles, I.e. democratic process, especially from faculty. We include staff and faculty in our policy, but technically only misconduct that involves students in some way is a Title IX issue. Of course, most schools will want a sexual misconduct policy for everyone, it's just that some divide out Title IX and everything else. We just apply Title IX standards to everyone.

[marshwiggle]

The short response is that your shock is understandable, but most colleges, after the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter just went with making small adjustments to pre existing policies, most of which had some basics of jurisprudence, but were operating from a position of typical (for is anyway) Dean of Students Put Out the Fire mode. It took several years for Dept. of Ed/OCR to craft standards, which I believe was an open process, similar to the last adjustment which took from about Oct 2017 to August 2020 to be implemented.  Plus, many schools have significant policy adjustment hurdles, I.e. democratic process, especially from faculty.

Yeah, "democratic process" hurdles are a problem unless you live in an enlightened place like North Korea, Iran, or China. You know, other places where you don't have to tell someone specifically what they're accused of.
Seriously, for academics, i.e. people who are supposed to be the smartest people in society, to be so closed-minded as to create a process which doesn't accept the slightest chance of an accused person being innocent fuels the argument of higher education being a waste of money and time.

[Ruralguy]

I just meant that the democratic process for faculties that have that can add significant time for adhering to government mandates.

I am proud that my college, which probably most of you have never heard of, has in all my time here, had some form of hearing for all misconduct cases  and not with presumption of guilt. We then, with time, altered these processes to be more uniform, and, of course, to conform to TIX regulations and other regulations.  I know that clearly many colleges never did this for students, faculty, or staff. It took them time to adjust, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are still a problem.

[dismalist]

Procedures, determined democratically, administratively, or randomly, have outcomes. There is always a tradeoff between the numbers of innocents declared guilty and the numbers of guilty let free.

The Dear Colleague letter of a decade ago started a process whereby it would be better to convict all innocents than to let one guilty party escape! The DeVos changes to treating Title IX violations like any other civil violation [clear and convincing evidence, instead of preponderance of evidence -- nobody ever thought of applying the criminal standard of beyond a shadow of doubt] is to be reversed.

Look, anyone can stand anywhere they want on this stuff -- in the end, it's about how many innocents are punished for how many guilty are let free.

Take your pick.

[Ruralguy]

Preponderance is still permissible, though you do have to be consistent across all college hearings (so, a general faculty grievance hearing or hearing on student cheating would have to use the same standards).

I would argue that since these are all civil matters, there's much more similarity to a civil court hearing  than anything criminal (colleges don't imprison or execute as far as I know). Preponderance seems more appropriate than other standards. I think sensible policy and sensibly trained Title IX folks are probably more important than specific evidentiary standards (bad cops and bad judges can really screw you over even if there is a presumption of innocence and a reasonable doubt standard).  That is to say, when there just isn't much evidence, the system, if run well, will not find someone responsible even if everyone is telling the truth. 

But it's hardly the DCL that started bad outcomes. Maybe some schools that had bad processes either had bad results or poorly justified results. But keep in mind that before that, many schools were informed of potential sexual misconduct, including rape, but never acted. So, you can have a bad process that neglects true victims just as much as a bad process that can maybe find someone guilty in an unjust manner. The cure is to refine the process, not go back to the bad old days.