That is also a problem. But getting kicked out of university for supposed rape when you’re innocent is a life sentence. No decent job will ever hire you.

The fact that this shit happens all the time doesn’t mean you have to normalise it. It’s not normal.

Calm down, recognize you were wrong and needed to learn something. that's all I got got. best of luck.

As the linked article didn't include any photos of what was being discussed...

That's some good fucking journalism right there. What a piece of shit DA blatantly lying about the transcript.

The transcript said "Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."

But then the fucking DA's "legal analysis" says:

The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.

I had suspected that the DA was as ass when they said
"I have asked a senior prosecutor from my office to prepare the case for Grand Jury presentation"

Grand jury deliberations are secret and there is no legal requirement to provide any or all evidence to the grand jury. Neither the victim nor the accused get to present evidence or have lawyers review or present anything. They can also arbitrarily select the members from a random draw. This is probably one of those DA throwing the case and shrugging "we did our best" the grand jury wouldn't indite.

I'll amend my initial link to add this article.

But getting kicked out of university for supposed rape when you’re innocent is a life sentence.

What do you think having to drop out of University because of the trauma of being raped does to a person?

I’m not misunderstanding you. I think your struggling to follow your own conversation.

You brought up FACE, an organization concerned with Title IX enforcement specifically.

The other user explained they are given due process (under Title IX) and explained (poorly) that private colleges are not bound by the same rules if they don’t take government funding, expressed as government run.

Then you shifted it to some conversation about basic human rights and questioned what not being government run has to do with.

Which is why I shared the federal government page outlining Title IX exemptions.

Due process is covered under the 5th and 14th amendments, not Title IX.

Remember this:

Where you cited a Wikipedia article about an organization concerned with Title IX to justify your claim they’re not given “due process”.

It’s either bad faith or stupidity. Either way, I’m done engaging with it.

I appreciate the friend behind her helping her carry it. Solidarity.

But my original point stands if you’re going to describe yourself as something that is likely to be misunderstood you should choose different words.

You're the only one who misunderstood it. She doesn't need to change herself to please you.

Obviously being raped is worse. I’m not trying to start a competition or shouting match here.

My point is solely and entirely about the basic human right of due process: anyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty, no matter the gender or crime. That doesn’t mean don’t believe the accuser, but it means really take the charges seriously, investigate the crime to the best of your system’s abilities and if after all that there is insufficient evidence, there should be no conviction. Not by the justice system or the university. If he is guilty, as with any other crime, the system has failed. But until there is some major breakthrough, this is the best system we have.

As a more general point: the US is already falling into a society of lawlessness. Now you don’t have to go all Michelle Obama “When they go low, we go high” but at least don’t play their hand by inciting more lawlessness. I really don’t think you will win that war…

So two wrongs make a right? This person had their life horribly disrupted for reason A so an unrelated person should have their life horribly disrupted for reason B?

People should not be subject to arbitrary harm from others and we should be against all forms of it, whether that's sexual assault, economic coercion or lack of due process.

lack of due process.

When universities hide evidence, don't report to authorities, and otherwise dodge investigating rape accusations, then people aren't going to trust when they exonerate these men.

This is on the system that protects these rapists.

But until there is some major breakthrough, this is the best system we have.

Not when universities have the ability to hide evidence and obfuscate real investigations in order to protect these men. Which they have done time and time again.

This is not the best system we have. We can't even get the police to process rape kits.

Maybe she is proud of what she does and wants to put that forward. Maybe for her art is the easiest way to express her emotions and hence why she calls it that.

What is your hypothesis? Do you think she is taking advantage of something that happened to her just to advance her career? Or do you think she is actually making it up to farm popularity?

I’m not misunderstanding you. I think your struggling to follow your own conversation.

Ahhh so it is a Reddit argument you’re looking for. I can’t help you, but I will correct some errors:

You brought up FACE

Please read the comment above mine.

private colleges are not bound by the same rules if they don’t take government funding, expressed as government run.

And I replied to that with pointing that out as a problem.

Then you shifted

My initial comment:

fundamental principles of our society

vs.

basic human right

Potato potato.

cited a Wikipedia article about an organization concerned with Title IX to justify your claim they’re not given “due process”.

That’s your interpretation of it. And considering the upvote / downvote ratios in your screen shot I assume more people agree with me than with you.

It’s either bad faith or stupidity. Either way, I’m done engaging with it.

Not from my side anyway. Good luck and goodbye.

Then fight for a better system, like I said, but don’t incite lawlessness or start an argument with the one person advocating for due process.

I don’t see a Cornell in this story. Do you mean the university? (I honestly don’t know, not from the US)

If that’s the case: absolutely, the university should not have a say in what is a matter of the law.

the performance was carrying the mattress, and having to publicly face the added weight of being known as a rape victim or an accuser, there is a difference in people’s mind.

the performance was not getting raped.

Cornell is currently in the news for covering up a gang rape two years ago. It’s come out they withheld evidence from the DA and the police and DA never investigated properly.

Columbia has similar skeletons in their closet.

I don't know about this case, if that is true then its terrible and he should have been arrested, convicted and thrown out of the university. But the larger point stands, denying some people of due process because others are harmed in other ways is not something to strive for.

Why do you think these stories are getting such traction right now?

These investigations were corrupt.

The rape victims at these universities deserve due process as well. As in a legit investigation and not hiding of evidence to protect these men.

Due process is also a system that can make things like racism, sexism, nepotism harder. Also outside of universities people often feel like the legal system protects offenders, but it in a well functioning system it also protects them. After all, without due process, rape victims themselves can also be expelled by universities.

And when a legal system doesn't work, it needs fixing. People fought hard for legal protections to put in place in the first place.

Absolutely, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say anything suggesting otherwise, everyone deserves that. But that means not throwing people out of a university without evidence.

Over 90% of perpetrators of sexual assault and rape never see the inside of a courtroom.

It needs fixing.

Universities don’t throw people out because they hide the evidence

Actually it's a pre requisite for being a politician or clergy member.

Yeah, the grand jury thing is particularly damning.

For the unaware: The old joke among criminal defense lawyers is that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the District Attorney wants them to. The GJ is strictly an arm of the DA’s office, and a failure to indict basically always means the DA didn’t want to prosecute them. The DA has full control over what evidence the GJ gets to (or in this case, doesn’t get to) see.

The evidence they present doesn’t need to stand up to court scrutiny, because the GJ isn’t held to the same standards for evidence. The DA could basically scribble a “lol yeah I definitely did it -{Suspect}” note on a napkin and present it to the GJ as evidence of a confession. The fact that it won’t hold up in court doesn’t matter, because the GJ isn’t ruling on guilt. They’re just ruling on whether or not the DA has enough evidence to bother with a trial.

The DA can even withhold exculpatory evidence that would prove the suspect’s innocence, if they think the suspect can’t afford a good lawyer and they want to try and force the suspect into taking a plea deal. That is particularly common when they just need to close a particularly hot case, and they don’t really care who actually did the crime. They’ll basically frame some poor schmuck who has a good alibi, in the hopes that the person’s public defender talks them into taking a plea deal before it ever goes to trial.

“So why bother with all of this” I can already hear some of you typing… The answer is very simple: It’s because the DA is an elected position, and needs to consider their public image when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. For example, let’s say a cop kills a dude in the street. It’s on camera from 20 different angles. The public is out for blood. And it’s election season, so the DA’s public image is under a spotlight right now. But the police union has privately told the DA that if they prosecute the cop for murder, CSI will stop collecting evidence at crime scenes, and officers will suddenly refuse to testify as witnesses in the DA’s trials. This puts the DA in a bit of a pickle. Do they hold to what their electors want (and risk letting future criminals walk free), just to prosecute the one cop? Or do they let the cop walk away, angering the public and likely losing their upcoming election?

Enter the Grand Jury. The GJ is a super convenient scapegoat. They’re a shadowy group of faceless individuals, with no public presence and no way to defend themselves or justify their decisions. Their only job is to do what the DA wants them to do. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute this cop, but also wants to win their election. So the DA does something supremely scummy: They tell the public that they’re bringing the case to the GJ… And then they don’t actually bring any evidence for the GJ. The GJ can only rule on the evidence that was presented, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, they can withhold everything. So the GJ naturally refuses to indict, because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence.

And now the DA can jump in front of the news cameras, and yell about “I tried so hard to prosecute this case, but the big mean GJ refused to indict and now my hands are tied. But remember, I tried to fight for what you wanted! I heard your cries for justice, and did everything I could to prosecute that big mean killer cop. Vote for me!”

Again, the GJ can’t refute that statement, because they’re not publicly known. The GJ can’t go “hey uhh you actually didn’t bring a single fucking shred of evidence.” They can’t go “we actually would have indicted if you had actually tried.” They can’t go “you’re a lying sack of shit who is using us as a scapegoat.” The DA gets control of the evidence, but they also get control of the narrative.

So any time you see a DA claiming to be building a case for the GJ and then the GJ fails to indict, remember that it was because the DA didn’t want to charge them.

Link?

Jesus Christ

In agreement with every one of my other comments though what I struggle with is calling herself an artist because immediately this makes me think she is an entertainer and diminishes her position.

Being an artist and a rape victim are not mutually exclusive. Being an artist does not diminish her being a victim or advocating for rape victims.

I am.

I didn’t know about that, but I don’t know why it has any relevance to my comment: I’m advocating for due process and you pose an obstruction of that very due process as somehow contradictory to my statement.

Then reinvestigate and improve the system, but don’t let yourself fade into even more lawlessness. Like I said before, this is an arms race you will not win against the likes of Trump and his cronies. They will always one-up you in ways your own consciousness won’t even let you imagine.

Earns you a golden toilet even

Then reinvestigate and improve the system, but don’t let yourself fade into even more lawlessness.

What the fuck do you think we're doing when we talk openly about these things with righteous anger? What the fuck do you think we're doing when we demand that universities no longer sweep these accusations aside?

You have no idea the conversations you're actually having in here then.

This reminds me of a reddit post from a while ago. Dude is going to a university in the US. He's randomly contacted by campus police to let him know that a student has taken out a restraining order on him. He's a graduate student, and the student who took out the restraining order is from one of his classes that's typically for undergrads. Other than sharing that class, he doesn't know the student. Never even spoken to them. He's on a student visa, if he's expelled, he'll likely be deported. He's not allowed to speak to the student and campus police won't even tell him why the restraining order is in place.

After doing some investigation on his own, he finds out the student is dating one of his roommates, who he also doesn't know very well. The roommate is stalking the student, and another roommate is helping the stalker.

The student who took out the restraining order had seen him with the stalker at some point and, because the class they share is typically for undergrads, assumed he only took the class to keep an eye on the student for the stalker.

He was able to go to his graduate advisor about it and luckily it all got cleared up, the student withdrew the restraining order. But his whole academic career was nearly derailed because a random person was able to take out a restraining order on him with zero direct evidence, and there was no established means by which he could defend himself.

I don't understand why you equate the word artist with just entertainment. Yes entertainment could be consequence of art but often it is not the motivating reason. For many it is a way to express their feelings, like music or like poetry.

Geez Velma, calm the fuck down please. What is it with you trying to get into an argument with whoever you can? Why are you even arguing with someone who wants the same thing you do?

Digging up every old case and publicly shaming the alleged perpetrators is, and will always be the definition of lawless. You’re simply not a judge. You don’t know the facts nor the evidence.

I have an idea about the Wikipedia page I read. That is what I replied to. I also have an opinion about due process, which I am very well aware of.

You tried to pull some other case into it that I wasn’t even talking about and now you try to accuse me of having no idea about the entire discussion before that?

Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look like a fool? You really couldn’t do a better job if you tried.

That’s why you shouldn’t let university staff do police work or become Dredd (judge, jury & executioner). Professionals have trained for years to get this stuff right but “campus police” thinks they can do it without any proper training or investigation.

Public pressure can do wonders for making change.

Geez, Photonic, maybe if more people pushed back on some of the absolute horrid takes I've seen around, I wouldn't make it a point to be so outspoken.

Oh, it's your creepy ass again:

"What’s this then, Velma? Literally the next day I find you on the music community raging about pedophilia? The comment was supposed to be a sarcastic criticism about how you’re using the MAGA playbook to discredit politicians outside the US. You weren’t supposed to be taking notes… "'

Yeah I can continue to not give any of your opinions weight. Thanks!

Are you deliberately trying to make yourself look like a fool? You really couldn’t do a better job if you tried.

Says the person who stalked me to push that I'm a MAGA psyop. I don't attach any weight to any of your opinions.

Fucking immense face palm.

Is this the case in the US? It’s basically the opposite in sweden.

I am pushing back on your horrid take on lawlessness. If you think my take on advocating for due process is horrid I don’t know what to tell you. (I do, but you’ve gotten worked up enough already).

your creepy ass again

I left one public comment in a public forum and never talked to you again. Please explain in detail how that is creepy.

I can continue to not give any of your opinions weight.

You could, but it wouldn’t make you any better for it. And you really need some better.

Stalked? Where? Please enlighten me with your definition of stalking.
You’re leaving multiple comments to my one that wasn’t even a reply to you.

to push that I'm a MAGA psyop

Don’t tell me you actually bought that, Velma? That would be hilarious.