3 ms·
> So, to be clear, you think it's okay to ruin people's lives because one woman doesn't like them? I don't know how you could possibly take that away from my p
by deciplex 10y ago
> So, to be clear, you think it's okay to ruin people's lives because one woman doesn't like them?
I don't know how you could possibly take that away from my post unless you are being deliberately ignorant and selectively ignoring things I write. I quite clearly stated that I think the tribunals doing this stuff now are too often full of shit and that the federal regulations governing their behavior need to be reworked and that the result of the reworking (i.e. as a goal of the policy) should be that these tribunals find fewer people guilty than they do now, resulting in FEWER EXPULSIONS THAN WE SEE NOW.
If a university expels a students because they have arrived at the conclusion that they believe, with let's say 3:2 odds on, that a particular student did in fact commit a rape, then I have no problem with that. That is, however, substantially less than the burden of proof typically required to obtain a criminal conviction. Moreover, I don't think that the findings of that tribunal, after the expelling the student, should have a serious impact on that student's ability to successfully apply for admittance to some other school.
- morgante 10y agoSorry, I don't think I read your comment closely enough. I interpreted "creeps everyone the fuck out and is probably a rapist" as a euphemism for a simple rape accusation (since, in practice, that's sometimes what's going on). Your other ideas are solid and I definitely think students who are expelled should have an easier time applying elsewhere. However, I think in practice these tribunals are too corrupt and incompetent to do any good. They're too susceptible to activism by students on campus and hence it seems unlikely they'll ever provide justice—even to a lesser standard than courts.