4 ms·

Why should they have a lower burden of proof?

by mieseratte 7y ago

jayd16 7y ago
For starters its a civil vs criminal distinction.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The government is imposing penalties for criminal behavior. Classifying that as "civil" is a farce.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    You can be sued in civil court for criminal actions.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      You can be sued in civil court for money. You're not held in prison or kicked out of school by government fiat in the meantime. And the damages (if any) are imposed after the court proceeding. The exceptions are related to things like civil asset forfeiture, which are of questionable constitutionality and are similar to the rules we're discussing insofar as they are both worthy of contempt.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        A university tribunal is not government fiat, and a civil court has more power than simply issuing fines.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        A university tribunal that operates as a result of federal requirements is government fiat, and a civil court is primarily concerned with awarding damages rather than imposing penalties. That they sometimes do other things is evidence more that the legal system is messy and flawed than that the exceptions should be the rule.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Its an investigative process with procedure and hearings, its no more a fiat than a court is.
        caseysoftware 7y ago
        Except - as noted in article - none of the people involved are trained investigators, the starting position it to believe accusers (instead of being impartial), the accused are not allowed legal representation, and they're often under a tribunal-imposed gag order. There is nothing "just" in that situation. The protections afforded to both the accused and the accuser are to provide safeguards for everyone involved.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents. Because it's not a law, it can't be ruled on in court. Because it can't be ruled on, they use this form of arbitration to solve what would be a civil matter if the school was a private entity. Its not nearly as unreasonable as you make it seem.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents. The point in this case is that it isn't. Both the policy and the procedural rules are imposed by federal requirements. If it was actually a policy of the school then it would be non-uniform and students could avoid schools with unreasonable policies, or push for changes to the local policy that are more achievable than it is for an individual to change federal policy.
drewrv 7y ago
Because attending Harvard is a privilege, walking down a public sidewalk is a right.

Why should they have a lower burden of proof?

jayd16 7y ago

For starters its a civil vs criminal distinction.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The government is imposing penalties for criminal behavior. Classifying that as "civil" is a farce.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  You can be sued in civil court for criminal actions.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    You can be sued in civil court for money. You're not held in prison or kicked out of school by government fiat in the meantime. And the damages (if any) are imposed after the court proceeding. The exceptions are related to things like civil asset forfeiture, which are of questionable constitutionality and are similar to the rules we're discussing insofar as they are both worthy of contempt.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      A university tribunal is not government fiat, and a civil court has more power than simply issuing fines.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        A university tribunal that operates as a result of federal requirements is government fiat, and a civil court is primarily concerned with awarding damages rather than imposing penalties. That they sometimes do other things is evidence more that the legal system is messy and flawed than that the exceptions should be the rule.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Its an investigative process with procedure and hearings, its no more a fiat than a court is.
        caseysoftware 7y ago
        Except - as noted in article - none of the people involved are trained investigators, the starting position it to believe accusers (instead of being impartial), the accused are not allowed legal representation, and they're often under a tribunal-imposed gag order. There is nothing "just" in that situation. The protections afforded to both the accused and the accuser are to provide safeguards for everyone involved.
- jayd16 7y ago
  It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents. Because it's not a law, it can't be ruled on in court. Because it can't be ruled on, they use this form of arbitration to solve what would be a civil matter if the school was a private entity. Its not nearly as unreasonable as you make it seem.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > It would be ridiculous to have every school policy passed by state and local legislation. That power is delegated to academic reagents. The point in this case is that it isn't. Both the policy and the procedural rules are imposed by federal requirements. If it was actually a policy of the school then it would be non-uniform and students could avoid schools with unreasonable policies, or push for changes to the local policy that are more achievable than it is for an individual to change federal policy.

drewrv 7y ago

Because attending Harvard is a privilege, walking down a public sidewalk is a right.