- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already covers that.
But this isn't a matter of a college kicking the kid out because of race, color, religion, or national origin.
This is a matter of a business refusing to serve an unprotected class (potential rapist) because continuing to business with the kid could potentially damage the college's brand.
Doesn't a private business have a right, even a fiduciary responsibility, to protect its brand and its future profitability?
The texts were reported to the school by the girlfriend of the accused.(who happens to be the roommate of the alleged victim) It appears as though the school never followed up on them. You can see them for yourself in this video...There was more evidence, some of which is detailed in the article I linked to. I'm not going to read it to you. AFAIK, there was nothing preventing the accused from providing those texts to the school. The failure to do so was his.
The accuser claims that there was non-consensual sex
Even in a criminal trial, an admission that the accused had blacked out and had sex with the accuser would be considered evidence (but not proof) that a crime had been committed
'Accused is guilty': Campus rape tribunals punish without proof, critics say | Fox News
So this is where we are now with college rape cases? WTF?
This guy wasn't "convicted" of anything.
A private business decided that they didn't want him as a customer.
On the one hand conservatives and FOX News argue that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone they want (as long as that "anyone" is gay), yet on the other hand they argue that business should be required to provide service to anyone who wants it.
Do you even double-standard, bro?
His lawsuit is frivolous and stupid:
Destroy whose reputation?
Oh, right, John Doe's.
Yeah, I won't be doing any business with that "John Doe" any time in the near future, I tell you!
:roll:
dude needs to quit being a crybaby looking for an easy payday, take his transcripts to some other university somewhere, finish his degree, and move on with his life.
Yeah, I know, sometimes the world isn't "fair".
Boo, hoo.
Suck it up and quit being such a pansy.
soot thinks you need to just suck it up buttercup.What a colossal joke. As is typical with ANY idealism, and in this case extreme feminism, the pendulum was allowed to swing PAST justice and BACK into an area of unjust tyranny. These accusations ruin lives too. And when it is true it SHOULD. When it is NOT...it should ruin the life of the accuser.
The texts were reported to the school by the girlfriend of the accused.(who happens to be the roommate of the alleged victim) It appears as though the school never followed up on them. You can see them for yourself in this video...
Attorney for Amherst student accused of rape speaks out | On Air Videos | Fox News
It would appear that Amherst failed to do their due diligence in this case.
The accuser also claimed it was consensual. The next day. In writing. A year later she changed her mind.
Even there there is a difference. Is he blacked out but still functioning? Or, is he blacked out and passed out and things are being done to him while he is passive? (Generic question)
His lawsuit that he was EXPELLED WITHOUT CAUSE for a crime he DID NOT commit? Maybe if we started banning blacks from universities for crimes they MIGHT have committed you would sing a different tune? Or gays? Or women? But it doesn't count this time because it was a man?
Doe said he was not the kind of person who would do such a thing. But he told the disciplinary board he was so drunk that night he had no memory of the encounter.
“I didn’t want to address what had happened to me and I was in no position yet to accept that it had been rape. So in my text messaging [to counselor] I only said things about the hook-up as if it had been consensual.”
In this "John Doe's" own words:
So, he doesn't know what he did that night because he was staggering, blackout drunk, but it couldn't possibly have been what he was accused of.
Right.
And he bases all of this on the text message records of the girl he allegedly raped.
The girl says, of those text messages:
So I'm not willing to accept the argument (especially not in CAPS, as though it's some sort of well established fact) that this guy did nothing wrong.
Maybe he did.
Maybe he didn't.
But there is definitely a lot gray here.
And understand that this guy is not a defendant in a court of law.
The standard necessary to take administrative action against a student accused of rape is a lot lower than the standard necessary to convict a defendant of rape in a court of law.
Sorry dude, but the business is in the right here.
And both of her claims, though contradictory, are evidence
Which one seems more credible? By the other evidence gathered, and when all taken together, it would seem the one where she admitted it was consensual.And both of her claims, though contradictory, are evidence
Which one seems more credible? By the other evidence gathered, and when all taken together, it would seem the one where she admitted it was consensual.
I suspect the college chose the other because it was expedient for them.
Why do we, as a society, accept a private entity doling out justice regarding a criminal matter?
If one student murders another student, are we merely satisfied with expulsion? No, we're not. Rape is a serious crime, so we're told, and anywhere else we would demand proper criminal prosecution.
If an employee of a company were to rape another employee within a company facility, would we be satisfied... or even allow... only an in-house investigation and punishment? Again, no, we would not. And reasonably so.
Why the double-standard? Because one private business is a cultured university and the other is something else?
If anything, by continuing to allow and defend this double-standard is a clear sign that we still don't treat women with the respect in which we think we do. We're still willing to dumb down this crime when we wouldn't for other crimes.
And the best you have for his expulsion is "maybe he did and maybe he didn't?"
Are you ****ing kidding me?
If we were talking about a court of law I'd agree with you.
Not enough there to convict the guy.
But we're talking about a private concern making decisions that are in the best interest of the profit motive.
And to be clear, they aren't just making decisions "out of nowhere".
The kid was accused of rape. He can't establish to anyone's satisfaction that he didn't rape the girl. He doesn't even remember the night in question. His best defense is, "Hey now, I'm just not that kind of guy".
If the school allows the kid to stay they've got egg on their face.
They don't need the negative publicity.
It could cost them money.
If I were accused of rape tomorrow my employer would fire me for the same reasons.
I work in financial services.
The perception of trustworthiness and good judgement are important facets of our brand.
If the company is employing accused felons, what kind of message does that send to customers who are trusting us with billions of dollars?
Same thing for this private school.
It's a Little Ivy, the students and faculty it's able to attract and the tuition it's able to charge are directly tied to it's reputation.
It sucks when the little man gets run over by the bus, but they're running a business, not a charity.
You don't understand. Right or wrong is irrelevant. It's all about the profit motive.Let me ask you one VERY simple question: how would you feel if you were accused of rape and didn't do it? And specifically accused for a point in time when you were drunk?
Would your defense be...oh well I'm expelled I can't prove my innocence? Never mind that your guilt can't be ascertained by the university. Would you be so quick to concede that YOUR are a rapist?
Now. Let's look at this more. They couldn't convict him of rape. They EXPELLED him for it. They don't know he raped anyone. They don't have evidence. And now EVERYONE that knows this kid or has any information about his assumes he is a rapist. It doesn't matter if they didn't release his name. You think we can't find out?
He has to explain for the REST of his LIFE why he was expelled. And he was NEVER sentenced or found guilty. The only reason? Some girl THINKS he raped her. You are calling that justice? Acceptable?
Let's not forget that by ALLOWING this...you just set a precedent for ANY school to expel ANYONE who is arrested for ANY reason regardless of any conviction. You call that freedom? Would you support a company firing an employee who is arrested?
And it doesn't matter that this school is private. The kid was not found guilty. In the eyes of the law he is innocent. He was expelled for nothing.
You don't understand. Right or wrong is irrelevant. It's all about the profit motive.
Would you support a company firing an employee who is arrested?
You would if it were you or somebody you cared about.Since it's easier to respond to everything you said by simply answering this one question:
Yes, I would.
It's a private business.
It exists for one reason: to turn a profit for its stakeholders.
If the leadership of the business feels that an employee's arrest jeopardizes profit maximization then I support the business' right to fire that employee.
No, I don't care that the employee has to go through the rest of his life explaining why he lost that job or any subsequent hole in his resume.
You would if it were you or somebody you cared about.
Is that hypocritical?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?