Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,191 posts)
23. So the accused should have few rights?
Wed May 6, 2020, 06:24 PM
May 2020

Think back a few decades. White woman accuses black man.

As the accused, it's appropriate for the black man to not be able to know what the accusations are until the investigation is complete? Not have a lawyer? Not be able to question his accuser?

We'd say that to the extent this actually was the case under Jim Crow it was due to white privilege.

Granted, it's not a criminal trial. But having on his transcript that he was chucked from college for sexual assault makes it clear that he can't apply to another college with expectations of enrollment, and can't use his college credit for a job application. And for those that require transcripts, the guy's committing fraud by not informing on himself. And if he's two years out of high school and doesn't fess up to college (which would mean handing over transcripts) he has to explain what he did for two years.

Even if the accuser is wrong, the accuser is right.

Colleges are afraid of the executive branch and take certain steps to make sure they get the money they need--steps which, in many cases, the administrators like because of shared ideology. Then the judicial branch slaps them down for violating constitutional safeguards.

Somebody upthread pointed out that to deny women the protections would reduce the number of charges filed. I guess it works the same for theft complaints, so property theft needs the same advantages for accusers. And hate crimes. And non-sexual assault.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Students accused of sexua...»Reply #23