Posted on Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.
U-M announces new sexual misconduct policy for students
By Paula Gardner
The University of Michigan - responding to federal requirements - recently changed its policy for how it handles allegations of sexual misconduct by students, according to a report in the Michigan Daily.
The policy lowers the standards for evidence when U-M investigates allegations of sexual harassment or violence, according to the report.
According to the Daily story: "Before, students needed to provide 'clear and convincing evidence' that an incident occurred. Now, students only need to meet the standard of a 'preponderance of evidence' to corroborate the allegation."
Read the report.
Comments
swcornell
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 9:25 p.m.
I think this change is an attempt to deal with cases that are called "he said-she said" situations that involve friends or acquaintances. Usually alcohol is involved. Whether consent is freely and validly given can be a murky issue. Often that issue becomes conflated with the post-event emotions that participants experience. These type of cases of misconduct are usually not properly resolved in court for all parties. When I was a teen and college age and we had real friends (not Facebook friends). These misbehavior and harassment issue were resolved by a "talking to" by the victims friends. They rarely required a second "talking to".
Nick Roumel
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
As an attorney who has participated in several of these cases, I am concerned. This change relates to complaints made under the UM Code of Student Conduct found at: <a href="http://oscr.umich.edu/statement/index.html" rel='nofollow'>http://oscr.umich.edu/statement/index.html</a> When a student is accused of an offense under the Code, a hearing is scheduled. The student may have an attorney or advisor present but the attorney or advisor may not participate. In other words, the student has to handle cross examination of the accuser. Additionally, rules of evidence are not followed. Hearsay evidence is permitted. There may or may not be concurrent criminal proceedings. Often criminal proceedings are not brought, or brought and dismissed, or the student may even be found not guilty. None of that has any bearing on proceedings under the Code. A decision is made by a single volunteer faculty member, or panel of students, depending on which forum is chosen. Nobody wants sexual assaults on campus, but the vast majority of these cases are what are called "he said-she said" situations that involve friends or acquaintances. Usually alcohol is involved. Whether consent is freely and validly given can be a murky issue. Often that issue becomes conflated with the post-event emotions that participants experience. Once a finding is made, it is required to be reported in a variety of ways pursuant to federal regulations. For a student applying to graduate schools and/or jobs, it is a death sentence that can never be erased. Even aside from the mandatory reporting, if ever faced with an application of any sort that asks if you've ever been sanctioned at a college or university, one must truthfully self-report. This never goes away and can never be expunged. I have rarely encounted anyone at UM who fully understands all the ramifications. Criminal, civil, and PPO remedies are more than adequate to deal with sexual assault. UM does not need this change. It is not legally required. It is the wrong thing to do. Nick Roumel
ChelseaBob
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 11:12 a.m.
I agree with trespass. If you are expelled from college because of an accusation of rape, your life is ruined. Getting onto another school, finding a job? All those things are gone. Since rape and sexual harrassment are already crimes and since there is already a criminal justice system in place, why is the university even involved in this? It would seem that a rape victim should go to the police, who are trained to handle this. And then it would go to a prosecutor who is also trained, and to a judge, who understands the law. Creating a parallel legal system can only have one purpose, and that is to apply a different standard of justice.
trespass
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
The excuse that this is in response to new federal requirements is a lie, which is evident because the UM administration tried to get this same change passed more than a year ago. At first the MSA agreed but when the Faculty Senate warned the students what this could mean, they quickly changed their minds. The Administration will just keep coming back until they get the policy they want. To heck with what the students or faculty want. If you are a male student accused of "date rape" the standard of proof is whether the accuser is more credible than you are. If so, you will be expelled and just try getting into another good school with that on your record. Add to that that the UM lawyers argue in court that you are not entitled to due process, so you can't sue them for expelling you. Who will be your judge. It will not be an actual judge or even a trained professional but rather a panel of administrators and perhaps a student. There will be no appeal to the courts. Once again the University Administration gets complete control of your life and you have no rights. If you don't like it then pay attention to the next election for the Board of Regents and vote out the culprits who agreed to this policy.
Michigan Reader
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 10:26 p.m.
Hold on everyone--This is the SCHOOL'S policy change. This doesn't relate to criminal prosecutions. It has to do with the school's ability to suspend, expel, or whatever the student code of conduct says. The burden in criminal cases is still " beyond a reasonable doubt". And the finder of fact, either a jury or judge, is the party to define that term.
The Picker
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.
The University sold its soul when they accepted those first federal funds.
Top Cat
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
"federal requirements"....Our Federal Government can't control its expenditures, can't maintain its credit rating, can't conclude wars, can't control our borders....but sees fit to meddle in such things as this.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
In related news, if you utter the words "she's a witch" anywhere near a female student, she will be promptly burned at the stake, using a new accelerant carefully designed to reduce the carbon dioxide released when burning coeds. Using the phrase "she's a witch" without a preponderance of evidence that she is, indeed, casting spells and causing havoc amongst the woodland creatures shall be punishable by having to spend an afternoon in the diag protesting your parents' ability to pay your tuition bills.
Kade
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 7:43 p.m.
"Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. This is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. " Here is why this is a good thing: If a person is assaulted by means other than forced bodily intercourse (use your imagination here) they will be able to actually report this offense under the new standard and have it be credibly evaluated, whereas before bodily proof (i.e. DNA as clear and convincing evidence) had to be present. The offense in question still has to be credibly evaluated by authorities as being more likely true than not by a standard of 50% or greater. More importantly, under the previous standards of clear and convincing evidence, if a victim did not report quite soon after the rape occurred, then physical evidence might be lost and any witnesses difficult to find; making successful prosecution more difficult. Example: a victim does not report the assault until a week later—does this mean it didn't happen? Under the clear and convincing standard, prosecutors would not have a viable case as the evidence will have been lost. This enactment will also hopefully somewhat alleviate what is known as the rape kit backlog issue. Because of limited capacities and cost, laboratories are forced to prioritize their cases based upon court dates and whether or not a suspect has been identified. This oftentimes leaves those cases for which there are no known (read: stranger rape) suspects unanalyzed in evidence or laboratory storage. When there are no known suspects, rape kits sit unanalyzed as evidentiary standards which results in a lack of prosecution. Let's not jump to conclusions about "peter wolfing" sexual assault.
cinnabar7071
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
Welcome to crazy land.
redwingshero
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
Harassment by a preponderance of evidence? This isn't the People's Court or a civil trial here. Accusing someone of this is serious business. Once someone puts it out there, it is hard to get it out of people's minds, regardless if their are innocent or guilty of it. So a 'he said, she said' (or any potential combination) accusation would result in the accused being punished? Tread lightly...
Joe_Citizen
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
What ever that means? So, anyone can get back on someone who they are mad at and stick them in prison. This is going too far to say the least. What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Nobody pays attention to the Constitution anymore.
Ricebrnr
Fri, Oct 7, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
ohhh trouble comin