Female Student Said, 'I'm Fine and I Wasn't Raped.' University Investigated, Expelled Boyfriend Anyw - Polidicks

[QUOTE=plunger435;50169043]Except we haven't actually seen anything from the accuser on the matter yet. So we have to go with what only one side is saying.[/QUOTE] Except the accuser is essentially irrelevant because they aren't the purported victim, and their "Omg must be rape" reasoning was a hicky and the supposed victim explaining that she had sex with her friend/boyfriend.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50169302]Except the accuser is essentially irrelevant because they aren't the purported victim, and their "Omg must be rape" reasoning was a hicky and the supposed victim explaining that she had sex with her friend/boyfriend.[/QUOTE] We only know that because that's what the prosecution says. There still isn't a full story from both sides. Which is what you would expect from a fair trial.

Way to fuck up someones future. Why do universities have the power to investigate and do shit like that anyways, this just sickens me.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50168917]I don't see how the accuser is advocating social justice though. It seems like he thought someone he knew was raped, reported it, and the university blew it out of proportion.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about this case specifically. I'm just pointing out that his "dont use terms you dont understand" doesn't recognize what the term has come to mean - a radical person who distorts the ideas behind social justice to where they aren't even recognizable anymore.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50169302]Except the accuser is essentially irrelevant because they aren't the purported victim, and their "Omg must be rape" reasoning was a hicky and the supposed victim explaining that she had sex with her friend/boyfriend.[/QUOTE] While the investigation was triggered from her overreaction, the final decision appears to be based on the fact that for a brief moment, he stuck it in without a condom before she told him she wasn't on birth control, so he asked if he should wear a condom, she said yes, he did, and they did the deed. Which is exactly why universities should not be involved in this sort of bullshit. Their extremely broad and backwards definitions of "rape" include these sorts of situations where it was a mistake and technically "rape" in the sense that she didn't want to fuck without a condom, which did happen for an extremely brief moment, despite it being an honest mistake that was easily resolved in a few seconds and left no damage. The only thing that left any sort of damage was the university barging in and arbitrarily defining it as a serious, career-ending event against everyone's will (besides the radical SJWs that assume all sex is rape). A judge would obviously realize this is stupid. But a university, for some reason, is bound by these ridiculous definitions and enforces them to the point of foolishness.

[QUOTE=Amic;50169347]Way to fuck up someones future. Why do universities have the power to investigate and do shit like that anyways, this just sickens me.[/QUOTE] I reckon they're super on edge after all the negative attention the frathouse date rape stories brought around so they're going in the extreme opposite direction.

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50169500]I reckon they're super on edge after all the negative attention the frathouse date rape stories brought around so they're going in the extreme opposite direction.[/QUOTE] Funny, I've heard more of those stories turning out to be false then those that actually happened. Not saying they don't happen. But the ones the media latches on to turn out to be fabrications.

[QUOTE=elfbarf;50168333][url]http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/19/csu-pueblo-grant-neal-suspension-consensual-sex/[/url] [url]http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29786112/csu-student-sues-college-sanctioning-him-what-he[/url] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sexual-assault-lawsuit-education-department_us_57165996e4b0018f9cbb2a55[/url] yeah it's all made up because you don't like it[/QUOTE] Thats not what hes saying.

[QUOTE=bitches;50168443]Sounds like you don't actually know what sjw means.[/QUOTE]that's rich coming from you

I'd blame this more on the existence of OCR's Title IX. It gives educational institutions the power to investigate, and act as its own courthouse when there are events regarding inappropriate sexual behavior. Not to say the concept is bad, but we shouldn't be relying on a bunch of professors, students, and advisors to make the call whether someones guilty or not, and this is an example as to why its bad. This should be handled by the police. Title IX shouldn't include the power for institutions to intervene in any way besides keeping those who they think/reported were raped safe from the suspected perpetrator, and give counseling.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50169765]Universities can do whatever the fuck they want only considering their PR in USA because they are so independent and unaccoutable, this male athlete should be able to sue the Uni for deprivation of education rights or discrimination or whatever and get bazillion amount of money but sadly it doesn't work that way. Really, how is this not a liability on the University?[/QUOTE] Title IX I imagine.

[QUOTE=bitches;50168443]Sounds like you don't actually know what sjw means.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=bitches;50168515]The motive doesn't fit. I'd you're going to throw around buzzwords, use them correctly at least.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=plunger435;50168917]I don't see how the accuser is advocating social justice though.[/QUOTE]"Social Justice Warriors" are adult children disconnected from reality and have absolutely fuck-all to do with anything peripherally related to "equality." They're the type of ~feminist~ who scoffs at the women of the 70's and 80's who had the audacity to put on the business suit and shoulder pads and come out on top in a man's world instead of cry about how unfair it all is and get the standards lowered. Your average SJW is a sniveling crybaby who doesn't rise to meet challenges, they actively seek to lower their environment down to their level so they can survive. Sure, you may have some weird narrative in your head about what being a social justice warrior!!! really means but in reality they're just annoying, destructive sacks of shit. I really don't care if this upsets you, Minneapolis is full of these fucking people, and (to give a specific example) every time I see a real-life tumblrina on the lightrail chattering about how she "needs to hit social media" about vapid bullshit I silently pray the train derails over the Mississippi. [QUOTE=plunger435;50169043]Except we haven't actually seen anything from the accuser on the matter yet. So we have to go with what only one side is saying.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=plunger435;50169290]This isn't some forum post. It's a real life matter that is about to result in real prosecution eventually the accusers side will have to come out.[/QUOTE]Congratulations, you have missed the fucking point. You're going "but we need to hear both sides" when we've already heard both sides, plaintiff and defendant, both of whom are saying "nah actually no please stop this isn't like that." You want a comparable "real-life matter" to compare this two? Black guy lives with white chick, they have sex, suddenly he's arrested, put on trial, and convicted of miscegenation and rape and hanged for his troubles. All the while his white girlfriend is screaming and crying about how none of that happened, the only difference is the Klan here is a bunch of dumb motherfuckers and one liar who couldn't resist the urge to destroy everything around her. Fuck it, what do I know? Those "radicals" are only found in the dark recesses of the internet and real people don't actually act like that!!!!

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50170403]"Social Justice Warriors" are adult children disconnected from reality and have absolutely fuck-all to do with anything peripherally related to "equality." They're the type of ~feminist~ who scoffs at the women of the 70's and 80's who had the audacity to put on the business suit and shoulder pads and come out on top in a man's world instead of cry about how unfair it all is and get the standards lowered. Your average SJW is a sniveling crybaby who doesn't rise to meet challenges, they actively seek to lower their environment down to their level so they can survive. Sure, you may have some weird narrative in your head about what being a social justice warrior!!! really means but in reality they're just annoying, destructive sacks of shit. I really don't care if this upsets you, Minneapolis is full of these fucking people, and (to give a specific example) every time I see a real-life tumblrina on the lightrail chattering about how she "needs to hit social media" about vapid bullshit I silently pray the train derails over the Mississippi. Congratulations, you have missed the fucking point. [B]You're going "but we need to hear both sides" when we've already heard both sides, plaintiff and defendant, both of whom are saying "nah actually no please stop this isn't like that." You want a comparable "real-life matter" to compare this two? Black guy lives with white chick, they have sex, suddenly he's arrested, put on trial, and convicted of miscegenation and rape and hanged for his troubles. All the while his white girlfriend is screaming and crying about how none of that happened, the only difference is the Klan here is a bunch of dumb motherfuckers and one liar who couldn't resist the urge to destroy everything around her. Fuck it, what do I know? Those "radicals" are only found in the dark recesses of the internet and real people don't actually act like that!!!![/B][/QUOTE] No one cares what a SJW is in this thread because it isn't related to this issue at all. No one's trying to push some agenda or anything, someone reported someone for a sex crime and it was investigated privately, where did they take the case to social media or create some narrative? If you had actually bothered to read the articles posted you'd know the actual trial has the defendants as the University and Department of Education who were instructed by their legal consul to not comment pending litigation. You can't complain about the university not giving a fair trial and then go ahead and not wait for a fair trial for the university in return that's just hypocritical. The bolded part is all the hypocrisy of criticizing the university for performing their own trial while you're doing the same exact thing as them, but of course it's okay when you do it because you read a Huffingtonpost piece on the matter, you're educated on the issue.

[QUOTE=bitches;50168443]Sounds like you don't actually know what sjw means.[/QUOTE] "sjw" see also, "puritan" [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170441]But the charge is actually sexual misconduct and not rape. Also wishing death upon people is not cool. And I dont really understand how your anectodes tie with this story.[/QUOTE] CAN FACEPUNCH LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN "ANECDOTE" AND A "HYPOTHETICAL" ALREADY??? It isn't difficult to understand!

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170466]No one cares what a SJW is in this thread because it isn't related to this issue at all. No one's trying to push some agenda or anything, someone reported someone for a sex crime and it was investigated privately, where did they take the case to social media or create some narrative? If you had actually bothered to read the articles posted you'd know the actual trial has the defendants as the University and Department of Education who were instructed by their legal consul to not comment pending litigation. You can't complain about the university not giving a fair trial and then go ahead and not wait for a fair trial for the university in return that's just hypocritical. The bolded part is all the hypocrisy of criticizing the university for performing their own trial while you're doing the same exact thing as them, but of course it's okay when you do it because you read a Huffingtonpost piece on the matter, you're educated on the issue.[/QUOTE] Why is it okay for a third party to report a "crime" when they have none of the context or authority to do so and why should we be supporting the system through which universities dole out harsh, and ill-thought out punishment?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170441]But the charge is actually sexual misconduct and not rape.[/QUOTE]Oh, so then everything is okay I guess! Did you miss the part where this guy is expelled for a sex crime his "victim" has been repeatedly saying he didn't commit? That actually happened. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170441]Also wishing death upon people is not cool. And I dont really understand how your anectodes tie with this story.[/QUOTE]Sure it is, it's a welcome relief to pray "please spirits above, divine intervention us all straight into the water so I do not have to hear any more of this shit." You're supposed to be quiet on the train anyway, but you're right, it doesn't tie into the story so much as explains how I truly detest people who think segregation is somehow a good thing, "some people are more equal than others" is a mantra worth repeating, and "tearing down the establishment" means completely destroying the civilized, productive society that's given them an opportunity to make up problems. [QUOTE=plunger435;50170466]The defendant in the trial is the University and Department of Education who were instructed by their legal consul to not comment pending litigation. You can't complain about the university not giving a fair trial and then go ahead and not wait for a fair trial for the university in return that's just hypocritical.[/QUOTE]Missed the point [I]again![/I] I'm not talking about the defendant in an actual court rather than the kangaroo "whatever we say goes" bullshit that the university had when they "suspended" the guy. You know why the chick is named "Jane Doe" in this? She's the "victim" and when the university looked at the situation they acted on her behalf. Literally Jim Crow bullshit in action, which is why there's an actual trial and it's why the legal counsel has said in no uncertain terms, "shut the fuck up, talk to nobody about this," because they're fucked six ways from Sunday. See I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm assuming you're not arguing on the university's behalf simply because a creature with a penis is on the opposite side. I'm giving you a lot of slack here, but when you say "but you can't complain about not having a fair trial and then not wait for another!!" it makes me question what you're actually thinking here. [editline]20th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=plunger435;50170466]The bolded part is all the hypocrisy of criticizing the university for performing their own trial while you're doing the same exact thing as them, but of course it's okay when you do it because you read a Huffingtonpost piece on the matter, you're educated on the issue.[/QUOTE]Here's the thing though, I'm not in charge of anything. I'm not presiding over a trial, I'm not on a jury, I'm just a guy on the internet [B]so yes it is actually okay for me to pass judgement.[/B] You would have a point if I had some authority on the matter and in such a case I would absolutely stick to proper judicial process. I wouldn't even be posting about it on Facepunch out of concerns for the privacy of the participants and the integrity of the court. I [I]highly[/I] doubt you would be so honest.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50170520] Missed the point [I]again![/I] I'm not talking about the defendant in an actual court rather than the kangaroo "whatever we say goes" bullshit that the university had when they "suspended" the guy. You know why the chick is named "Jane Doe" in this? She's the "victim" and when the university looked at the situation they acted on her behalf. Literally Jim Crow bullshit in action, which is why there's an actual trial and it's why the legal counsel has said in no uncertain terms, "shut the fuck up, talk to nobody about this," because they're fucked six ways from Sunday. See I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm assuming you're not arguing on the university's behalf simply because a creature with a penis is on the opposite side. I'm giving you a lot of slack here, but when you say "but you can't complain about not having a fair trial and then not wait for another!!" it makes me question what you're actually thinking here.[/QUOTE] Then why did you quote posts of mine clearly talking about the actual court case and then wildly take it out of context and try to apply it to the in house trial of the university. You say you knew my intent, then why did you purposefully misconstrue it? [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50170520] [editline]20th April 2016[/editline] Here's the thing though, I'm not in charge of anything. I'm not presiding over a trial, I'm not on a jury, I'm just a guy on the internet [B]so yes it is actually okay for me to pass judgement.[/B] You would have a point if I had some authority on the matter and in such a case I would absolutely stick to proper judicial process. I wouldn't even be posting about it on Facepunch out of concerns for the privacy of the participants and the integrity of the court. I [I]highly[/I] doubt you would be so honest.[/QUOTE] I never said you can't do it, just don't give a diatribe from a moral high ground while doing the same thing you're complaining about.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50170515]Why is it okay for a third party to report a "crime" when they have none of the context or authority to do so and why should we be supporting the system through which universities dole out harsh, and ill-thought out punishment?[/QUOTE] Third parties are always allowed to report crimes though? You see someone getting stabbed in an alleyway you're not the victim nor the perpetrator, but you have a duty to report the crime, that's how the criminal justice works. You shouldn't punish someone for honestly reporting a crime they believe had been committed, you should punish the system that erroneously found them guilty of it.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170556]Third parties are always allowed to report crimes though? You see someone getting stabbed in an alleyway you're not the victim nor the perpetrator, but you have a duty to report the crime, that's how the criminal justice works. You shouldn't punish someone for honestly reporting a crime they believe had been committed, you should punish the system that erroneously found them guilty of it.[/QUOTE] So if we both worked at the same company, and I overheard a woman saying she had sex with you recently. I assume, that it was rape. I tell the boss. He assumes I'm right and that I'm not de-contextualizing things. He fires you. This is totally fair, and only after you've lost your job, should you have the ability to legally call into question this nonsense okay.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50170577]So if we both worked at the same company, and I overheard a woman saying she had sex with you recently. I assume, that it was rape. I tell the boss. He assumes I'm right and that I'm not de-contextualizing things. He fires you. This is totally fair, and only after you've lost your job, should you have the ability to legally call into question this nonsense okay.[/QUOTE] That's not what you were arguing though, you're clearly arguing that third parties shouldn't be able to report possible crimes. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50170515]Why is it okay for a third party to report a "crime" when they have none of the context or authority to do so and why should we be supporting the system through which universities dole out harsh, and ill-thought out punishment?[/QUOTE] Given your previous post and this post, if you had honestly believed that I had raped someone and told the boss, the boss would be at fault not you. There should never be a criminal justice system that punishes people for reporting crimes they believe took place.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170554]Okay I am not an expert but I think they are speaking about rape there, and I told you, even though rape was an initial charge, the current charge of the ORC is sexual misconduct. You are an American Native, you speak english, you should know better than I do. But I believe in "sexual misconduct" both trainee and trainer are the perpetrators. Actually I dont really know why I am trying to rationally debate with you. Keep punching the SJW boogeyman maybe one day youll manage to make a point.[/QUOTE] I believe his point is that sexual misconduct is a an excuse to keep him suspended after realizing they have no right to deem him a rapist. Which honestly with colleges today is not a bad assumption to make. But hey, your childish mockery makes a great argument.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170545]Then why did you quote posts of mine clearly talking about the actual court case and then wildly take it out of context and try to apply it to the in house trial of the university. You say you knew my intent, then why did you purposefully misconstrue it?[/QUOTE]I didn't know your intent, sorry about that! [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170554]You are an American Native, you speak english, you should know better than I do. But I believe in "sexual misconduct" both trainee and trainer are the perpetrators.[/QUOTE]Then why no equal convictions? Why is she still there and he's gone? Fine, I'll grant you some translation errors because you think in Turkish and there's a long way from that to English so maybe the words are forming differently in your mind, but the fact is he was charged for something despite the "victim" insisting that is not what happened. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170554]Actually I dont really know why I am trying to rationally debate with you. Keep punching the SJW boogeyman maybe one day youll manage to make a point.[/QUOTE]Well clearly it's not just a boogeyman now is it? Universities are full of sexist bullshit, and they're at the root of it. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50170562]Can someone tell me what sexual misconduct means? I am 99% sure it means inappropriate relationship of an authority figure with a subordinate but everybody refefring to Doe as "victim" makes me confused.[/QUOTE]That would be one interpretation of it, yes, but the case here has mentions of sexual assault. (according to the university's reason for suspending him) They went after him rather than her because of the complaint's (I believe that says that in the article, might me mistaken) language detailing the relationship. Doe's message to Neal said "she's saying things that aren't true" which is [I]very[/I] strong evidence that the language detailed in the complaint was what caused the whole issue. Had it been mere sexual misconduct there would have been reprimands. This is beyond that, sexual assault is a felony in the real world and had the university's decision been extended to a criminal sentence he would get a minimum of fifteen? years in prison. (too lazy to look up the precise law for that state) Of course that would never happen, mostly because actual criminal justice courts rely on fucking evidence and if the victim says "no, that didn't happen" the case wouldn't even go to trial.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170466] You can't complain about the university not giving a fair trial and then go ahead and not wait for a fair trial for the university in return that's just hypocritical.[/QUOTE] You WHAT? We're not allowed to complain about a man being expelled for consensual sex with his girlfriend because we havent gone through a separate trial to decide a moral compass for us? "university trials" are not real trials. Understand this very clearly, they are kangaroo courts where some idiots arbitrarily decide, intentionally disregarding key aspects of our justice system, how to punish people based solely on hearsay from third parties who have no involvement. equating the university's sham with any real justice process is absurd. I will make this extremely clear for you since you have so much trouble/refuse to read what people are writing, universities should not be holding trials for criminal accusations at all. It is not about giving him a "fair trial" its about them having a trial in the first place. The only thing we need to sit and wait for the upcoming trial to see the university's floundering to reduce liability, and decide is whether this practice will finally be outlawed entirely or whether this man alone will be reimbursed for his trouble.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170605]That's not what you were arguing though, you're clearly arguing that third parties shouldn't be able to report possible crimes. Given your previous post and this post, if you had honestly believed that I had raped someone and told the boss, the boss would be at fault not you. There should never be a criminal justice system that punishes people for reporting crimes they believe took place.[/QUOTE] My point is that action shouldn't be taken without some verification. Your point seems to be that it's perfectly fine for non legal "action" to be taken in absence of the evidence. My point would be that maybe that's not a good way to do things.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50170676]You WHAT? We're not allowed to complain about a man being expelled for consensual sex with his girlfriend because we havent gone through a separate trial to decide a moral compass for us? "university trials" are not real trials. Understand this very clearly, they are kangaroo courts where some idiots arbitrarily decide, intentionally disregarding key aspects of our justice system, how to punish people based solely on hearsay from third parties who have no involvement. equating the university's sham with any real justice process is absurd. I will make this extremely clear for you since you have so much trouble/refuse to read what people are writing, universities should not be holding trials for criminal accusations at all. It is not about giving him a "fair trial" its about them having a trial in the first place. The only thing we need to sit and wait for the upcoming trial to see the university's floundering to reduce liability, and decide is whether this practice will finally be outlawed entirely or whether this man alone will be reimbursed for his trouble.[/QUOTE] "That university just listened to one side of the story before they were convinced he was guilty of the crime!" "Should we wait to hear the universities side of it before we are convinced they are guilty of this?" "No!" I'm not defending the university, I'm saying it's silly to go around doing the exact same kind of 'investigation' they did, then criticize them for it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50170692]My point is that action shouldn't be taken without some verification. Your point seems to be that it's perfectly fine for non legal "action" to be taken in absence of the evidence. My point would be that maybe that's not a good way to do things.[/QUOTE] Could you go and highlight one of my posts where I said the university was justified in their actions, because what I've actually said it let's wait and see what both sides have to say on the subject. You also seemed to completely ignore my rebuttal to your argument that third parties should never be able to report crimes, which is a terrible idea.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170716]Could you go and highlight one of my posts where I said the university was justified in their actions, because what I've actually said it let's wait and see what both sides have to say on the subject.[/QUOTE] I don't have to find an explicit declaration when you've been saying it implicitly constantly.

Fuck my state

[QUOTE=plunger435;50170703]"That university just listened to one side of the story before they were convinced he was guilty of the crime!" "Should we wait to hear the universities side of it before we are convinced they are guilty of this?" "No!" I'm not defending the university, I'm saying it's silly to go around doing the exact same kind of 'investigation' they did, then criticize them for it.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, the "exact" kind of investigation they did, where we ignore all the parties involved and convict people based on random third parties that later retract their own accusations. Oh wait, no, we've heard from everyone involved already, oops. Im saying that there is no similarity here. Your assertion that anyone who has a problem with this is a hypocrite because we haven't waited for a different trial to finish is completely unfounded.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50170727]I don't have to find an explicit declaration when you've been saying it implicitly constantly.[/QUOTE] Then go find an example of me subtly implying the university was justified. If I was doing it as much as you claim you could have found an example in the time it took to type that post.