Rape

Expulsion Now Mandatory for Dartmouth Students Convicted By Campus Rape Tribunal Under Low Evidence Standard

Automatically expelling all students found guilty of rape is a perfectly defensible policy, but only if guilt is adjudicated in an actual criminal trial.

|

Dartmouth
Wikimedia Commons

Dartmouth College is now expelling all students found guilty of sexual assault through the campus judiciary process. Inside Higher Ed notes that automatic expulsion is precisely what many activists want, although some colleges have settled on a dubious compromise: make convictions clear and easy but punishments light.

It's a compromise that pleases no one—and shouldn't. Universities are essentially letting the convicted off lightly as compensation for the fact that the campus judicial process—which often does not following normal rules of evidence or due process—is fundamentally unjust. As Inside Higher Ed notes:

The compromise may be doing little to appease either side, with lawsuits still being filed by the accused and protests being staged by survivors and other students. Dartmouth's decision received praise from some student groups and safety advocates, but other colleges and universities may be slow to adopt similar policies, even as many advocates for sexual violence survivors are pushing for expulsion to be the default punishment.

… In recent months, a handful of institutions, including Amherst College, Duke University and Vassar College, have put more emphasis on expulsion as a penalty, but stop short of making it mandatory. Duke's is perhaps the closest to Dartmouth's, with a policy that refers to expulsion in cases of sexual misconduct as the "preferred sanction." For the most part, however, colleges and universities still decide upon expulsion on a case-by-case basis, as they would for many other types of misconduct on campus.

… Last year, the University of Michigan expelled a former football player for an alleged sexual assault in 2009, and earlier this year—for the first time in at least a decade—the University of Iowa also expelled a student accused of sexual assault.

No criminal charges have been brought against any of the men, and neither of the universities has a default expulsion policy for cases of sexual assault. Instead, they follow the Campus SaVE Act's broader requirement for addressing assaults, which only mandates that university policies include "possible sanctions or protective measures" that institutions can impose in cases of rape, sexual assault, and other kinds of domestic and dating violence. [Emphasis added.]

Is it wrong to expect that when a student becomes the victim of a sexual crime, that person should notify the police and seek justice under typical criminal procedures? Does student status confer some special right to have criminal complaints adjudicated under a much lower standard of evidence, with fewer rights retained by the accused?

Automatically expelling all students found guilty of rape is a perfectly defensible policy, but only if guilt is adjudicated in an actual criminal trial.

NEXT: Steven Greenhut Says Feel-Good Plastic Bag Bans Cost You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do they get their tuition back?

    1. HA! They probably aren’t even allowed to terminate their dorm lease.

      1. And the feds make your student loans due immediately.

  2. It is clearly time to head for law school. I have a business model and I’m going to be rich.

  3. See, they tie their hands and toss ’em in the lake over there. Why, if they don’t drown, they’re guilty and they kill ’em!

    1. So if you weigh the same as a duck , you are made of wood and therefore you’re a rapist, but not the kind of rapist that we send to jail.

      1. Who are you who is so wise in the ways of scien…er law?

      2. Who are you who is so wise in the ways of scien…er law?

  4. The plaintiff’s bar now has universities on their targeting list for this.

    I think it will work itself out in the most painful, messy, expensive, and generally most inefficient way.

    I look forward the universities arguing that they don’t owe any damages because someone who is expelled isn’t really losing anything of value.

    1. it’s not like they’re throwing young men in prison . . .

    2. Hmm, that may be a flaw in the plan.

      ” We threw him out after 2 years, he didn’t waste $95000 more on this useless degree. We did him a favor”

      That’s a tough argument

      1. Yes, “Our degrees are overpriced and useless!” is a good legal defense (albeit one that opens the door to fraud claims), but not the best marketing strategy.

    3. The universities will just argue that you agreed to all this when you signed on to attend. And they will win because that’s exactly what happened. If you didn’t want to submit to this policy then you could have attended some other school.

      (I’m not saying Dartmouth is right to do this, I’m just saying this action is legal so long as they made you sign on for it when you started going there.)

      1. The universities will just argue that you agreed to all this when you signed on to attend.

        Contracts of adhesion, anyone?

        Unenforceable contract as contrary to public policy and law, perhaps?

        Not to mention, I’d be curious to see exactly what the contract language really is.

        1. Interesting. First, most libertarians I know are not supporters of the ‘contracts of adhesion’ and contrary to public policy exceptions (well, in some areas at least). But secondly, what would be the arguments those apply here? Pretty easy to walk away from one college and go to another.

      2. There have been reports of some successful lawsuits where the institution did not follow or changed in the middle of the term the procedures for this sort of thing spelled out in their student codes when the student contracted with them, but yes, where it’s spelled out ahead of time the only ‘right’ is the right to have the contractual procedures followed.

        The real problem is the feds and states leaning on institutions to change their policies and procedures, but, as we can see here, often pressure does and would come from outside. More and more colleges are 60% female served or higher and so they seem more willing to adopt policies that disfavor males.

        1. More and more colleges are 60% female served or higher and so they seem more willing to adopt policies that disfavor males.

          In which case the affected males have a Title IX sex-discrimination claim.

    4. That’ll bite them in the ass when the Athletes start to demand payment for services rendered because the scholarship isn’t a thing of value.

  5. “Is it wrong to expect that when a student becomes the victim of a sexual crime, that person should notify the police and seek justice under typical criminal procedures?”

    WOW How can Reason victim shame like this? My triggers are going berserk!

  6. Does student status confer some special right to have criminal complaints adjudicated under a much lower standard of evidence, with fewer rights retained by the accused?

    It did in medieval universities. Or rather, it meant they got tried in Ecclesiastical courts instead of normal courts.

  7. I look forward to enterprising men taking advantage of this and dragging college women in front of this tribunal. Either we’ll get women to be expelled just as much for this stupidity, or we’ll get ridiculous statistics about the conviction rates by gender. Either way, this is going to be hilarious to watch implode.

    Also, this is a warning to all college students, read your student handbook and throw a shit fit if they stick crap like this in it.

    1. Read the handbook before you even apply. BYU sounds like a great school until you read the handbook…

      1. I think you mean “until you find out it’s named after Brigham Young and assume the handbook is retarded.”

        1. Retarded? Hell, it’s divine revealed scripture!

          1. Wait, let me get my seer stone and my hat first.

          2. This more than just funny, it points to something interesting. Religious colleges have for decades (I guess forever) expelled and punished students for an amazingly wide array of forbidden activities including having X rated movies on campus or drinking alcohol. I’m betting they didn’t have criminal justice level due process, but no peep of protest from many upset over these secular institutions engaging in similar foolishness. Of course, the DOE and states leaning on institutions adds a different thing to this, but I don’t get that’s all that’s behind it.

            1. I’m betting they didn’t have criminal justice level due process, but no peep of protest from many upset over these secular institutions engaging in similar foolishness.

              Last I checked, the alcohol didn’t get to decide if you drank it. The porn didn’t decide if you watched it. But somehow, your sexual partner gets to decide if you raped them, days or weeks after the fact, without any benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

              The problem is the end-run around the criminal justice system.

              1. “Last I checked, the alcohol didn’t get to decide if you drank it. The porn didn’t decide if you watched it. But somehow, your sexual partner gets to decide if you raped them, days or weeks after the fact, without any benefit of the doubt to the defendant.”

                Where the fuck are you getting all that from? What a weird paranoid little comment…Jesus, you just make the other side look good with that stupid shit.

      2. I remember BYU punished that basketball player recently for having what everyone agreed was completely consensual sex because it was in BYU’s student code of conduct that that was how such things would be dealt with, and he knew it when he matriculated. I don’t remember any fuss over their procedures there and I imagine there was no trial approaching criminal due process that occurred.

    2. No guy is going to do that.

      1. Have to agree and put on my misogynist/antecedent monocle: nobody is as conniving or vindictive as a women scorned. Not to say it won’t happen but men are A: to dumb and B: do not on average have as much principled rage/dedication to game the system in that way.

        1. men are A: to dumb

          hehe

    3. This.

      Lets see, the winning strategy for any male Dartmouth student who has a 1 night stand with a girl he isn’t trying to have a relationship with is a preemptive accusation of sexual assault with the school.

      Just make sure you do something during the act to indicate maybe you stopped consenting

  8. no one expects the mannish inquisition.

  9. Who would go to one of these universities?

    1. No one knows beforehand what they’re getting into because of the schools’ propaganda efforts.

      1. Somebody needs to set up a college ranking system (a la Obama’s “affordability” rankings) that rates the school’s sexual assault policy. Combine that with information on how much of your tuition goes to diversity programs, how much supports administrators, and how much props up other schools in the university, and we’d have a good start for a decent college ranking system.

        1. The rankings are gonna all look pretty similar when it’s about policies based on DOE directives for everyone accepting federal student aid.

    2. I’m guessing all of them will be like this soon enough.

  10. Have any of these student lawsuits gone to decision? Or do the universities just settle them all out of court? There seems to be a rather obvious equal protection violation when you only pursue the male in the case of drunken hook-up sex, which appears to be 99% of these cases.

    1. Yeah, let’s see the laws that say drunk sex is rape taken to their absurd logical conclusion: mutual rape.

  11. So is this on campus sex only? Does it only apply if you have sex with another Dartmouth student?

    1. I’m sure there has to be some community college down the road with bangable chicks.

    2. Doubtful. Most schools want to be able to hold their students responsible for anything they do, no matter where or to whom it happened.

    3. It only applies to Dartmouth students because its about free association: Dartmouth, or any private institution, can associate with who it wants on whatever contractual terms the parties agree to. Just as the NFL can bar, say, Ben Rothleisberger for alleged (he wasn’t ever charged) sexual misconduct but could not of course enact any sanction against the girl in question, private institutions like Dartmouth can set out its own procedures for determining who they want to associate with.

      1. The only ‘punishment’ is that Dartmouth no longer will do business with that student.

        It’s high irony that many of the same people who (rightly in my opinion) champion the rights of religious business owners to not serve customers they determine are gay or what have you are upset about private institutions not having enough ‘process’ to disassociate with customers that they have determined (perhaps through foolish measures to be sure) to be the kinds of people they don’t want to serve or be around.

      2. Dartmouth, or any private institution, can associate with who it wants on whatever contractual terms the parties agree to.

        Really? Can they stop admitting minorities?

        1. I’m talking about and still be in compliance with libertarian principles. I don’t think most here defend the anti-discrimination laws you mention, so I find it odd that this upsets them.

          1. Yes, perhaps it’s because these sexual assault laws are being pushed down from “above.” Maybe, just maybe, it’s not in the best interest of the university to referee pissing matches between regretful feminists and horny frat boys, but they’re “strongly persuaded” to do so by the folks holding the big checks that pour in every semester.

            If Dartmouth, sans DOE chokehold, wants to convene these kangaroo courts, the more power to ’em. Not a penny of my money will go there, but good for them. However, I’m not convinced that expelling people for screwing around is in the best interest of Dartmouth.

            1. The OP seems to suggest that it had more to do with social pressure coming not from the DOE but from Dartmouth student groups and outside allies.

              I agree fully with your last paragraph. Before contracting with any college one should read their policies and if one finds objectionable ones like this present, walk away.

              1. Perhaps the mandatory expulsion is from social pressure, but there is this:

                Campus SaVE Act’s broader requirement for addressing assaults, which only mandates that university policies include “possible sanctions or protective measures” that institutions can impose in cases of rape, sexual assault, and other kinds of domestic and dating violence.

                Some Save Act info

          2. You’re making so many excellent points, it’s hard to keep up with them. But I think they are going above the heads of most people here because they seem to believe there are absolutely no real victims of crime, that every rape is made up by a vindictive “feminist” and males are a persecuted minority.

      3. Dartmouth, or any private institution, can associate with who it wants on whatever contractual terms the parties agree to.

        Not according to the DOE

      4. Dartmouth, or any private institution, can associate with who it wants on whatever contractual terms the parties agree to.

        So, just what does the contract really say?

        This whole sexual assault kerfuffle is in policy, as near as I can tell. Generally speaking, in the real world, you are bound to the policies in effect at the time you sign, and then only if they are incorporated into the contract and made available to you. Is Dartmouth doing that?

        If those policies change, you are bound to them only if they are provided to you and you get the opportunity to object, terminate the contract, opt out, etc.

        I don’t think the contract argument is going to get you terribly far. And that’s before we even get to the bits about illegal terms, unenforcability, etc.

        The only ‘punishment’ is that Dartmouth no longer will do business with that student.

        So you don’t think a college going on the record, publicly, that you are a rapist has any negative consequences?

        1. “Is Dartmouth doing that?”

          I don’t know, the OP says a lawsuit is pending, I imagine its based on that issue. My point is that if they are following the procedures at time of contract, the only complaint is the procedures are stupid, not that any right has been violated.

          “So you don’t think a college going on the record, publicly, that you are a rapist has any negative consequences?”

          I don’t know that that information is ever released, but if that’s an issue these things don’t supercede defamation suits of course.

          1. If you stripped away the political context, and simply had this provision for expulsion buried on page 457 of the handbook, there’s no way a court would uphold that provision.

            It would be like a 6 month employment contract containing a fine-print provision that said “You will be immediately terminated and will not be refunded any project related costs if you are ever found to have splattered piss outside of the urinal, subject to judgment by the ‘piss splatter board’ made up of a random selection of janitors.”

            Something so draconian would have to be in bold print on the front page of the contract to be upheld. You can’t just sneak that shit in on page 25 of a contract in 5-point font.

            1. Where do you live, California? (Law joke, California [and New Jersey] are kind of known for having unusually consumer-protective law, in most states contracts are enforced, even provisions on page 25, more than you might think).

              1. Employee handbook cases are fairly common nationwide, Bo. What happens, typically, is that the handbook contains a provision disclaiming the formation of any contract. As such, the employee is at-will and can be fired for (almost) any reason. Consumer law has nothing to do with it. But I’m sure a Busy Law Student such as yourself knows that.

                The real issue here is universities either not following their due-process rules or unilaterally modifying them, either of which could possibly be a contractual violation.

        2. So you don’t think a college going on the record, publicly, that you are a rapist has any negative consequences?

          Pffffttttt… stop overreacting, it’s not like these guys are being othered, or even, god forbid, triggered.

    4. Are there any expulsion cases involving a boy on boy thing?

  12. I think part of the problem is that colleges see themselves as providing much more than an education, and that’s exactly what the students want, generally. I live in a college town, and nearly everyone defines themselves by the school and their relation to it. If everyone viewed education as a service, then having the body that provides the service adjudicate your private life would seem ridiculous. But when the school essentially creates your living environment for 4-6 years, then it feels like it has a stake in every aspect of your life.

    If you cancelled the sports programs, closed down the university outfitters, stopped issuing student discounts, and closed all campus housing, I think the separation between life and school would be a lot clearer.

    That said, Ameer Abdullah for Heisman.

    1. What, no Bulbul?

    2. I think part of the problem is that colleges see themselves as providing much more than an education

      And most people lap it up. Anything to associate themselves with some recognizable entity as to provide some notoriety to their own name.

  13. Does student status confer some special right to have criminal complaints adjudicated under a much lower standard of evidence, with fewer rights retained by the accused?

    It’s just the side-effects of associating with professional grievance mongers.

  14. Townie girls everywhere just had a sly grin cross their face.

  15. Did somebody kill our guys’ editor? This is the 3rd article in a row with at least a sentence that makes no sense whatsoever.

    “which often does not following normal rules of evidence or due process”

    What the fuck Reason?

    1. Bah. *Your.

  16. God forbid you make enemies of any vengeful girl on campus – even if you had sex with her or not. Hell, you could turn someone down for a date – something I did a few times – and end up kicked out of school.

    1. try turning them down for sex and you’ll have some serious problems.

    2. This is exactly why I’m very sure that some enterprising coders are going to come up with smartphone apps that will record consent statements.

      Of course, now we’re going to have to deal with all this duck-lipped evidence.

      1. “I was drunk when I used that app.”

        1. “At 3:10 in the evidentiary video, you climbed on top of Mr. Jones, mounted him reverse cowgirl and begged him to, and I quote, “fuck me until my pussy explodes.” Is this accurate?

          “Maybe. We had a few drinks before that.”

          “The judiciary panel finds Mr. Jones guilty and is hereby expelled.”

    3. As you should. Discrimination has no place in the university setting.

      Reminds me of the Palestinian complaint from a few years back that Israelis are racist since their soldiers were much less likely to rape Palestinian women than vice versa.

  17. the campus judiciary process.

    Let me guess. She said-she said?

  18. It would seem that Duke didn’t learn anything from the travesty that was the lacrosse team persecution.

  19. Sounds about time for a Disparate Impact suit, and holding individuals in and out of the Dartmouth Administration personally liable for their Civil-Rights violations.

  20. I’m thinking that these policies offer an excellent chance of prevailing in a monster case of slander and libel.

    In fact, an accusation of rape in such a forum, and the actions taken pursuant to a finding, would seem to satisfy the “infamous crime” element of libel per se. In liber per se, no damages have to be proven. One might argue that a suitable award would be the maximum amount of money that a Dartmouth graduate has ever earned, plus damages for pain and suffering. To prevail in such a case, the University would have to PROVE the rape allegation in a REAL court.

    Let the lawsuits begin. The first few multi-million-dollar damage awards ought to sober up the schools.

  21. What percentage of campus “rape” cases are submitted to the DA and the police? If, as I suspect, almost all are handled by the campus kangaroo courts, it is not likely that most of these cases do NOT constitute “rape” in the legal felony definition? Certainly most such campus cases offer little or no evidence outside the complaint of the “victim.”

  22. Men! Get your degree online! Cheaper! Safer! No indoctrination included!!

    And no pissed off dates “charging” you with campus rape/whatever.

  23. Here’s a thought: IF rape on prestigious campuses has been so pervasive for so many years (almost all women have been violated, supposedly), why are the mothers of college age daughters so terribly anxious to send their little buttercups off to the same colleges for the same sexual degradation? Don’t these moms even CARE about their daughters???

  24. Here’s the funny part — women dominate the numbers on campus. Some seek compatible mates (perhaps even husbands) during this timeframe. And now we have a Jihad against campus sexual monsters (a.k.a. heterosexual men). Will not the gender disparity grow even more under this persecution?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.