Rape

Lawyers: Students Accused of Rape Deserve Fair Hearings, Not Scarlet Letters

Campus rape trials are unjust.

|

Justice
Dreamstime

Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser—lawyers with the firm Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon—have written an op-ed in The Washington Post explaining why the "Scarlet Letter" proposal to mark accused students' transcripts is a travesty of justice.

Kaiser and Dillon have represented dozens of students who were excused of sexual assault; no one should be under any illusions about the farcical nature of the campus judiciary proceedings, they write:

In the 2015 legislative year, as The Washington Post reported, 26 states – and now the District of Columbia – are considering laws addressing campus sexual assault.

Among others, the District of Columbia's version includes a "scarlet letter" provision. These laws would require colleges and universities to brand the transcripts of any student convicted of sexual misconduct with a note saying the student committed a sexual assault. The transcript note could never be removed.

So if the student is found responsible for sexual misconduct when he's 19, then applies for a job that requires his transcript 30 years later when he's married with two children, his transcript would still mark him as a rapist. One would hope that an employer would care a lot less 30 years later, but that company will surely have a concern about its own liability for sexual harassment from that employee. This transcript note could effectively end a person's career before it even starts.

If these transcript notes came in an unambiguous area of the law where the processes were full and fair, this scarlet letter may not be troubling. It's also ironic that these laws are being proposed at the same time President Obama is urging companies to hire people who were convicted in real courts of real crimes. There is a legitimate question about how long a person's past should haunt his future.

But campus sexual assault cases are not unambiguous, and the procedures in these cases are not fair.

Full op-ed here.

Kaiser and Dillon have come across a real tension on the left. At the same time that libertarians are allying with liberals (and conservatives) to demand saner sentencing laws and humane treatment for felons, certain factions on the left are fighting to further deprive accused students of due process. Many Democratic legislators would like to treat accused students more harshly than President Obama thinks convicted felons should be treated.

I interviewed Kaiser and Dillon for Reason here.

NEXT: US Olympic Committee ends Boston's bid for the 2024 games

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. “It’s also ironic that these laws are being proposed at the same time President Obama is urging companies to hire people who were convicted in real courts of real crimes.”

    Oh, you poor simple country mice, there’s no inconsistency. In each situation, the government is throwing its weight around to shape the private sector in its own image.

    1. There is no inconsistency between Genghis Khan invading one country one year and invading a different country another year. The purpose is the same – expanding his empire.

  2. It might be helpful if the schools were not involved at all in either the scarlet letter travesties or the fair hearings.

  3. Um – AGAIN, Reason. What does this have to do with Donald Trump’s shenanigans? Didn’t he do SOMETHING today for which we must upbraid him? You know he did.

    WHY ARE YOU COVERING UP THE TRUMPNANIGANS!??!

  4. Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser?lawyers with the firm Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon?have written an op-ed in The Washington Post explaining why the “Scarlet Letter” proposal to mark accused students’ transcripts is a travesty of justice.

    As a graduate of The Ohio State University, I find that terminology triggering.

    1. OH-

      -NoMeansNo

      1. -IO
        You a ton of money in a settlement for violating your due process rights.
        -CollegeAdministrators

  5. Kaiser and Dillon have come across a real tension on the left. At the same time that libertarians are allying with liberals (and conservatives) to demand saner sentencing laws and humane treatment for felons, certain factions on the left are fighting to further deprive accused students of due process. Many Democratic legislators would like to treat accused students more harshly than President Obama thinks convicted felons should be treated.

    There is no tension. The left judges the person not the crime. So there is nothing inconsistent to them about letting felons out of jail while totally depriving evil white men college students of due process.

    1. As long as there’s a new law to let the government stick its dick in where it isn’t wanted, then these people will *consistently* support such a law.

    2. They clearly consider Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird as a villain.

      1. Not a villain, just another White Southern gynephobe.
        Believe the victim! = Mayella was telling the truth, and Tom Robinson was guilty. After all, flight is a confession of guilt, so Tom got what he deserved. Hell, they probably cheered when her father spat in Gregory Peck’s face.

  6. certain factions on the left are fighting to further deprive accused students of due process. Many Democratic legislators would like to treat accused students more harshly than President Obama thinks convicted felons should be treated.

    Demonization tends to operate in the manner of fads. In fact, you could say that demonization (whether it is of witches, Satanic day care centers, heavy metal bands, etc) is a fad, and just changes every few years because that’s how fads work. And the thing about fads is, people tend to overdo them. Bigtime. It’s why they’re fads; after people overdo them they start looking back and going “what the fuck was I thinking?” Like looking back at 80s hair or 70s bell bottoms or Sketchers or whatever the hell you want; these things fall out of favor because people fell too hard in favor with them in the first place.

    Right now, the big, popular fad among a certain type of bien pensant is campus sexual assault. And it’s in the insane part of the fad cycle right now where people have gone whole hog without realizing how absurd it is. Which is the most dangerous part when your fad affects people’s lives and not just their prom pictures. How many lives were ruined by the Satanic day care center shit in the 80s? How long did it take before the fad started to get old? Well, the same questions can be asked here.

    1. It’s why they’re fads; after people overdo them they start looking back and going “what the fuck was I thinking?” Like looking back at 80s hair or 70s bell bottoms or Sketchers or whatever the hell you want; these things fall out of favor because people fell too hard in favor with them in the first place.

      There’s a difference between a fad and simply over-committing. When you over-commit, you’re still making progress, but you have to wait for everybody else to catch up with you. When it’s a fad, you return to square 1 once it no longer becomes faddish. Fads aren’t really incrementalist. It’s not like bell-bottoms were a harbinger of wide cuffed jeans. However, trends are incrementalist. Swimsuits have become progressively more revealing over time.

      1. When it’s a fad, you return to square 1 once it no longer becomes faddish.

        Getting back to “square 1” is a bit difficult after you’ve been dragged in front of a tribunal, and thrown out of school for a sex crime.

    2. How many lives were ruined by the Satanic day care center shit in the 80s?

      “Show us on the rape doll where Sugarfree violated you.”

      1. *holds up rape doll*

    3. Excellent.

    4. IIRC this shit went down in Clinton 1 times. After dozens of law suits costing universities millions of dollars they got the fuck off the bandwagon. It’s Deja Vu all over again (thanks. Yogi).

  7. I’d totally do that blindfolded chick.

    1. Taking advantage of her inability to see = RAPE RAPE RAPE.

      1. I’d make sweet sweet love to Lady Liberty. She’s been raped enough by the government

    2. She looks like kinda short in that picture.

    3. Not too worried about the scales, but that thing in her left hand is the hilt of a long, sharp sword.

  8. They’re already getting a fair hearing and a quick hanging as promised. What more could you want?

    1. “The defendant is guilty. Let the trial begin.”

  9. This is clearly unconstitutional in a big way. Probably be years until it’s ruled that way though.

  10. Good article Robbo.

  11. In the 2015 legislative year, as The Washington Post reported, 26 states ? and now the District of Columbia ? are considering laws addressing campus sexual assault.

    Well, damn, and here I thought that sexual assault was already illegal.

    This, folks, is why politics as a career should be the next and last thing that we make illegal.

  12. Well, damn, and here I thought that sexual assault was already illegal.

    What you probably consider “sexual assault” is illegal. SJWs, however, have a more–progressive–definition. They make fathers of teenage daughters look positively permissive.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.