You said legal representation for both parties. I presume one of those parties is the accused. Now, why would the accused hire a lawyer?

this is staggering. ikes scares me

He's sure of it, lawyers will pinky swear before they head into pretend-college court to only use the nice arguments to win. Mom and Dad are fronting like thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to protect little Sonny Boy from expulsion, the attorney is going to be there just to help guide the student judges through the complex rules ikes hates and thinks are unfair and make sure that if Sonny Boy is going to be expelled for rape, which ikes is convinced should be like most of the time, these lawyers will be present to make sure the rules are followed in a standardized way. Or not followed, since they're terrible? Who knows, ikes will be sure you're lying either way.

Just checking back to the thread, and I don't know much about this. So are the schools and the police working parallel investigations here, or is it that the victims aren't necessarily wanting to involve police / having to go through a full trial, etc?

By the way, we're like, pretty close to ikes realizing his position makes no sense, that everyone bringing lawyers is just mimicking the criminal justice system that universities are strenuously trying not to recreate because of the high costs on the system and burdens placed on victims, so he's going to try the 'lawyers won't slut shame because this isn't a REAL trial, they probably won't even be able to call on anyone to testify or anything, they might not even be able to do anything, remember this is stupid pretend court, so stupid, with stupid rules and everything!', which will probably get us all back to wondering why he thinks everyone bringing a lawyer to kangaroo court does anything at all since they won't be able to do any of the bad things or be constrained by bad rules, at which point we will be all instructed to either read the first post or told we're lying.

AND. HERE. WE. GO.

The most important difference between the criminal justice system and the school system is the burden of proof. Having professional help run the system instead of students and administrators with no legal training doesn't mean that cochran will come in and start calling everyone sluts. It ensures that everyone has the ability to make sure they go through a complicated process to the best of their ability.

I can see the billboard now...

WE ARE Penn State University: Now Featuring Free Legal Defense Services for Accused Rapists

OK, so are just back to the slightly less terrible 'legal professionals are just here to run things' and -- change the burden of proof, through running things (?) -- not that the accused brings in a lawyer and we wage a proxy trial on campus? Right? The quip about the burden of proof seems to go back to indicting the rules as the problem, not the process, but I mean lol in the midst of this tire fire I guess that's the best we can do.

I've said my piece on that but I think we're finally at 'ikes seizes on the thing that sounds like the least stupid thing he could have plausibly meant' part of the show.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...r-abuse-claims

oh let's see how much i've changed here!

That's not at all.

OK, but then you also said:

'Legal representation for both parties' seems to imply you're envisioning a trial or hearing where the lawyers are competing to achieve an outcome, not just guide the process to a just conclusion.

But like I said, whatever, no one knows what you mean, likely and especially you least of all, and your least stupid idea just involves 'legal professionals' who bill at absurdly high rates supplanting volunteer students and professors to help guide a process you think is terrible at its core, which I guess solves something or other, it might make drunk sex <> rape now, or the other imaginary rules you think guide the process you hate, but legal professionals will fix it by guidance or something, ensuring that dudes charged with rape are expelled at the high rate you expect they will be, no expense spared to make sure the i's dotted and t's crossed, rights (whichever ones, who knows) must be protected through guidance, somehow.

I really have no idea and I'm done guessing for you.

And now you just admit what you've been doing today it: making up **** for you to riff off of instead of actually addressing anything I actually say. I did enjoy the can't have a defense lawyer without slut shaming the victim. That was particularly enlightening.

What's wrong with that? One of the better news sources. They fixed the wrong label so now the link is here.
She didn't flunk out, she still had higher than the minimum required GPA. So no. You don't get to just make things up without hearing the interview. Let me guess -- another one of your spidey senses? Why did you guess she flunked out, cuz she's black?

Also, I wonder if getting raped, and the school not even hearing your case, will have an impact on a girl's academic performance.

I guessed she flunked out because of various sources saying she flunked out


Also lol democracy now

allow lawyers to come in but only analyze the facts of the situation at hand seems to be the best ikesian solution

Links? I'm having a hard time googling the incident.

ikes, can you explain how a lack of lawyers being involved lead to the five incidents quoted in the OP?

This link says academic reasons

http://jezebel.com/inside-the-studen...ity-1526094401

Hell, YOUR LINK says she was expelled for academic reasons.

LOL

Presumably they were repeating the reasons provided by Tufts (as was my link in the summary before the interview). I don't know what to believe now unless I look up Tufts' exact rules for academic expulsion. If they include the ability to expel you despite your maintaining the minimum GPA, then fine, but that's weird (my first question would be, what other students meeting the GPA requirements did they decide to expel that year?).

I don't know how tufts work, but iirc two failing semesters is enough to get you expelled from my undergrad school. She's most likely referring to her overall gpa as opposed to the semester(s) that caused her to get expelled.

The end of this story, however, is that she was absolutely not expelled for speaking out about her case. She was expelled for her school work.

This makes sense. I was wrong and too quick to take her word for it.

Doesn't subtract much from the ****ed-upedness of the story.

It absolutely does. There is no justification possible for a school to expel someone for speaking about their rape (even if the school doesn't think it happened). That's not true for expelling her for academic standing.