We can't derail this thread completely but to try to make the point - the first time I can remember arguing about the housing problem was Right To Buy under Thatcher with no rebuilding program to go with it (done deliberately btw) I guess I'd have still been a teenager.

You sound very young when you talk about voting (no offense) - who would you have voted for? may I ask who you plan to vote for this time?

Of course, no-one I've ever heard is arguing for tackling unemployment for women only or affordable housing for women only.

That's the point I'm trying to make to you. The problems of unemployment and housing are not in any conflict with feminism. Nor are any other political/social problems.

Not sure what to do with the rest of your post at this point, maybe later, but we seem far too far apart to know where to start.

Ok so I guess I'm confused about what the other side is arguing, then. Schools shouldn't do these investigations because they're ill-equipped to do so. Fine. So we bring in the police to do [???].

If they're not bringing criminal charges, what are they doing? And if they ARE bringing criminal charges, doesn't that mean you're then basing the students' potential discipline on the outcome of those charges?

To do the investigation obviously. Police have things like subpoena powers and actual professional experience. They're a lot better at investigating crime than a university administrator.
Uhhh they're investigating a potential crime obviously. They can decide to bring charges or not based on the outcome of their investigation.
First off, any school with any sense will base a students potential discipline based of the outcome of a charge. That just makes sense. If you get charged with rape outside of the school's system and get convicted, the school obviously has the right to boot your ass off campus.

That, however, doesn't mean a school can't punish someone if they are charged but aren't convicted. That's a jump you're making all on your own.

So any school with any sense will base the discipline on the outcome of a charge.... but that's different than saying schools will require a conviction to discipline a student because???

I guess I still don't get it. In what situations would you think it's appropriate to discipline a student who was charged but not convicted? And how is that process (disciplining a student who was acquitted of charges) better than the status quo?

A results in B.... B doesn't require A. Conviction results in explusion. Expulsion doesn't require conviction. I have no idea how you're this confused.

When it's still likely a student raped someone but it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Because it's done by people who actually investigate **** for a living, have a lot more power and tools at their disposal to investigate, and have the ability to put someone's ass in jail if they actually find proof that it was done.

Wookie just brought up a case at Stanford where a women poisoned (why can I never spell that word) multiple people. How ****ed up would it be if Stanford didn't tell police about it? Now, the woman has been charged already, but let's say she was to avoid a conviction... do you think Stanford, or any school, would be required to take her back?

So who judges when there is grounds for expulsion without conviction?

The school.

I mean I'm not confused by the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions. I just don't understand how you don't trust the school to perform an investigation on their own to determine whether their threshold for expulsion has been met, but you trust them to interpret the investigation of someone else when there hasn't been a conviction.

Not to mention the fact that there's a ton of evidence that a school would be able to take into consideration if they had done the investigation themselves that they won't have access to because the rules of evidence and strategic decisions by prosecutors/defense attorneys result in that evidence not being presented at trial.

WRT the Stanford case, I agree that they should have told the police. I'm not sure how I feel about schools reporting sexual assault to the police when the victim is the only witness and doesn't want the police involved. On the one hand obviously it's in society's interest to have the police investigate the possible crime, but on the other hand the victim's preferences should come into play.

As a side note, what if we go your route and have police do all investigations for sexual assault on campus... should a school be able to discipline a student when the police declined to press charges?

There's absolutely no way on the whole that the school would have less information than a body with subpoena power. I also see no reason why a school couldn't get access to the evidence of the case themselves... reporters have had no problems getting access to it using FOIAs in cases in Ann Arbor. I don't see why that should be different elsewhere.
It should come into play, but only to a point. I don't have a great answer for you here and would happily admit that it's probably the worst thing about having police investigate everything. It's something I'm willing to trade off for a better process that would put people who clearly raped someone else in jail while protecting those that didn't.

Obviously yes.

And then what? They are only allowed to use whatever information the police decided to stop devoting scarce resources towards?

Again, do you really think the colleges will have more resources than the police?

Than police who don't think they could get beyond reasonable doubt? Sure.

So, two things. FOIA requests are state specific, and every state has different guidelines regarding what police departments are required and permitted to disclose. That's particularly true when an investigation is ongoing, because there are issues regarding destruction of evidence and disruption of the investigation.

You'll be able to get basic info such as name of the defendant, charges, and a probable cause statement giving basic details of what the alleged crime was. Things like witness statements, forensic reports, expert reports, medical records, etc are not necessarily obtainable during an investigation.

After trial, if the defendant is acquitted, most if not every state allows for immediate expungement of records relating to the arrest upon request of the defendant.

This is also a good point.

Particularly in a rape case where the victim isn't interested in cooperating with police and there are no eyewitnesses, there isn't much for a police department to do to secure a conviction. They'll file a report and let it sit unless new information comes up.

lol, man, you're still trotting out the "men couldn't vote too!" card while ignoring the critical distinction that never in the history of Western civilization has that right been denied to men based solely on their gender.

Like, I'm not sure if it's possible to make a better argument for the necessity of feminism than the fact that there are people dumb enough to argue on internet forums that men's suffrage and women's suffrage can totally be equated. You're doing god's work here, but not for the side you think you are.

So you think police are just not investigating stuff based on preconceived notions of a case? I mean, we all know that happens, but if you really think that's widespread you should be up in arms about that.

Or they do some investigation, see little hope for a conviction, and table the investigation pending any new witnesses that come forward. Police time isn't unlimited.

What witnesses coming forward does the school get, but the police don't?

The police get the witnesses, but if it's the police interviewing them then the school doesn't necessarily have access to the statements. If it's the school interviewing them, then they do.

Giving the school access to these statements is not some impossible hurdle to clear.

New detail about the occidental case I hadn't heard before:

Remember when the girl was simply not being charged because he didn't complain? Yeah, that happened.

So doesn't that story poke a ton of holes in the "colleges just believe anyone who cries rape, guys get expelled all the time because of made up stories" theory?

Ummm wat? You've missed something. The problem with this case is that the college ruled that the boy was super drunk and the girl was super drunk... but only expelled the boy.

Well, it's not retroactive. Your quote plainly says this happened after John Doe filed the lawsuit against Occidental.

That (filing complaints against the woman) is, however, the sort of thing men need to do to prove bias. The fact that women can file complaints and get men kicked out is not proof of bias against men (you've spent thousands of posts in this thread arguing it is) unless men can file complaints against women in the situations you claim to be reciprocal and not have the same consequences result.

Of course it's retroactive goofy? You aren't seriously suggesting that male rape 'victims' should be pre-cogs, so I'm at a loss at what you mean. If a victim files a suit against a school for improperly handling their rape complaint, that doesn't that mean the school can simply dismiss it.

They've already done the investigation. The facts are clear and undisputed. The boy was too drunk to have given consent according to the standard they used. They dismissed his case because they wouldn't allow a rape victim to talk with their lawyer.