College Reacts To Negative Press By Attempting To Seal Court Documents Exposing Its Ridiculous Actions
from the those-who-can't,-administrate dept
I don't know what possesses certain individuals and entities to address their screwups by attempting to bury them, especially in an age where a wealth of information is still (mostly) a Google search away. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for errors of judgement? By opting for the "hasty burial" method of reputation management, these entities almost invariably direct more attention to the very thing they wanted everyone to forget. It happens so frequently, it even has its own name.
Occidental College expelled a student over rape allegations, opting to take the path well knee-jerked, rendering its decision before all the facts were in. The facts didn't seem to indicate a rape had occurred (something investigating officers agreed with).
The student, identified only as "John Doe," had sex with his accuser on September 8th, 2013, according to details of the case obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both Doe and his accuser had been drinking. By several accounts, the sex was consensual. The accuser sent Doe a text message beforehand asking him if he had a condom. She also texted a friend and clearly announced her intention to have sex with Doe.But rape was declared in the sober light of day, thanks in part to an assistant professor's bizarre profiling of Doe as a rapist.
After that night, the accuser spoke with several Occidental employees, including Danielle Dirks, an assistant professor of sociology. Dirks told the accuser that Doe "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports team], and was 'from a good family.'"Classic rapist. High grades, played sports, good family. Occidental obviously holds its rapists to a higher standard, seeing as Doe fit right in with "the other rapists on campus."
One week later, the rape complaint was filed. The police, as mentioned above, investigated it and deemed the interaction to be drunken sex between two consensual adults. Occidental College, however, was feeling the pressure from up top -- specifically, a recent federal investigation into its rape prevention policies. So it overreacted.
[T]he college hired attorney Marilou Mirkovich to investigate the matter. Mirkovich concluded that the female student did indeed consent to sex. However, since she was intoxicated, her consent was invalid, according to Mirkovich.(Interesting point, but wouldn't that mean they raped each other? Or is consent vis-a-vis intoxication completely malleable to each situation, in order to better comply with societal expectations?)
This was all Occidental needed to justify expelling Doe... who then sued the school for denying him due process. When this happened, all of the above became public knowledge. And it made Occidental look bad, which is something the school cannot abide. But rather than settle with Doe and admit the whole "investigation" was a farce, it decided it still had plenty of "stupid" left in its tanks.
So it's unsurprising that Occidental would be unhappy about these documents being displayed online for all to see and judge. It is equally unsurprising, however, that yesterday a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge denied the college's request to seal certain documents relating to the case—specifically, approximately 180 pages comprising an investigative report and accompanying evidence that included interviews with witnesses and the alleged victim.Unsurprising, indeed. And yet, the university attempted to bury its embarrassment with a straight face, expressing a completely belated "concern" about the personal information contained in the investigative report... four months after it went public. To which the judge responded:
I don't understand why [it] is so pressing in June when it wasn't so pressing in February.That's the power of negative press. That open-and-shut investigation that forced a dangerous
But just asking the judge wasn't enough. Occidental tried to get FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) to pull its coverage while awaiting the judge's incredulous/sarcastic response.
On Monday, FIRE received a fax from the law firm Sidley Austin LLP asking us to remove the investigative report and adjudicator's decision from our website until the court had made a decision on the confidentiality of those materials. We did not do so.Occidental managed to bully one student off of its campus, but its limited reach means everyone else remains unaffected, no matter how many requests its law firm sends out. The judge's refusal to assist in patching up the school's self-inflicted wounds should send a message to other entities that find themselves in similar situations. Before attempting a quick burial, consider the possibility that doing so will only result in wider coverage. If you still feel your temporarily wounded pride is worth more than your long-term reputation, go ahead. But don't be surprised if it only results in more criticism.
[Defense lawyer Scott Greenfield also has some fine thoughts on Occidental (and the law's intrusion into bedrooms/dorm rooms) at Simple Justice, included here mainly because of this tweet.]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: expelled, policies, rape, secrecy
Companies: occidental college
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
mind shes since admitted she lied, long story but...these situations suck....i view them as the legal system raping innocent people...
fucking bullshit....total fucking bullshit infact....i can see why so many people accused of shit like this suicide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. Arrest records are not, in general, expunged, without request and cause to do so. An example is for a minor (who in most states cannot be convicted merely held responsible). Arrest records are sometimes (shouldn't be) later used in later prosecution of similar charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't matter if she consented when she was drunk, it's still considered rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's just put it all out there. If you read through the documents, it is clear that Jane Doe also raped John Doe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you read the facts of this case, you'll discover that she quite clearly consented BEFORE she was drunk. And she announced her consent to a third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that the Jimmy Buffet song, "Wy don't we get drunk and screw," is a rape anthem?
Every meat market and pickup bar in America would be rape-facilitators since people intentionally go there to get drunk and pick up others.
While this scenario involved both being drunk, would you consider a sober woman who has sex with a drunk guy to have committed rape also?
No definitely means no and everyone should know that, but there's drunken consensual sex that happens on college campuses across the country that aren't legally considered rape. Otherwise, any vengeful person (male or female) could claim rape just on that basis after the fact and ruin someone else's life, such as after a break up or cheating occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
College boys know that logic won't get them anywhere with college girls, but they think they can score points by supporting feminist causes and signing petitions to waive their own civil rights -- and yours. I have seen expel-on-accusation petitions.
College administrations know that logical arguments won't save them in case of an "unsafe environment" lawsuit, but they think they'll wind up paying smaller settlements if they write ridiculously anti-male student conduct policies, and enforce them hard on any male student whom any female student complains about. I have seen policies that -- read literally -- can be construed to classify looking at a female student as sexual misconduct.
President Obama has lost a lot of popular support over the past year or two, but he seems to think he can win some back by pandering to feminists and leaning on universities, insinuating that they must pillory their male students if they want to keep getting federal funds.
Seriously, at what point do you think the accused can just say "this makes no logical sense" and get justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Date Rape"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar thing happened at New College
It is not surprising to see this happening, a majority of the woman studies students believed that since it was so difficult to make an accusation of rape that there should be no trial. There is shame and judgement of the victim. They believed that the guy should be automatically guilty since only a small percentage of rapes are reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Date rape not automatic when drinking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if the woman you're having sex with consents, if she was drunk at the time she gave her consent, it's still considered rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heck, see the case in question, where the police determined it was nothing more than drunken sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This whole comment of yours is absolute proof that not only are your comments getting more and more idiotic, but you really need to go back and punch the crap out of any person who ever taught you or told you you were *spechal* since they did you, your parents and the human race a pure disservice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In many jurisdictions, rape is defined in such a way that a woman literally cannot rape a man short of using a strap-on and sodomizing him (and sometimes not even then). In those cases the worst they can throw at them is sexual assault which is a much lower penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The idea that a man can rape a woman, but a woman can't rape a man is an abhorrent double-standard, just as disgusting as if someone proposed a change to the law along the lines of: 'A man can commit murder, but the worst a woman can do under the law is commit assault, even if both of them killed someone'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom line, if a girl is intoxicated she cannot consent to sex and you could be charged with rape. It does not matter whether you knew she was intoxicated, it doesn’t matter if you were intoxicated too, all that matters is that she was not in a state of mind to consent and therefore it is rape. If you get a girl drunk or high and then “get together” with her you have committed a sexual assault. Again, it doesn’t matter if you are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities. A good rule to follow; if you are under the influence do not have sex. Now say you really had no idea a girl was intoxicated and that she truly appeared to be a willing partner, what then? The reality is that you could still be charged with rape if she is able to prove she was drunk or high. Your knowledge of her state may only be a mitigating factor; it does not guarantee you won’t be charged.
http://teenadvice.about.com/od/daterape/a/daterapeguysfyi_2.htm
The arguments being displayed in the comments above are so full of bullshit that everyone's reasoning is just that, bullshit. There's a 99% chance that if you go out and have sex with a woman who is drunk, you stand a very good chance of being charged with date rape. IN a court of law, if it's proven that the woman was drunk when you had sex, you will most likely be charged with rape.
Don't be stupid and have sex with a woman who's drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But half the point here is that if he raped her, then she also raped him. But only he got expelled. That's a double standard which should not be allowed to exist.
The other half is that she likely wasn't too drunk to consent - the police declined to even charge him. She was sober enough to text him to ask if he had a condom, she was sober enough to find her way to his room, and she even create a ruse to get past the RA. Intoxicated and incapacitated are not the same thing.
And on a side note: I would not take the article you linked as legal advice. Laws vary by state, at the very least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words its rape because she says so, despite your belief that she was sober when she consented. That reasoning allows all sorts of abuse, including the girl getting drunk after the event, and complaining when she 'wakes up' back in her room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and citing about.com teen advice as your support?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- An *actual* attorney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tanaka's pseudo-solution is to create constitutionally-impermissible different standards for males and females--if both are drunk and both agree (note I did not say "consent", which is a legal term) to sex, the male is a rapist and the female is not. Not only does this fail any test of common sense, but it is (as stated earlier) *highly* unconstitutional.
In short, Tanaka is an idiot and is spouting nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[...]
Again, it doesn't matter if you [a man] are drunk or high as well. Your diminished abilities do not negate your responsibilities.
Love those double standards of yours kenichi: Poor weak-minded females can't possibly be held responsible for their own actions when intoxicated, but males are ALWAYS responsible for their own behavior when intoxicated.
I would give my left arm to see you attempt to justify this position to a group of feminists. I'm pretty sure even they would want to kick your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate you dirtysex people having dirtysex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
X is a huge problem, and we need more money, laws, & education to fix it.
If you ask any questions about if society is going to far about X, you are branded as being supportive of X.
Because of the media churn even people with serious reservations about X and the bandwagon remain silent as the campagin for X drives deeper and deeper into insanity.
Because of hyperconcern over X, someone innocent gets screwed but we have to cover up how off the rails the whole thing has gotten, else people might question the entire basis of X... X makes people money, X gives people news time, X gives people a cause... so what if a few people have their lives destroyed, X is more important than truth. The myths and misconceptions about X add fuel to pushing even further... until that point hits when "Good People" (tm) who blindly rallied behind the we have to do something about X find themselves having crossed its path and the machine begins to chew them up.
X is getting out of hand, but we've always been at war with Eastasia, so we can't stop it now.
Kneejerk reactions have a pattern, and we are failing as a society to not wildly overreact & then claim mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mother Nature, as I call it, determined that sexual maturity happens around 12-14 years. Society used to respect that, at least as long as we were in an agrarian period. Need those offspring to till the soil. Then industrialization took place, and suddenly, we didn't need such large families, and society intervened. From engagements of 14 and 16 year old women in the mid 1800's we now have a fairly consistent 18 year old marriage requirement.
And you say society isn't fighting Mother Nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An erection is not consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Should I tell her we have to cancel because an internet troll said she's just a poor woman who can't make decisions for herself?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still don't believe the ignorance here and the frat boy mentality going on. You guys act like you endorse getting a girl drunk and having sex with her. If you're dumb enough to get a girl drunk and have sex with her, then you will most likely be arrested, charged and found guilty of rape.
Not only that but 99% of the rapes that occur are the result of a guy raping the woman. 99% of rapes that occur on campus happen when a guy gets a girl drunk and has sex with her because she's more susceptible to suggestion.
Only an idiot would think that getting a girl drunk and then having sex is okay. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, and you will be the one spending time in prison for a rape conviction and you will be registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
You guys will do well in prison when your cellmates turn you into their little girlfriends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why don't you explain to us all why you think women are just so weak and helpless and lack the agency to say no to an alcoholic beverage. Go on, we're all very interested to know how little you apparently think of women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is NOT what happened in this case. He didn't give her alcohol so she would get drunk and have sex with him. They were both already drunk.
And again, intoxicated is not the same as incapacitated. She was aware of her surroundings and flat-out said she wanted to have sex with him. She was able to walk from her room to his, she was able to text, she thought about the consequences enough to ask if he had a condom. She knew the who/what/where/when of what was going on.
I will agree that it is a bad idea for a male student to have sex with a female student in this scenario, because it's a bad idea in general to have sex with someone you barely know when you're drunk, and because you expose yourself to exactly the sort of scenario this guy found himself in. That doesn't make it right to expel him for rape.
So is that your answer to the repeated question "why is the man and not the woman expelled"? That seems rather circular - we charge the guy with rape because guys are more often charged with rape. That's what you call sexual discrimination, and it is not OK for our colleges to be engaging in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your assertions do not match the facts of the case, except that the female had had some alcohol prior to the intercourse.
This guy did not get the girl drunk.
How is it frat guyish to recognize that people consent to sex, people drink, and sometimes they do both?
So tell me, do you, and every sexual partner you have ever had, not drink any alcohol ever?
So when my fiance and I have a glass of wine, then go to bed and are intimate, did I rape her?
Lastly, please provide at least one citation for you 99% numbers. Your previous cite was from about.com teenage advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're happy that rapists will get raped.
Hmm. Nothing hypocritical about that statement.
Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only the "99%" of rape victims matter? Fuck the 1% without their consent and accuse them of the same crime you just committed? You're another goddamn piece of shit elitist hypocrite or the worst form of shit eating internet troll.
I happen to know a man who was almost raped by a woman who lured him to her home and drugged his drink so that he was almost completely incapacitated. She then tried to mount him, without protection, and with who knows what diseases she may have been carrying. The only thing that stopped her was that someone noticed he was missing for too long and a friend found him just in time. But in your little world he would be considered the rapist, not the victim, because he's just the "1%".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the very least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you did there Tim... I approve! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll stop responding to him, but it's very frustrating.
Is Kenichi becoming an AJ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Dog, Old Tricks
Heck, that's an easy one to solve.
Most of these individuals and entities are old-guard and the old-guard has been burying its crimes, failures and skeletons as common practice for as long as they have existed.
They are not very good at living in the modern world and dealing with open communications and public scrutiny because they never had to deal with these things in the past.
In other words, its how these "old dogs" have always functioned - its an intrinsic part of their business model and life style - and they simply cannot learn, or possibly cannot be bothered to learn, new tricks. Hell, they still haven't even figured out that these old tactics no longer work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they were drunk driving...
NOBODY in their right mind would seek to alter that. Nobody would say you shouldn't be held accountable for drunk driving.
So why it is ok for a woman to not accept responsibility for having sex drunk?
If you make the "conscience" decision to screw some guy because of beer goggles you shouldn't get to just change your mind after the fact.
"No sorry your honor, on reflection I didn't really mean to drive dunk and hit billy with my car. Since I didn't mean to I should be just let go. thanks!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they were drunk driving...
I'm intoxicated:
I sign a contract - I'm on the hook for it
I get in a fight - I'm charged with assault
I kill somebody - I'm charged with murder
I have sex - my partner is guilty of rape, it wasn't my fault
Really? WTF? Why does being intoxicated give someone a free pass on sex? It's even more f'd up that the free pass mainly applies to women. As in if both are equally drunk there have still been cases where the man was charged with rape but the woman was just a victim. In fact, I've heard of at least one case where the man was MORE intoxicated and STILL got charged with rape.
While we're on the topic of sex-related double standards, how about when two underage kids have sex and the guy is threatened with statutory rape charges but the girl isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If they were drunk driving...
Not necessarily. The law is a bit less black-and-white about this. From http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-l aw.html:
"when two underage kids have sex and the guy is threatened with statutory rape charges but the girl isn't?"
In my state both such kids committed statutory rape and could be so charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]