Judge: UT Chattanooga student should not have been expelled for sexual assault

[Recursion]

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/judge-former-unc-wrestling-coachs-son-should-not-have-been-expelled-from-ut-chattanooga-for-sexual-assault

A Tennessee court ruled that Corey Mock, the son of former North Carolina wrestling coach C.D. Mock, should not have been expelled for sexual assault by his university.

The judge ruled the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, which expelled Corey Mock for sexual misconduct in December, held him to an unreachable standard by asking him to prove he'd attained verbal consent instead of asking for proof that he had not. The judge called the decision by the chancellor "arbitrary and capricious."

C.D. Mock started a blog in December that shared his opinions on his son's case as well as the sexual assault policies at universities.

He was relieved of his duties as UNC's head wrestling coach on June 12.

This seems to basically forbid affirmative consent policies in Tennessee colleges.

[woolldog]

1. Those affirmative consent policies

are widely regarded as unconstitutional

[Recursion]

2. They probably would be in a criminal trial

But there's no particular right not to be expelled from a college

[woolldog]

3. Actually that's not true.

Another court in California, literally today, issued a stay reversing a California university's expulsion of a student accused of sexual misconduct and found "guilty" under the school's title 9 process.

See Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

[AngryAmish]

5. Where do you get that from?

[dsc]

6. If the college is a public one there most certainly is a right not to be expelled without

compelling reason.

[kcr]

8. Sexual assault is a compelling reason

Whether or not you buy the arguments against affirmative consent, we're talking about sexual assault.

[dsc]

14. well yes it is

but the issue here is can a person be expelled for not being able to prove he had consent. I can see a lower burden of proof for the victim but I can't see a switching of the burden from the victim to the accused.

[kcr]

15. Yes, but I was responding to your comment

Not the broader issue of the thread.

[hifiguy]

12. True. But there's a large body of SCOTUS jurisprudence

that requires due process before being deprived of a right or benefit by any governmental unit. And I doubt greatly that a rule that says, in effect, "prove that you're not guilty" would satisfy any sentient court as due process. Because this is a state school. they can be held to constititional standards, whereas a private school would probably not be.

These policies are a very steep downward slippery slope, and it is because of that steepness that they need to be regarded with a skeptical eye by courts, at least in cases where courts can properly consider them.

[Recursion]

13. If I said "my wallet was stolen", and you had my wallet

wouldn't your only defense be to prove that I had given you permission to take it?

[Democat]

4. There is danger in any system where people are presumed guilty

Is it fair to presume innocence for certain types of crimes and presume guilt for others?

[kcr]

7. Who is presuming anyone guilty?

Affirmative consent isn't about presuming guilt.

[dairydog91]

9. But it can create a presumption of guilt.

At least in this case. If you have to prove that you received "affirmative consent" in order to defeat a charge of sexual assault, then it seems that you are presumed guilty.

[kcr]

10. Nonsense

No other crime is treated this way. Imagine if homeowners were treated this way if their homes were broken into. "Well, did you tell them they couldn't come into your home?" We aren't presuming burglers are guilty just because we aren't demanding that homeowners have to tell them explicitly that they can't enter, or that they have to prove that the home owner did or didn't tell them they had permission. The mere fact they were in the home forcibly is enough to charge them with a crime and no one has a problem with that. Most crimes don't have the hand wringing around their existence and the charging of the criminals. But rape is somehow different.

[Recursion]

11. Would you feel OK taking money from my wallet without my affirmative consent?

Why would sex be any different?

[LanternWaste]

16. There is also danger in any system where victims are presumed to be lying.

There is also danger in any system where victims are presumed to be lying.

Six of one works for you, half a dozen of the other doesn't seem to. Consistency is a real pain in the ass sometimes.