​New Bill Proposes College Transcripts Include Rape Charges

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/new-bill-proposes-college-transcripts-include-rape-charges

"My bill will ensure that students who try to transfer schools to avoid the consequences of their violent acts will, at a minimum, face the same consequences as students who transfer because they've cheated on an exam."

On Thursday, a California legislator filed a bill that would require college administrators across the country to note on a student's transcript if he or she had been found guilty of violating the school's sexual violence policies. The Safe Transfer Act, proposed by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, also states that if a student transfers while the disciplinary process is still being conducted, the case would remain on his/her file for a year.

"Universities and colleges are perfectly willing to include academic infractions like plagiarism on students' records, yet students who have committed sexual assault can walk away from campus with a clean academic bill of health. This is appalling and, whether intentional or not, shows that acts of sexual violence on campus are less serious than cheating," Rep. Speier said in a press release. "My bill will ensure that students who try to transfer schools to avoid the consequences of their violent acts will, at a minimum, face the same consequences as students who transfer because they've cheated on an exam."

Click to expand...

I find this bill to be flawed in a lot of ways, mainly because it is also including rape charges, not simply rape convictions. Hence why in the bill it states:


"DISCLOSURE OF PENDING AND COMPLETED DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A STUDENT."

In my mind, that is a pretty clear violation of Due Process. One being charged with a crime doesn't mean that they necessarily committed that crime. This bill would also have the potential to harm those that are falsely charged with committing sexual assault. Added to the fact that sexual assault should be something that the court system should rule on, not the school.


Thoughts? Comments?

Do you think this bill is a good idea?

TheGoverness said:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/new-bill-proposes-college-transcripts-include-rape-charges

I find this bill to be flawed in a lot of ways, mainly because it is also including rape charges, not simply rape convictions. Hence why in the bill it states:


"DISCLOSURE OF PENDING AND COMPLETED DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A STUDENT."

In my mind, that is a pretty clear violation of Due Process. One being charged with a crime doesn't mean that they necessarily committed that crime. This bill would defintley have the potential to harm those that are falsely charged with rape. Added to the fact that sexual assault should be something that the court system should rule on, not the school.

Thoughts? Comments?

Do you think this bill is a good idea?

Click to expand...

I would not support accusations. I would most definitely support convictions. In fact, I'm amazed convictions AREN'T reported.

Edit...Sorry. Helps to read the whole post. I would also support a report that criminal charges are pending...assuming they have been filed.

MaggieD said:

I would not support accusations. I would most definitely support convictions. In fact, I'm amazed convictions AREN'T reported.

Click to expand...

Well convictions (as well as charges) are already on the public record.

TheGoverness said:

Well convictions (as well as charges) are already on the public record.

Click to expand...

Just because something is (or may be) public record doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported.

Absolutely it violates due process and anyone with a black mark like that owing to a mere accusation would obviously sue

Let me guess, on top of the season being cancelled and having to take DNA test, the entire Duke lacrosse team should've had "SUSPECTED RAPIST" on top and center of their transcripts, just because some stripper lied and they wanted to transfer away from the place that treated them like they were automatically guilty (not just the school admin, but the alumni too)

This bill seems like just another form of attention whoring. Funny how strippers and congress have that in common

If the "charge" is actually just an internal administrative proceeding within the college and not a criminal allegation pursued by the government, then I'm not sure what the point is.

TheGoverness said:

Well convictions (as well as charges) are already on the public record.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and I'd say that's on the accepting college to check out, or not, depending on their stance. I suspect this would effectively elevate a non-governmental internal administrative allegation to a criminal record reflecting conviction. Heinous.

If there's an internal administrative charge accusing someone of a sexual offense that hasn't gone anywhere but no criminal investigation was started, then what's the point in requiring the existence of the charge be transmitted? Juries in criminal cases are told for good reason that an indictment isn't evidence. Why should a bill seek to communicate a non-criminal, non-civil, purely campus-oriented charge in the obvious hope that the charge will be used as evidence by the receiving institution?

(Similarly, I wouldn't see the point in requiring an internal campus decision to be transmitted - isn't that up to the next admitting institution to request? Isn't it up to the latter institution's staff and students to demand if they want disclosure but policy doesn't require it?)



It's obviously a tough case if the government doesn't pick up criminal charges at all. They'll take a charge and try to force a plea if they think there's a chance. If no prosecutor even wants to try, then it is almost certainly unwinnable.

If this protects guilty persons, I'd rather that than have it damn innocents.

If charges have been filed by the DA, and those charges are actually going to be heard in court, then sure, but if that's the case those charges are already public record. However, if the charges are not legal charges by the DA, and are charges by the school or by another student and the DA is not involved, then passing that information along is at best gossip, and at worst libelous and defamatory - which is exactly what is being stated in the first paragraph of the article: "... found guilty of violating the school's sexual violence policies ..." Notice that we're talking about the school making the decision about their policy, not the law. If a student has assaulted someone sexually, then the DA and the police need to be called, rather than just letting some school group or committee determine what may or may not have happened. Each school has the power to determine who can and cannot be a student at their institution. But, for them to influence others without a basis in actual law should be opposed by anyone that believes in Due Process and the protections of the US Constitution. Due Process means the process of the legal system, not the process of a campus committee.

MaggieD said:

Just because something is (or may be) public record doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but if a college wishes to know which students have been charged/convicted with sexual assault, they can easily pull up their public record to find out.

What I don't understand is why this bill is trying to implement similar penalties to a student that cheated on an exam. Exams are part of your academics, so it makes sense to include academic infractions for cheating on college transcripts. But sexual assault has absolutely nothing to do with that.

chromium said:

Absolutely it violates due process

Click to expand...

Actually, that statement may or may not be true. "Due Process" is defined by a million pages of court decisions at the bare minimum.



Is the legislature the state actor, if so, what about standing and all the "case and controversy" requirements to get someone into court against an institution who sent the info based on an act of the legislature? OR, is the institution the defendant? Is it a state actor or a private institution or a publicly established entity?

From there, to what extent are concepts of "due process" drawn from existing cases (generally criminal in matter, prosecuted by the government) applicable to an institution that handled an internal allegation of sexual misconduct? I mean, you don't get "due process" if 7/11 fires you for farting next to a customer. It has nothing to do with it. Federal constitutional protections only come into play when the government or "state actor" is the one doing the thing. And "state actor" gets messy very quickly once you're talking about an institution that might not be run by government but has some government ties (like federal grants).

This isn't quite my area, but I remember it being an unholy mess in various law school classes.....





Basically, I hate this idea, but it doesn't make sense to just say "oh yeah, it violates due process". There's so much law on what "due process" constitutes in Deity-knows how many situations.

MaggieD said:

Just because something is (or may be) public record doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported.

Click to expand...

There's a real danger that innocents will be damned because of an out-of-court accusation pertaining to a non-governmental issue involving rules specific to one college.

Babies, bathwater, and all that....




A criminal conviction or allegation can be looked up, so long as the person has been arraigned/indicted. But we're talking about an accusation from outside the judicial system being sent to other places, in the hope that it will be treated as a disqualifying conviction.

There is never enough hammering on men, there will always be calls for more, till one accusation by a woman that a man has done her wrong ruins his life.

No mercy.





NOTE: I am here as in most places deeply hostile towards the feminists sex law making.

[nvm]

Mr Person said:

Actually, that statement may or may not be true. "Due Process" is defined by a million pages of court decisions at the bare minimum.



Is the legislature the state actor, if so, what about standing and all the "case and controversy" requirements to get someone into court against an institution who sent the info based on an act of the legislature? OR, is the institution the defendant? Is it a state actor or a private institution or a publicly established entity?

From there, to what extent are concepts of "due process" drawn from existing cases (generally criminal in matter, prosecuted by the government) applicable to an institution that handled an internal allegation of sexual misconduct? I mean, you don't get "due process" if 7/11 fires you for farting next to a customer. It has nothing to do with it. Federal constitutional protections only come into play when the government or "state actor" is the one doing the thing. And "state actor" gets messy very quickly once you're talking about an institution that might not be run by government but has some government ties (like federal grants).

This isn't quite my area, but I remember it being an unholy mess in various law school classes.....





Basically, I hate this idea, but it doesn't make sense to just say "oh yeah, it violates due process". There's so much law on what "due process" constitutes in Deity-knows how many situations.

Click to expand...

I am aware of all that, i'm referring to it as a principle, like how free speech is something we *value* and not just a restriction on government. In any case, there's clear damages to be had when the accused is innocent yet the college sought to destroy his reputation and future prospects

Although a lot of college public safety actions when it comes to rape complaints are subject to legal due process, since they have the power to arrest and refer the case to a DA (the latter happened to the Duke players despite there was no evidence)

chromium said:

Absolutely it violates due process and anyone with a black mark like that owing to a mere accusation would obviously sue

Let me guess, on top of the season being cancelled and having to take DNA test, the entire Duke lacrosse team should've had "SUSPECTED RAPIST" on top and center of their transcripts, just because some stripper lied and they wanted to transfer away from the place that treated them like they were automatically guilty (not just the school admin, but the alumni too)

This bill seems like just another form of attention whoring. Funny how strippers and congress have that in common

Click to expand...

The same goes for the UVA fraternity rape allegation. A totally made up story.

Rape is easy to claim. Even if the charge is filed, we are innocent until found guilty.

Hawkeye10 said:

There is never enough hammering on men, there will always be calls for more, till one accusation by a woman that a man has done her wrong ruins his life.

No mercy.





NOTE: I am here as in most places deeply hostile towards the feminists sex law making.

Click to expand...

Men are the ones doing the raping when it does happen. There is also a need to convince parents that it's safe to send their daughters far away

However the tendency by colleges and feminists to assume guilt is deeply troubling and, florida state and notre dame football players aside, has created a situation where it might be on average more risky for men to finish their degree without incident

jimbo said:

The same goes for the UVA fraternity rape allegation. A totally made up story.

Rape is easy to claim. Even if the charge is filed, we are innocent until found guilty.

Click to expand...

And let's be clear, guilty should NOT be "Well I believe it is slightly more likely that she is telling the truth (for what ever reason, because who cares about reasons anymore, it is all about the emotions) than he is, so GUILTY!" like the feminists want it, have told the University that it should be and will be just as soon as they can get a law passed on this .

chromium said:

Men are the ones doing the raping when it does happen. There is also a need to convince parents that it's safe to send their daughters far away

However the tendency by colleges and feminists to assume guilt is deeply troubling and, florida state and notre dame football players aside, has created a situation where it might be on average more risky for men to finish their degree without incident

Click to expand...

They might want to ask why other peoples daughters dont turn men in well over half the time according to the feminists, and given what we are doing to men on campus believing the feminists excuse that they dont do it because they dont trust the system to hurt the men is the sign of senility.

This is as absolute violation of due process.
Charges are not convictions.

This women has an axe to grind against men.
Ever sense judges ruled yes means yes on college campuses violates due process these people still continue to howl
And grind their axe.

Time for men of CA to file a lawsuit against her and this bill.

TheGoverness said:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/new-bill-proposes-college-transcripts-include-rape-charges




I find this bill to be flawed in a lot of ways, mainly because it is also including rape charges, not simply rape convictions. Hence why in the bill it states:


"DISCLOSURE OF PENDING AND COMPLETED DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A STUDENT."

In my mind, that is a pretty clear violation of Due Process. One being charged with a crime doesn't mean that they necessarily committed that crime. This bill would also have the potential to harm those that are falsely charged with committing sexual assault. Added to the fact that sexual assault should be something that the court system should rule on, not the school.


Thoughts? Comments?

Do you think this bill is a good idea?

Click to expand...

I was tempted to make a quip like "why not tattoo their foreheads," but it really isn't possible anymore to be absurd when it comes to puritanical campus inquisitions. Someone has probably already seriously entertained it. Without a doubt there are many who would go along with the idea without flinching.