A previous post here defended (1) having university authorities investigate accusations of on-campus date rape and impose university discipline, whether or not the complainant chooses to pursue criminal charges, and (2) imposing discipline on a standard of proof something short of “beyond reasonable doubt.” That still seems right to me.
But Nancy Gertner’s careful analysis of Harvard’s new policy shows that complaints about procedural unfairness toward the accused in such cases are sometimes very well founded. Under the Harvard system, the accused has one week to respond, no right to call witnesses or cross-examine, and only a limited right to legal representation, while the accuser has unlimited time and assistance The university officials in charge of enforcing rules against gender discrimination act as investigator, judge, and jury, and their findings of fact are unreviewable. Can you say “kangaroo court”?
Gertner also shows that Oberlin’s policy does the same job much better.
Putting the adjudication of such charges, and the review of the performance of the campus officials who manage the process, in the hands of on-campus  Title IX compliance officers and Title IX administrators at the Department of Education is a recipe for disaster.Â
The Oberlin policy is good, although I don't think you need that much just to issue an injunction and keep the accused rapist and accusing victim apart on campus (through changed schedules, maybe suspensions, etc). Expulsions, definitely.
I'll admit that my irritation got the best of me in responding to some of these proposals, including the Harvard letter of 19. It just irritated me that now that women are finally trying to get universities to do something, suddenly all of these folks come out of the wood work just so deeply concerned about justice procedure in campus rape cases . . . when almost none of them seemed to care at all about how fair it was before victims started suing under Title IX. Gertner is an exception in that regard.
Not only can I say “kangaroo court”, I do believe I did say those exact words in a comment on your original post. I do believe the burden is on you to explain what basis you have for believing that some schools have, in fact, a better system than Harvard’s.
What I think is interesting is that apparently Harvard came up with this new flawed process without involving any (or many?) of the legal experts they have … right there on staff. Really, why have a Law School at all, then?
Mind you, I have seen a certain law school completely bleep up the "process" of investigating one of its own professors who was accused of date rape of a student. No due process at all for the accused, far as I could tell. Mind you, this is from the bleachers. The whole thing was a fiasco. I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe not enough of them liked the guy. (Who was an excellent teacher, btw. A standout. Maybe not so much with the bedside manner though.)
At the count of three … everyone stop drinking so much!!!! Military, I'm lookin' at *you* ….