Russell says Rue's first question to her daughter was, "Are you embarrassed?"

Depending on the context, this could be innocuous. If it's followed by a "because you shouldn't be", for example. Deans fulfill a counseling sort of role as well as enforcing law and order.

But really, this whole thing just underscores the inadequacy of the intramural judicial system. It's not the victim's fault for not pursuing such charges, obviously, it's the university's for pushing its own ridiculous justice system. If a serious crime is alleged to have been committed, it needs to be handled in a real court system.

I'm sure judish is great for handling stolen backpacks, trespassing and getting busted for beer, but it has no business dealing with crimes like rape.

UMD dealt with these types of issues as well (past tense just because I don't know of current goings-on) and I'm with Tom -- it's a violent crime, why go through the University's judicial system. That's not to blame the victim; I think campus judicial systems need to look at violent crimes (rape, mugging, whatever) and turn them over to the courts instead of acting like an independent fiefdom. The only problem with this is in the remote possibility of a suspended sentence, which would mean the offender remains on campus -- necessitating action with campus judy.

After spending time two different VA universities, I still haven't come to a firm conclusion that a university judicial system should make its own evidentiary findings and "judicial decisions" for incidents that are covered by criminal law (and are unrelated to the educational process). Instead, I think the schools should generally rely on the slow, but certainly more competent, state and federal criminal systems to hear evidence and make a finding of guilty / not guilty. Anywhere else, the school need tread very carefully.

With a conviction in hand, it is easy for the school to boot someone out. This is a problem because the systems of criminal justice tend to be slow and, considering appeals, take years to end. The hard part comes from the school taking preemptive action before the alleged criminal has been convicted (or even indicted). Schools certainly have a right to protect their flock from predators, but I wonder whether a decisionmaking body with 1 week's worth of training is competent to make those decisions. The problem isn't that they are acting as a jury (almost anyone can do that). The problem is that they are often acting as judge and jury. Judge: deciding what evidence to hear. Jury: deciding what weight to give that evidence and coming to an ultimate decision on guilt.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime for any judicial system to decide. The evidence, although it can be equivocal, is often limited and ultimately circumstantial as in Hylton's case. What do I mean by that? The decision of guilt often comes down to a decision by the jury as to whether the alleged victim or the alleged rapist is the more credible witness (he said / she said). This requires concerted effort by the judge to control what evidence is admissible. E.g, how much evidence of the victim's sexual history can the jury hear? Number of partners? Sex of partners? Number of one-night stands? Does the jury hear evidence of the frequency of sex with previous partners? If sodomy is at issue, does the jury get to hear the salicous details of sex with previous partners? With one week's worth of training, can someone make these kinds of decisions? Think of the worst case scenario where the victim has to describe every time she has had sex and attempt to justify those encounters as consensual, where this one was not. Moreover, will all this "evidence" become public under Susan Russell's FOIA? How does that change the victim's calculus as to whether to file charges?

Also, the crime of rape is usually second in punitive magnitude only to the forms of homicide. The social stigma associated with the crime of rape (and allegations thereof) is often higher than some forms of homicide. Both of those are strong motivations for the ultimate decisionmaker to get the decision right.

After a little experience with the judicial processes of both schools, I have serious reservations concerning the competence of those hearing evidence and making decisions regarding guilt. In other words, the decisionmakers hear a lot of evidence that would not be heard by a jury making a decision regarding civil or criminal guilt, and the administrators overseeing the judicial process (who often are THE form of appellate review) have strong motivation to make the problem go away. Honestly, how may university administrators have even a working knowledge of the Bill of Rights (as it relates to admissibility of evidence) and the rules of evidence of their state (which technically do not need to apply, but probably should)? Need I even say that it takes several courses in law school to get a basic understanding of the nuance at work here?

i totally agree. judish clearly has no place in handling these kinds of cases. this article was actually written about 9 months ago, so hopefully things have changed some...i'll google around and try to find out.

We are happy to see that the University has changed its policies - but will they enforce the new policies? I received an e-mail indicating to me that an SAB was scheduled for this past summer using the "OLD" rules because the University was not prepared to use the "new" rules. It's up to you students to monitor and challenge this - I opened the door for you students, now you can take the lead. If that comment sent to me were true, then you have a huge integrity issue with your Administration. FYI, Tom, unfortunately, Dean Rue did not fulfill her role as counselor. She was demeaning and persuasive that my daughter should "drop this whole thing." I quoted her exactly and hopefully you have understood her coldness and lack of empathy and sympathy for the victim. The label of "acquantaince rape" is innocuous - If my daughter had been dating and flirting with this guy, the term "acqaintaince" would seem more proper than him just being a guy she knew from class who decided to overpower her that evening. The SAB was managed by another Dean - Sisson - who stated during the Silent Protest to a HOOK reporter that she was "delighted" that the students were showing interest in this topic and that the SAB should be a "learning experience". That's inappropriate -- and also scary that she would even comment in that fashion. Everything we went through this past year and a half has been frustrating. Even Casteen has refused to meet with me during this time period. How can he justify his refusal to meet with the parent of a rape victim? At the least he must review the investigation - for all the reasons I have on the website. Thanks for letting me comment - please, support zero tolerance for all crimes that occur on your campus. Good Luck.