So, I’m kinda on the opposite side of the table from you professionally speaking.

Still, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. We have a long tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - and that shouldn’t change.

This is misleading the point. E v. CMSC (and a few other related rulings) allow extremely narrow adjudication of mostly civil matters (eg cheating, plagiarism) and low-level criminal misdemeanors (eg underage drinking and fighting). This proceedings can be treated as what amounts essentially to an arbitration…

I’m sorry about your friend, but the answer is NEVER going to be a ‘separate but unequal’ shadow legal system operating at universities. I wholly agree we need major justice reform, but the answer is not abusing people through misapplication of Title IX.

Do you really believe that if you underwent a FULL process review, you’d come out on the other side unscathed? Eg that you fully upheld all legal/judicial/procedural/etc/etc/etc processes? There is zero fucking chance - statutory ‘due process’ as defined through both law and precedent is an extremely, extremely high…

That’s stupid hair-splitting. All defendants are definitionally ‘innocent’ until they are ‘found guilty’. So the phrase that would make you happy is ‘the defendant continues to be innocent of X crime.’ I’m not sure why you are even trying to make that point. You aren’t a lawyer b/c this framing and phrasing around…

I’d call the police. Arrest/detainment/interrogation/etc are all part of ‘due process’ - that’s not just a legal thing.

DUE PROCESS. It is not a suggestion; it is an absolute law of the land.

I’m entirely with you. I’ve written on this before, but the “Dear Colleague’ has set this cause back by at least five years. The legal process behind the ‘Dear Colleague’ is unprecedented and likely to ultimately prove itself to be illegal - that’s my opinion but it is very widely held. And here is a hot take (but it…

Stop. Fucking. Dividing. People. Now.

So your argument is that he failed to pick up on the nuance that this article and the NDN were so obviously trying to display?

You are bring up a really good point, but this is Jezebel so forget a reasonable discussion.

“This isn’t reactionary policy. This is the removal of a bad actor for a bad decision.” - I can’t tell if this is demonstrating 1) a lack of comprehension of second order effects, or 2) a willful ignorance so you can get some internet points. You really think that removing a judge for issuing a completely legal…

Inside joke is far closer to the truth in this case. The Turner case causes a lot of raw emotion, but it is imperative that whatever solution we come up with does not shift the pain to the people that can least protect themselves.

Without equivocation the best way to handle this is in a voter’s booth. Judges have to make unpopular decisions all the time, and a recall really ought to be reserved for outright illegal behavior.

I’m sure nobody will read this, and Jezebel isn’t the place for this, but it needs to be said: What you said is completely and utterly incorrect. You are right that at a basic administrative level, schools are allowed to have their own administrative procedures; however, I also don’t think that you would consider rape…

This is an incredibly desperate attempt at a hot take. The Brock Turner decision is clearly an outlier in the ‘2016 America’ you’re trying to paint - its a textbook ‘man bites dog story’ and its news b/c it is so extremely unusual. Let me paint you a picture of the real ‘2016 America’: millions of black people…

Sam Biddle looks like a young Nathan Lane wearing the word’s worst wig, and Jordan Sargent’s glasses appear to be interfering with the space-time continuum.

Yeah, as much as the comments of Jezebel is not the place to discuss this and expect balanced discourse, I will try: this really is the dark side of Kesha trying to litigate this in the court of public opinion. Its almost certain that the judge will allow it, particularly in light of Kesha giving a deposition that she…