Well, I assume if there was some flaw in the evidence that was considered, this lawyer would have put that in the statement.

Your reasoning would lead to pretty much no rapes being investigated on college campuses. Maybe you think that would be a good thing - but it behooves a school to be able to provide a safe environment for students, and it’s difficult to do that if you can’t remove rapists (or other perpetrators of violent crime) from…

Maybe we don’t agree as much as you think. The differences are much more significant than the similarities. The motivation being offered here for Yale is that they used this kid as a “whipping boy” to distract from past problematic practices. But there was no public outcry here, the allegation wasn’t public like it…

So the point of you posting that long essay about a different case with different circumstances was....?

I’m picking a fight? Okay. I am pointing out the very real differences that make this unlikely to be a Jordan Johnson type situation.

Of course it’s not impossible. The thrust of your post seems to be that universities tend to go overboard in these cases when under scrutiny, in response to this lawyer’s suggestion of some larger conspiracy at play. But given the nature of the situation here - no public accusation, no outcry, that seems unlikely.…

If this guy had been expelled immediately like Johnson, I’d agree. But the accusation was made in November, the university followed its procedures, and came to a conclusion in February. There was no public accusation, no outcry, nothing of the sort. In fact, it wouldn’t even be news of his teammates hadn’t publicly…

We know that the school has a process, it followed its process, and he lost. There is very little grounds for a successful lawsuit from that.

I know what Yale’s process is. I also know that this lawyer is not arguing that Yale failed to follow the process, and is not arguing that the process is inadequate. He’s arguing with the outcome. And his arguments aren’t particularly convincing. I trust the thorough process over a biased statement.

Yup, that’s not what I said. Does Yale have an inadequate process for making these determinations? If so, how?

If there was some evidence that something had gone wrong in the process, I’d consider it. I assume that would have been in the lawyer’s statement. Instead, the statement basically says he is innocent because she went back to his room and Yale used the guy as a scapegoat to cover up their troubling history on sexual…

Well, for this case, this guy has no shot. There are no legal grounds to stand on. The mere fact that this fact exists is not enough to base a lawsuit that questions a college’s fact finding process.

Awwwww....did I hurt your precious little feelings? You would think I insulted your fedora.

The fact that it occurs in both scenarios means its existence does nothing to further the search for truth. It does not shed any insight into whether or not an assault occurred. That is the definition of irrelevant.

Stop fucking replying, you whiny little bitch. No one is forcing you to continue.

Sure. Downplay the relevant facts.

The strongest thing you can say about that piece of evidence is that it’s irrelevant. You acknowledge it is common behavior for victims of acquaintance rape to contact the perpetrators. It is also common for non-victims, of course. So the result is that it doesn’t really tell you anything about whether a rape…

Something shouldn’t create a reasonable doubt unless it actually creates a reasonable doubt. If this behavior is common among victims, how can it create a reasonable doubt that the person is not actually a victim?

Guess not.

No, people are not rushing to judgment here. A panel heard all of the evidence and determined he committed an offense. It is not like the only thing out there is an accusation. Someone has heard all of the evidence and made a determination. Not sure how that’s a rush to judgment.