**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

I disagree. We're talking about a body interfering with the personal,private sexual relations between two people. I don't want anyone anywhere near that. If it's not rape, sexual assault, etc, then they need to mind their own business. If it is one of those things, it should be left to the state who has experience in the issue and the laws involved.

I think there's an unintentional misunderstanding. What I said has been law for a long time. It's the freedom of private entities to set policies regarding their private interactions. It is lawful and should continue to be so for a university to expel somebody based on a set of criteria they choose and have been agreed upon. The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them. Obviously you know this already, as you're much more versed in the law than myself. I just needed to clarify what I was referring to.

As far as investigation of allegations go, private entities are lawful in doing so except for in ways that interferes with police investigations and rights of others. So even then, universities should be allowed to hold their own investigations into campus rape. The funny thing here is that universities are utterly failing on this because it is normally much more efficient for universities to not have much of an investigation and let the police do their jobs, but universities don't do this for the reason of, you guessed it, too many subsidies. Administrations are absorbing so much extra money that they don't know what to do with, that they are changing their own administrative policies towards campus behavior in negative ways that they otherwise would not.

[wufwugy]

The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them.

I want to clarify here, because I think what I said is possibly wrong and it's hopefully currently being explored by lawsuits. I doubt companies can get away with firing people because the boss thinks an employee raped somebody with no evidence or conviction, but the laws regarding universities are probably more favorable to universities than this. Regardless my point was that universities can expel people for breaking T&C, and if that T&C includes being "convicted" of rape by a university tribunal, and if it's lawful for the T&C to include that, then universities aren't breaking the law by doing so.