The following story is a sad and frightening commentary on our so-called "rape culture." It illustrates the significant and unfortunate roadblocks confronting presumptively innocent college men caught up in murky "he said/she said" accusations of sexual assault in our current milieu.
Let me state at the outset: as an objective outsider, I have no idea what happened in the dorm that figures in this story the night of the alleged incident. No one does except the two young people involved. It would be unjust to call the young man a rapist, and equally unjust to call the young woman a false rape/sexual assault accuser. All we can comment on is what we know based on what was reported.
A 19-year-old female Bucknell student named Kelly Stefanowicz alleged that on September 5, 2010, at approximately 2:00 a.m., she was physically and sexually assaulted by Reed C. Dempsey, also a 19-year-old Bucknell student. The Union County District Attorney, in conjunction with the Bucknell University Police Department, filed criminal charges against Mr. Dempsey related to the alleged attack.
Stefanowicz also filed an internal disciplinary complaint at Bucknell against Mr. Dempsey.
Mr. Dempsey subsequently filed his own student complaint at Bucknell against Stefanowicz, contending she sexually assaulted by kneeing him in the groin, and that she filed false charges against him.
Mr. Dempsey was suspended and barred from campus. He attended classes through a webcam, but was not allowed to participate in on-campus activities.
Stefanowicz Files a Motion to Enjoin the Hearing She Initiated
The Bucknell student code of conduct requires a disciplinary hearing of student complaints within 20 class days of the filing date. As it happened, the Bucknell disciplinary hearing was scheduled to occur before Mr. Dempsey’s criminal preliminary hearing was scheduled to occur before a district judge.
Ms. Stefanowicz found the timing of the Bucknell hearing objectionable because it would give Mr. Dempsey -- the presumptively innocent young man accused of a very serious crime that could send him to prison for many years -- an unfair advantage. How? At the Bucknell hearing, Ms. Stefanowicz would be forced to answer questions posed by Mr. Dempsey, and Mr. Dempsey would obtain evidence, including witness testimony, before the local district attorney's office finished compiling its case. This, in the eyes of persons looking to convict Mr. Dempsey of a criminal charge, could impair the criminal prosecution against Mr. Dempsey.
To prevent the criminal prosecution against Mr. Dempsey from being impaired, Stefanowicz filed a motion in Federal Court to enjoin the Bucknell disciplinary hearing -- the hearing that she inititiated -- until after Mr. Dempsey's criminal preliminary hearing. She alleged that holding the Bucknell hearing before Mr. Dempsey's criminal preliminary hearing violated -- you guessed it -- Title IX. She objected to Bucknell turning over to Mr. Dempsey material that could be used by the prosecution at his preliminary hearing. She also objected because, as part of the Bucknell hearing, Stefanowicz would be required to confront Mr. Dempsey and respond to his questions. Moreover, she objected because she was required to face charges of sexual assault and false accusations at the Bucknell hearing.
A Federal Court Denies the Motion for Injunction
Earlier this month, a Federal Court denied Stefanowicz's motion to enjoin Bucknell from conducting its hearing. The court rejected the argument that the Bucknell hearing would violate Title IX. The court explained:
"[I]t was [Stefanowicz] who first sought the relief accorded by Bucknell's internal procedures. Moreover, the questions prepared by Dempsey will be read by a member of the hearing board, and not by Dempsey himself. The questions posed are also required to be relevant and appropriate. The hearing board, through the chairperson, is responsible for determining the relevance and appropriateness of respondent's questions and is thus able to protect [Stefanowicz] from any potential harassment or retaliation." Under these circumstances, "the Court cannot conclude on the basis of the complaint that there is a substantial likelihood that the procedures surrounding the [Bucknell] hearing constitute further sexual harassment that is severe or objectively offensive and that Bucknell was deliberately indifferent to the harassment."
The Bucknell Disciplinary Hearing: Dempsey Cleared of Sexual Assault
At the Bucknell disciplinary hearing, Mr. Dempsey was cleared of sexual assault charges. He and Stefanowicz were both found guilty of disorderly conduct after an internal hearing that stretched over three days before a board of one administrator, two faculty members and two students. A news report after the hearing noted: "Defense attorney Stephen Becker said that during the hearing, witnesses testified that Demspey and his accuser were playing and laughing before and after they entered his room."
The Criminal Charges Are Dropped
This morning, it was reported that the criminal charges against Mr. Dempsey were being dropped. The evidence isn't strong enough to proceed.
So how do you think the sexual grievance industry reacts? The legal director for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape said college hearing boards "don't have the proper skills to handle such delicate matters." That's right. "Why not leave this serious issue to the criminal courts? It really is important to give the district attorney all the possible leeway and evidence and ability to conduct interviews. This is what he's trained in."
Conclusion
Heaven forbid we should allow a university to proceed with a hearing that the accuser initiated if it might shed light on what really happened in a murky, "he said/she said" scenario.
Does anyone else find that attitude repulsive, morally grotesque, and thoroughly unjust? The fact that such arguments are posited with a straight face, and that a federal court must spend several pages rejecting them, is frightening. How does that give the presumptively innocent young man an unfair advantage?
I must note in passing that the reaction of the sexual grievance industry is startling. Deprive the kangaroo courts that masquerade as college disciplinary hearing boards the right to adjudicate sexual assault complaints? Do my eyes deceive me? Of course, this statement is posited only after a case where a young man was cleared of sexual assault charges. I can't recall hearing any such concerns from the sexual grievance industry when young men accused of sexual assault are routinely deprived of what we normally consider due process protections in college hearings.
Sources:
-Stefanowicz v. Bucknell Univ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106333 (M.D. Pa. filed Oct. 5, 2010)
-http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1048514169/Sex-case-against-BU-student-dropped
-http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x996060269/School-acquits-man-of-assault
-http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x921677545/DA-BU-inquiry-impairs-criminal-hearing/print
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Off-topic Heads-up to Pierce and Steven:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/
With as many linked, quoted news articles that are posted here, it may be beneficial to spend $105 for DMCA protection.
"I must note in passing that the reaction of the sexual grievance industry is startling. Deprive the kangaroo courts that masquerade as college disciplinary hearing boards the right to adjudicate rape complaints? Do my eyes deceive me? Of course, this statement is posited only after a case where a young man was cleared of rape charges. I can't recall hearing any such concerns from the sexual grievance industry when young men accused of sexual assault are routinely deprived of their due process protections in college hearing boards."
It would be startling except that feminists have often complained about the results of their own policies.
Just like they complained about mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence after the police started arresting domestically violent women.
Of course, they also ignore that the "criminal courts" also dropped the charges in this case.
Well, of course, Bucknell should have just stopped the hearing because it might have interfered with the police as they mounted a case against this kid.
I mean, why are you opposed to convicting a male, even if he's innocent?
UK: Surrey woman jailed for false rape claim, theft
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11665198
"Of course, they also ignore that the "criminal courts" also dropped the charges in this case."
Yeah, except they would say that the college hearing compromised law enforcement's ability to proceed, and thus, another "rapist" was allowed to walk.
Anon at 9:51: that was covered on this blog yesterday.
"I must note in passing that the reaction of the sexual grievance industry is startling. Deprive the kangaroo courts that masquerade as college disciplinary hearing boards the right to adjudicate rape complaints? Do my eyes deceive me? Of course, this statement is posited only after a case where a young man was cleared of rape charges. I can't recall hearing any such concerns from the sexual grievance industry when young men accused of sexual assault are routinely deprived of their due process protections in college hearing boards."
I'm surprised at your incredulity,sir, surely you know that every measure enacted and every step taken by a feminist is but a means to an end;the end being putting more men,innocent or not, in jail. If the result is not achieved,then clearly the system is flawed.
I pray nightly that hell exists, so feminist scum may rot there,beside Hitler,Marx,Stalin,and Nathan Bedford Forrest, where they belong.
". . . every measure enacted and every step taken by a feminist is but a means to an end;the end being putting more men,innocent or not, in jail. If the result is not achieved,then clearly the system is flawed."
Yep. Because women don't lie about rape.
Thank you for summarizing the recent lawsuit.
”The legal director for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape said college hearing boards "don't have the proper skills to handle such delicate matters." That's right. "Why not leave this serious issue to the criminal courts? It really is important to give the district attorney all the possible leeway and evidence and ability to conduct interviews. This is what he's trained in."”
Note to PA CAR director and head dumb-ass:
The DA (or police) dropped the charges after investigating and not finding enough evidence to proceed.
”Deprive the kangaroo courts that masquerade as college disciplinary hearing boards the right to adjudicate rape complaints?”
Well, to my great shock, this time a college disciplinary board not only heard evidence from both parties, but also found her charges unfounded (and disorderly conduct for both, despite what might have been a legitimate sexual assault complaint against her):
”At the Bucknell disciplinary hearing, Mr. Dempsey was cleared of sexual assault charges. He and Stefanowicz were both found guilty of disorderly conduct…”
Just how bad was the credibility of her complaint for a college disciplinary board to toss it? When was the last time anyone here can recall such a board being anything other than a “rubber stamp” on a woman’s complaint (Brown, anyone?)
Is this really good news, or just wishful thinking on my part? A college disciplinary board find a male student innocent of sexual assault charges! Even though they failed to take her allege physical and sexual assault charges seriously, I’m actually elated that such a suspect body actually did a reasonable job of assessing a woman’s allegations.
I certainly hope other such college boards will take courage from this, and follow suit.
slw, this is really a case where the school and law enforcement seem to have done their jobs (I don't know what Bucknell's burden of proof, etc., is, or whether it's hearing comports with due process -- based on the way the federal court described its process, it leaves something to be desired for the presumptively innocent), but I am troubled by the complainant's tactic of trying to stifle a hearing she initiated, because -- heaven forbid -- the young man would have access to evidence before the criminal hearing. This would somehow give him an "unfair advantage"? I am at a loss. How? He might learn the details of his accuser's allegation?
I'm a student at Bucknell, and all I've heard about this is how fucked up Bucknell's police force was in handling this. Basically, Dempsey was a guy (in a frat, no less), and she was a cute little blond girl. How could she possibly lie about this? News flash, everyone is capable of lying, of perverting the truth for their benefit. Police should appeal to facts, to give equal attention to both sides of a story before emotions and biased preconceptions come into play. Nonetheless, Bucknell's police made no noticeable attempt at running a balanced, non-bias investigation. Instead, Dempsey's guilt was predetermined, and they carried out the rest of the "investigation" accordingly. It sickens me that these people are out there, both the people that make false sexual assault charges that could and would absolutely ruin lives, and powers that be out there that choose to defend one life over another (in this case one student over another, regardless of gender) before all the information is responsibly taken into account.
"Just how bad was the credibility of her complaint for a college disciplinary board to toss it?"
Not to imply that her claim was credible, but the board might have been annoyed with her efforts to stop them. Which also cast doubts on the credibility of her claim.
Although I'm wondering what her motive was to take all of these actions?
Bucknell student, thanks much for the insight. I need to be careful about what we say about the young woman here -- because the federal suit published her name, and it's out there. That's a rarity for us.
Archivist: Re standard of proof, the Bucknell student handbook makes it pretty clear:
The outcome of the hearing is rendered only on the basis of evidence relevant to the charge(s) which was presented at the hearing, and not on irrelevant or external information or opinions about the background, personality, or reputation of those involved. The decision of responsible or not responsible is made on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence.
http://www.bucknell.edu/x4704.xml
The local DA was quoted as saying "the nature of the alleged crime and the surrounding circumstances make it difficult to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt".
If the charges could not be proven on a preponderance standard in a disciplinary hearing, how could they ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom?
Maybe the charges are better described as "false" rather than "difficult to prove".
I need to make this point very, very clear: as an objective outsider, I have no idea what happened in that dorm that night. No one does except the two young people involved.
All I do know is that the presumptively innocent young man ought to be afforded the continued presumption of innocence. That does not mean I know what actually happened.
But, you see, "actually" is not something we can concern ourselves with at this stage, because the "actually" will never, ever be known to anyone aside from the two involved. And it would be unjust for us to treat him as a possible rapist.
It also would be unjust for us to treat her as a false rape accuser.
What we are concerned with on this Web site is the process, and with how the presumptively innocent are too often treated as criminals for the rest of their lives based on an unproven rape claim. As terrible as it is for a young woman to see her rapist go free, it is worse to convict an innocent person of a rape he didn't commit.
So, as in all such cases, if a rape did in actuality occur, it is a terrible thing that a rapist escaped justice. But if a rape did not in actuality occur, the young man has experienced a terrible ordeal, one that might follow him forever.
All we can go by is what happened in the college hearing and what the police determined.
And if this was a situation where a young woman honestly believes she was raped, and the young man honestly believes he was falsely accused, one of those gray, murky areas, I pray that they can both find the healing that will be very difficult to find. I hope the school is providing assistance.
Archivist - "I am troubled by the complainant's tactic of trying to stifle a hearing she initiated, because -- heaven forbid -- the young man would have access to evidence before the criminal hearing. This would somehow give him an "unfair advantage"? I am at a loss. How? He might learn the details of his accuser's allegation?"
I've always thought that defense counsel was given both the arrest report and (at least) a list of the evidence prior to an arraignment hearing. Am I wrong about that?
If I’m not, than what would his defense have seen due to the disciplinary board’s hearing (which, for all I know is completely closed, and not available as evidence for any further criminal prosecution) that they would not have seen otherwise?
What seems to be more common with those college disciplinary boards is that the (male) defendant is not allowed to mount much of a defense. He’s only there to “answer” for his conduct, not to try to prove that the alleged conduct never took place. An example of this would seem to me to be a case in which a man never even had sex with the woman who was accusing him of rape. Would the results of DNA rape kit testing even be allowed to be considered? What evidentiary guidelines would have to be followed? And, as I understood it, the (male) defendants at such disciplinary boards are not allowed legal representation (who could credibly challenge physical evidence if it were presented).
It’s just my guess, but I’d imagine that the woman knew full well the weakness of her allegation, and simply imagined that the “real” police would be able to review the testimonies at the board hearing (at which I’m also guessing she fully intended to lie in ways that would enhance her claims against him, but would have been in conflict with her statement to the police), and would then have cause to question the credibility of her allegation.
I’d liken it to the situation at Brown U., had the accuser their also made a formal police report of the rape that didn’t happen in that case. The Brown board didn’t need to see any evidence of the alleged crime, nor even hear of her own changing and conflicting story, which morphed from her liking his attention, to her friends not approving of her associating with some lowly “Prole”, to his “stalking” her, to finally the allegation that he raped her.
At Brown, the board only heard her “final” version, and passed judgment without feeling the need for any evidence of the alleged crime. Those pesky cops might have messed the whole thing up by asking questions, looking for witnesses, and trying to find evidence.
The likely reason that what would have been a serious crime (forcible rape) had it actually occurred, was never reported to police.
From the first new link:
"Bucknell spokesman Tom Evelyn said Johnson's decision backs up the hearing board's decision.
"The university was not involved in the process by which the district attorney concluded the case should be dismissed," he said in an e-mailed statement. "His decision is consistent, however, with the on-campus determination of the hearing board, which found both parties responsible for disorderly conduct.""
Just what I thought. The the disciplinary boards hearing, it's outcome, nor the evidence presented therein is believed to have been used in concluding that the (criminal) evidence did not support prosecution.
Archivist: Let's also be careful not to throw the word "rape" out as something that's interchangeable with "sexual assault." Initially, the girl charged the guy with simple assault and harassment, and then she engrossed her story to include the fear that he may rape her. The charges were never that she actually got raped.
Right, Anon at 1:43.
The Gender / Raunch community have become "super Empowered" by flaming the fires of prejudice against heterosexual males.
They have Empowered themselves by standing on the heads of innocent heterosexuals.
"Archivist: Let's also be careful not to throw the word "rape" out as something that's interchangeable with "sexual assault." Initially, the girl charged the guy with simple assault and harassment, and then she engrossed her story to include the fear that he may rape her. The charges were never that she actually got raped."
Lying is lying.
The Bucknell disciplinary hearing included an administrator, two faculty members and two students.
The 2 students were his friends/witnesses?
Anon 549: See Bucknell's Student Handbook (link above), page 117. The student participants are selected from a "Community Conduct Board" composed of 24 students, 20 faculty members, and 10 administrators. Student members of the CCB are elected by the student government during the spring semester.
Dumb questions probably, but is this policy standard among all colleges? Don't all colleges have a financial consideration when conducting these hearings, and why would a hearing panel side with a rape victim, knowing what a black mark it would be against the college?
Post a Comment