America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,738 comments
  • 1,659,261 views


I have to laugh at all the people on youtube complaining about Prof. McCloskey's voice. They probably don't even realize she was a he.

Sounds super cool, though. Bet she could do some science fiction voice acting on the side.
 
Wow, well apparently once the 1800's hit a skateboarder was able to make huge air off a hockey stick... i call blasphemy
 
Is this the future of jurisprudence here in America? A student at the University of Michigan has been suspended until 2016 for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student in the dorms of the school. The male student in question, Drew Sterrett, had no notice of the charges against him, no lawyer to be able to put on a competent defense, and no jury of his peers. Quoting from the Michigan Daily paper:

Former student Drew Sterrett filed a lawsuit against the University on April 23 after he was suspended from school following allegations of sexual misconduct. Sterrett, who was a student in the College of Engineering, has taken legal action because he said he was denied due process during the investigation, after a complaint was filed against him by a female friend whom he had sexual relations with.

Sterrett’s attorney Deborah Gordon told The Michigan Daily she finds the University was “completely neglectful” in almost every aspect of their internal investigation, which ultimately left Sterrett “deprived of his educational opportunity.”

Gordon added that the University’s “sloppy” investigation led to a false result and maintains her client’s innocence based on official affidavit statements that Sterrett obtained from witnesses in an attempt to provide evidence to clear his name.

She explained that with all other crimes, from minor in possession to public indecency charges, the accused is allowed a hearing and chance to speak with witnesses as part of their due process rights. These allowances are not offered to those accused of sexual assault, which Gordon said she believes is the result of the administration’s efforts to streamline investigations regarding sexual assaults to “look like they’re making strides towards stamping out sexual assault” on campus.

University Spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham denied allegations of negligence in a statement released to The Michigan Daily.

“The University is reviewing the complaints and plans to defend them vigorously,” she said. “What we can say now is that our student sexual misconduct policy and practices meet or exceed due process requirements.”

The University has 28 days from the time the suit was filed to respond.

Gordon called Sterrett’s case the “ugly other side of sexual assault on campus,” because outside pressure seems to create rush judgments that often lead to wrongful punishments.

She added that the University is put in a hard position with these cases, because they assume a role closer to that of a police officer than an academic institution, which she believes is inappropriate. Gordon said the administrator who initially interviewed Sterrett had a linguistics degree, which she believes isn’t adequate training for conducting an investigation of this magnitude.

Gordon said that Sterrett’s only opportunity to plead his innocence was in a phone interview shortly after the complaint was filed, five months after the act in question actually took place. She emphasized that no one from the University ever met Sterrett in person, which she viewed as one of the many faults of the investigation.

According to the details of the lawsuit, Sterrett and the female friend who eventually filed the complaint went out “socializing” and had sexual relations in his dorm room, where she stayed the entire night. She filed the complaint with the University about five months later but never contacted the police. Sterrett was told if he postponed the interview to consult a lawyer, the investigation would continue without him – which Gordon also cited as an infringement of legal rights.

Gordon added that the proceedings will be a long road, and that the next step is the “discovery phase,” where she
will perform depositions on the University officials involved in Sterrett’s case. She anticipates it will be many months before a court date is set.

Sterrett is currently unable to attend the University unless he admits to committing the sexual assault, a confession that Gordon said is just “not possible” to make. She added that he’s had difficulty finding employment or gaining admission at other schools once institutions learn of the allegations against him.

“My heart really goes out to Drew because the University’s reckless actions really turned his life around in an instant,” Gordon said. “He came to (the University) expecting to go to this great school and have all of these great opportunities, and now this unfortunate event will define his college experience.”

Under the University’s recently adopted sexual misconduct policy, officials need only preponderance of evidence to find alleged assailants responsible for sexual misconduct. That policy was enacted after the U.S. Department of Education recommended institutions amend their policies to adopt a lower standard of evidence in cases of sexual misconduct.

Earlier this year, federal officials launched an investigation of the University’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations after receiving a complaints related to the permanent separation of former kicker Brendan Gibbons. In January, the Daily reported Gibbons had been permanently separated from the University after being found responsible for committing sexual misconduct.
 
Is this the future of jurisprudence here in America? A student at the University of Michigan has been suspended until 2016 for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student in the dorms of the school. The male student in question, Drew Sterrett, had no notice of the charges against him, no lawyer to be able to put on a competent defense, and no jury of his peers. Quoting from the Michigan Daily paper:

I think you will find that how universities deal with sexual matters on campus has nothing whatever to do with "jurisprudence", meaning the federal, state and local laws and the legal system. The educational system has a great deal more latitude to do as it pleases when it comes to saying what is or isn't rape, meting out responsibility, punishment and so forth. For better or worse.

Often, a female alleging date rape will have a MUCH greater chance of having her alleged male assailant more or less immediately removed from campus by university administrators than if she had proceded or officially complained through the city police department, or formal legal system.

Note: My niece is currently attending the University of Washington. She completed her first year with a nearly perfect GPA while residing in a highly rated sorority house. She has now quit the sorority on the grounds that almost the entire house consists of drunken sluts partying around the clock to the detriment of their studies.
 
Last edited:
Is this the future of jurisprudence here in America? A student at the University of Michigan has been suspended until 2016 for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student in the dorms of the school. The male student in question, Drew Sterrett, had no notice of the charges against him, no lawyer to be able to put on a competent defense, and no jury of his peers. Quoting from the Michigan Daily paper:
A university suspension is not a legal punishment. They have a responsibility to students for safety. If this guy did commit sexual assault he is a danger to other students. If he does it again the university could lose millions in a lawsuit.
 
Yesterday there was a bomb threat at a school in my area. First one I can remember since Columbine was all the rage back when I was in middle school. The threat was in the morning, of course, so school was locked down and everybody went home for the day. Also of course, the bomb squad has to search everything so everybody leaves their back packs at school meaning they can't do homework meaning it has to be excused and delayed, etc.

There was another bomb threat at a different school this morning. Call me cynical but I'm already sensing a trend. Somebody must not have finished that final project on time.
 
A university suspension is not a legal punishment. They have a responsibility to students for safety. If this guy did commit sexual assault he is a danger to other students. If he does it again the university could lose millions in a lawsuit.

Absolutely this. However, I'd say that the University shouldn't even 'judge' this case, the matter should be handed to the police to deal with. Once their investigation is complete then the University should act on that.

I'd flip your question, @FoolKiller, what if she does it again?
 
Please clarify: Do you mean if a woman commits sexual assault or if this specific woman files a new complaint that is possibly false?

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

For the sake of argument alone let's presume that her accusation of sexual assault was deliberately false or misleading. The University is, in my view, in equal danger of heavy liability in the event of her making a second equally false or misleading claim that is subsequently proven so.

Sexual assault is a terrible and demeaning crime but so is the false accusation of it. The University is bound to act to protect its students but in my view it should leave judgement to law.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I should have been clearer.

For the sake of argument alone let's presume that her accusation of sexual assault was deliberately false or misleading. The University is, in my view, in equal danger of heavy liability in the event of her making a second equally false or misleading claim that is subsequently proven so.

Sexual assault is a terrible and demeaning crime but so is the false accusation of it. The University is bound to act to protect its students but in my view it should leave judgement to law.
I agree, unfortunately the US legal system takes a stance to protect the possible victim, even to the point of violating the rights of the accused. The Constitution guarantees a right to face your accuser, but many places have worked to hide the identity of the accuser and not require them to take the witness stand because making them go back through that experience can be traumatizing. Being accused of sexual assault is a guaranteed way to have little ability to defend yourself. It is near impossible if you actually did have sex.
 
Being accused of sexual assault is a guaranteed way to have little ability to defend yourself

Sadly (and without wanting to stray from the America topic) that seems to be true the world over. A man innocently accused of rape (to fix an example) whose defence is simply his-word-her-word is very much at the mercy of the jury. Furthermore it seems that juries in such cases find for female plaintiffs much more often than they dismiss their cases. That is only my opinion and one which I'm prepared to educated on if needs be ;)
 
Along the same lines, even if the person is found not guilty the accusation still follows them around; for the rest of their lives in some cases.
 
I can name all the states, some capitals, some presidents :D

Out of interest, why is Obama listed as #44 when he's the #43rd person to preside?
 
I can name all the states, some capitals, some presidents :D

Out of interest, why is Obama listed as #44 when he's the #43rd person to preside?

Because Grover Cleveland came back and had two non-consecutive terms.
 
Because Grover Cleveland came back and had two non-consecutive terms.

I know... but I still don't see why they didn't just use Cleveland's "ordinal number" again. Or would it have been too much for the media to cope with at the time? :D
 
I don't know how you count over there.

:D

I guess it's the language they use... I see Obama as the 43rd President, because he's the 43rd person to be President. I'd still only think he'd been President once even if his terms had been split :)
 
:D

I guess it's the language they use... I see Obama as the 43rd President, because he's the 43rd person to be President. I'd still only think he'd been President once even if his terms had been split :)

Uh, no. He's the 44th because Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th. President is not a person, it's an office.
 
Well get over it. Because to everyone else it makes perfect sense. Grover was the 22nd, then Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd, then Grover came back to be the 24th. The order is of the terms the office is held, or incumbency. It's not about the man.
 
Well get over it. Because to everyone else it makes perfect sense. Grover was the 22nd, then Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd, then Grover came back to be the 24th. The order is of the terms the office is held, or incumbency. It's not about the man.

Easy tiger, I shall ;)
 
Back