(02-05-2018 08:06 AM)91Alum Wrote:  Well, the judge lowered to effing boom on us. In "what might be the largest award in any due process case", Judge Joel C. Hoppe awarded $850,000 to the male student whose due process rights got stampeded by Johnny boy's kangaroo court.

Oh wait, there's more: "JMU aggressively litigated this case; that record haunted them in fee stage."

As a taxpayer, alumnus, donor and father, this pisses me off. Can't say we're not making a national name for ourselves, I guess.

You're doing a heck of a job, fellas

The $850,000 is for attorney fees. JMU lost the underlying due process case a while back. I'm not sure there was any $ awarded to the plaintiff - just cleared his name - but not sure about that.

People at various organizations within and connected to JMU have said that JMU relentlessly disparaged the John Doe and conspired to turn others against him.

JMU was most concerned with reputation/damage control, at the expense of the student and due process.

Funny how things ultimately work out.

It is very hard to respond to this post and not be political.

I stand by my original thoughts on this matter and don't even see why JMU was involved with the adjudication of this matter. It should have been dealt with in Florida courts or Virginia courts. The internal JMU judicial/honor court is not meant for criminal matters and sexual assaults. Alger kind of made his own mess of this matter by not leaving this entire matter to the actual legal system.

(02-05-2018 03:13 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  I stand by my original thoughts on this matter and don't even see why JMU was involved with the adjudication of this matter. It should have been dealt with in Florida courts or Virginia courts. The internal JMU judicial/honor court is not meant for criminal matters and sexual assaults. Alger kind of made his own mess of this matter by not leaving this entire matter to the actual legal system.

I thought the girl brought her complaint to JMU, asking that the JMU board that deals with student misconduct take action. That request could not be ignored. Unfortunately, the board that hears student complaints screwed up, and the rules that govern how the JMU board is composed has now been changed so (hopefully) the same (expensive) mistake won’t be made again.

I agree that the original complaint (if criminal) should have been directed to the Florida legal system, and JMU has no business trying to determine guilt or innocence in criminal behaviour (which I don’t think was the case here). Misconduct by a JMU student, however, is the province of JMU, and a student can be punished if they are found to have violated student codes of good conduct no matter where the objectionable behaviour took place.

(02-05-2018 04:01 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 03:13 PM)ShadyP Wrote:  I stand by my original thoughts on this matter and don't even see why JMU was involved with the adjudication of this matter. It should have been dealt with in Florida courts or Virginia courts. The internal JMU judicial/honor court is not meant for criminal matters and sexual assaults. Alger kind of made his own mess of this matter by not leaving this entire matter to the actual legal system.

I thought the girl brought her complaint to JMU, asking that the JMU board that deals with student misconduct take action. That request could not be ignored. Unfortunately, the board that hears student complaints screwed up, and the rules that govern how the JMU board is composed has now been changed so (hopefully) the same (expensive) mistake won’t be made again.

I agree that the original complaint (if criminal) should have been directed to the Florida legal system, and JMU has no business trying to determine guilt or innocence in criminal behaviour (which I don’t think was the case here). Misconduct by a JMU student, however, is the province of JMU, and a student can be punished if they are found to have violated student codes of good conduct no matter where the objectionable behaviour took place.

I do not believe this is related to the Butters incident. The plaintiff in this case is a male student who was suspended until 2020 (effectively expelled), while the jackholes in the Butters incident received post-graduation banishment from campus. Two different fact patterns - I don't think this is the same thing.

We all can agree that the university is no place to be investigating the adjudicating crimes. And I do hope JMU is looking closely at their procedures. But let's not forget that in 2011, JMU (and 7,000 other schools that receive federal money) was forced by by the Dept of Education to stand up these kangaroo courts in a Dear Colleague Letter, essentially threatening to withhold money from a school if, in the DOE's opinion, they aren't taking complaints seriously and kicking enough kids out of school. From the article linked above from the Wash Post:

Quote:This “Dear Colleague” letter, issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), told all of the more than 7,000 colleges that receive federal money to use the lowest possible standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence, in sexual assault cases (though not in less serious matters such as cheating and noise violations). The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed.

Make no mistake, JMU was put in an untenable position. But in this case, they acted shamefully and stupidly. My guess is this incident was an over-rotation to the blowback they got for appearing to go easy on the idiots accused in the Butters incident. But that does not excuse it.

Trump's DOE recently withdrew that Dear Colleague letter, so JMU ought to have the leeway to put a more sensible process in place without fear or coercion. Or, you know, tell victims to go to the police.