Savannah Jay wrote:Disagree with much of the "detail" that TAMU Eagle to infer about Watson's case and Creighton. For starters, Creighton's code of conduct doesn't say anything about loud music in the dorms or murder. It's far more vague (and i'd be willing to bet the other schools in the BE have similar vagueness) and allows the hearing board huge latitude when a student's conduct is brought into question. The panel is 3 faculty and 3 students and they can choose to expel a student for simply failing to adhere to the four principles of the Creighton code of conduct:
1. Act with professional, academic, and personal integrity
2. Respect and promote the dignity of all persons
3. Respect the policies of the Creighton University community and the rights of its members both on and off the campus, as well as the just laws of the civic community and the rights of its members
4. Support the personal, professional, academic, and vocational development of the Creighton University community.
So the panel could, just on the face of the allegations, say that Watson failed to respect the dignity of all persons or the rights of a member of the Creighton community and expel him without even knowing all the details of that evening. Creighton's code of conduct specifically states that it is not a formal process and has nothing to do with civil or criminal law.
On the legal side, dropping the charges has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes rape in Nebraska. The prosecutors had issues with the victim's credibility. Specifically:
1. She claimed she was a virgin, yet tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease whose incubation period made it impossible for her to have contracted it on the evening in question.
2. She had performed sex acts on Watson in the past.
3. The woman fondled and was fondled by a friend of Watson's in a car (with another person present) while traveling from the bar to the apartment where the alleged assault happened (this fact came to light later because she did not tell the police about the encounter and is ultimately what led to the charges being dropped).
Based on this information, prosecutors did not believe they would move forward and prove sexual assault. Creighton and its panel, given its a private Catholic university, could have expelled him simply if he told the panel everything that happened between her and the girl. And now I am speculating but, for example, if the previous sex acts happened on campus they could decide that conduct when combined with the allegation was enough to expel him.
[/quote]
So I work in student conduct so I was intrigued by your claim that Creighton only has a vague student code of conduct with only four rules. I've never heard of something like that so I decided to look it up just out of curiousity. Here is what I found:
You are correct that Creighton separates it's Code of Conduct into the four main pillars that you described. What you missed is that these four main pillars are broken down into dozens of subsections. For example, Pillar #1 is broken down into:
Code of Conduct #1
Act with professional, academic, and personal integrity.
Code of Conduct #1.1. Conduct Unbecoming of a Creighton Student: Conduct on or off campus which reflects poorly on Creighton University, or other conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the University or other students.
Code of Conduct #1.2. Failure to Comply: Interfering or failing to comply with the directives of University officials acting in performance of their duties.
Code of Conduct #1.3. False Information: Intentionally furnishing false information to any member of the University.
Code of Conduct #1.4. False Report: Intentionally, negligently or recklessly making a false report of misconduct that results in the unneeded utilization of university resources.
Code of Conduct #1.5. Fake Identification: Using, possessing, or providing a driver's license or other identification with facts inconsistent with information maintained by the University is a violation of the student code of conduct.
Code of Conduct #1.6. Fleeing Student: Students who are at the scene of an incident where there is concern for students’ safety or where conduct violations may have occurred are expected to remain at the scene of the incident until they are released by responding University staff.
Code of Conduct #1.7. Violating Sanctions: Violating the terms of any disciplinary sanction imposed in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct.
Code of Conduct #1.8. Forgery: Forging, altering, or using any University document or any instrument of identification without proper authorization.
Now the examples I gave "too much noise in the dorms" is covered by Rule #3.11 Violations of published or other existing University rules: Violating published or otherwise existing University rules, regulations, or policies including but not limited to provisions of this Handbook,
other University publications and residence hall rules and regulations. A trip over to the residence hall rule and regulations page shows that there is a rule on make too much noise in the dorm. There's also Rule #4.13 Noise: Causing, exhibiting, or encouraging noisy or disruptive behavior which interferes with the personal or academic pursuits of others.
The other example of murder is covered by Rule #3.12 Violation of the Law: Committing any unlawful or criminal act that violates city, state, or federal law. As with most universities, rather than spell out every possible illegal action, they do a catch all that covers any possible violation of criminal law.
I found this rule while scanning and i thought it was funny: Rule #3.18 Prohibited Consensual Sexual Conduct: Any sexual activity which is not in accordance with the Judeo-Christian values of Creighton University and the specific doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is prohibited. Does that mean Creighton is investigating cases where students are having pre-martial sex? I wonder how many catholic universities have that on the books. However, this rule becomes important later in my post.
All in all, Creighton's student code of conduct is 33 pages long. You can find it on pages 89-122 of the student handbook. But this doesn't even include all the various policies and procedures at Creighton including their residence life polices, sexual assault policies, hazing policies, etc. Add those all together and its pushing 100 pages. Not bad for something "vague that allows the hearing board a lot of latitude."
Now, what you won't find in the student code of conduct is any rules about sexual assault because of this line: "Second, the Vice Provost for Student Life has authority regarding nonacademic disciplinary matters where it is anticipated that a student infraction may result in disciplinary reprimand or disciplinary probation, withdrawal, suspension and/or expulsion, except in matters that involve allegations of harassment or discrimination, which are addressed by the Harassment, Discrimination, Sexual and Relationship Misconduct Policy #2.1.25."
To translate the above, that means that Creighton has an entire separate process for sexual assault complaints, a pretty common practice though not what a majority of schools do. That also means that "So the panel could, just on the face of the allegations, say that Watson failed to respect the dignity of all persons or the rights of a member of the Creighton community and expel him without even knowing all the details of that evening" is a false statement. If the alleged sexual assault was why Mo was expelled (which is an assumption), then they would have had to go through the sexual assault process.
The sexual assault process by itself is a 30 page document at Creighton and lists all of the various forms a due process and procedures that must be followed. As I said before there is an investigation, a hearing, and an appeal process. If Mo was expelled for the alleged sexual assault, Creighton would have had to follow this procedure and determined that Mo was "more likely than not" to have committed the sexual assault, which is known as the preponderance of evidence standard.
Now, what is interesting is that because of that Rule #3.18 about "non-christian sex acts" it is theoretically possible that Mo was found not responsible by the university for sexual assault but was found responsible for Rule #3.18 and expelled for it. However, the university would have to be very careful about going this route. My common sense tells me that Creighton isn't likely expelling every student that has sex out of wedlock or gives a blowjob. They also would need to expel the female student involved as well if they determined the acts were consensual. Creighton would need to be able to prove that they weren't discriminatory against Mo by expelling him for something that they aren't expelling other students for. While this scenario is theoretically possible, it seems much more likely that the sexual assault was the reason for the expulsion.
Now, I am not going to get into the actual "did he do it or not?" conversation. Because I have no idea and neither does anyone here (unless someone happened to witness the events that took place that night). All we know for certain is that the university was at least 51% (preponderance of evidence) sure that he did, and the DA was less than 95ish% certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he did it. And just because the university was at least 51% sure doesn't mean that they were actually right. Just like the legal system sometimes condemns innocent people, so does the university system. Unless I have all the information I prefer not to make judgement either way because there's the potential I am either condemning an innocent student or siding with a rapist. Neither is a good look.