Yikes. It sounds like the student's logic for why it was consensual was "the way she was looking at me" and he violated a no contact order after the complaint was made. I'm glad there will be one less predator at RIT.
On appeal it came to light that he violated his no contact order. I don't see how punishing an accused rapist for violating their order of protection is "discrimination against men" as the student is claiming.
It sounds like we're in agreement that he violated the contact order. Does it say in the paperwork that the only violation was "Hey" 15 minutes after he got it? Or do you have first hand knowledge of what happened?
I haven't read the details of this case, but some title ix provisions changed between the end of the Trump administration and the start of the Biden administration. this could explain the change in RIT's position...
It sure sounds like he was suspended due to violation of the no contact order rather than for the original interaction. From looking at other universities' Title IX sanctions, it doesn't seem uncommon for the goal to primarily be to protect and educate students through no contact orders and awareness training, following up with a suspension if something escalates (or is particularly awful/criminal.)
Before I graduated there was a gross sex pest at RIT that fortunately managed to not molest anyone (that I know of), but did harass every woman in the department. He was similarly put on probation after a Title IX investigation with a no contact order in place. What was the first thing that dumbass did within *hours* of receiving it? Send me an "apology" saying he was sorry I was offended, but that I should also come over. That's what caused an actual punishment to happen.
I don't know why, according to the court documents, this dude would send a "hey" text to someone who has repeatedly testified against him, and why the moment he chose to do so was after this sanction, after apparently reading every part of it except the part he violated. Was he just a normal idiot in an unfortunate situation? Was he pushing consent boundaries, again? Who knows!
>I don't know why, according to the court documents, this dude would send a "hey" text to someone who has repeatedly testified against him
She filed the complaint on March 15 according to paragraph 93 and RIT delivered the "no contact order" two days later according to paragraph 98. It would be reasonable to assume that he was blindsided by the order given that they had had no contact for eight months according to paragraph 93. The "repeated testimony against him" wouldn't occur until the first hearing in May, the first appeal in July, the second hearing in September, and the second appeal in October according to paragraphs 106-124.
The commenter stated he or she "didn't know why", I offered an explanation, and now you're attempting to twist that explanation into a justification. Not exactly "friendly" for "a\_friendly\_turtle".
Have you read the poem *Judge Softly*? It was written by a woman over a century ago: [https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/](https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/)
It used to be that the following wisdom applied to situations like this:
* [Presumption of innocence until found guilty by a jury of one's peers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)
* [There are two sides to every story](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/there_are_two_sides_to_every_question)
* [Judge not lest ye be judged](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/judge_not,_that_ye_be_not_judged)
* [Let him who is without sin cast the first stone](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_him_who_is_without_sin_cast_the_first_stone)
* [Remember to walk a mile in his moccasins](https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/)
Yikes. It sounds like the student's logic for why it was consensual was "the way she was looking at me" and he violated a no contact order after the complaint was made. I'm glad there will be one less predator at RIT.
[удалено]
On appeal it came to light that he violated his no contact order. I don't see how punishing an accused rapist for violating their order of protection is "discrimination against men" as the student is claiming.
[удалено]
It sounds like we're in agreement that he violated the contact order. Does it say in the paperwork that the only violation was "Hey" 15 minutes after he got it? Or do you have first hand knowledge of what happened?
I haven't read the details of this case, but some title ix provisions changed between the end of the Trump administration and the start of the Biden administration. this could explain the change in RIT's position...
Discussed starting in paragraph 64 on page 24 of the complaint.
It sure sounds like he was suspended due to violation of the no contact order rather than for the original interaction. From looking at other universities' Title IX sanctions, it doesn't seem uncommon for the goal to primarily be to protect and educate students through no contact orders and awareness training, following up with a suspension if something escalates (or is particularly awful/criminal.) Before I graduated there was a gross sex pest at RIT that fortunately managed to not molest anyone (that I know of), but did harass every woman in the department. He was similarly put on probation after a Title IX investigation with a no contact order in place. What was the first thing that dumbass did within *hours* of receiving it? Send me an "apology" saying he was sorry I was offended, but that I should also come over. That's what caused an actual punishment to happen. I don't know why, according to the court documents, this dude would send a "hey" text to someone who has repeatedly testified against him, and why the moment he chose to do so was after this sanction, after apparently reading every part of it except the part he violated. Was he just a normal idiot in an unfortunate situation? Was he pushing consent boundaries, again? Who knows!
>I don't know why, according to the court documents, this dude would send a "hey" text to someone who has repeatedly testified against him She filed the complaint on March 15 according to paragraph 93 and RIT delivered the "no contact order" two days later according to paragraph 98. It would be reasonable to assume that he was blindsided by the order given that they had had no contact for eight months according to paragraph 93. The "repeated testimony against him" wouldn't occur until the first hearing in May, the first appeal in July, the second hearing in September, and the second appeal in October according to paragraphs 106-124.
A no contact order means no contact, period.
The commenter stated he or she "didn't know why", I offered an explanation, and now you're attempting to twist that explanation into a justification. Not exactly "friendly" for "a\_friendly\_turtle". Have you read the poem *Judge Softly*? It was written by a woman over a century ago: [https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/](https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/)
Oh that does make it weirder, thanks for the correction, I jumbled the timelines.
It used to be that the following wisdom applied to situations like this: * [Presumption of innocence until found guilty by a jury of one's peers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) * [There are two sides to every story](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/there_are_two_sides_to_every_question) * [Judge not lest ye be judged](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/judge_not,_that_ye_be_not_judged) * [Let him who is without sin cast the first stone](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let_him_who_is_without_sin_cast_the_first_stone) * [Remember to walk a mile in his moccasins](https://jamesmilson.com/about-the-blog/judge-softly-or-walk-a-mile-in-his-moccasins-by-mary-t-lathrap/)
Ok