The Rolling Stone UVA problem in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. The problem - the mechanical problem, not the moral problem - is that we have a civil issue with private implications. It's the exact same bullshit problem as Hobby Lobby and birth control: it's "policy" not "crime." So the schools can argue (correctly) that nothing they say or do does any civil damage to the unjustly accused and that, as private entities, they are free to enact whatever policies they feel are necessary. And then the unjustly accused can argue (correctly) that scuttling any chances of college anywhere due to that policy is, in fact, a civil violation. And then the school can (correctly) argue that Title IX requires them to protect women. And then we can all (correctly) argue that Title IX goes too far. And now all of a sudden we're arguing about Title IX instead of rape. At some point we need fairness and due process to be determined by something other than market forces. 'cuz what's going to happen is some enterprising kid is going to argue that he's been secretly recording his trysts on a hidden GoPro to protect himself against rape accusations and then the whole thing is going to go in ugly directions nobody wants to see. I went on the date, by the way. And had I not been left waiting for 45 minutes by the ugliest girl in Spaghetti Factory (her choice) only to be invited to take her to Renfair the next day, I would have stuck my dick in crazy. What can I say? Her high school yearbook picture, which she was using on Match.com, was hawt. Her reality was not. But fuck. I was 25 and still that rash. We're asking 18 year olds to navigate this quagmire?The people who lie make everything harder for the people who don't.
It's all relative though. To regular Spaghetti Factory patrons (should such people actually exist), perhaps she was quite the prize. I can only imagine the type of person who would suggest going to the SF ever, let alone on a date, let alone on a first date.
I was once hitting on a relatively cute girl on a flight to NYC. She lived fairly close to me in Detroit, so I figured it was a win/win, with options to keep it a weekend fling or call her up once we were back at home. Anyway, through the course of our conversation I found out that she hated French food, which she had discovered during a study abroad program in college. This piqued my interest, because, well, who hates Parisian food in Paris? So, I inquired, what was her ideal food. Her reply, no joke, was, "Ummmm, have you ever heard of Applebee's?" It was simultaneously horrifying and yet also endearing in its folksy innocence. I tried at once to cut the conversation off, but I had to hear a dreadfully boring story about how her favorite thing in the world is something called "Mexiranch" (I hope to never, ever have the misfortune of finding out firsthand what Mexiranch tastes like), and that her mother had bought her a gallon of the shit straight from the Applebee's kitchen for her for Christmas the previous year. That day was one of only two times in my life that I turned down as easy score from an attractive girl (the other involving a girl who turned out to be extremely racist, almost to the point of something you would see in one of those bad comedies where the hopeless main character goes through a montage of bad dates before he finds the nice librarian who changes his life). It's amazing how off putting terrible taste can be.
Eh, you can't proactively record someone else without their consent (in two-party consent states) just in case they might accuse you of a crime. If, however, the video came to light in the context of a false rape accusation, well, that would be kind of hilarious. "You're being accused of rape!" "Wait, I have this! It's evidence!" "You're being charged with production and distribution of pornography!" "I'm charging her for libel!" Most of the dick I let around me between the ages of 19 to 23 was extremely regrettable. Poor decision-making and too much trust. But hey, here I am and I've learned, right?
Legally speaking, wouldn't this be on similar grounds to an employer firing an employee for sexual harassment? Colleges can't charge a student with a crime, they can only bar them from their property. Under similar circumstances, shared housing may remove the accused on the grounds of "clear and present danger". One would hope that an accusation of rape would eventually be settled in a court with a jury, but in the meantime, the best any private institution can do is remove a person suspected of an immediate threat.And then the unjustly accused can argue (correctly) that scuttling any chances of college anywhere due to that policy is, in fact, a civil violation.
Here's the big issue: "Legally speaking" isn't the problem. Legally, we have three strikes laws that send people to live without parole for shoplifting... but only if you're black. Legally, we have a crusade against a kid who had consensual sex because a counselor spends 6 hours convincing someone she was raped. Legally, a university can kick someone out of school for sexual assault with no evidence whatsoever thereby blackballing him from all other universities. All that shit will get sussed out in the courts eventually, but "the courts" are heavily tilted towards large institutional players. Money talks. Unless the ACLU feels like taking on Podunk University, Johnny College is fucked because the prevailing climate is "fuck Johnny College he's a rapist until proven otherwise."
I feel like my point was missed... let me try rephrasing: A company can fire an employer for an accusation of rape without a court order. In California at least, a landlord can issue an unconditional termination to a tenant similarly without a court order. And now it's the case that a university can (will? more often?) also suspend a student without a court order. As you said, in each of these cases, it's on the courts to sort it out eventually if the accused person sues or if the offender has also violated civil law. I'm not defending this structure, just asking if it's fair to equate these situations. It seems the same vein of logic pervades through all three: let private institutions and individuals sort it out in the intermediate before it is brought to court.
You didn't miss your point, I didn't explain myself properly. Let me try again. The existing case law doesn't account for a changing social or political landscape. In this case, University X could sever their agreement with you, send you packing, and say "we're not going to let you enroll again until your poor victim signs up for her classes you filthy rapist." Existing case law says they're just fine doing that (let's suppose - because I'm in no position to argue what is or isn't, only what I see the problem being) because fuckin' A, go to college somewhere else. But what if Universities A through Z won't take your transfer credits from University X because you're a filthy rapist? Well, sucks to be you, but surely Private College One will take your credits. They're very rape-friendly. Except Private College One costs nine times as much as University X and you were barely scraping by on your financial aid. Oh, and by the way, have fun applying for scholarships now. What happened at University X, by the way? So legally, you don't get to go to college. Sure - you still have options, but those options have been severely curtailed - legally. And I think you'll find that city and municipal courts generally provide stopgaps to cover the issues that state and federal levels don't - in California at least, rent control and tenant's rights allow a buddy of mine to sublet a condo on the beach in Santa Monica for the same price he paid for it when he first moved in back in '92. Not saying that's a good thing - just pointing out that your landlord/tenant thing doesn't tell the whole story. And the whole story here indicates that well-meaning laws and policies enacted by well-meaning people are grinding a growing number of unfortunate college-aged males into grist.
Some elements of what you said could also apply if the situation happened at a company, but I get that the context is significantly different among college-aged people. I think in general, this is a hairy discussion to have, since it seems like rape and sexual harassment are generally things not taken to court, whatever the context (Domestic, academic, military, or at a company).