Comments for Richard T. Olshak

Comment on Guest Comment: Poking holes in FIRE’s false arguments (by Dan Kast) by Samantha Harris

Samantha Harris — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:59:13 +0000

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your comments on my May 13 blog. I’ve responded on FIRE’s blog; you can read my response here: http://thefire.org/article/13288.html

Best,

Samantha Harris, FIRE

Comment on Guest Comment: Poking holes in FIRE’s false arguments (by Dan Kast) by Daniel Kast

Daniel Kast — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 01:38:23 +0000

@Jerry-

Not sure I understand the question. I don’t suggest that the crime of sexual assault should be adjudicated by the courts under a “lesser burden of proof”. Rather, I disagree with FIRE’s belief that the preponderance standard is insufficient for the purposes of campus discipline simply because the alleged behavior could also be considered criminal activity.

@Michael-

In such a circumstance, I would hope to have counsel competent enough to know the guarantee of due process of law comes from the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth. Regardless, in cases where an employee is terminated for cause, the appropriate standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

Comment on Guest Comment: Poking holes in FIRE’s false arguments (by Dan Kast) by michael

michael — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:25:42 +0000

I suspect if Mr Kast's job was on the line due to an allegation of sexual misconduct, his lawyer would be saying a preponderance of the evidence standard violates Mr Kast's 4th Amendment rights

Comment on Guest Comment: Poking holes in FIRE’s false arguments (by Dan Kast) by Jerry Vandesic

Jerry Vandesic — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:26:12 +0000

Rick & Dan, are there any other crimes that you feel should require a lesser burden of proof for conviction? Students are victims of a variety of crimes, and it would be a lot easier to keep the peace if it wasn’t so hard to punish the accused.

Comment on OCR versus the One-Trick Pony by Greg Aydt

Greg Aydt — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:03:58 +0000

Actually, Rick, it IS a zero-sum game. When you set a low burden of proof for the accuser, that disadvantages the accused by making it more difficult for him/her to prevail. Even your language (“aggrieved parties”) contains in it a presumption of guilt — why not just come out and label those parties as “victims” and do away with all presumption of innocence? Coupled with the sort of training that is often given regarding claims of sexual harassment and assault, this lower standard makes it highly likely that those who make the decision will be likely to decide that the mere existence of the complaint itself constitutes a situation in which the accused is more likely than not guilty as charged. If that is what constitutes “best practices”, I respectfully suggest that “best” is woefully inadequate if one is interested in justice.