Over a year ago, three men from Duke University were indicted on charges of kidnapping, assaulting and raping an exotic dancer during a lacrosse party that was held at an off-campus house. David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were instantly thrust into the national spotlight as poster boys for the privileged college athletes who thought they could do no wrong. The controversy touched an extremely sensitive racial and socioeconomic nerve in this country, as the case was labeled a battle between the affluent white players versus the poor African-American dancer in a city, Durham, N.C., with a history of strong racial tensions.
Last December, the rape charges were dropped in the wake of proof that District Attorney Mike Nifong had concealed evidence and done whatever he could to exaggerate the guilt of the three defendants. Nifong was removed from his position and is currently being threatened with disbarment for lying to the court. This week North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, dropped all charges against the three men and went one step further to declare them innocent.
"This case demonstrates the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor," Cooper said. Sadly, as one will soon see, the same problem can occur here at Dartmouth with the Committee on Standards.
The sad consequence of this misguided judicial process is that regardless of the fact that the three players have been completely exonerated, their reputations and lives are irreparably damaged. Each time these men apply for a job, apply to graduate school or ask a father for his daughter's hand in marriage, this case will be relived. It is a shame that one overzealous prosecutor and an accuser of questionable integrity had the power to destroy the lives of these students without, as it turned out, probable cause. Moreover, the accused have little chance to be compensated for their troubles, despite being themselves the victims of crimes committed by the former district attorney.
In light of this nationally criticized investigation, I am all the more perplexed as to why the College has continued to ignore the Committee on Standards Student Task Force Report. I have read the entire report and fully agree with all the recommendations. Most notably, the report recommends that the College change its standard of proof from "a preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence." With the current policy, a student is found guilty if 51 percent of the evidence is condemning.Because it is nearly impossible to quantify the percentage of evidence for or against a student, in practice this policy appears to say that if the verdict of a case is a coin flip, the Committee on Standards must rule against the student. This hardly seems fair to me in a country where we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
As students, we are forced to live in fear of the College's judicial system because we have the impression that we are never given the benefit of the doubt. While sexual assault is absolutely a problem on this campus, it does not make sense that in a "he said, she said" case, the tie normally goes to the accuser. It does not make sense that a student's entire future can be jeopardized because he or she was Parkhursted due to the result of an ambiguous trial. The rape investigation at Duke is a perfect example of why we must use caution during judicial proceedings, and how a false accusation and overzealous proclamation of guilt can often be as devastating as the alleged crime.
This standard of proof language - "clear and convincing evidence" - has already been adopted by many of our peer institutions including Harvard and Princeton. While I know that Dartmouth seeks to set precedent rather than follow it, there is no doubt that all students would benefit from a change in the standard of proof policy. The "by clear and convincing evidence" standard provides the perfect balance of justice for both the accuser and the accused in a COS hearing. The burden of proof is high enough to prevent frivolous and flawed accusations from condemning students while low enough to recognize that an unofficial civil investigation is unlikely to produce conclusive evidence of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
The College would be well-suited to at least conduct a serious review of the recommendations of the Task Force and, hopefully, adopt them as soon as possible.
