This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
RfC: Criticism subsection
Unfortunately, there appears to be no consensus for much of anything here. Numerically, it's roughly an equal split. Some editors argued that Option 1 contains potential BLP issues, but most editors were not convinced by this, and even some of the Option 2 supporters didn't seem concerned that this violates WP:BLP. I recommend taking this to WP:BLPN for a more targeted discussion on whether these bullet points create BLP issues. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an ongoing dispute regarding the criticisms subsection. Specifically, editors have objected to the bulleted list section that details several lawsuits filed by men who were expelled from universities after being accused of sexual assault. The most recent discussion is here. Generally, the suggested changes are to either:
- 1. Leave the bulleted list unchanged, and add a roughly equal amount of detail on cases filed against universities by accusers.
or
- 2. Offer a couple of short summary statements that address the recent increase in lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual assault without focusing on specific cases.
Please place comments or preferences below, and feel free to suggest alternate wordings of these options or add more as needed. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments
Option 2 The selection raises neutrality, OR, and, potential BLP issues. The cases presented don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits: all five cases are instances where plaintiffs either received settlements or where colleges were overturned, but accused students have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts. Adding a roughly equal amount of detail from suits filed by accusers might lessen some of the neutrality issues, but it poses many of the same issues related to OR, NPOV, and BLP, and it's probably more encyclopedic to summarize the issue rather than focusing on an arbitrarily selected group of cases. At most, it makes sense to highlight maybe one high profile case, and then add some more general statements about the frequency, success rates, and primarily focus on the legal issues covered in these cases rather than delving in to the minute details of specific sexual assault cases. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Nblund: It sounds like you are actually endorsing option 2, unless I'm very confused. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think summarizing the issue rather than listing specific suits is more encyclopedic, and less likely to run afoul of OR or BLP. If we start listing suits on both sides of the issue, it's just going to become a game of who can list more suits to support their POV. So I think option 2 is the better solution. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- What's the evidence for they "don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits" and "have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts"? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- From IHE last November: As recently as a few months ago, accused students seemed destined to lose lawsuits challenging their penalties. In May, it was widely believed that there had been just one such case in recent memory -- a lawsuit brought against the University of the South in 2011 -- that made it to court and had a favorable outcome for an accused student.. Most of these cases discussed in these articles are still pending, and this is a developing area, but these recent suits are notable, in large part, because they have gotten more traction than others in the past. Nblund (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- What's the evidence for they "don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits" and "have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts"? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Suggestion Is an RfC really necessary, in this case? With all respect, they are slow, historically ineffective, and can invite community bias from both sides rather than meaningful discussion. If this is a policy matter, it seems the suggested noticeboard would be a quicker and more resounding alternative for dispute resolution. Anything short of a clear consensus here will likely lead to status quo in a months time, when this is finally closed. Just a thought to break the cycle. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to taking the issue to a noticeboard, but, like I said above: editors have cited multiple policy issues here, and noticeboards are usually for straightforward simple policy questions that need a quick answer. This doesn't seem to fit that description. Nblund (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the main accusation is of OR and/or synth. NPOV is cited, but only as a result of the previous. BLP really only comes into play with unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures; or content focused on un-notable living persons rather than notable events. Neither of which seem to be the case with this material. At the very least, it's reliably sourced and impersonal. The question, however, is whether the information is collected or presented in such a way as to promote a viewpoint not represented by the mainstream. It should have a fairly straightforward answer. The NOR noticeboard seems appropriate for this one, as I believe was suggested previously. If there is a larger concern for the neutrality of the article as a whole, I would suggest the NPOV board, but I don't see that this is the case with only this section. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the main issue, actually: the conversation that initiated the RfC is headed "undue weight", and multiple editors have cited neutrality concerns with the section. I think there is also a synth issue, but I don't think it's the issue most editors have cited. I think the point might be moot, given that the RfC is already open.
- The BLP issues stem from the extraneous details about specific sexual assault cases. Take this statement, for instance: "In June 2015 an Amherst College student who was expelled for forcing a woman to complete an oral sex act sued the college for failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility". The claim that text messages "undermined her credibility" is something that the accused student's attorneys say in the article, but it's clearly not a fact. It's a fairly contentious claim about a living person, it's stated using Wikipedia's voice, and it's completely tangential to the supposed point of the section. I think that's fairly straightforward BLP. Nblund (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The claim is not that contentious and not a BLP violation. 1) it make no mention of the accuser and 2) The source of the claim is not the lawsuit, but what reliable sources say about the text evidence that Amherst refused to consider. Per a source in the article that you don't mention in your comments above, "But text messages sent between the alleged victim and other Amherst students point toward the opposite conclusion: that Doe did nothing wrong."
- Nblund, you cite OR where none exists, cite NPOV while ignoring the mass of the article which paints a very POV picture absent of these documented process problems, and you cite BLP where none exists. It's obvious you refuse to take this to neutral board because you know that there's nothing there to your claims.Mattnad (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't the phrase "failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility" refer to the accuser? Who does it reference?
- The intent of posting an RfC is to bring in outside voices, you know how they work, right? I also think it makes sense to post notices on those boards that invite outsiders to participate in the discussion. Nblund (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, but generally I believe the underlying intent of an RfC is to resolve the dispute. If bringing in more voices doesn't resolve the dispute, the RfC isn't really working. In this case, userMattnad specifically suggested an alternative form of resolution before this was opened and I'm inclined to believe that a noticeboard would be faster and more effective, but that's just my opinion. As the requestor, only you can decide if you want to end this early by withdrawing the question to seek an alternative. You have valid BLP concerns regarding some of the content, but I believe if we correct only the contentious phrasing, the issue would still not be resolved. Additionally, there's nothing inherent in your alternatives that would have prevented the contentious phrasing. As such, I'm inclined to believe that BLP is a secondary issue. In regards to this specific phrasing, I wonder if Mattnad would object to a third opinion that we strike "and undermined her credibility" from the statement for now as it is not supported by the source and contentious. I understand that the RfC is still open, but in the interest of BLP, I see no reason we can't fast track that change if we can all agree.
- In regards to undue weight, unless there is a specific fringe theory being promoted, I see no reason this can't also be addressed in the NOR board. Any undue emphasis on criticism seems, again, to be the result of a possible synth. But again, just a suggestion to try to keep things moving. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why not just post a notice at those multiple applicable noticeboards to ask for outside input?
- Undue weight is usually an NPOV issue, not necessarily OR. The fact that we're having this disagreement is kind of a demonstration of why a noticeboard doesn't make sense. Nblund (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the argument of BLP concerns about "and undermined her credibility", I had originally referred to the text messages as "exculpatory" but Nblund didn't want that. [1]. All exculpatory means is "evidence favorable to the defendant." No BLP issue there, but he didn't want it. I felt it was important to explain in some form the nature of the text message, which goes to root of the lawsuit. Please note that nowhere during the period that Nblund edited this section back then did he even mention BLP. Scoundr3l I agree that BLP is secondary to Nblund's core motivation which I see is to minimize mention of problems with how colleges handle these cases, particularly when it's problematic for the accused (see his proposed statement which emphases failures of these lawsuits and ignores/leaves out some important decisions).Mattnad (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm going to change your mind, so consider it dropped, but the reason I suggested the alternative rather than an RfC is the reasons listed above: RfCs are slow, often lead to no consensus (at least in regards to this article) and may not always be motivated by improving content. Certainly we may not agree on the nature of the problem, but as their is no general "undue weight" noticeboard and the neutrality noticeboard is generally for article-wide issues, I didn't really feel there was a controversy over which board to use or think any facet of this problem couldn't be handled in a single board. The resolution would likely have been faster, more binding, and both parties could likely have agreed to it, so it seemed the better alternative. RfCs seem to be a go-to resolution measure in this discussion area and thus-far appear to be draining more time and energy than they are saving. Something to consider for future, at least. I hope we find a middle ground here. 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoundr3l (talk • contribs)
- It seems to me that the main accusation is of OR and/or synth. NPOV is cited, but only as a result of the previous. BLP really only comes into play with unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures; or content focused on un-notable living persons rather than notable events. Neither of which seem to be the case with this material. At the very least, it's reliably sourced and impersonal. The question, however, is whether the information is collected or presented in such a way as to promote a viewpoint not represented by the mainstream. It should have a fairly straightforward answer. The NOR noticeboard seems appropriate for this one, as I believe was suggested previously. If there is a larger concern for the neutrality of the article as a whole, I would suggest the NPOV board, but I don't see that this is the case with only this section. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Option 1 - material is well sourced, neutral and topical.Mattnad (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 I agree with Mattnad that the material is well sourced. It's also neutral as to each individual case discussed, and it is topical. However, I don't think the list of examples is either particularly necessary or particularly helpful to the section. It also detracts from the encyclopedic feel of the page, IMO. I think a summary statement is a better approach, particularly if all or most of the supporting references from the individual bullet points are incorporated into the statement. MikeDunford (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"Option 1" - maybe not bulleted. Just saying there are court cases is not enough. Looking at the alternative sample below, you get no sense at all to what the issues are about. Also, that proposed text leaves out some important court findings (Tennessee) or cases (like Oxy).. It could be shortened from where it is now, but there is no OR or weight issues here. Even the BLP argument is weak. Just an idea, but this is not really part of criticism, but part of due process wrangling. There's a whole lot under "criticisms" that could be better organized and directly connected to other article bits. 12.176.89.10 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- IPuser and Mattnad: I'm totally open to negotiations or suggestions regarding the alternative I proposed below. What specific cases do you think are the most important? What points are missing?
- Mattnad: Even if you disagree with the specific complaints, surely you don't think the section -- as currently written -- is perfect. Do you really believe it's impossible to adequately discuss these cases without discussing the specific evidence in multiple sexual assault suits? You say the statement "emphasizes the failure" of these suits. That's not my goal. What both sources note, however, is that these recent suits are notable because they have been somewhat more successful recently than they were in the past. In the source below, Samantha Harris at FIRE, who supports these lawsuits, makes exactly that point. I'm open to rewording it, but it seems like useful context that helps establish why these suits are notable. Nblund (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, of course anything can be improved. But the way this started was a litany of complaints that called for mostly eliminating the content rather than improving it. Even the best you can come up with as BLP violation comes from your own efforts to suppress content in the first place. So to make it better I think we do need to step back and reorganize this article with more focus on the colleges and the debates around what they are doing or should be doing. Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't support eliminating the content entirely. I (and multiple other editors) have made good faith objections to this content. Since this is the third time someone has brought up this section, I think it makes sense to consider changes even if you believe that everyone who has suggested a problem is motivated entirely by bias. What I'm suggesting seems pretty mild: we summarize the issue, remove some excessive detail about specific cases, and use in-text attribution when repeating claims made by plaintiffs in lawsuits. Can you really not work with that?
- I changed "exculpatory text messages" to "messages he alleged would have indicated consent", I'm still not sure why this didn't work for you. It seems silly to say that that constitutes "suppression". The accuser sees these text messages as exculpatory, while Amherst, in it's response to the complaint, sort of denied that the text messages were evidence of anything. This is a contested legal claim, we should avoid stating it in Wikipedia's voice. Alas: this is exactly the sort of debate that we could avoid altogether by just leaving out extraneous information. Nblund (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- While his lawsuit make that allegation, two secondary sources in the article that also draw that conclusion. Your approach doesn't accurately reflect the sources. But in the end, Wikipedia should reflect what's in reliable sources. You cite Amherst's legal filings, but per wikipedia policy, legal filings are not reliable sources. Your position is basically, "I don't like this" and you're raising issues that are not supportable. I again challenge you to test this in OR/NPOV/BLP noticeboards. Let's see whether they agree with your position.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled: the main difference is that I attributed this view in-text to the plaintiff rather than treat it as a fact. I could see a case for changing "he alleged" to "he said", and I don't really have strong preferences against "exculpatory" as long as it isn't stated as a fact. But it sounds like you are arguing that in text attribution is somehow inappropriate and unneeded when discussing a claim made in a lawsuit. Is that your view? This seems a little tangential to the point of the RfC, but if you want to simply ask a question on the BLP or NPOV board regarding whether or not in-text attribution is appropriate in a case like this, I think we could get a quick clarification and move on.
- In the mean time: this is a little tangential to the larger point. What would you add to the statement below? You said there was room for improvement, could you suggest something concrete? Nblund (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- While his lawsuit make that allegation, two secondary sources in the article that also draw that conclusion. Your approach doesn't accurately reflect the sources. But in the end, Wikipedia should reflect what's in reliable sources. You cite Amherst's legal filings, but per wikipedia policy, legal filings are not reliable sources. Your position is basically, "I don't like this" and you're raising issues that are not supportable. I again challenge you to test this in OR/NPOV/BLP noticeboards. Let's see whether they agree with your position.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, of course anything can be improved. But the way this started was a litany of complaints that called for mostly eliminating the content rather than improving it. Even the best you can come up with as BLP violation comes from your own efforts to suppress content in the first place. So to make it better I think we do need to step back and reorganize this article with more focus on the colleges and the debates around what they are doing or should be doing. Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment I think I most agree with the IP above. I am in favor of removing the bullets and integrating the content into the body text, but I believe most of these sources and cases provide valuable information for the criticism section. I think the article should focus a little less on the specific details of the cases and only on how they represent the controversy, which each source seems to have something to provide. I will contribute below to the proposed wording as soon as I have time, but agree that this does not appear to be an issue of undue weight, just poor and pedantic listing Scoundr3l (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Option 1 - The bullets are representative of that part of the article, Criticisms of Prevention Efforts today has moved into being about Colleges overcorrection and lawsuits are now going the other way, and due WP:WEIGHT of coverage has headline cases like Rolling Stone or Mattress Girl criticising prevention efforts. This RFC is a bit malforming options here, as the article currently has both bullets and a narrative summary on top of them. In any case since the obvious process is KEEP the bullets and edit summary, then I'll say Option 1. The RFC should have at least proposed specific language so folks could actually see if it would suit to replace bullets. Proposing deletion for a someday-promise of pig-in-a-poke is unacceptable as an alternative in principle, so definately loses out. Markbassett (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- So the alternative wording is what is below. I think there was some general agreement (maybe I'm wrong) that the discussion of these cases should be balanced by roughly equal coverage of lawsuits or criticisms by victims. Are you saying that we should leave the bullets and also leave out coverage of cases by accusers? I haven't really found indication that most of the suits and criticisms are coming from people who believe that these adjudication processes are unfair to accused students, is that what you're arguing? Because it doesn't seem like a conclusion that we can reasonably draw from the sourcing currently provided. Nblund (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Option 2 seems to better serve the interests of readers. This is a notable and current trend and any list would tend to be indiscriminate by nature. If there are several notable cases, creating a stand-alone list and linking to it as a "further information" or "see also" link would be appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Editors who favor keeping the bulleted list with specific discussion: could you propose a way for determining the number of cases, and which are included are which are left out? Here (link1, link2) are two fairly significant recent stories that seem like they are at least as prominent as any of the 6 cases mentioned in the entry. How do we determine whether or not they belong? Nblund (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Option 1 - the article is already biased towards hyping sexual assault statistics and uncritically presenting the OCRs rulings. This little list of factual issues is fine. The section should be expanded.12.206.247.131 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggested alternate wordings
beginning right after the statement about the Harvard faculty letter)
Recently, a number of students have sued Universities alleging that they were unfairly expelled after being accused of sexual assault. In November of last year, Inside Higher Education reported that 50 lawsuits had been filed by men who expelled following a sexual assault accusation, many alleging that the college hearing process amounted to gender discrimination against men, or that their due process rights were violated. [1] While these suits have usually been unsuccessful in the past, a handful of students have recently won cases or received settlements from schools. Most recently, a student at the University of Montana received a $245,000 dollar settlement from the University after he was expelled following a sexual assault accusation by another student. [2]
- Nblund - Comments: thank you for proposing specific redo to the RFC and I did like the specific 'more than 50'. However, Option 1 is better overall as this provides different and lesser message. In particular note what's there is working the message and news that now the trend shifted to large increase in men suing and sometimes winning, which is better conveyed by the existing header and bullets.
- (a) now it is shown as part of the sequence of events by the "Since the issuance of";
- (b) now it covers lawsuits over rights, which is broader than only expulsion, particularly note Columbia lawsuit re 'cleared' men or handling re 'suspended' men
- (c) now four bulleted examples and one inline vs one different example inline, a change and lessening
- (d) now is more concise and clear
- I think it better to make minor tweak of "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, a number of lawsuits have been filed" to "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, more than 50' of lawsuits have been filed" Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure it's accurate to say that 50 have been filed since the Dear Colleague letter. The first letter was in 2011, most of the sources just say 50 are "in the pipeline" or "50 in the last year". Is there any way to convey the additional information you want to see while providing fewer than
foursix cases and without using bullet points? Nblund (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)- I think existing topics and sequence in events is already there, this would be a reduction in the article. Option 1 - keep the five bullets - still looks like the better way. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's accurate to say that 50 have been filed since the Dear Colleague letter. The first letter was in 2011, most of the sources just say 50 are "in the pipeline" or "50 in the last year". Is there any way to convey the additional information you want to see while providing fewer than
-
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Statement about response bias
Regarding this edit: I'm not seeing how that's a rhetorical point. The authors include citation for the statement that response rates are an indirect measure of data quality, so they clearly intend it to be taken as a meaningful statement of fact. It's a wholly uncontroversial statement among statisticians, and the paper they cite offers a detailed empirical and mathematical analyses that supports that conclusion. They mention it in the executive summary, and also in more detail on page 6 of the full report.
To the extent that a response bias exists, it's pretty small: the "high response" group reported a rate of sexual violence that was about +.5% to 3% higher than the "low response" group. Meaning that the overall estimate of 20% might be somewhere closer to 17%. For my part, I think the discussion of effect sizes in the report is too technical for this entry, but I think removing the nuance exaggerates the importance of this fact.
Mattnad, we previously agreed that the level of detail here is excessive anyway, so just trimming this discussion along the lines that I previously proposed would also solve this issue. I'm open to that discussion. Nblund (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Here's what the AAU said, in context (emphasis added):
- The overall response rate of 19.3 percent is lower than several other surveys on sexual assault and misconduct. Other surveys that are cited in this report have rates that range from 30 percent to 86 percent. The response rate is only an indirect indicator of data quality. A low response rate does not necessarily mean the survey estimates are biased in a particular direction. The report provides the results of three different assessments of non-response bias. Two of these three analyses provide evidence that non-responders tended to be less likely to report victimization. This implies that the survey estimates related to victimization and selected attitude items may be biased upwards (i.e., somewhat too high).
- That's different from simply saying "A low response rate does not necessarily mean the survey estimates are biased in a particular direction" since they go on to conclude, "This implies that the survey estimates related to victimization and selected attitude items may be biased upwards (i.e., somewhat too high)."Mattnad (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Right, but the entry already says the part you emphasize, so I don't really see the argument that it's lacking context. Why not just mirror the structure of the paragraph and say that "while they note that response rates are only an indirect indicator of data quality, they find evidence that the low response rate may have biased the sexual assault measures upward"? Nblund (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here's what the AAU said, in context (emphasis added):
References
- ^ New, Jake (November 5, 2015). "Court Wins for Accused". Retrieved 21 February 2016.
- ^ Miller, Michael E. (February 17, 2016). "Montana quarterback receives $245K settlement for university's 'unfair and biased' rape investigation". Retrieved 21 February 2016.