Can colleges adjudicate gun crimes as they would campus sexual assault?

Speaking on an Oct. 29 press call regarding national fraternity and sorority groups’ support of a bill that would put sexual assault crimes back in the hands of law enforcement, McCaskill implied that the groups were singling out sex assault.

“Keep in mind, they have only carved out this exception for sexual assault – not any of the other violent crimes,” McCaskill said, according to a transcription by the Huffington Post. “So a young woman could be robbed at gunpoint, decide she wanted to just try to get that person off campus and go to their university … but if she was raped, she would not be able to do that unless she went to the police.”

Slate quoted the senator as saying the woman robbed at gunpoint could “go to her university and they could take action under Title IX.”

Neither Slate nor HuffPo questioned the senator’s comments or explained them in any way.

Because what Sen. McCaskill appears to be suggesting is that colleges really are their own court system, adjudicating gun crimes the way they adjudicate sexual assault – and that the anti-gender discrimination law known as Title IX requires them to do so. Colleges and universities are required to adjudicate accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment because of Title IX. The argument goes that these are gender-specific crimes and are therefore a form of gender discrimination.

That’s a stretch unto itself, as it implies that sexual preference is discrimination. It’s also problematic because schools are still required to adjudicate accusations of sexual assault when both parties involved are the same gender.

But even that is more plausible (the notion that sex crimes are a form of sex discrimination) than suggesting a robbery at gunpoint is a form of sex discrimination, even if the robber is a man and the victim is a woman. Even the Violence Against Women Act doesn’t include robbery in its list of crimes against women (the list includes domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking).

McCaskill’s office has never responded to a Washington Examiner request for comment, about this or previous articles.

But let’s say colleges are supposed to handle a crime such as robbery at gunpoint the same way they would handle sexual assault – by allowing the accuser to dictate the process instead of legal authorities. There is no national focus or federal pressure incentivizing the colleges to “do something” about robberies or gun crimes. There are not special college administrative offices dedicated to gun crime and theft like there are administrative offices dedicated to “diversity,” “student life” and “gender-based misconduct.”

While it has become perfectly acceptable for schools to simply expel potentially violent rapists, it is unheard of to think it would be acceptable for a school to expel a potentially violent murder. And if you think it is absurd that colleges are expelling potentially violent rapists, allowing them to prey on the population at large, you have campus activists to thank.

Let’s say a student is expelled for sexual assault because the victim didn’t want to go to police, and that student goes on to rape a non-student. Certainly the family of the non-student victim would want to sue the university for setting loose that student on the larger community. But schools would have a good defense in that they did what was required of them under federal law – Title IX doesn’t require them to report to police.

But if a student is expelled for holding another student up at gunpoint and goes on to murder the next student they try to rob? The school couldn’t point to Title IX in that case, as it doesn’t cover robbery or murder.

But that would be a rare scenario anyway, as it is also inconceivable that a school wouldn’t report a gun crime because the victim just wanted the attacker expelled.

Of course, if either student was found guilty in a court of law, there would be no question that a school could and should expel them – the student would be in jail for the crime he committed; he wouldn’t be available for a hearing.

Colleges certainly have a broad authority to define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior for their students. And no one is suggesting schools can’t discipline students for breaking those rules. But when actual crimes are involved, police need to be involved.

That’s not to say schools can’t take interim measures while police are investigating. If a violent crime accusation is made, and there is a danger to other students, most due process advocates don’t have a problem with the school taking action. But the school is often taking that action on he said/she said situations where campus risk is questionable.

An accusation that a student was held up at gun point or raped by a stranger would prompt campus alerts and a search for the perpetrator. Obviously in those situations a school couldn’t suspend someone in the meantime because the offender isn’t known. But when the offender is known, in the case of many sexual assault accusations that don’t even include claims of violence, it’s not apparent that the campus is at risk and that the student needs to be immediately suspended until an investigation is underway.

That’s not to say some interim measures can’t be implemented right away in those cases. Schedules and dorms can be changed with minimal impact on the accused or accuser. Yes, I know moving is a pain, but less of a pain than being removed completely from your residence with no place to go, especially for students whose parents don’t live within driving distance of the university.

And the bill that McCaskill was speaking against would allow such interim measures to take place. Contrary to what activists claim, the Safe Campus Act would allow schools to take such interim measures even if a student doesn’t wish to report the accusation to police.

The claims being made to sell the public on the need to create a kangaroo court system to provide separate justice for privileged college students are astounding.