1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Ga legislator wants Bud Peterson fired

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by Supersizethatorder-mutt, Mar 7, 2016.

  1. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    I don't condone the tactic. That being said nobody gives a crap any more about the rights of the accused until it happens to them. There's a reason we have a legal system. It should be used instead of these public media lynchings where the info being used to bait the public is sometimes found to be incorrect. Again, everyone will shrug their shoulders until it happens to them. On that day, you'd be irreparably upset by the process.
    GTKnight, Whiskey_Clear and herb like this.
  2. Supersizethatorder-mutt

    Supersizethatorder-mutt Helluva Engineer

    Good to know more about him. My initial reaction to the article was curiosity about the situation. Now it definitely seems like a jealous mutt.
  3. herb

    herb Helluva Engineer

    Yes Leah Sears is the paradigm of reasonable thought, let's just believe her whole heartedly, and I have this bridge you might want to see, it is really a bargain
    awbuzz likes this.
  4. forensicbuzz

    forensicbuzz Helluva Engineer

    What Title IX does is MAKES the university do something (investigate), even if the victim refuses to involve the police or it becomes a "he said/she said." It doesn't deny the accuser due process either. It does force the university to do something, rather than just shrug it off.

    That being said, to my understanding, there is a process to handle these situations at each university (including Tech) that includes due process. If the system is not being implemented properly or is being abused, then the BOR (or an arm of the BOR) or the SAG's office should investigate that.

    I'm not taking a position on either side of the accusations because I don't know the facts of the individual cases, nor the specific policies in place.
    jeffgt14 likes this.
  5. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    This was one of the articles that came out earlier this year when Ehrhart first clashed with Peterson. Included are two cases.

    Key quote from one of them:

    "In the report, Paquette wrote, “both the victim and the respondent (the accused student) provide accounts that are reasonable to believe. Specifically, it is reasonable to believe that based on the nonverbal actions of Victim, that Respondent believed he had consent.”

    But Paquette wrote that the role of the investigator is to determine “if one of the stories is more likely than not.” A few days later — just after taking final exams for the spring 2015 semester — the student was told he was being expelled."

    So in short, the accused thought he had consent, the investigator found that it was reasonable that the accused thought he had consent, but he was expelled anyway. On appeal, the expulsion was overturned.

    Key quote from the second one:

    "Again Paquette investigated. The male student’s lawsuit claims that before making the decision to charge him, Paquette refused to speak to multiple witnesses who would have backed up his version of events. Paquette did, however, interview several sorority sisters of the woman, the lawsuit said. Some of their observations found their way into Paquette’s report. One woman called the accused “unpleasant and creepy.” Another said he “has a reputation for not treating women particularly well.” The male student’s lawsuit called the remarks rumor and hearsay.

    The Board of Regents rejected this student’s appeal."


    And before some says it (not directed at you forensicbuzz), I am not advocating for ignoring such allegations, just changing how they are handled.
    AE 87 likes this.
  6. JacketFromUGA

    JacketFromUGA Helluva Engineer

    My wife's response was "So THATS what killed the library project????"
    RLR, Northeast Stinger and jwsavhGT like this.
  7. CHE90

    CHE90 Helluva Engineer

    Don't kid yourself that a single mutt was most responsible for the housing collapse in Georgia. There are many culpable people across the country on Wall Street, at huge banks, and congressman. To say that a state legislator is most responsible is nonsense. Oh and don't forget the irresponsible homeowner who took out a $500,000 mortgage while making $50,000 a year.
    TechnicalPossum likes this.
  8. RLR

    RLR Helluva Engineer

    Obviously. So everyone has what - 0.00001% of the blame? In such a distribution of a blame, it's not hard to be the most responsible individual - while also being meaningless in the big picture. So yes, it's a bit of a crafty political statement on my part. But technically, I think it's still valid. Please note that I limited the scope to Georgia's collapse. If you want to have a full debate of what caused the crisis, I'm game. But it would take about 25 pages to get even a broad overview. That said, there are some people who are objectively bad actors in the collapse. Ignore the morality and just follow the money trail. If you aren't familiar with Ehrhart's history, I suggest you look up. . . he's not as good as scrubbing information as he thinks.

    But more importantly, he started it. Ehrhart shouldn't start a culture war if he can't withstand the retaliation. His attacked was called off within 24 hours. That should tell you about GT's growing clout. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-...er-georgia-tech-president-back-on-good/nqg9P/

    Signaling - that's all this is folks. This is how politics work. And it's rare that GT is involved with it. IDK enough to know why this year is different. My guess is GT broke the gentlemen's agreement that they stay quiet during the legislative session & the legislature will leave them be. But, this session has had big-issue bills that would harm GT's development, especially in tech square - religious freedom, MARTA, rsrch freeze from planned parenthood thing in TX, guns on campus, etc. And GT broke the golden rule on at least one of them - http://getschooled.blog.myajc.com/2...dent-leaders-we-dont-want-guns-on-our-campus/

    All of this also explains why no in Atlanta knows where Emory is & why Emory keeps a low profile. They are the most prominent liberal institution in the state and a prime target for a culture war. With demographics shifts, battle for atlanta (redrawing city lines), and national circus election taking place, I fear that this is only the beginning. . . I'm just praying the state legislature doesn't revisit the state flag debate.
    Northeast Stinger likes this.
  9. Northeast Stinger

    Northeast Stinger Helluva Engineer

    Well said.

    And when people wonder why Tech can't have nice things (it is just an expression folks so don't get literal) I have felt for several decades now that it is the negative perception that other parts of the country have about some of our "red neck" politicians. Tech has done a masterful job trying to overcome that and be a 21st century institution but it is a constant battle.

    As for Emory going under the radar, that is mainly true but it has not always been smooth for them either. I have been out of state for a few years now but I seem to recall Emory has wanted to be on a light rail line for quite some time due to traffic congestion around its hospitals, the CDC and such. I am not sure the state legislature has helped with this desire much and I suspect it is because Emory is not always politically correct from their standpoint.
    RLR likes this.
  10. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    I don't have any knowledge of the particular cases that occurred at Tech. We all know what happened with Duke lacross. No one should want to see a system in place that could replicate that mess. Rape is a serious offense and offenders deserve more prison time than they usually get IMO. False allegations of rape do occur quite more frequently than most would imagine though. The burden of proof should fall on the accuser in an administrative school hearing and the accused should be allowed due process akin to the same in criminal court.
  11. RLR

    RLR Helluva Engineer

    (1) well said NE Stinger. I don't know much about the history or fully understand the dynamics. i didn't mean to overstate my knowledge. this story just didn't pass the sniff test & i saw a trend of people succumbing to what this appears to be - an attack for an ulterior purpose. However, on facebook, I did see some well written responses from young alumni and current students. Not responses like mine that attacked this story with the same douchebaggery with which it was written. But well reasoned, thoughtful, forceful but fair assessments of the situation. And they written from people across political spectrums, race, and gender.

    (2) Whiskey Clear - I think everyone agrees that these situations should be taken with the utmost seriousness, respect for due process, and pursuit of justice. I did read the details of these cases, well, at least two of them. I think it's fair to say that both were really tough cases. This is an extremely difficult topic to have a meaningful conversation on. based on my experience as a male student & mandatory title IX training - as a society, we've punted on having a difficult discussion & decided to say rape is rape. this extends beyond GT. Look at our state. maybe 8 years ago there was that black teenager from atlanta who was 17 and received consensual oral sex from a 15 year old. He received a 10 year mandatory sentence. Until 2003, homosexual sex was a criminal offense in Georgia (although not enforced since the 80s). The last meaningful public conversation we had in this state was probably during that one election cycle where republican congressional candidates claimed that you can't get pregnant if raped.

    But then again, look at GT. we're making huge strides in in increasing our female student ratio - which is the most meaningful initiative to close the STEM gender gap. But, that rape-bait email a few years ago from the GT frat didn't help our image. Let me be clear, i don't think that email should have been leaked or taken literally in any sense. But that's not how the public at large reacted to it. I hate that this is true, but the optics do matter.

    Where does that leave GT? How do we handle the tough cases where the law & morality isn't clear. where someone has to win and someone has to lose. Where the main source of evidence is the victim. It's noble to say that the person should be innocent unless clearly guilty. I'm not even arguing against you there. Although, I would ask you to concede that such a stance would result in some cases of serious injustice (as would convicting an innocent person). It's a tradeoff, there's no golden solution here. But, my main point is, that's not the conversation we are having. I don't think that this congressmen's media blitz accurately reflects President Peterson's involvement or GT's discretion in the due process procedural elements of this case. GT's discretion in these types of hearings is very limited. Ehrhart was playing off people's ignorance towards the reality of the situation, victimizing male students, and vilifying President Peterson. But for what purpose? To what end? If the public isn't mature enough to engage meaningfully in this debate, if there's no action that can be corrected, then why are we having a superficial conversation about such a serious topic?
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2016
  12. herb

    herb Helluva Engineer

    Just because he may have gone to u(sic)ga, may have participated in housing crash, etc., doesn't mean this isn't a conversation worth having. Sometimes if one side is not interested in having such a conversation, then you have to give them a reason to do so. As said, this is a difficult conversation to have, but it is not a situation that cannot be improved
    RLR likes this.
  13. CuseJacket

    CuseJacket Administrator Staff Member


Share This Page