thebigcheese wrote:Okay, so here's my question: where are they going to get this additional evidence from? Wait for multiple people to report it, if that ever happens? Facebook stalk them and look at their photos when a report comes in? Go to their apartment and ask their friends and roommates about it?
Anyway, my point is that I think it's going to be really hard to draw that line. You're either going to accuse too many or catch too few. I agree with the interrogation aspect though -- they shouldn't put you under a bright light and yell at you until you confess. They should give you the opportunity to confess -- and if more evidence comes out, proving that you're lying, that's grounds for serious discipline. But that's probably not a perfect solution either. Can you come up with a better one?
For your first paragraph, I think that an individual submitting a complaint under the HC ought to have some sort of affirmative proof beyond an accusation. For instance, I knew someone who had a roommate who had her boyfriend over for sex regularly. This someone I know collected evidence - photographing used condoms - and had other individuals in her complex verify that he stayed the night.
Another good source to start an investigation would be if someone involved in the prohibited behavior indicted someone else. For instance, if a boy comes forward and says he has sex with a girl, there is a higher likelihood that the report is not falsified.
Are these bulletproof methods for whether the HC should start an investigation? No, but I think by raising the threshold a little higher, you will be able to capture the cases that are affecting other students* the most and reduce the number of frivolous complaints. Yes, more people will "get away with it," but I tend to think those are instances that wouldn't affect other individuals at BYU so much.
*Again, I think that a large part of the HC is to encourage an environment in compliance with Church teachings. If any individual is perfectly covert about and committed to his sinning, he probably ought to be kicked out on those grounds alone since the Church has
no interest in him. BUT! I am fine that the HC would miss that individual because it wouldn't impact the environment. Compare that to an overt sinner who, regardless of his intention in committing future sins, has an impact on other people's environment. Obviously, how that individual is treated by the HC ought to be case-by-case, but that individual is the type that would have the most impact on the Church's interest in maintaining a church-compliant environment.
