High Court To Address Students' Privacy

Hartford Courant ^ | April 22 2002 | JOHN A. MacDONALD

[2Trievers]

Ru Paster admits he had sex with a female student while both were young education majors at Gonzaga University, a small Jesuit school in Spokane, Wash. But he denies he ever raped the woman.

Julie Peyton has given different accounts. At one point she reportedly claimed that Paster forced her to participate in "aberrant sexual behavior." Later, she denied she ever made the accusation and, in court testimony, she denied that Paster sexually assaulted her.

[newzjunkey]

A very interesting case. It's really immaterial that she changed her mind later--isn't that what the societal standard is? If she was concerned enough to wander over to, persumably, student health for an evaluation, an evaluation which concluded 'date rape' had taken place, that sets the standard as to what happened. I can only presume the conclusion was based on the self-proclaimed victim's demeanor and physical evidence.

As a result, of course, GU would investigate the matter internally and take whatever action, as a private institution, that it deemed appropriate with regards to putting its reputation on the line as an institution of higher learning. IMHO, they were right to refuse to issue the letter of good conduct. Why he wasn't expelled or placed on academic probation is something of a mystery.

Given my personal knowledge of the institution and the professionals at Gonzaga during this time period, I'd be very surprised to learn "Ru" was kept in the dark as the article suggests he claims.

Perhaps the error was the nurse/Gonzaga not involving the local police and instead dealing with the matter (only?) internally whether the victim wanted to press charges or not.

I served on a criminal jury here in California wherein the victim refused to cooperate with the prosecution and demanded charges be dropped. The prosecution went ahead anyway on less evidence than the story suggests existed in this case.

One terrible reality here, though, is that innocent men have no real defense against false accusations of an angry lover. IMHO, based only what's in this article, his privacy was not violated.