Highly 写了： 2023年 1月 11日 23:19 更新：那个楼主把内容都删了，感谢rongrong（第一页中间）和StillWandering （第二页）在这里存底
提示：目前华人的主贴已经被那个楼主篡改了（StillWandering 拷贝的部分），篡改前的原文在rongrong贴里
=====================================
盖了1000层楼了，大妈都疯了。
https://huaren.us/showtopic.html?topici ... 90&fid=398
我随便截个图：
【更新】大妈网禽兽教授那个楼，楼主已经全部删帖，目前买提这里是全世界唯一备份，嘿嘿
版主： huangchong
Re: 【更新】大妈网禽兽教授那个楼，楼主已经全部删帖，目前买提这里是全世界唯一备份，嘿嘿
好坑！ 术版坑王，姐诚无愧焉
Re: 都去看大妈网爆了大瓜了，又是禽兽教授的
我也没细看，只看到了xiaotuzi 写了： 2023年 1月 14日 06:27 先别说这个坑了。徐刚这事证人牵扯出的没有好几十，也有十几了吧？原告咋还整输了。输了后面咋办？
律所上诉？请求换陪审团重审（可能性不大）？提交更多证据（有证据早提交了）？上诉到circut court？
没招了吗？
2个苦主都在国内没出庭，只有一个网上发帖的男的出庭了。
有一个苦主以前给学校写了一封信说是徐是好人没有强奸。
功成不必在我
-
Highly（高妹）楼主
- 论坛支柱
2023-24年度十大优秀网友
Highly 的博客 - 帖子互动： 1732
- 帖子： 9227
- 注册时间： 2022年 7月 24日 20:23
Re: 都去看大妈网爆了大瓜了，又是禽兽教授的
我就是特别八卦larvender 写了： 2023年 1月 15日 09:02 我的天
蓉蓉你啥都不落下啊
我都没仔细看戴璐桃色新闻
只知道她那个老公也是心怀叵测的，想走捷径
本来就是江西科技师范这种三本毕业，硕士考的马哲
你说的对她那个绿帽子老公也不是善茬儿。那个背景能选调也很会溜须拍马，没想到走捷径惹祸了
还有，那女的没p的图和视频看着不是美女啊。眼距过宽
x1
上次由 rongrong2022 在 2023年 1月 15日 11:22 修改。
Re: 都去看大妈网爆了大瓜了，又是禽兽教授的
这个是知乎推给我的，我还没仔细看
现在已经被删帖了，不知道真假
不过这类破事太多，以至于没啥兴趣
倒是1888万彩礼比较震撼，但是据说是挖坑的，那就没意思了
现在已经被删帖了，不知道真假
不过这类破事太多，以至于没啥兴趣
倒是1888万彩礼比较震撼，但是据说是挖坑的，那就没意思了
Re: 都去看大妈网爆了大瓜了，又是禽兽教授的
我在twitter，华人网上看也到24个黄牛的说法larvender 写了： 2023年 1月 15日 23:21 这个是知乎推给我的，我还没仔细看
现在已经被删帖了，不知道真假
不过这类破事太多，以至于没啥兴趣
倒是1888万彩礼比较震撼，但是据说是挖坑的，那就没意思了
Re: 【更新】大妈网禽兽教授那个楼，楼主已经全部删帖，目前买提这里是全世界唯一备份，嘿嘿
Because the process is incredibly tedious -
Somebody reports something to the Title IX Office, they do an investigation (which could take months depending on how uncooperative the respondent is) and make a recommendation.
There's probably a faculty misconduct committee that meets and discusses the Title IX Office's report and recommendation, and then they make a recommendation to the Chair of the Department.
The Chair then reviews everything, and passes on their recommendation to the Dean of the College. The Dean then reviews everything and makes a recommendation to the Executive Vice Chancellor/Chancellor, who then convenes a Peer Review Committee.
The Peer Review Committee has to agree (usually unanimously) on the level of sanctioning (punishment), which they then present to the Chancellor and the respondent.
If the respondent doesn't agree with the level of sanctioning, and they are a member of the Academic Senate (which this person is), then it goes to the Senate.
The Senate then convenes their own hearing, and possibly their own investigation, and then decides what level of sanctioning they want to recommend. This gets passed back to the Chancellor, who hands the punishment down with the Dean/Chair if it is NOT a recommendation for dismissal.
If the recommendation IS dismissal (as in this case), then the Chancellor has to meet with the UC President. If the President also agrees with dismissal, then the President makes that recommendation before the Board of Regents, which only meets every other month. The Regents then have to vote to agree to dismiss, which is when the respondent finally gets dismissed.
That's why it takes two years. Some specific steps might vary, but that's how it generally works.
Somebody reports something to the Title IX Office, they do an investigation (which could take months depending on how uncooperative the respondent is) and make a recommendation.
There's probably a faculty misconduct committee that meets and discusses the Title IX Office's report and recommendation, and then they make a recommendation to the Chair of the Department.
The Chair then reviews everything, and passes on their recommendation to the Dean of the College. The Dean then reviews everything and makes a recommendation to the Executive Vice Chancellor/Chancellor, who then convenes a Peer Review Committee.
The Peer Review Committee has to agree (usually unanimously) on the level of sanctioning (punishment), which they then present to the Chancellor and the respondent.
If the respondent doesn't agree with the level of sanctioning, and they are a member of the Academic Senate (which this person is), then it goes to the Senate.
The Senate then convenes their own hearing, and possibly their own investigation, and then decides what level of sanctioning they want to recommend. This gets passed back to the Chancellor, who hands the punishment down with the Dean/Chair if it is NOT a recommendation for dismissal.
If the recommendation IS dismissal (as in this case), then the Chancellor has to meet with the UC President. If the President also agrees with dismissal, then the President makes that recommendation before the Board of Regents, which only meets every other month. The Regents then have to vote to agree to dismiss, which is when the respondent finally gets dismissed.
That's why it takes two years. Some specific steps might vary, but that's how it generally works.
