Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Change.org Sponsorship

Student Who Admitted to Sexual Assault Still on UC Board of Regents 

The UC Board of Regents is comprised of a slew of high-profile individuals and important figures in the UC system, including California Gov. Jerry Brown, Speaker of the Assembly John Pérez, President of the University Mark Yudof, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Alumni Associations of the University of California President Rex Hime, and La Opinión Newspaper Publisher and CEO Monica Lozano.

This, ahem, illustrious Board claimed that it didn't want to consider removing Cheng until the Office of Student Conduct's decision came back -- then when the "he done it" verdict was returned, used Cheng's decision to appeal and backpedaling on his confession as reason to continue to shirk from the issue.

The Justice for Laya Coalition sees all this as nothing but excuses and has no intention of letting the Board get away with running out the clock to Cheng's upcoming graduation -- letting them off the hook for having to take action. To support their efforts on behalf of Laya and other UC sexual assault survivors, sign the petition launched by AF3IRM here.

Full article here:

Saturday, April 23, 2011

False Rape Society

Quite ironic that a blog dedicated to informing people about false rape accusations can see through Jesse Cheng's lies.

Originally posted on March 19, 2011

It is a bizarre case, but False Rape Society will not support the accused here.

But the Office of Student Conduct has ruled that Cheng engaged in "unwanted touching." Even if he didn't, one must seriously wonder if Cheng is either too stupid, or too unstable, to serve as the student regent in light of the admissions he wrote in emails.

Some who are concerned about injustices to falsely accused men will construe Cheng's current predicament as a form of karma. After all, when you join with the gender-divisive purveyors of lock-the-doors-hide-the-daughters Chicken Little rape hysteria, you risk having the monster you helped create turn on you.  It is ironic that Cheng himself helped manufacture the very culture that led feminists to stage yet another gender passion play this week, this time, when they protested against him.  It is doubly ironic that no matter what happens to Jesse Cheng, he will not acknowledge that the system is broken, and that it allows innocent men to be found responsible of terrible wrongdoing in college kangaroo proceedings that make us long for the good old days of Star Chamber.  Jesse Cheng will not help us to change the system; he is only out to save Jesse Cheng.

Jesse Cheng is the author of his own discontent. False Rape Society calls on the Board of Regents to oust him from the board immediately.

Full article here:

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

OC Register- Protest at UCI

Citing allegations of sexual assault, protesters Wednesday rallied to demand the resignation of the UC Irvine senior who represents the 220,000 students attending University of California campuses.

Jesse Cheng, sole student member of the 26-person UC Regents board, denies the accusations by his ex-girlfriend, a UCLA graduate student known by the pseudonym "Laya."
Calls for Cheng's ouster stem from an October incident in which Laya says he tried to rape her. The District Attorney declined to file charges, but a UC Irvine inquiry determined Cheng touched Laya without consent, a finding he has appealed.

On Wednesday, more than two dozen demonstrators gathered in front of the school's administration building, in the middle of a UCI street fair.

Full article here: 

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Analysis of the appeal by Cheng.

It has been recently revealed that Jesse Cheng has filed an appeal with UCI student conduct. Based on the UCI student conduct policy:

The Appeal will be Granted or Denied based on:

1. Whether there is new evidence which could not be adduced at the time of the investigative conference which is likely to change the result;

2. Whether there was a violation of due process;

3. Whether the sanction imposed was too harsh given the finding of fact.

Our Source tells us that Cheng chose the 3rd option declaring the punishment was too harsh. At this point, we cannot confirm what the exact punishment is, but in a recent article in the OC weekly, Cheng said it was only probation to the end of the school year (2.5 months).

In the UCI Student Conduct Policy. The university has a limited number of options for disciplinary action. They are as follows:

Disciplinary Probation
Loss of Privileges and Exclusion from Activities
Exclusion from Areas of the Campus or from Official University Functions
Interim Suspension
Revocation of Awarding of Degree
Other-( monetary fines, community service, or holds on requests for transcripts, diplomas, or other student records to be sent to third parties,University service- required participation as an unpaid volunteer in activities which serve the University,behavioral contract- specific requirements relating to expectations of behavior, revocation of registration of a campus organization.)

If we take Cheng's word that he is only facing probation, then his only other alternate punishment is a warning if the university agrees with him. This seems to be a waste of time because he still is found responsible for violating the university's sexual harassment policy which will still stay with him for the rest of his life.
This does not seem like an unreasonable thing to do unless he is hoping to drag the appeal process as long as possible until he graduates and then tries to declare the situation as not resolved.

The only other possible scenario is Jesse Cheng lied about the disciplinary actions the university issued in order to downplay the whole affair. Aside from Student Conduct (who cannot comment due to student confidentiality), Jesse Cheng is the only one who truly knows the real punishment. Laya was told the punishment will only be revealed to her if Jesse did not appeal the decision.

Either way, what is interesting, is if Jesse told the truth, shouldn't he be appealing on the grounds of introducing new evidence or a violation of due process? While it is very possible that he does not have new evidence to give, if he told the truth in his statement, he should be arguing that his statements were not taking seriously or weighed equally with Laya's. Afterall, the university's policy states "Violations of the Sexual Assault Policy will be determined on the preponderance of the evidence standard." Such a standard is easy to appeal if it a "he said, she said" case.

Just something to think about.

UCI Student Conduct information:

Article of Jesse Cheng claiming only probation: