Student Regent Under Investigation [Updated: Feb. 16]
Traci Garling Lee and David Gao | Feb 15, 2011 | Comments 191
On Nov. 4, 2010, UC Student Regent Jesse Cheng was arrested for sexual battery, according to the Irvine Police Department’s adult arrest roster for the month of November. The victim, a UCLA graduate student who has asked to be named as “Laya,” reported the attack to the police a few weeks after the incident.
According to the arrest roster, Cheng was arrested on the afternoon of Nov. 4 at 4771 Campus Dr. for sexual battery. IPD’s daily log for the arrest confirms that the incident was reported on Oct. 26 and Cheng was arrested and booked the following week in Irvine. However, he is not currently facing criminal charges.
Cheng, a fifth-year Asian American studies major at UC Irvine, is the current UC Student Regent and represents over 200,000 students at the 10 UC campuses throughout California. Here at UCI, Cheng has been actively involved in ASUCI, the Student Fee Advisory Committee and the Asian Pacific Student Association.
Cheng declined to comment on the record.
According to Laya’s accounts, Cheng attempted to rape her in his off-campus apartment on Oct. 3 after she said no to his advances. Laya reported the incident to IPD at the end of October and then to UCI’s Office of Student Conduct in November after Cheng’s arrest.
Dr. Mandy Mount, director of UCI Campus Assault Resources and Education (CARE), stated that most cases of sexual violence are rarely reported to authorities, but acknowledged that UCI was “proactive and responsive in these cases.”
In a series of emails over the course of October, which were disclosed to the New University and also given to the police and to Student Conduct, Cheng repeatedly apologized to Laya for sexually assaulting her.
In December, Laya was told by Detective Tom Goodbrand of IPD that the Orange County District Attorney’s office had decided not to press charges.
IPD confirms that the case was sent to the DA’s office in November but, according to Spokesperson Farrah Emami at the DA’s office, they have no record of the case under Cheng’s name at the time.
—————
Update | Feb. 16, 2011, 4:15 p.m. The Bay Citizen reported earlier this afternoon that the Orange County District Attorney’s office chose not to file charges due to insufficient evidence. In a phone interview this afternoon, OCDA’s Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder confirmed that the case had been received and rejected.
“The case was received by our office, a deputy DA received the case, and she concluded that she could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Schroeder said. “It was submitted to our office for misdemeanor sexual battery. We’re not saying it didn’t happen, we’re just saying that we cannot file a case unless we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this incident we could not. The deputy on this case was not aware of any position that Cheng held, nor would it have made a difference.”
—————
To this date, Student Conduct is still investigating.
Despite Laya’s initial hesitation to report the incident, she has decided to come forth and speak up. “I hesitated to talk to the New U for a long time because I was scared Jesse would retaliate and with someone in his position, he has people around him who can and who have gone out of their way to silence me and convince me not to report the assault,” she said. “I don’t want to let him silence me anymore.”
Edgar Dormitorio, director of Student Conduct, had no comment about the investigation, but cited the Family Educational Right and Privacy Act instead, which Student Conduct follows regarding investigation inquiries.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Filed Under: Featured Big • News
Just a small correction: the UC Student Regent is NOT a representative of students, but is instead a regent who just happens to be a student. He/she are charged with making decisions on behalf of the entire university and not necessarily just for students, though certainly that is a strong influence.
Personally, to me NewU has often inaccurately reported certain events (to some extent). Especially this event.
How can you say that it was inaccurately reported? The New U reported the facts. I can’t wait until the truth comes out and all you little Jesse supporters watches as shit hits the fan.
How do you know they’re the facts? How do you know that Laya isn’t lying? How do you know that the charges against Jesse is true?
Everyone making any kind of judgment against Laya and Jesse WITHOUT THE REAL FACTS are blind to this manipulative media.
it has little to do with whether one is a “little Jesse supporter.” It has much more to do with the New U’s spotty record on reporting –especially original reporting, and on its treatment of crime in particular. Have you ever read the police report in this paper, in which almost every reported crime is made into a joke?
The New U does not have a good reputation for accurately reporting news, let alone facts.
As a student leader, I think it is important to look at this case with prudence. There are passionate people and supporters on both sides, but I think it’s best to wait until we get the facts straight before we make conclusions and take drastic action. Student Conduct is still doing an investigation and hasn’t made any conclusions.
We shouldn’t either.
Respond if u choose at Unbiaseduci@yahoo:
The fact that the New U published the story does not bother me nearly as much as the fact that many are already “ass”uming that the man is guilt based on speculation. If he did it then good he deserves everything that he gets, plus more. But, come on let’s get serious what “proof” is there, emails? (I know New U admins most likely read this; if you are, please publish these emails the readers and accused deserve there due diligence). Although they may not even paint a comprehensive story, they could provide greater insight than the word of an alleged victim. For any of you who have ever met him, he strikes me as extremely geeky and frail but that’s just me. Something doesn’t seem right especially since other papers say that she had continued somekind of a relationship for a while after and only had proceed with the story after they had broken up for good. And, i find it funny that she mentions that he has “power” really? Haha, more of a token position than anything else. Im not saying that the allegations are a complete fabrication, obviously there is something there, but making a decision as to wether he is guilty of rape based on one side isn’t nearly enough proof I need to crucify the man. Yes, i know he had “no comment” when asked, but thats very well understandable considering that there is still an on going investigation; i dont even think he is allowed to speak. Many are probably using this story alone as there sole reason to condemn him. As former or current college student we should need more proof before doing so, or at least I would hope so.
Yes the paper did what it had to, if I were a New U writer I would have done the same. To those that condemn the guy for wanting to “squash” the story, no shit wouldn’t you do the same? The case was dismissed, but as we all know, in the court of public opinion every person is there own judge jury and executioner as evidenced by the many people here who both vehimnately support and damn him without anything substantial other than being his friend on facebook or this two paragraph article.
He is receiving punishment for what was already criminally dismissed. But in many ways this is much worse. Can we honestly understand all the nuances these allegations carry, especially for someone in his position? The small things like the looks you get walking to class, the pointing, the piercing stares from people from ultra feminist like me. Trying to be a student and an activist despite everything that’s going on, watching a large chunk of your facebook “friends” disappear and suddenly feeling like the whole world is against you. I’ve read some organizations are already publicly condemning him, WTF? compounded by the fact that in light of everything he maybe innocent. But again, if it is ever proven that he is guilty, it is well deserved.
I don’t know all the facts but what if he is innocent what then? There is no turning back, much of the damage is already done. Many of us sit here and rush to judgment and instantly label him as that “guy” who “raped” a girl .I would be honestly ashamed of myself before i wish ill on anybody. But again if the facts ever prove to him guilty by all means wish as you please, but I’ll wait till them to lump him together with O.J. Simpson.
The OC Weekly article has been updated with an interview with Jesse Cheng.
Mr. Cheng has already spoken to another newspaper about this report and the accusations.
I can understand why he wouldn’t speak to the New U. Just last month, it ran another front-page article calling someone a “criminal” who had not yet been brought to trial on the charges. (The writing is awful, too, mentioning “unethical crimes,” as opposed to the ethical ones, I guess.)
Whether Cheng committed the act of which he is accused cannot be answered by this article, nor by the DA’s declining to press charges. A lack of evidence is cited as a reason for not opening a criminal case in the better press coverage up north: http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/uc-student-regent-denies-sexual-battery/
Why doesn’t the New U publish the so-called confessional e-mails? It’s the only evidence they have, other than the arrest report and the alleged victim’s statements, yet the e-mails are only mentioned. What does Cheng apologize for in the messages? Does he say, “I am sorry I tried to sexually assault you,” or something else?
I think this poor reporting is a function of long-term underfunding (deliberate on the part of administration to prevent good reporting from happening), the weekly nature of the New U, which disallows follow-up reporting and related stories, and the lack of a journalism program at UCI. Literary Journalism doesn’t necessarily count. Isn’t the “literary” part about being able to make stuff up and assertively inject the writer’s subjective take? Good stuff for some media, but for a newspaper article that could erroneously destroy someone’s career? Not so much.
Literary Journalism is not about being able to “make stuff up and assertively inject the writer’s subjective take” … it is about conveying the facts from a creative angle. That doesn’t mean it gives license to fabricate, NO form of journalism would allow that. The truth is still the truth, no matter how you approach it, whether it is through the inverted pyramid form of straight reporting or the magnifying glass of literary journalism. Just clarifying.
But I do agree with you on the New U’s history of poor reporting and even poorer writing. Publishing this article was premature and insensitive given the lack of evidence.
To Current Student (or perhaps article author?) @ February 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm
As a former journalist, I can tell you that taking a class about journalistic ethics is not quite the same as practicing journalistic ethics. The latter often comes from years of experience or the benefit of an editor with years of experience, neither of which is evident at the New U. And if your Pulitzer Prize-winning professor hasn’t mentioned it yet, reporters rarely have the luxury of all the facts. That’s simply part of the job and why practicing journalists are obligated to exercise better judgment than the New U has shown here.
There may be a good chance that the New U has allowed itself to be used. And your snide response to Suzanne Kordi suggests you have a bit of growing up to do. Not a good quality for a student journalist whose article may destroy someone’s reputation without any legal charges being filed.
Wrong. I am not the author, but I am one of several hundred current and former students who have/had a working relationship with the NewU.
You are correct. Taking a class on journalistic ethics is definitely not the same as practicing. But I do not agree that this is a case where a young journalist overstepped her boundaries or practiced unethically.
It is inevitable that an unfortunate circumstance, when brought to light, will bring negative connotations to those involved. This is not a reason to not report the issue, especially as it pertains to the campus and the UC community. I’d argue that that instance neglects the duty of an investigative reporter. Instead, I believe great care went into the construction of the article and that the authors fully knew in advance of the potential legal repercussions.
Instead, we should more closely examine the intent of the reporter’s investigation. What does the story intend to examine? To whom does it inform? Is it relevant and important to the context of the NewU’s mission?
If we’re speaking of all the facts, then perhaps we should consider that maybe the reporter did not disclose all of the known facts, or that some of the reporting was left out of the article. After all, journalists rarely, if ever, use all of their reporting. Might we also consider that the reporter was advised by lawyers or professors prior to this story being printed?
You are certainly entitled to question the reporter’s judgement and that of the editor as well. Good for you. I’m not convinced of Jesse’s guilt or innocence or “Laya’s” motivation, but I am convinced that the reporter did everything that was necessary to present an unbiased, professional report of the allegation.
There is a chance that the NewU was used. There is a chance for conspiracy. There’s an equally good chance that this is neither.
“Not a good quality for a student journalist whose article may destroy someone’s reputation without any legal charges being filed.”
My snide remarks have nothing to do this article’s authorship. If you take issue with my remarks, address them for their content and not the style with which I raised them.
A thoughtful response, Current Student. Thank you. A couple of things:
The New U has the right to report almost anything. That’s not the issue. The question is whether they should and when they should. As you suggest, I don’t know Ms. Lee or Mr. Gao’s intent. However, the lede refers to a victim, not an alleged victim, and the second graf says Cheng does not “currently” face charges. This implies he may face charges. Precision counts. Among other things, this could be why some readers perceive bias.
Covering one’s bases, doing due diligence and seeking counsel are the minimum for reporting a story like this. Reporters don’t get extra credit for that.
Regarding your snide remarks:
You reject a comment because someone’s a “non-journalist.” I mean this respectfully, but neither you nor New U reporters are journalists, not quite yet. Journalism is a craft, not just a series of classes or an extracurricular activity. Since the New U has no apparent adviser, I question its value as a training ground for student reporters.
Also, dismissing someone because they don’t have bestsellers or Pulitzers misses the mark, especially when the subject is an article written by two people with neither and is published in a paper that doesn’t always get the story right. Their names are on this article, not Barry Siegel’s or Henry Weinstein’s.
BTW, a bit of humility is a good thing.
Then we clearly disagree on what the NewU should have done. It is apparent that your experience lends greater/wider perspective. Thank you for the clarification, especially re: precision. Know that it is something I’ll keep in mind for the future (free lesson for the day!).
Re: the NewU as training ground–it would be nice if it worked that way. I don’t know why or what holds faculty from serving a more prominent role. The truth of the situation is that student experience and/or popularity is rewarded with responsibility and title, and in some cases, has very little to do with talent. The LJ students control the paper and make sure that it remains that way. This is both good and bad, but not something I wish to go into.
Re: your statement on my rejection of a non-j: the NewU does not have an adviser as you imagine one, but professional faculty are available at request. I reject that a non-j student would allude to the vague front page of professional journalists ethics page, as evidence for ?, without understanding what it is to go through such training. Surely I have no business telling/implying to an advanced engineering student how some such engineering project is flawed.
I dismissed the student not because they don’t have a bestseller or pulitzer, but because their quick google search on ethics and journalism showed their inability to grasp the difference between reporting and libel. The reporters did not condemn the student regent for the accused crime, they simply reported the alleged crime and only had the alleged victim to work with.
The NewU does not always get the story right, but in this instance, I don’t believe the NewU erred. In fact, I’m proud that the reporters went through with the article, not because it damages the SR, but because they didn’t bow to the intimidating pressure before them.
Again, lastly, thank you for the reasoned response.
I hope the moderator(s) actually check to see if some of these comments are either relevant or constructive to proper discussion of the issue. This article is no place for trolls.
Unfortunately, Jesse isn’t even a real politician. He’s a student, and whether or not he did it, his future is ruined. Tough luck being in the spotlight. Having said that, it doesn’t make sense that “Laya” would go out of her way to set him up (which I think is what some are implying). Who would be able to live with that kind of guilt, not to mention the charges Jesse could file against her in retaliation? Also, there’s no need to bash the reporters- if the accusations are false, Jesse should speak the truth, loud and clear. His hesitancy to do so is the real problem. We deserve to know whether or not we can trust our student regent. He has never been afraid of being vocal before, why so shy all of a sudden? I’m withholding judgment until I hear Jesse’s side of the story, but admittedly I’m incredibly disappointed that we’re forced to discuss this issue in such a public forum. We shouldn’t forget that these are students with families, goals, and ambitions.
Agreed with most of what you said, but against your judgment that Laya would have no motive to set Jesse up…that’s judgment to me.
yeah, let’s get back to the serious issue at hand…
Also I think this article automatically assumes that Jesse is guilty. It is biased. In my opinion, the article gives little information and assumes for the reader.
For me, I think these two reporters did their due diligence by trying to get Cheng’s side of the story. But…
Lee and Gao wrote:
“Cheng declined to comment on the record.”
Therefore, this article will sound bias for most. You guys might think Lee and Gao is attempting to determine Cheng is guilty of the crime since they didn’t publish Cheng’s side of the story. It was Cheng’s choice of not commenting on the record of what happened. In my opinion, I think he should of said something for Public Relations purposes. But according to Lee and Gao, he didn’t. So, I find nothing wrong with the New U reporting Cheng being arrested, Laya’s story and Student Conduct is still investigating.
It would be entirely bias if Lee and Gao did NOT include they had attempted to contact Cheng for his side of the story. The New U, Lee and Gao’s reputation would go down the drain if that had happened. The New U, Lee and Gao would be open for lawsuits (as someone mentioned down there of the crime of libel). Besides Laya’s accounts/quotes, Lee and Gao, I think, for the most part objectively reported the facts to the UCI community.
Unless someone can provide contextual evidence within this article on how it is falsely attacking Cheng and his reputation (like falsely reporting he was arrested or case is under investigation by Student Conduct), I find the comments of how this article is trying to attack Cheng or biased against him as unjust.
I would not be surprised if they gave every source they contacted, Cheng included, plenty of chances to comment. As someone in the literary journalism department who knows the two reporters, I am positive that they covered all of their bases in terms of contacting sources and in terms of seeking advice from the talented and decorated staff within the LJ department.
Talented and Decorated Staff…
Tooting your own horn makes wonderful commentary
because you have nothing else to comment on, especially that which you cannot refute, so why not attack the character, right?
btw, that would be a logical fallacy, an “ad personam,” or an “ad hominem,” a term used to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument.
you fail, because yes, the staff is talented and decorated. how many best sellers and pulitzers do you have?
haha talk about making an personal attack on the opponent instead of the argument: “how many best sellers and pulitzers do you have?” How knowing how many best sellers I have justify the argument that this instigative piece was throughly sourced?
No, actually it is different because you didn’t even offer a relevant argument to speak of. instead, you “attacked the man” instead of his own argument. but since you offer no argument yourself, what else is left to discuss but your own malicious agenda?
Would you consider dozens of visits and phone calls to IPD, UCIPD, OCDA, and several Dean of Students and Conduct administration officials “not thoroughly sourced?”
In addition to the alleged victim?
I would say that the reporter did her due diligence.
“In a series of emails over the course of October, which were disclosed to the New University and also given to the police and to Student Conduct, Cheng repeatedly apologized to Laya for sexually assaulting her.”
NewU does not provide this evidence for its readers. Forgive me for not applauding the writers for their “diligence”.
If the authors wished to keep their article from being called biased, they should have waited to publish Laya’s comments until they had Jesse’s comments as well.
I sympathize with Laya because of those who say she is out for revenge, but I sympathize with Mr. Cheng because of this article.
@UCIMom10
Did you read what I wrote?
‘Lee and Gao wrote:
“Cheng declined to comment on the record.”
Therefore, this article will sound bias for most. You guys might think Lee and Gao is attempting to determine Cheng is guilty of the crime since they didn’t publish Cheng’s side of the story. It was Cheng’s choice of not commenting on the record of what happened.’
If they had to wait for Cheng’s comments, this article would never have been published until a year later…
It was Cheng’s choice of not commenting. Please actually read what these two authors write.
I have heard he repeatedly told people at the New U not to publish this story.
I have heard there are confessions from him in the police report.
I have heard this isn’t a out of the norm for Mr. Cheng and the relationships he has with his past partners.
I have heard he is not the same person he was in high school. Not the same charismatic leader. Not the same social person. This is after you take out the high school BS social hierarchy.
I cannot prove these things so I won’t bother trying to do so on an online comment section.
I’ve heard all the opposite, actually. Hm
You can hear many things. None of them should be even considered to be true unless said by Jesse, Laya, or the police.
I agree with @UC Student. How can we judge Jesse with out knowing the real facts? Assumption is a privilege that people have. We must recognize that we can’t and shouldn’t conclude things without clear evidence and without hearing both sides. To scrutinize Jesse this way is unfair. And to attack people that are associated with him is just unethical. I suggest educating ourselves before making our own conclusions.
I definitely agree with you on all parts of your statement. But unfortunately, we have to face the fact that people aren’t going to be this reasonable. They are going to read the headline and jump to conclusions from that. It’s sad to see things come to this. I hope things get settled on both ends. But the damage has already been done to Jesse regardless of the outcome.
It is irresponsible for the New U to post this article with so little information or evidence. They are destroying his character and everything he has worked for on allegations that have no back bone.
You are wrong. It is not irresponsible to report the NEWS as it pertains to the campus. Also, the NewU is not destroying his character and everything he has worked for, allegedly, the man himself has.
WHY in the world is his APARTMENT ADDRESS PUBLISHED in the article? Really NEW U?
KL, have you ever seen an arrest log?
Yeah, that’s a problem. Somebody should write to the editor about it. Unfortunately, I don’t go to UCI.
The article doesn’t list his apartment address. 4771 Campus Drive is where he was arrested and they say it was listed on the adult arrest log. That’s the address of University High.
Too bad we don’t have a service that lets you look up an address and see what it might be registered to.
oh wait.
We do.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=4771+Campus+Dr.+irvine+CA
Good thing we aren’t retarded and jump to conclusions!
Too bad the article and OC Weekly article made it seem like it was “his off-campus apartment at 4771 Campus Dr., Irvine”.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/02/jesse_cheng_sexual_battery_uci.php
Good thing we aren’t all stalkers and Google map people’s address we don’t even know.
People are really quick to judge public figures huh?
I believe there are two sides to a story. Maybe even more. Don’t be quick to judge
Sure. But Jesse Cheng declined to comment. Declining to comment probably isn’t the best way to make sure a different side of the story is heard…
I could understand if he didn’t want to talk to the New U right away. That’s his choice. But he *did* have a chance do get his side out there already. (Considering he already admitted to it in the emails, I’m extremely curious what his side of the story is now. Really. I’m dying to hear it.)
http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/uc-student-regent-denies-sexual-battery/
Because I don’t like to hear of people dying from not hearing something.
Unless I missed it…
From this morning until now, I find it odd that everyone did not mention that Cheng was arrested by IPD. Here’s why that important…
Best to my knowledge, the police needs Probable Cause (under the 4th amendment and relevant court cases) to arrest Cheng. Since the crime was reported weeks later after the commission of the alleged crime, Irvine Police Officers cannot randomly knock on Cheng’s residence and arrest him unless it was an emergency like he was getting rid of evidence or IPD had evidence Cheng was a mass serial rapist on the loose and many victims were able to ID him. If they had randomly knocked on 4771 Campus Dr to arrest Cheng just based on a “she said and he said” type of evidence, Irvine Police Department can read themselves for a huge lawsuit.
Remember, “Laya” reported this crime weeks after the commission of the alleged crime. Unless IPD wants a lawsuit by Cheng’s family, IPD, I doubt, will go and arrest Cheng without hard evidence.
That being said, IPD needed an arrest warrant to detain Cheng for this crime. An arrest warrant needs to be signed by a judge. Since Cheng was arrested (detained) AND booked (proceeded), the judge likely agreed that a CRIME had been committed. To me, I think (unless the judge was paid off or something) the “arrest” and “being booked” speaks volume to what happened in that incident.
Now, individuals here on this comment board have been defending Cheng’s actions by saying the “DA’s office didn’t file charges” or “DA’s office dropped the case.” The DA’s office has a choice of filing a criminal complaint or not. There are a lot of explanations why the DA decided not to file charges at this time. But of course, Cheng can be brought up for charges in the future. The statue of limitation, I think (if I am not mistaken) in California, is one year for sexual battery.
Until next year, Cheng can still be prosecuted for the “alleged crime” under the law. It is really similar to how the Irvine 11 group was not “prosecuted” until a year after the “alleged crime.”
Note: the quotations. If I am wrong about how police conducts arrest or obtaining arrest warrants for sexual battery weeks after the commission of the crime, I welcome comments/corrections. But that how I understand our American criminal justice system is ran.
Just so everyone knows, the address 4771 Campus Dr. is not a residence, but is the University High School.
*shrugs*
But the point is still the same, IPD cannot randomly arrest Cheng based on “she said, he said” type of evidence weeks after the commission of the “alleged crime.” IPD must have had something on him and the judge agreed.
Oh and, there’s no way to know what happened in that incident until a trial (criminal or civil) or a open-hearing at the University reveals all the evidence. The other way is if Cheng comes out to speak about what really happened.
Using the ‘DA didn’t file charges’ or ‘decided not to file charges at this time’ does not prove his guilt or innocence. In order for Cheng to be completely guilt-free requires the DA’s office to entirely drop his case. This article only stated that they decided NOT TO PRESS CHARGES. To me, that doesn’t mean the DA’s office entirely dropped the case since it has no merits to it. It means this case still has some merits to be brought up at a later date.
As I mentioned earlier, the arrest of Cheng on Nov 4 should have required a judge to sign off on it. Basically, that “signing off” meant something “bad” did happen in Cheng off-campus apartment on Oct. 3.
In any case, we will have to wait what happens until the statue of limitation for criminal prosecution expires. And how the University responds to this incident.
Until one or both of those things happen, all everyone does know is that something did happen that night with what we are told in this article, the “arrest+booking,” “Laya’s story,” and “emails.” There’s some parts of that story still missing. So, can one fully point to Cheng with 100% confidence to say he’s innocent or guilty of a crime? I’d say we don’t really know until the entire story/all evidence somehow comes out…
Zotbrain,
Would you happen to know how long it takes to arrest and book a suspect? Also, would any bail or other requirements be needed before they can be release, especially the same day? From what has been provide and what I can dig up, he must have been release that same day or at the very least the following day. Is that normal for such a crime?
People seem to be ignoring one interesting point here…
In December, Laya was told by Detective Tom Goodbrand of IPD that the Orange County District Attorney’s office had decided not to press charges.
IPD confirms that the case was sent to the DA’s office in November but, according to Spokesperson Farrah Emami at the DA’s office, they have no record of the case under Cheng’s name at the time.
So, the victim of the crime, of the attempted rape, asked her Investigator, “What is happening with my case?”
The reply was something along the lines of “The DA rejected it.”
And when the New U followed up on this, the DA replied, “What? Not so, we have never seen this case.”
So the investigator lied to the victim.
If this was a case where the case had no merit, not enough proof, or what have you, why not just say so? Why deny the victim the right to know what exactly is happening to her case?
While the victims allegations are hardly incriminating, IPD would not have arrested without some form of Probable Cause. So there is something else here – possibly the e-mails, possibly some other evidence that hasn’t yet come to light. And yet, despite being arrested and booked, and despite having an investigator assigned to the case, the victim has not yet seen even an iota of justice dealt. Not even an attempt to see this through on a judicial scale.
Instead, there is subterfuge.
I think with all the geniuses and intellectuals we have spawning around this thread, it shouldn’t be too hard to address this particular point.
Or we could just have one big angry circle jerk.
Now you’re speaking my language!
Apparently degrading someone’s reputation is more important than the Egyptian Revolution?
Really?
Also, I don’t understand why the “series of e-mails” was maliciously turned over the the New University. If this were not solely intended to assault someone’s integrity, I would have turned the details over to a legitimate news source.
The New U.
Really?
I’m not sure that printing or fwd’ing some emails constitutes as “malicious.” Seems to me that it would help the case. You must be worried about what those emails contain.
But if we’re considering your very good buddy’s integrity, then maybe you can personally ask him to come forward with a statement?
http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/uc-student-regent-denies-sexual-battery/
Suzanne,
Why are you trying to divert attention away from this tragic story?
How is an event, thousands of miles away from Irvine, more important to the UC Irvine community than very serious criminal allegations to, arguably, the campus’ most publicly visible student?
But, if you’re interested in writing the Egyptian Revolution story, I’m sure the News Editor would welcome the contribution.
Thanks.
Current Student,
I am not trying to divert attention. I made a statement regarding our school newspaper’s questionable priorities.
I don’t understand what entitles the UC Irvine community to the personal issues of “the campus’ most publicly visible student” and “Laya”.
I’m very interested in writing about Mubarak and the Egyptian Revolution. In addition, I’m also interested in writing a piece implying Jesse Cheng’s innocence. I hope the News Editor would welcome that contribution as well.
You’re welcome.
Seeing as this article unethically implied Jesse Cheng’s guilt…I would hate to be denied.
http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp
ha.
seriously?
like. for real, right?
are you, a non-journalist, using your untrained google web skillz to inquire into the reporters reporting ethics?
did you know that UCI LJ majors take a class, taught by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, on this exact specific topic before they are even allowed to practice their major?
and did you also know that UCI LJ majors have, to some extent, this guy (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/profile_h_weinstein.html) for reference, among many others?
I mean, the reporter probably conferred with at least one of them, at least once, before publishing this story, right?
right?
pssh… snooping, pesky journalists… how dare they avoid libel by NOT MAKING CLAIMS about people in their stories by reporting the factual allegations, as stated in arrest logs…
Calm down.
The requirements for libel are reckless disregard for the truth, factual inaccuracy, and actual malice.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems that this article hits none of those qualifications, though I feel this shouldn’t have been written until a trial or a campus disciplinary hearing.
Suzanne, I grant that the January 25th Movement is of critical importance; however, the investigation of the UC’s primary student advocate is of critical importance, especially when it involves a case of sexual battery; I’m sure you as a representative of women students nationally, you agree about the importance that justice is done in this instance.
I said this article was unethical, not tainted with libel. Get it right.
Also, I feel like gender-alizing sexual assault to women merely perpetuates societal gender norms. So, as “a representative of women students nationally”, I do not support reinforcing gender norms.
I merely implied this article was filled with libel, and the article merely implied Jesse Cheng’s guilt.
See how easy we all jump to conclusions?
I’m signing off. I wish you all a peaceful night.
“Suzanne Kordi says:
February 15, 2011 at 11:00 pm
I said this article was unethical, not tainted with libel. Get it right.”
Suzanne Kordi says:
February 15, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I merely implied this article was filled with libel, and the article merely implied Jesse Cheng’s guilt.”
Suzanne, I think you need to get it right. Is this article “NOT tainted with libel,” or are you “merely implying this article was filled with libel?”
Also, the reporting is not libelous. From MW online:
“2b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures.”
Statement and representation? Yes.
Without just cause? No.
Expose to public contempt? Factually.
Defamation by written means? Factually.
Publication of blasphemy? No.
Treason? No.
Sedition? No.
Obscene? no.
The FACT is that he was arrested. A much better analysis of this arrest and how the arrest process is handled, is several posts beneath this one.
The article lists why Jesse was arrested. Talk to IPD if their arrest log is libelous.
campus NEWSpaper: report the CAMPUS NEWS.
What is the greater campus priority? Egypt, or a UC Irvine student?
seriously? does this need to be explained to you?
—————-
secondly, and more importantly, I’m sure the NewU OPINION Editor would welcome your opinion article on Cheng’s innocence.
If I intertwine questionable data with my opinion–but frame both as fact, can I submit it to the News Editor?
yes, but all opinion will be edited from print.
They must have overlooked this article then.
Who overlooked what article?
To Former Student Advocate: I fully agree with you. Thank you for outlining your opinion in a clear and understandable way that leaves no room for misinterpretation, as I may have failed to do.
To Elestate: I’m glad to see someone else who is unbiased
To Anti-Rape: I have to say that your response to my opinion has made me extremely upset. If the accusations are true, then why would I support someone who did to Laya what someone who I once trusted did to me? You call yourself “Anti-Rape”, and then say that I, a rape victim, am defending a “rapist”?
And what if Jesse Cheng didn’t do what he is accused of? Then what?
I take no sides on the matter presented in the article. I only said that the police station would be the best source of information since they are intimately involved in this, and that it is not fair to judge what happened based on the little information that we do know.
The only thing that I know for sure is wrong is that some people are judging those involved with Jesse Cheng (such as Patrick Le) based on something that Mr. Cheng did or did not do.
I’m not judging Jesse because I could care less; my comments reflect HIS neither guilt or innocence, rather, they are a recognition and response to the systemic sexual violence that occurs to women by men every day.
I think you should join this cause, we need you.
“I’m not judging Jesse because I could care less; my comments reflect HIS neither guilt or innocence, rather, they are a recognition and response to the systemic sexual violence that occurs to women by men every day.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but you called Mr. Cheng a rapist in some of your previous comments. If we knew for sure that he has done what Laya says he did, then I would be as angry as you.
But we know nothing other than what the NewU has said.
I don’t know if you said what you did in anger or bitterness, but I will not speak with those who judge others without proper information.
Here is a petition calling for the Office of Student Conduct to conduct a thorough and timely investigation of the attempted rape allegation against Student Regent Jesse Cheng:
http://www.change.org/petitions/uci-must-investigate-attempted-rape-allegation-against-student-regent-jesse-cheng