DeVos has not spoken publicly about the Education Department’s aggressive approach to campus sexual assault, but women’s groups and Democrats say her donations to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education send a troubling signal. FIRE has sued the administration to raise the standard of proof for victims of sexual assault in university administrative hearings contending it is unfair to the accused.When did due process become a "radical view"?!
The donations are “a red flag,” said Lisa Maatz, the top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women, which advocates for strict enforcement of Title IX, the federal law that governs sex discrimination, harassment and sexual assault on college campuses. “In the absence of an actual record … I think these kinds of donations take on even greater importance, because we have to rely on her contributions to inform us on particular issues.”...
“Ms. DeVos must fully explain whether she supports the radical view that it should be more difficult for campus sexual assault victims to receive justice,” said Sen. Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), a member of the HELP Committee.
१० जानेवारी, २०१७
Finding it "troubling" that Betsy DeVos has contributed to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
I'm reading "DeVos' donations spark questions about her stance on campus sexual assault" at Politico:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
Due Process became a radical concept when the actual meaning of words in the Constitution and the law became subject to evolution.
the top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women
Women in science tend to wind up on the Women's Workplace Issues committee, I'd noticed back in the day.
Social issues are more fun than whatever the non-traditional job is, to women.
Due process became a "radical view" when Democrats abandoned classical liberalism to become flat-out statist happy-face fascists.
You are right this is not a radical view, but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible.
Rolling Stones' Sabrina Erdely and her source "Jackie" could not be immediately reached for comment.
The Constitution, as written, is a radical view compared to what the Left wants.
INDIVIDUAL rights!!??!
Based on nothing more than the facts of a case!?!! Not broken down by race, gender or class?
Women and minorities hardest hit.
Justice can't be blind to these people. Their senses are too finely tuned. All they can see is race, gender and class.
BURN THE WITCH!!!!
Campus sex tribunals are designed primarily for one purpose: to purge American universities of as many men as possible and exile the gelded survivors - mute and appropriately shamed - to academia's version of St. Helena island. Thus, in time, the queer outhouse theorists and womyn's studies Ph.ds will have all the ripe young nymphs to themselves. Due process? What are you!!?? Some kind of rape apologist!!! If a lady sez she was raped, she was raped! ('Cept when the accused is a gentleman named Wm Jefferson Clinton.)
I'm guessing that Bob Casey would rather have been assigned something more important to grandstand about.
"When did due process become a "radical view"?!
When males began to use it effectively to vet accusations by women, it seems.
The donations are “a red flag,” said Lisa Maatz, the top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women, which advocates for strict enforcement of Title IX, the federal law that governs sex discrimination, harassment and sexual assault on college campuses.
Title IX:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
Title IX governs neither harassment nor sexual assault. They do not advocate for strict enforcement, they advocate for wildly overreaching enforcement.
The entire Bill of Rights takes a Radical View on the needed tools for Absolute Rule of Devine Right Queens of Title 9. The Feds must repeal all 10 or else Soros will pay for more rioters.
", but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible."
The standards are difficult, not impossible. Otherwise there would be no guilty findings. And having the standards be difficult is the entire point.
The full argument of the Dems today is that the opposition are extremists, racists, haters and radicals. No facts. No exposition. Just name calling. Watch what they do to Jeff Sessions today. Booker will embrass himself.
FIRE isn't just about Due Process, but also champions Free Speech. I do find it absurd that these wackos are trying to derail this nomination because she supported an organization that is at the forefront of championing Due Process and Free Speech on campus - something that you would think that the American Association of University Women would endorse, based on their name. Of course, they don't represent all college women, but just the wacko fringe. They just pretend to represent the other, more sane, women in order to gain credibility.
And, yes I have contributed to FIRE, and, yes, I made sure that my kid read the FIRE ratings of the schools that they were looking at attending, back when applying to college.
"When did due process become a "radical view"?!"Since feminism.
"“Ms. DeVos must fully explain whether she supports the radical view that it should be more difficult for campus sexual assault victims to receive justice,” said Sen. Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), a member of the HELP Committee.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!"
Due process became radical when campus administrative review boards became dispensers of "justice" in the eyes of sitting senators.
The donations are “a red flag,” said Lisa Maatz, the top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women .... “In the absence of an actual record … I think these kinds of donations take on even greater importance, because we have to rely on her contributions to inform us on particular issues.”...
This is what happens when a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women.
The critical connection to Title IX is that a lack of due process is itself a violation of Title IX.
"roesch/voltaire said...
You are right this is not a radical view, but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible."
Pick a lane.
Betsy's real crime as seen by the left is that she supports school choice. This is a crime more serious than killing one's unborn baby, which of course isn't a crime at all.
For Democrats, justice is disconnected from the law.
'The donations are “a red flag,”' Since that application of Title IX will be gone sometime like Jan 20, hardly matters, right? These people are so far around the bend that they can no longer see the bend.
A Senator, too. Wonder what fraction of his constituents in Pennsylvania think he's right about this? Gone in 2018.
Ms. DeVos must fully explain whether she supports the radical view that it should be more difficult for campus sexual assault victims to receive justice.
I think the bar should be extremely low for victims to receive justice. I think the bar should be considerably higher for determining who are victims and therefore what constitutes justice.
hich advocates for strict enforcement of Title IX, the federal law that governs sex discrimination, harassment and sexual assault on college campuses.
I think this definition of "strict enforcement" and the description of what Title IX governs kind of begs the issue, doesn't it?
The Title IX fight was always worth having in the open. And Betsy DeVos, as Michigan Republicans know, has ice water in her veins.
Of course, she was one of the people whom Trump was deriding as "the donors" during the presidential debate in Detroit. (That was the debate where Trump also noted that his hands were not small and that other parts were adequately-sized as well.)
The Title IX fight should be a winner for conservatives. The fight, however, is compromised by Trump's personal history; yanking out clumps of Ivana's hair in a rage after his own scalp surgery, the innumerable sexual harassment claims, the open-mic "grab 'em by the pussy" video, etc., etc., etc. All of what should be irrelevancies, but which will distract from the good conservative fight against the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter out of the Obama Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
This new interpretation of Title IX, based on fake statistics, was never (to my recollection) presented as a "radical view".
but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible.
Yup, it sure is tough getting past that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing...
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
posted by Ann Althouse at 8:21 AM on Jan 10, 2017
When Title IX was used to bypass it. When people were told 4 out 5 women will be sexually assaulted during their college years.
Chuck said...
All of what should be irrelevancies, but which will distract from the good conservative fight
Which is why we appreciate you continuing to harp on them.
I mean, if you're concerned something will be a distraction to issues you care about, the best way to counter the effect of that distraction is to keep talking about it... and talking about it, and talking about it, and talking about it.
Igv said...
When people were told 4 out 5 women will be sexually assaulted during their college years.
Straight white college-aged men are the new superpredators.
From the linked article:
[quote]
Beginning in 2011, the Education Department published guidance prodding colleges and universities to use that lower standard for disciplinary hearings — a practice already in wide use.
[end quote]
Beginning in 2011, the Education Department published guidance commandeering colleges and universities to use that lower standard for disciplinary hearings — a practice already in wide use.
FIFY
FIRE is an apolitical, free speech, God send.
Freedom of speech for us, but not for you...
The full argument of the Dems today is that the opposition are extremists, racists, haters and radicals. No facts. No exposition. Just name calling. Watch what they do to Jeff Sessions today. Booker will embarrass himself.
I was going to comment on that, and you beat me to it. I think that the Dems in the Senate are getting ready to self-immolate, and there is little that many of them can do to save themselves. The smart ones, from Red States, will keep their heads down, and vote for Trump's nominees. The Dems are going to try to Bork the more contentious of Trump's nominees. The problem is that all they have is screaming and name calling, or, if they have more, it will be lost in their screaming wolf. Screaming that all of Trump's nominees are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And, remember Trump's calling Chuckie Schumer the "head clown"? Think of that as battle space preparation.
Sen. Bob Casey must fully explain why he's a cuck.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
When Obama's Edu bureaucracy sent their "Dear Colleague" letter. Funny how we can't get progressives to follow the actual law, but when some bureaucrat sends a non-binding letter that says jump colleges start leaping and then ask, "How high?"
They are all getting confirmed. This is just last grasps at power by the powerless
Blogger I Callahan said...
Yup, it sure is tough getting past that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing...
Especially when it isn't until after the boyfriend dumped you that you realize that all those times you had sex he was really raping you.
800th anniversary of the Magna Carta sure came and went without much fuss.
Scratch a LibCong and you'll find an authoritarian dictator.
"When did due process become a "radical view"?!
April 4, 2011, though one could make a case for the proximate cause to have occurred on November 4, 2008.
"a Scientific Progressive is allowed to become a top policy adviser at the American Association of University Women."
Maatz was also an adjunct faculty member at the Ohio State University, where she taught Women's Studies for almost a decade.
She had two Masters degrees but I cannot find out what they are in, probably "Women's Studies" but no bio lists the subjects.
She is a Congressional staffer for Democrats, of course.
I would not call her "Scientific."
roesch/voltaire said...You are right this is not a radical view, but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible.
--
Do tell. And..have a lowered standard to propose?
Only poor people and billionaires are free.
Imagine what would happen to a business executive in the F1000, or a high profile consultant or contractor to them, if he was, foolishly, politically active, and it came out during a political argument that they had contributed to FIRE.
Maybe it's not that new a concept. After all, when Progressive Hero Woodrow Wilson resegregated the federal workforce, those employees didn't have due process. And when Democrat hero Franklin Roosevelt herded American citizens into internment camps, those people didn't enjoy due process. Oh yeah, and when Obama was droning that rogue American and his 15-year-old innocent son to death, I guess those "suspects" didn't see any due process either.
Starting to see a progressively clear pattern here.
Due process became troubling when Women became the majority. Due process is supposed to protect minority and marginalized groups from tyranny of the majority.
I do wish that the focus due process for the poor (fees, bail, using police a tax collectors, plea bargain abuse, etc.) received as much attention as men and due process in academia.
>>When people were told 4 out 5 women will be sexually assaulted during their college years.
4 out of 5? The fake news NY Times statistic used to be 1 in 4.
I suppose next week it will be 5 out of 4.
Dan
Ann I thought you were ok with a lower standard like preponderance of evidence because the only 'loss' was a college education not a criminal record and prison term.
Hunter said...
...
I mean, if you're concerned something will be a distraction to issues you care about, the best way to counter the effect of that distraction is to keep talking about it... and talking about it, and talking about it, and talking about it.
But you mistake me for somebody who is trying to help; someone who is wanting to participate in the building of a Trump presidency. I'm not; I don't work for Trump and I am not his spokesperson.
That's not me; I am for the Republicans. I like Republican issues. It's really a nice thing, to have Donald Trump and not Hillary Clinton in the White House. Of course. But Trump carries a lot of baggage on some of my favorite issues, and he's an almost unbelievably bad advocate for something like the rollback of the 2011 Dear Colleague letter.
I hope her red flag isn't a menstruation remark.
Corruptocrats are an embarrassment.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
Oh, Professor Althouse! Get with the pogrom!
Shall we save the collective left some time?
Wapo fake news and collective leftwing outrage generator:
"She's a misogynist rape-supporting education hating racist homophobic bigot!"
By the way, I dislike this framing in the article, "FIRE has sued the administration to raise the standard of proof for victims of sexual assault in university administrative hearings contending it is unfair to the accused."
Why not add context by saying: FIRE has sued the administration to use the judicial system's standard of proof, commonly referred to as due process, in sexual assault university administrative hearings. What is frequently used today is "preponderance of evidence", which is a lower level of proof required.
...
Personally, I don't have a real issue with preponderance of evidence in administrative university hearings. I think the bar CAN be lower when the ruling is about whether or not to face administrative judgement for behavior. This isn't criminal court.
What I do have a problem with is the overall lack of due process surroundings the proceedings. Regardless of burden of proof, the accused should be able to have adequate time to mount a defense and review evidence. They should be able to cross-examine any witness testimony. They should be able to present evidence of their own at any hearing. Etc.
If you upheld strict due process standards, but lowered the burden of proof when administering organizational penalties (i.e. expulsion), there would be very little argument here.
"When did due process become a 'radical concept'"?
For England, Henry VIII. See, Sir Thomas More.
For the French, Devine Right of Kings, See Louis XIV, then Robespierre. See Reign of Terror.
For the Germans, "will to Power" Nietzsche. Mein Kampf, Hitler.
For Americans, the Progressive Era, beginning in the 1880's, accelerated in the 1910's and again 1930's. See, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. See, also, "Living Constitution" and CLS.
For the Muslim world, always. See, Koran
For the Communists, always. See, e.g. Mao's Little Book
It's always been right in front of your face, Professor. Welcome to the struggle.
Those radicals at FIRE...expecting institutions partially funded by federal money to abide by the law.
Those BASTARDS.
Takes a lot to actually try and paint FIRE as "bad guys".
You are right this is not a radical view, but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible.
Same case with most crimes. Trying to prove murder is hella difficult.
What OTHER crimes should we worry more about the accuser more than the accused?
I miss the days when the Left claimed they'd rather see 10 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.
Title IX governs neither harassment nor sexual assault. They do not advocate for strict enforcement, they advocate for wildly overreaching enforcement.
It also does not protect ONLY women.
Why don't men deserve equal treatment?
"“Ms. DeVos must fully explain whether she supports the radical view that it should be more difficult for campus sexual assault victims to receive justice,” said Sen. Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), a member of the HELP Committee.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!"
Well, they're consistent. Democrats felt the same (why make it HARDER for a woman to get "justice" of an accusation) when blacks got lynched because white women accused them of crimes. You'd think they'd have learned by now.
I wonder if ANY Democrat could avoid punishment if their sexual history was forced to abide by what college men have to do to avoid problems.
I've already told my sons, should they go to college, to have sex only with prostitutes. College girls are not worth it.
If justice were all they sought, they wouldn't have to modify it with the word "social".
Personally, I don't have a real issue with preponderance of evidence in administrative university hearings. I think the bar CAN be lower when the ruling is about whether or not to face administrative judgement for behavior. This isn't criminal court.
Except it ends a college career stone cold dead. The punishment is WILDLY out-of-whack. If something is going to severely negatively impact one's life, the requirements for conviction should be exceptionally high.
Colleges should be forbidden from punishing students for rape/assault without a criminal conviction for rape/assault. If you were raped, go to the police. If you won't go to the police, then I see little reason to believe.
"The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities."
And that's a red flag to identitarian warriors right there: individual rights?
"These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience"
And which of these does AAUW wish to abridge, all of them, whenever and wherever they appear to conflict with perceived group rights?
BTW, here's "FIRE Statement on Nomination Hearings for Secretary of Education":
https://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-nomination-hearings-for-secretary-of-education/
Blogger pdug said...Ann I thought you were ok with a lower standard like preponderance of evidence because the only 'loss' was a college education..
--
Hmm..I don't remember her saying that. I do remember a commenter here going on about college not being a "RIGHT!".
"When did due process become a "radical view"?! "
See frog and pot of boiling water.
You, dear Professor, are the frog.
Due process and other truth-finding must be radicalized. It's a dire threat to an entire way of life.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
Support for FIRE makes me like her more. Of course, the real issue is that she is not a toady for the Ed Lobby, and might favor policies which is not good for teachers and administrators in public schools.
Me, I think the potential for school choice and charter schools as a solution (to what exactly?) is overrated, but I'm still in favor of it.
It's not the standard of proof that's the problem (civil suits for rape and sexual assault use the preponderance standard), it's that the process is weak for the accused. No discovery, no legal representation, no right to confront witnesses, and hearing panels composed of university employees.
When did due process become a "radical view"
When it became the ""feminist"" consensus that all men are rapists, guilty without the need for any proof and must be punished for their crime of being men. Guilt and proof are immaterial and unneeded. Hang 'em!!!!
"When did due process become a "radical view"?!"
-- See, that's not what the view they claim she holds. They claim she "supports the radical view that it should be more difficult for campus sexual assault victims to receive justice." Which when you hear makes it sound like she took steps to make it harder on victims to receive justice, not steps to ensure justice was done properly.
Or, to be memetic: This is how you got Trump.
"Personally, I don't have a real issue with preponderance of evidence in administrative university hearings. I think the bar CAN be lower when the ruling is about whether or not to face administrative judgement for behavior. This isn't criminal court."
-- I do. It isn't a criminal court and shouldn't be trying people for criminal offenses, or if they DO decide to be their own extra judicial court, should be held to the same standards -- at a minimum.
"Colleges should be forbidden from punishing students for rape/assault without a criminal conviction for rape/assault. If you were raped, go to the police. If you won't go to the police, then I see little reason to believe."
-- I might believe someone who doesn't go to the police, but society cannot punish someone who does not have a chance to defend themselves -- whether I believe their accuser or not.
roesch/voltaire said...
You are right this is not a radical view, but as any women will tell you when the press charges, if they brother, the standards of proof they must meet are many times impossible.
Note how the radical left:
(1) Believes mere assertion constitutes proof as long as the assertions are within their affinity group, and
(2) It's appropriate adjudicate differently based on gender since obviously men accusers also find standards of proof impossible to meet "many times" yet only for women is this deemed an obstacle which must be overcome.
All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I'm troubled that they're troubled.
Under the current "preponderance of evidence" standard and the absence of due process, I can quite easily craft a scenario where a male student is expelled even though he and the complaining female had no sexual activities whatsoever. I don't mean just no penetration, I mean no contact at all.
And that should not be permitted in any sort of a just society.
This is who they've always been, Professor.
I am a big financial supporter of FIRE. As they indicate on their website they are "a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending student and faculty rights on our nation’s campuses." They defend the free speech rights of both liberals and conservatives. It only seems that they lean right because the vast majority of violations of free speech at universities is against conservatives. FIRE was founded by people of the left of the political spectrum (Harry Silvergate and Alan Kors), and the current head of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, is a democrat. Calling a donation to FIRE troubling clearly indicates that the people making this charge are against due process and free speech.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
The second the in-group became the prosecutors. Why would you need due process or protections for the accused when the accusers and adjudicators are "for the people"? They're following in Robespierre's footsteps and if that sounds great while it lasts they ought to consider how it ended.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Title IX governs neither harassment nor sexual assault. They do not advocate for strict enforcement, they advocate for wildly overreaching enforcement.
Right,Title IX bans discrimination by the school. You could argue harassment by an employee falls under its jurisdiction [actual harassment not faux harassment like pop songs]. But the idea that Title IX covers interactions between students - or non-students - is absurd.
Chuck: But Trump carries a lot of baggage on some of my favorite issues, and he's an almost unbelievably bad advocate for something like the rollback of the 2011 Dear Colleague letter.
I agree with this assessment. However, there are two caveats to this statement:
1. They have already tried to use this against him. It failed.
2. I don't think he cares, at least not in a sense that would cause him to back down. He may care in the sense of sending out Tweets.
Althouse Question #1
When did she process become...
Althouse Statement #1
I voted for Barack Obama.
Causation escapes Althouse.
Ann: When did due process become a "radical view"?!
Remember that the Democrats never expected to lose a meaningful election again. They were quite happy to strip away the rights of people who did not vote for them, anyone they didn't like, or for that matter anyone who had outlived their usefulness. To them it is a radical act to oppose them in any way.
Has any university expelled students for hoax hate crimes?
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
About 4 yrs ago when Arne Duncan and his Office of civil Rights revved up the outrage machine at ED and started sending guidance letters.
Chuck said...
But you mistake me for somebody who is trying to help; someone who is wanting to participate in the building of a Trump presidency. I'm not... I am for the Republicans. I like Republican issues.
So Trump's baggage is a distraction from Republican issues, as you've said. You want to advance those issues, not Trump.
So you insist on continuing to talk about Trump's baggage, even if there is a good chance he's going to work with Republicans on various Republican issues. And focus on how he's the wrong person to be doing that, even though he's the only person you've got.
This is meant to accomplish what, exactly, for the Republican issues you are concerned about?
In the new parlance, a "cuckservative" is someone who claims to want to advance conservativism, but seems satisfied to lose righteously, to be a martyr while the country gets screwed by the left and their identity interest groups.
I'm a principled guy myself, and I voted third-party in this election, but it seems to me this neologism describes a real phenomenon, and the line between principled and cucked is a fine one indeed.
Has any university expelled students for hoax hate crimes?
Maybe one or two. I do know of several that used the fake hoax as a TEACHABLE moment, though, which is endlessly hilarious.
Feminists don't seem able to answer the most basic of questions: If rape on campus is so bad, WHY THE HELL DO WOMEN ATTEND COLLEGE?
If I said "There's this club, which costs thousands of dollars, but there is a 3% chance you'll be raped there", I'd draw, roughly, zero women.
But a campus having a 20% or so chance of rape occurring and they flock there. Hell, they are the majority (meaning the few remaining men are even RAPIER!) on campuses.
And if all of these problems were so horrible and frequent, I have doubts that hoaxes would be needed to show that.
Personally, I don't have a real issue with preponderance of evidence in administrative university hearings.
What is the penalty for expulsion? Loss of up to $250,000. Chump change that requires less due process than small claims court.
I might believe someone who doesn't go to the police, but society cannot punish someone who does not have a chance to defend themselves -- whether I believe their accuser or not.
I don't any longer. If I hear "This guy raped me" and I then don't hear "...and I went to the police", then I don't believe it.
If she doesn't care enough, no sure why I should invest myself.
What is the penalty for expulsion? Loss of up to $250,000. Chump change that requires less due process than small claims court.
If you buy into the propaganda about how much more college grads make, wouldn't it be far more than that?
Because a college isn't going to accept a student who was expelled for a sexual assault accusation.
Kristian Holvoet said...
[Responding to: Personally, I don't have a real issue with preponderance of evidence in administrative university hearings]
What is the penalty for expulsion? Loss of up to $250,000. Chump change that requires less due process than small claims court.
I think the standard should be clear and convincing evidence. But he's right that the issue is not the standard but how whichever standard exists interplays with the biased review process which replaces an actual investigation and adjudication. The accused generally don't know the specifics of the accusations against them until the hearing at which they might be expelled. So they have no opportunity to gather and present evidence which would prove those charges false. If they're allowed a lawyer he generally cannot speak, so you have intimidated students responsible for reacting to charges they've heard for the first time.
The investigators are so biased they have invented the evidence used to justify expulsion and routinely ignore exculpatory evidence. This is not by accident, the training sessions are intended to create these circumstances. You can see other evidence of intentional bias by noting the most biased investigators aren't dismissed but rather promoted. For example Heather Cowan (the investigator of the Drew Sterrett case in which the accusing student stated in a deposition the cited evidence justifying expulsion was false) was shortly thereafter hired by another University as their Title IX Director.
The system is set up so women on campus get literally whatever they want. Would you prefer not to study abroad with a one time hookup you'd prefer to forget? They'll expel him so you don't have to be an adult an interact with someone you prefer not to. Do you prefer to ruin a man's life than admit your sexual choices to your mother? They're on your side. Embarrassed because other people found out you hooked up with a roommate's boyfriend and her friends don't want to be around you anymore? They've got your back. Regret a sexual encounter because other women found out about it and reacted differently than you expected? They're ready to expel the man so you aren't reminded of it.
This is their goal.
Hunter said...
Chuck said...
But you mistake me for somebody who is trying to help; someone who is wanting to participate in the building of a Trump presidency. I'm not... I am for the Republicans. I like Republican issues.
So Trump's baggage is a distraction from Republican issues, as you've said. You want to advance those issues, not Trump.
So you insist on continuing to talk about Trump's baggage, even if there is a good chance he's going to work with Republicans on various Republican issues. And focus on how he's the wrong person to be doing that, even though he's the only person you've got.
This is meant to accomplish what, exactly, for the Republican issues you are concerned about?
One thing that my posturing is meant to accomplish, is to stake out a personal position for me, wherein I am not associated with the ugly, stupid and mendacious parts of Trumpism. My complaining about Trump may not be good for Trump. I think it is good for me.
I hope that Trump DOES work with the Republican leadership. In fact, some personal weakness on the part of Trump might help Republican leadership in negotiating with Trump.
But most of all, in all of these Trump arguments, I just go with what is right and true. And while Trump has been elected president (with a vote from me), he remains somebody who has richly earned all of the criticism I have articulated.
"Ann I thought you were ok with a lower standard like preponderance of evidence because the only 'loss' was a college education not a criminal record and prison term."
No. That is a misreading. I said the process due isn't automatically the same as in criminal cases, but I didn't specify the details of what the process, including burden of proof, should be.
When did it become a radical view? The November after McCain lost you.
I think that the Free Speech aspect may be even more important than the Due Process aspect. Campuses around the country are almost desperately trying to curtail free speech in the name of inclusion, diversity, etc, by trying to ban what the left calls "hate speech". Which now includes attempts to ban the YAF, Republicans, and Trump supporters. Obviously very illegal under the 1st/14th Amdts at state schools like Madison. FIRE is one of the few voices against that sort of free speech suppression (someone above pointed out that this sort of thing used to be what the ACLU did, before being almost completely coopted by the left). Which is maybe part of the reason that FIRE is such a bogeyman to the campus left.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
For once thing, it's not "radical". People who are too far to the right (I'm assuming that's the way they're characterizing DeVos) are "reactionary". But of course nobody knows what "reactionary" means, so they use "radical" to describe anyone they don't like, regardless of tendency. Libs love to refer to the "radical Right". Sets my teeth on edge every time.
In which Althouse votes "Present".
As a theoretical matter, where you have lived your life these many years, all the "on the one hand, on the other hand, on the gripping hand" makes sense. In practice, where individual lives may be destroyed by a state institution, based on the word of a single witness, the equivocating looks like complicity.
There are an awful lot of jurors who take the view that state actors depriving people of rights should be thwarted and punished. And the overall cost of ignoring that is that the university as an institution is diminished. It is diminished by the insiders who are radical progressives who cannot even detect their own failure.
It was assumed that people would jealously guard their institutions. Now they sell them for 30 pieces of Progressive silver. The time for standing idly by and debating the individual merits of discrete decisions while the institutions are gutted has passed.
Rob McLean:
The taxonomy of Right and Left is absurd.
The more appropriate distinction is Collectivist versus Individualist. The Collectivist wishes to use state power (force) to demand of others. The Individualist might accept that some concerted effort is a necessary evil, but believes the individual is the most sacrosanct unit of political power. Actions that deprive the Individual of autonomy require extraordinary proof to overcome the bias toward the individual.
Or something close to this, anyway.
I think that Ann is being maybe a bit vaguer than she might appear (she is obviously an expert here, having taught Con Law). Due Process includes a number of aspects, including burden of proof, standard of proof, and such things as confrontation of witness and right to counsel. And, in the case of campus sexual assault kangaroo courts, the latter is probably more important than the former two aspects. (And the standards are different between state and private schools, thanks to the pesky 14th Amdt, applicable to the state schools, but much less to private ones). Personally, I think that the burden should be on the complainant, and the standard should maybe be Clear and Convincing. But, I could live with a Preponderance of the Evidence, as long as the victim (respondent) here had the opportunity to adequately defend himself. And, of course, that is the big issue - the left is loathe to give them this opportunity. Much better, in their view, if 10 innocent men are expelled for a mutually drunk hookup, than if one sexual predator gets off. Because women would never lie about this sort of thing. Except, of course, that many of them routinely do. (Ever hear of "slut shaming? Social disapproval of female promiscuity likely drives a lot of this).
"But most of all, in all of these Trump arguments, I just go with what is right and true" IN MY OPINION. FIFY. And thank you, life-long Republican, for giving me a good laugh.
Bruce Hayden:
Yours might be sensible if you could trust the internal process. On college campuses the social pressure to reach an expulsion finding would be unbearable to all but the most scrupulous.
Think jury nullification of process only to be resolved long after the students have been harmed. (Query this: Do you think the Duke Lacrosse players would have been expelled regardless of the evidence if all that was owed was Preponderance?)
As for the pesky 14th Amendment, Congress can easily resolve that. All they have to do is require schools that receive federal monies to conduct themselves as if they were state actors as part of the contractual obligations for taking the money.
I love it when the mask slips and they say exactly what they are thinking.
American Association of University Women...
Add 'em to the list.
Bob said...
"This country really dodged a bullet. We were one inch away from fascism."
The fascists haven't gone anywhere. They're still right there, one inch away.
When did due process become a "radical view"?!
Not a serious question...not for anyone at all familiar with the prevailing Left view on the topic...which we all know you are, Professor A. Due process in this case is a radical idea to the majority of the Academy and Media, Leftists all, and they've made that pretty clear for quite some time. When? I dunno, when your pals took power, institutional power, a few decades ago. It's been an evolution, but the path was clear even back then. You know that.
I'm running, not walking, to donate to FIRE right now.
They can all get bent. I mean really I do not think I would golden showers them to put them out. My next fire donation just got processed.
The standard is an issue, too, IMO - when the allegation is sexual misconduct that would be prosecutable as a crime, as opposed to a simple civil offense, then there's a good argument that the standard of proof required for a "guilty" verdict should be higher - at least "clear and convincing."
Beyond that, though (and that's no small thing), the University absolutely has a conflict of interest which should (IMO) bar it from any role in the process.
The O-Bots let it be known that ANY University which failed to respond "properly" to the epidemic of sexual abuse, etc. would find its Title IX funding at risk, which was (rightly) taken as a "message" to every recipient University to "get right" on their "conviction rates."
That is a blatant conflict of interest.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा