The move, which involved rescinding two sets of guidelines several years old, was part of one of the fiercest battles in higher education today, over whether the Obama administration, in trying to get colleges to take sexual assault more seriously, had gone too far and created a system that treated the accused unfairly.
The most controversial portion of the Obama-era guidelines had demanded colleges use the lowest standard of proof, “preponderance of the evidence,” in deciding whether a student is responsible for sexual assault, a verdict that can lead to discipline and even expulsion. On Friday, the Education Department said colleges were free to abandon that standard and raise it to a higher standard known as “clear and convincing evidence.”
२३ सप्टेंबर, २०१७
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Friday scrapped a key part of government policy on campus sexual assault..."
"... saying she was giving colleges more freedom to balance the rights of accused students with the need to crack down on serious misconduct," the NYT reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
Obama - the Era of Lil' Kim Due Process.
If some young male closely related to the editorial writer had been thrown out of an elite college on scanty evidence, perhaps the editorial writer might have slanted it a bit differently.
While literally true, "rescinding two sets of guidelines several years old," is misleading because makes it sound like DeVos overturned rules that were in place for decades rather than something that was adopted by Obama's administration. Calling them "guidelines" ignores that the "Dear Colleague" letters that provided the guidance did not have and could not have had the force of law. To have had the force of law, the guidelines would have had to have gone through the formal rule making process required by law. Instead, Obama's administration simply sent out its letters -- which articulated significant changes in policy -- and then enforced the new policies as if the letters had the force of law. In other words, the NYT makes the Obama's policy sound less controversial than it was and thereby makes DeVos' action sound more controversial than it should be.
Remember when Jared Polis(D) said, essentially, that if you are accused of rape on college campus, you are guilty of rape.
Yeah- good Obama-era Lil'Kim times.
The Supreme Court screwed the subject of Rape Law up for no known reason, by suddenly divining that the Death Penalty is Unconstitutional for a rape case. Reverse that stupid decision, and the problem disappears.
"Nice little college you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it."
Wink Wink.
Good.
Criminal acts should be dealt with in the Criminal Justice system, not by overpaid University Bureaucrats. The sad part is that the University Bureaucrats will simply decide some other pressing (unrelated to teaching) need requires their attention.
"Criminal acts should be dealt with in the Criminal Justice system, not by overpaid University Bureaucrats. The sad part is that the University Bureaucrats will simply decide some other pressing (unrelated to teaching) need requires their attention."
But what else can gender studies majors do with their degrees now, that they can't work as Title IX "sexual assault" enforcers against the patriarchy?
It's a political movement, not a government guideline.
“Even with the new guidance, some college presidents and states have declared they will continue to follow the Obama-era guidelines. In January, a panel of college presidents agreed with the parts of the Obama-era guidance that have become so controversial. John Jasinski, president of Northwest Missouri State University, said his school would continue to use the Obama-era guidance regardless of what DeVos did. Just last week, the California legislature passed a bill that would codify the Obama-era guidance for the state. Gov. Jerry Brown will likely sign.”
Remember when Jared Polis(D) said, essentially, that if you are accused of rape on college campus, you are guilty of rape.
Also hate speech is not protected by the first amendment on a college campus. College, a little area in America with its own legal system and bill of rights.
Maybe that is what will keep those places in business after the education bubble bursts? They will become communities within communities where old liberals retire. And they will waive their constitutional rights upon joining the homeowner's association to live in a little utopia where Northwest Missouri State used to be.
I cannot for the life of me understand why colleges and universities even want to get into this issue. They are not law enforcement investigators, they aren't prosecutors, they aren't judges, and they aren't juries. The only thing a college administrator should say to someone who is making an allegation of sexual assault is, "Go to the police!"
Just last week, the California legislature passed a bill that would codify the Obama-era guidance for the state. Gov. Jerry Brown will likely sign
Come to Berkeley, where you won't have free speech, and where you can be convicted in a Witch Hunt!
Here is the downside. My alma mater has a FIRE red light rating due to its overzealous adoption of the Obama era policies just reversed by Sec DeVos. They have managed to bring the rest of their policies, esp those concerning free speech, into the yellow light zone. I use the FIRE red light ranking to reject requests to contribute money that routinely come from undergrads naively pressed into dialing alums for dollars. I presumably won't have this excuse much longer. Which is the downside. Compounding this, we have one of those graduation year divisible by five reunions coming up in a couple weeks, and the various affected classes vie for bragging rights as to contribution rates and amounts. Which means that there is increased social peer pressure to contribute this year, esp with a couple of fraternity bros or their spouses on the reunion committee. I just didn't budget for this expense.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why colleges and universities even want to get into this issue. They are not law enforcement investigators, they aren't prosecutors, they aren't judges, and they aren't juries. The only thing a college administrator should say to someone who is making an allegation of sexual assault is, "Go to the police!""
They do it because they have been almost completely taken over by the most progressive elements of our society. I think that, to a great extent, it involves a lot of virtue signaling to their peers in academia. They are essentially saying "look at us, how well we conform to liberal orthodoxy". If a couple guys get their lives ruined because of some drunken hookup that the woman later regretted, they are regrettable collateral damage, to the higher calling of showing proper attitude to their academic peers across the country.
John Jasinski, president of Northwest Missouri State University, said his school would continue to use the Obama-era guidance regardless of what DeVos did
Yes but look what happened to Mizzou. 35% decline in new attendance.
These people will not be awakened until they get a big lawsuit and a decline in registration.
They do it because they have been almost completely taken over by the most progressive elements of our society.
My theory is that anti-war and leftist students stayed in grad school to avoid the draft. Eventually they became the faculty and have now perpetuated their dominance of colleges.
This has all happened since the Vietnam War,
If a couple guys get their lives ruined because of some drunken hookup that the woman later regretted, they are regrettable collateral damage, to the higher calling of showing proper attitude to their academic peers across the country.
Yes. Injustice is now measured at the macro level and not on a case by case basis.
What will fix this mess is the first time a runaway jury awards show me male student suing over a kangaroo court dismissal about half the university's endowment. Big change real fast!
Show me == some.
Damn autocorrect, and shame on me for not doing better in my proofreading.
Big case in Omaha involving former Creighton point guard Maurice Watson.
Last season he was the best point guard in the country. Creighton was top 10 and he lead the nation in assists. Injures knee and out for the season. Shortly after the injury he is at an off-campus party and at about 2 or 3 am has sex with a girl in a bathroom. Game that same day, but he wasn't playing. Later charged with rape. Per federal policy, Creighton bans him from campus and, I think, expelled him.
Yesterday the charges were dismissed. County attorney says new evidence was brought to his attention by defense lawyers. No details. Defense lawyers told the media to look at the public pleadings and court orders. Media never reported.
Hints of a lawsuit against Creighton. He will apply for reinstatement. Creighton would be smart to let him back in. I hope he plays in the NBA but he will play somewhere professionally but the knee could be a problem.
Thank God for the criminal justice system in Omaha. And for President Trump reversing another Obama policy.
"Title IX" comes to govern "sexual assault," and a mere "Dear Colleague" letter by a second-tier bureaucrat morphs into a coercive edict: one more illustration of the "rule of law" in America.
SC, my alma mater, suspended and kicked off the football team the kicker who won the Rose Bowl game last January because he allegedly pushed his girlfriend outside a house. Not even any sex and she denies that anything happened. Apparently a bystander made the complaint. SC finally won the Texas game last weekend with a walk on freshman kicker.
I hope the kid sues them. I think there may be a war on male athletes even more than the one on other college males.
DKWalser: what you said. Those Obama "guidances" were a facial violation of the Admin Procedure Act and IMHO created a reign of terror. Schools had to knuckle under or be investigated to death. The activists of course were happy to comply and crony "consultants" were hired to create new policies and train everybody that a lingering glance or a slow dance at the mixer were cause for summary execution.
DeVos is cleaning up some of the unworkable mess but much work remains. I think the diehards and the Title IX bureaucrats will conduct a serious and sustained campaign of resistance, and progress will be slow until enough jury awards bring home to the schools' trustees that they are doing this wrong. This stuff belongs with law enforcement.
It will take time for colleges to accept that the Dear Colleague letter is dead. The real consequence of that letter is withholding federal funding unless the school complies with the hare-brained scheme behind it. Schools were financially smart in accepting occasional courtroom losses to protect their federal funding. Due process, respect, fairness, etc. played zero role in the decision-making. The Department of Education wanted scalps, so the schools gave them scalps. In return, the money continued flowing. DeVos can return normalcy but did not threaten money if schools did not act appropriately. Until there is a penalty, schools may likely not change. As well, there are huge bureaucracies built around the Dear Colleague letter, and bureaucracies fight back to protect and grow themselves.
We have had a generation of alcohol abuse in colleges which has led to a variety of sexual escapades among other felonies, which have been tacitly acknowledged as OK. When are adults going to reappear actively in all phases of American life?
The bottom line here is that the imposition of the Obama-era rule is at the discretion of the institution. It will be interesting to see which institutions continue to implement that policy. But good for De Vos for at least giving them that freedom.
It's about time some provably false accusers are punished with jail time. That will swing the pendulum.
I sent an angry email to my alumni office last month. The (female) Pres. said in a Charlotte Observer column that women must be believed. It would have been more effective if I'd sent them money in the last 25 years. My father sent them a few hundred more recently, but never again (I edit his mail).
Note that there is no requirement to move to the higher standard of proof. I expect the schools to be very slow to move, as a result of inertia and strong lobbying from some groups to retain the more likely than not standard.
"...over whether the Obama administration, in trying to get colleges to take sexual assault more seriously...."
There are colleges owned and operated by the National Government? Why would the National executive have executive authority over state and private colleges? Perhaps years of uneducated, inattentive voters.
Cops acting stupidly surely aren't serious people a serious crime like the potential of unorgasmic assault on college (but no place else natch) deserves, most un-jovially.
In fact, the only serious people in the world are in college administrations, compensating with 1001% seriousness on behalf our ridiculous justice system, a most-unserious conglomerate.
Anyone who doesn't agree is simply seriously not serious, cf. Larry Gopnik*.
*Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a physics professor at a 1960s university, but his life is coming apart at the seams. His wife (Sari Lennick) is leaving him, his jobless brother (Richard Kind) has moved in, and someone is trying to sabotage his chances for tenure. Larry seeks advice from three different rabbis, but whether anyone can help him overcome his many afflictions remains to be seen.
The colleges are infested with "Gender Studies" graduates with little empires they have had 8 years to erect.
Sorry if the word"erect" microaggresses any of you.
They will fight to keep those empires. At the medical school several years ago I met the "Diversity" assistant Dean.
I expect the schools to be very slow to move,
Some have already been hit with lawsuits. Hope that accelerates for the worst offenders.
This Obama method was a good example of commandeering. The Obama Administration wanted to use its federal-government powers to commandeer non-federal entities to enforce its own policies.
The "Dear Colleague" letter commandeered schools -- most of which are under state jurisdiction -- to enable feminist zealots to conduct kangaroo courts whenever a female student accused a male student of sexual misconduct.
“Mediation allows schools to sweep sexual violence under the rug, treating it as a misunderstanding between students,” she said.
Bizarre to refer to drunken sex as "violence" while you conveniently ignore the existence of a criminal justice system that is there for actual rape victims.
Since USC is private, not much chance of a payout. Trial in Jan 2018 scheduled.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-matt-boermeester-petition-20170822-story.html
Michael K said...
John Jasinski, president of Northwest Missouri State University, said his school would continue to use the Obama-era guidance regardless of what DeVos did
Many colleges will continue enforcing the rules. It may in fact increase gender studies hiring as they try to do a better job with fake investigations, however:
This will hurt them in the courts because it takes away their defense of, "the Feds made me do it"
“Mediation allows schools to sweep sexual violence under the rug, treating it as a misunderstanding between students,” she said.
The whole fucking premise of anything under "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that these proceedings are not criminal. Since they are not criminal, of course mediation is appropriate.
Cari Simon, a Washington lawyer
maybe you ought to take some CLEs on due process or something
You probably can't mention the Uncle Remus stories anymore, but the "dear colleague" letters remind me of Br'er Rabbit telling Br'er Fox not to throw him in the briar patch. Many/most college administrations wanted the DOE to tell them to railroad male students accused of rape, so the colleges wouldn't have to defend doing what they wanted to do.
Rescinding the "dear colleague" letters does eliminate that excuse for colleges denying due process, but it doesn't require that colleges grant due process to accused male students. I'm not even sure that a federal agency could impose such a requirement, but if it can do so, it would have to follow notice-and-comment rule-making. I wonder if such rule-making could require colleges to crack down on heavy drinking by students, which seems to be responsible for much/most of the sexual misbehavior in colleges.
Emily Yoffe did three part series in The Atlantic on Title IX sexual assault cases, I thought her third part about how minorities are being accused a lot by white middle class females who have regrets the day after would receive more attention than it did.
The Atlantic - Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault:
Another Ivy League law professor who has been involved in sexual-assault policy said to me of the issue of race, “Nobody wants to talk about it.” He said students are pushing their boundaries and that many hook up with a partner of a different ethnicity for the first time. But then, “if there is any kind of perceived injury—emotional or physical—when you cross racial lines, there’s likely to be more animus. It needs to be talked about and hasn’t been.” The professor requested anonymity, citing the difficulties of publicly discussing the subject.
Since there are no national statistics on how many young men of any given race are the subject of campus-sexual-assault complaints, we are left with anecdotes about men of color being accused and punished. There are many such anecdotes.
Sure, a lot of schools are going to resist. To continue to heavily bias their sexual abuse hearings in favor of women and against men. But the thing is, they will no longer have federal cover for their gross violations of Title IX, taken in alleged enforcement of same. Instead, they will have the Dept of Education saying that the Obama letters and guidelines deprived alleged sexual predators of Due Process. The importance comes when these controversies end up in court. The colleges will no longer have the excuse that the Feds told them to do it. Rather, they face overcoming the Feds saying just the opposite.
I thought the same drill Sgt:
"This will hurt them in the courts because it takes away their defense of, "the Feds made me do it""
And it allows Leftist run university to increase their chances of destroying themselves by their own choice!
The simple solution would be for the university to appoint the equivalent of a "public defender" for the accused in these bogus kangaroo court proceedings.
Another idea would be to remind young women not to get shitfaced drunk at frat parties.
"Since there are no national statistics on how many young men of any given race are the subject of campus-sexual-assault complaints, we are left with anecdotes about men of color being accused and punished. There are many such anecdotes."
Gov Monbeam (D-LaLa land) apparently has, on his desk for his signature, a bill that would enact the Obama era policies for schools his state. The comment in the article was that it was likely to hurt minorities worse. Maybe much worse, esp since the bill will apparently apply starting in kindergarten, if not earlier. Blacks, in particular, already face a lot more school discipline that do other demographics. So far, the Obama era sexual assault guidelines have seemed to primarily affect white males, due to the demographic disparity of the different groups on the more prestigious campuses. But minority males, esp in the lower class, tend to have a much less politically acceptable way of interacting with young women in their communities. Actual rape-rape seems almost common in some communities. Under that CA law, an awful lot of behavior that is fairly common in these lower income minority communities will all of a sudd n be grounds for dismissal - except that those very same schools are already being heavily pressured to racially norm their disciplinary actions (intentionally ignoring that blacks, in particular, violate school rules at several times the rates of whites and Asians). And, then there are the Muzzies....
Bruce Hayden (and others): yes, the schools can no longer hide under DoE mandate. But they will drag their feet. Unfortunately for them, there is increasing support for damage claims under the civil rights laws and Title IX as well as contract law. Courts are wising up and so are law professors. See the good coverage by K. C. Johnson at "Minding The Campus" as well as F.I.R.E.
Imagine if I decided to start having trials in my company for all kinds of infractions, and firing people based on my little kangaroo court. I don't see how this has survived even the first occurrence on campus. The left gets away with all kinds of illegal and unconstitutional stuff as if they are some special group above the law. The Right is cut down immediately when they overreach, which they try much less often. Usually the Right is fighting just for parity or legality. It's kind of the basic difference between conservatives and the left - maintenance versus change at any cost.
"The simple solution would be for the university to appoint the equivalent of a "public defender" for the accused in these bogus kangaroo court proceedings."
Better yet, is allow the accused to hire their own attys. The problem with PDs is that they are often the most overworked, marginally competent attys involved. Add to this that being the campus provided defense attorney is not going to make life easy for them. May make them the most despised person on campus, facilitating sexual predators and fraternity members to walk free after failing to call the next day after drunken hookups with defenseless coeds.
Sure, a PD is better than no attorney, but I would far prefer picking my own, if my future depended on surviving a campus sexual assault hearing.
"Another idea would be to remind young women not to get shitfaced drunk at frat parties."
That would apparently be sexist, and blames the "victim". Which is why, apparently, this common sense solution is so often ignored. Which, of course, means that a lot of young women graduate from college not realizing that they are, ultimately, the ones most responsible for their own safety.
@Bruce Hayden Re: Your alumni giving. Don't do it. Fuck 'em. It is the one minuscule way you can show your displeasure with the administration and faculty of your alma mater. I was a loyal donor to my alma mater for 45 years, until I couldn't bring myself to support them in any way, any longer. Doesn't hurt them one bit, but I feel better.
J Farmer is correct. Hand it all over to the criminal justice system. Then watch the "epidemic" of campus sexual assault be cured overnight.
@Owen Haven't most of those damage claims been successful? The one that comes immediately to mind is the guy at Columbia that was accused by "Mattress girl". Columbia settled for an undisclosed amount.
Perhaps the Justice Department could investigate the disparate impact of these procedures on males....
You know, 'cause Sessions is being all aggressive and stuff on all the other issues left over from the Obama era.
Good.
Not.Their.Job.
Subsidized Higher Ed. vigilantism.
Imagine if I decided to start having trials in my company for all kinds of infractions, and firing people based on my little kangaroo court.
I've said this before, but why are college students in some kind of extra-special, extra-judicial class here? Why can't I, say, accuse my neighbor of rape, and the HOA conducts its own little investigation in which my neighbor's normal rights as the accused do not apply, and the HOA decides to destroy his name, kick him out the the neighborhood and confiscate his house? How is that different and why would we never tolerate that with any other organization other than a university campus?
They've carved out their own world o many levels. (kinda started with "tenure")
One where this can happen in the name of Social Justice:
White Students Banned From Student Lounge At D.C. University
Wow! First time I can remember all Althouse commenters being on the same page regarding a controversial subject. Where's all the DeVos haters crawl off to?
They're over on the Trump comments re NFL thread...
(though not the usual suspects..if profile names mean anything)
Khesanh0802: yes, the poor bastard who was baselessly tormented by Mattress Girl for several years with the active assistance of Columbia, finally sued the school and it settled. I just wish the amount were disclosed but I am sure the school insists on secrecy: in effect it is buying silence. The actual damages (whether 6 or 7 figures; not likely to be more) are a pinprick to the school, and it can easily afford its legal fees. What it fears is bad publicity, which might force it to change its ways or confront its idiocy.
But the plaintiffs' bar is starting to take an interest in these cases, and a few 8-figure awards will get real attention.
I haven't seen the details of the De Vos statement but I think the change from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence will make little difference unless there is an unbiased adjudicator. The standards are just words and in almost every case a biased adjudicator can justify finding the accused "guilty" no matter what the standard.
What is needed is a much strengthened set of guidelines requiring due process--among other things, the right to an attorney, the right to know the details of the charge in advance of a hearing, the right to cross-examination and an unbiased adjudicator. The cases that I've read about that end up in courts didn't have these safeguards.
Of course this makes it much more like a criminal trial, but that is where these cases (and every other criminal act, on or off campus) ought to be brought. That's why we have prosecutors and courts.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why colleges and universities even want to get into this issue."
Power and control. The nectar of the totalitarian left.
I cannot for the life of me understand why colleges and universities even want to get into this issue.
Because most (not all; I am aware whom I am addressing) people have religion-shaped holes in their hearts, and progressive politics and causes fill them. They are performing religious cleansing rituals with these rape tribunals. Most people need to believe in good vs. evil, and need to participate in the process of battling the evil and protecting the good. That gives them some degree of comfort when they start to think in their heart of hearts that they have bullshit jobs and soft cushy pointless lives that produce nothing of value.
As I understand it the original "Dear Colleague" letter had an implied threat of DOJ smack down if they did not get with the program.
Perhaps the DOJ could do a similar threat in colleges do not have a robust presumption of innocent in the process. At least the new threat would be supportable.
Because most (not all; I am aware whom I am addressing) people have religion-shaped holes in their hearts, and progressive politics and causes fill them.
Didn't Pascal call it a 'God-shaped vacuum'?
So..is the Pope Catholic?
Brand/institutional loyalty through one's alma mater by money donation is a bit baffling to me.
I hung around lawyers and law professors growing up, and got some Inside Baseball from a few professors while there.
Cherish and seize the experience, as well as the individuals you meet and the intellectual challenges..
As for the power seeking administrators/nitwits and all the money grubbing..
Fuck 'em!
At our son's institution of higher learning, MCRD, they teach the UCMJ in the first week so everyone knows the rules. Anyone accused of a crime gets an attorney and due process. He keeps out of trouble anyway.
I have read a lot about the negative effects of Title IX, especially on young men and have posted articles to my friends but I don't think they have paid attention. Title IX is pretty close to evil.
@The Godfather, @Michael K, and @JAORE, as you know, Title IX is fortunately a two-way street and will be treated as same, now that DeVos is in charge. If schools receiving federal funding continue to deny due process to the accused, DeVos will hit them with a substantial reduction in Title IX funds (at least one would hope). Denying due process to a person because he is a man, contravenes Title IX's requirement of gender parity.
What always struck me as preposterous: "sexual assault" was defined so broadly by Obama's Female Protection Team that it included "alcohol-facilitated" intercourse. Imagine that! "Alcohol-facilitated" adventures are sexual assaults on women. How many people on this earth came into being as a result of alcohol-facilitated sex, one wonders. The Female Protection Team also counted "attempts" to have alcohol-facilitated intercourse, in the famous "one in five college women are victims of sexual assault" statistics. So if a fellow is too sauced to "penetrate," such that alcohol facilitated nothing, his partner is still counted as a sexual assault victim and he is an attempted rapist.
An intoxicated man can consent to fool around, but an intoxicated woman cannot, because women are delicate, defenseless flowers. On the other hand, women are powerful, autonomous, EQUAL, IDENTICAL, and perhaps even superior to men. On the other hand, there are no differences in gender. Biology, which has quantified many differences between the sexes, is "western-centered" and its foundations come from racist, sexist white men (because we know every white person is racist and every man is sexist); accordingly science is sexist and racist, and all of its principles are suspect. We can't even trust the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. But suspend the thought that men are different when we castigate them. Because in truth, there are no genders. Gender is merely a "social construct." Google, which does no evil, will fire anyone who dares to suggest there are biological gender differences. Game over! If your doctor recommends a particular procedure or prescription because you are a woman, off with xis head! On the other hand, if a doctor fails to detect a woman has had a heart attack because heart attacks present differently in women than men, sue the daylights out of xim for malpractice (and sexual discrimination). Because science tells us gender is a real thing, people! Men and women are different. Women are discriminated against and need special legal protections. Indeed, gender is of paramount importance, particularly in politics. As Hillary Clinton told us just yesterday, women who support Trump are "disrespecting themselves." Even the New York Times agrees that men and women are different; so different, in fact, that the NYT argues all insurance companies should be required to pay for "gender reassignment" surgery because a transgender person's very survival depends on "passing" as xis chosen gender. Moreover, any woman who claim to be a victim of sexual assault MUST be believed, by virtue of her distinct and virtuous womanhood. On the other hand, there are no differences in gender, to wit: the women who accused William Jefferson Clinton of sexual assault are "socially constructed" women; they are merely nuts and sluts who will run around in circles chasing $100.00 bills dragged through their trailer parks. They are despicable liars, interested only in money. And those "women" -- but only those women -- must be destroyed. As for the existence of man-caused global warming, the racist, sexist white male scientists say it is so. The science is therefore settled. Well, the science you like is settled, anyway.
Are we clear all clear now?
"Moreover, any woman who claim to be a victim of sexual assault MUST be believed, by virtue of her distinct and virtuous womanhood. On the other hand, there are no differences in gender, to wit: the women who accused William Jefferson Clinton of sexual assault are "socially constructed" women; they are merely nuts and sluts who will run around in circles chasing $100.00 bills dragged through their trailer parks. "
My youngest daughter, who is quite attractive (she is in the 7th photo on this post went through U of Arizona ten years ago without seeing any sexual assaults on anybody.
On the day she graduated, two friends of hers, not students, got into a fight and she called the cops on the guy. They had all been drinking and the guy started to beat up his girlfriend. Annie told him to stop it and he started to go after her. She locked herself in her car and called the cops.
That was her total experience with any male-female fights.
She had dated a black football player and was shocked to see his photo on TV as accused of sexual assault.
She knew nothing about it.
they teach the UCMJ in the first week
I can't remember how often Hornblower had the Articles of War read to the crew.
Hope your son will claim the title United States Marine, if he hasn't already.
@Leigh: You make an appealing argument that "Title IX is fortunately a two-way street and will be treated as same, now that DeVos is in charge. If schools receiving federal funding continue to deny due process to the accused, DeVos will hit them with a substantial reduction in Title IX funds (at least one would hope). Denying due process to a person because he is a man, contravenes Title IX's requirement of gender parity." On the other hand, one of the frequent objections to the Obama DOE's approach was that Title IX doesn't authorize the federal government to dictate how colleges handle cases of alleged sexual assault. What Title IX says is:
"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."
The Obama administration claimed that if a college adjudicating a sexual assault complaint applied anything stronger than a preponderance of the evidence standard, that was sexual discrimination in violation of Title IX. A lot of reasonable people argued that it was no such thing, and that DOE was acting beyond its jurisdiction. I thought that was a good argument. But if so, then if the Trump administration DOE claims that adjudicating a sexual assault complaint under anything less than a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard is sexual discrimination, might that not also be beyond DOE's jurisdiction under Title IX?
re: Da Pope being Catholic..odd to find this.
A group of clergy and lay scholars from around the world have taken the very rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a formal filial correction, accusing him of propagating heresies concerning marriage, the moral life, and reception of the sacraments.
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/group-of-clergy-and-laity-issue-filial-correction-of-pope-francis#.Wcc6zDUarke
"$100.00"
Normal.
"$100.00 bill" seems off though.
Perhaps because it's because my grandparents were around for the Great Depression and I am anxious toward excess use of digital digits.
@The Godfather, your point is well taken. Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter was certainly overreaching, to put it mildly. But there is theory and then there is reality, so schools ignored these "guidelines" at their peril. If they didn't deliver scalps under the flimsy POE burden of proof, schools knew their Title IX funds would without question be in jeopardy and hyperreacted.
In preparation for a PTA presentation, I interviewed one admissions officer of a major university (he insisted it be "on background") who said his school was so worried about offending, or getting on the wrong side of the Title IX police, any applicant involved in a "sexting" situation in high school (however minor) went into the automatic reject pile. Maybe his school's fear had more to do with notice and subsequent liability, if the high-school texter was admitted and later misbehaved or harassed women. But I got the strong impression its admission policy was primariily to appease and avoid the wrath of the IX zealouts ("See? We did everything we could to screen out the bad guys. We rejected anyone with even a blemish.").
So, yes, perhaps DeVos's raising of the burden of proof is equally overreaching and two wrong overreaches don't make a right. Title IX does not appear to let the DOE micromanage schools receiving federal funds. But again, there is theory and then there's reality. As you said, "Nice little school you got there. Be a real shame if anything happened to it." To be sure, a burden of proof applied equally to all is not, on its face, discriminatory. But look at how the POE burden was put into action. Most schools give the accuser every due process known to man and more, while giving the accused virtually none -- denying him even the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. In some instances, the accused is denied access to the accuser's written statements, curtains are hung in these Star Chambers so the accused can't even lay eyeballs on his accuser, and incriminating texts/emails from the accuser are excluded from evidence.
It seems inarguable to me that if the schools continue to deny accused men due process in these "sexual assault" cases -- putting aside whether DOE has the authority to dictate the burden of proof -- and continue to maintain that a woman cannot be a perpetrator of sexual assault, these schools are flagrantly violating Title IX which, as you note, states, "No person *** shall, on the basis of sex, *** be subjected to discrimination under any education program ... receiving Federal financial assistance."
DeVos would be well within her rights, in my view, to sanction schools who discriminate against men (by denying them due process) by reducing their Title IX funds. As for schools who refuse to go along with her new burden of proof guidelines, so be it. She can still reduce their funds if their procedural or substantive due processes discriminate.
The Star Chamber courts were justified because sexual assault claimants are de facto victims (their veracity is beyond question) and they've already been "victimized" enough. Having to endure the rigors of cross examination as well as incriminating evidence that undermines their claim was yet MOAR discrimination. Well, life is tough. I don't want anyone to be sexually assaulted, nor do I want anyone to be falsely accused; but if they are, the process will not be easy or pleasant. Robbery victims don't get to hide behind curtains and avoid cross-examination because they've already been traumatized by the robber.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Leftists dismiss due process because women never lie, are defenseless delicate flowers, and are incapable of consent if they've been drinking. Women need special legal protections, and so the fix is, righteously and rightfully, "in."
At the same time, leftists insist that "gender is a social construct used to oppress women" and, "women and men are biologically indistinguishable, equal in every possible trait (except rape, but put 'em in combat anyway"). This is laughable and hypocritical claptrap, refuted by science.
Worse, it is this kind of thinking that hurts women the most. Women voluntarily gave away their power and they are now ruing the day. Cue the Title IX police who must now ride to their rescue.
"I can't remember how often Hornblower had the Articles of War read to the crew."
Every Sunday.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा