May 16, 2020

"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' revised federal guidelines on how sexual assault allegations should be handled on college and K-12 campuses are the target of a federal lawsuit..."

"... filed Thursday claiming that the changes would 'inflict significant harm' on victims and 'dramatically undermine' their civil rights. The suit, filed [by the American Civil Liberties Union] on behalf of four advocacy groups for people who have been sexually assaulted, including Know Your IX and Girls for Gender Equity, is the first that seeks to block the Education Department's new provisions before they go into effect on Aug. 14. The rules championed by DeVos effectively bolster the rights of due process for those accused of sexual assault and harassment, allowing for live hearings and cross-examinations."

Yahoo News reports.

78 comments:

Gahrie said...

In most cases the new rules don't "bolster" the rights of due process, they provide them.

wendybar said...

Joe Biden would be guilty under the rules as they were. Ask yourself. Is that fair??

Temujin said...

How can anyone be against due process? And if they are, toward what purpose? What is the goal of not allowing due process, but furthering the kangaroo court system that had been taking place? Who wins and is that ultimately the goal? Not justice but simply furthering a narrative?

wendybar said...

All those in favor of DUE PROCESS raise your hands. She is giving them the due process they deserve, so the Democrats are fighting her, and crying about it. Figures.

rcocean said...

Why we've gotten into this weird situation whereby the Federal Judiciary has the final say over everything the Executive Branch does is a mystery to me. Of course, the ACLU will find a Clinton/Obama Judge who will agree, and then it will go to the 9th Circuit and will have a 60/40 chance of being upheld. Whether the SCOTUS will get involved is anyone's guess.

Why not save all the legal fees, and just let the ACLU approve or disapprove all Executive orders and administrative changes in advance?

Mark O said...

TDS permits an organization with "civil liberties" in its name, to fight against due process.

Is there anything Trump can't do?

Tommy Duncan said...

"The rules championed by DeVos effectively bolster the rights of due process for those accused of sexual assault and harassment, allowing for live hearings and cross-examinations."

The progressive narrative does not allow for universal due process. Your membership in a protected identity group and the ranking of that identity group determine your rights.

Tommy Duncan said...

BTW, I admire both Trump and DeVos for their willingness to tackle this issue and force it into the public arena.

Big Mike said...

The ACLU needs to change its name if it is opposed to due process.

Next Wisconsin male student who gets railroaded out of his degree on the word of some co-ed, the court needs to award him about half the university's endowment. Give the administration some reason to start thinking that perhaps not all co-eds are telling the truth and not all male students are rapists.

Ken B said...

The ACLU is now opposed to the presumption of innocence, the right to cross examine witnesses, and even the right to see the evidence against you.

Skookum John said...

The ACLU has ALWAYS been against the civil liberty of armed self defense. They’ve abandoned the civil liberty of unfettered free speech in the last 10-15 years. Now this.

Even worse is surely coming from these scum. They are now merely another mob of instrumentalist/situationalist far-left kooks with no underlying principles except a Will to Power for their precious Party.

I'm Not Sure said...

"The rules championed by DeVos effectively bolster the rights of due process for those accused of sexual assault and harassment, allowing for live hearings and cross-examinations."

What kind of a society are we living in, where the accused expect their due process rights will be recognized before they're deemed guilty as charged?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

we can't have due process. The left will not stand for it.

For the left- due process only applies to them, nobody else.

Harsh Pencil said...

O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=O’Sullivan’s%20Law

Brian said...

Can't have due process. It's unconstitutional. Violates the 14th amendment.

Glad to see these law suits go forward. So that the new guidelines become backed up with Judicial opinions.

Wince said...

Goodness. How far the ACLU has fallen. Read this silly political posturing:

The DeVos rule thwarts that aim by dramatically reducing schools’ obligations to address sexual harassment and assault. By adopting a rule that subjects sexual harassment to different standards than other forms of harassment, the Trump administration is doing exactly what Title IX prohibits — discriminating on the basis of sex. We say once again to the Trump administration: See you in court.”

Any distinction (discrimination) between standards applied to racial and sexual harassment relate to the category of the offense (the proscribed behavior), NOT the "sex" of either the complainant or the accused.

Is the ACLU actually trying to argue the idea that "sex discrimination" not longer pertains to discrimination "on the basis of a person's sex"?

What the ACLU seems to be arguing now is that "sexual discrimination" is invoked any time one category of offense that implicates sexual behavior is treated differently than another category of offense.

Yeeesh.

Bobb said...

Far-left ACLU opposes due process. Who'd have guessed?

bagoh20 said...

It's all about who the "victims" are. That is taken for granted and assumed to be the person with a vagina. Her "facts" are the only ones that matter. Victim-hood = sainthood. It's so hard to change that dynamic now, even when it's clearly illegal and unfair. How did it get adopted without a fight? Cruel neutrality.

Tom T. said...

The Great Unmasking of supposedly neutral organizations has been one of the salutary effects of Trump's election.

Sebastian said...

"would 'inflict significant harm' on victims and 'dramatically undermine' their civil rights"

Isn't one point of due process to ascertain that victims are victims?

Jake said...

Remember when due process and the right to confront an accuser were civil rights?

Owen said...

ACLU: 4 letters

SPLC: 4 letters

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Lucien said...

But some will continue to vote Democrat — especially if the candidate is “boring”, because totalitarianism is never boring.

Wince said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

What kind of a society are we living in, where the accused expect their due process rights will be recognized before they're deemed guilty as charged?

You seem to forget these are more akin to civil, not criminal, proceedings. The standard of liability in civil court is generally by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The worst that can happen to these students is they get kicked out of school, or perhaps referred to the police for criminal prosecution, where of course they will have full civil rights protections, and might even have a sympathetic judge who will sentence them to less than a year in jail for raping a woman behind a dumpster.

Bill Peschel said...

I await with anticipation the ruling that government-funded university kangaroo courts need not bother with ensuring the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Prediction: They'll ignore the big issue and focus on a technical interpretation to overturn DeVos.

pacwest said...

The rats from ACORN had to scuttle somewhere.

Yancey Ward said...

The ACLU being in opposition to the application of due process is one of those things you would have thought could only be found in a magazine of satire.

Oso Negro said...

In the future it won’t be necessary to sexually assault college girls. The price of sugar babies is going down. Supply and demand

Mark said...

Standing.

The Supreme Court really needs to rein in these nuisance suits.

Wince said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

If someone on the left accuses you of something, you are guilty as charged.

Guards... seize him!

Ozymandias said...

The ACLU used to be a good organization mid-20th century. Many flaws and missteps (e.g., Helen Gurley Flynn), but good enough to have bi-partisan support. Now, it's hedging even on First Amendment Free Expression rights. https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/08/01/the-aclu-is-turning-its-back-on-free-speech/
It's never hard to find rational reasons for departing from principles.

Yancey Ward said...

Here's hoping someone, anyone, files an anonymous complaint against Freder Frederson for sexual assault or harrassment at his place of work.

Ozymandias said...

As I understand it, DeVos is merely restoring the pre-Obama standards that had existed for some four decades. Is the ACLU claiming that those standards were invalid?

MD Greene said...

I was invited to a state ACLU's annual dinner once. The speakers continually referred to themselves and the organization as leftists. The assumption that everybody in the room shared the same political outlook honestly surprised me.

Groupthink and civil liberties are often at odds. Every once in a while we need an truthspeaker to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

If the freaking ACLU hasn't got the spine to defend due process, what use is it?

Matt Sablan said...

"TDS permits an organization with "civil liberties" in its name, to fight against due process."


-- There was a time the ACLU and I were almost always in agreement. Then, sometime mid-Bush, we started to disagree about things. At some point, they decided free speech was less important than right speech.

Shouting Thomas said...

Prof, what’s the good part of feminism?

I haven’t noticed it yet.

We supposed to educate and propagandize men and women endlessly... and for what?

Matt Sablan said...

"You seem to forget these are more akin to civil, not criminal, proceedings. The standard of liability in civil court is generally by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The worst that can happen to these students is they get kicked out of school, or perhaps referred to the police for criminal prosecution, where of course they will have full civil rights protections, and might even have a sympathetic judge who will sentence them to less than a year in jail for raping a woman behind a dumpster."

-- Sorry. The worst that can happen is a person's life is ruined for years, robbed of their education, forever tarred as a rapist, completely destroying their earning potential for the rest of their life -- losing an opportunity for education. This isn't the same as a plagiarism scandal or investigation that the university is equipped for. Are some sentences out of whack with the crime committed in criminal courts? Yes. But the fix to that isn't to let schools do it themselves.

Universities should not be adjudicating accusations of sexual assault or rape.

AZ Bob said...

The ACLU is now opposed to the presumption of innocence, the right to cross examine witnesses, and even the right to see the evidence against you. Ken B

We are now in the age of redistributive due process.

loudogblog said...

Freder Frederson, you still have rights to due process in civil cases. If somebody sues me for hitting their car, they have to provide evidence to back that up and I have the right to see their evidence and provide a rebuttal to it.

Michael K said...

The worst that can happen to these students is they get kicked out of school, or perhaps referred to the police for criminal prosecution,

Actually, that is the first thing that should happen. These college actions are a kangaroo court. No surprise you favor it.

Amadeus 48 said...

Is this irrefutable proof of the degenerate nature of contemporary civil society? The ACLU is definitively lining up against civil liberties.

Consider Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics: The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

MayBee said...

The thing that has my most anger-forward feminist friends so outraged about this is: both have a right to representation. But representation is not provided for free. So, they say, if a wealthy guy is accused he can have an attorney question the accuser, but she doesn't have someone to represent her.

Owen said...

Freder Frederson @9:53: "You seem to forget these are more akin to civil, not criminal, proceedings. The standard of liability in civil court is generally by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The worst that can happen to these students is they get kicked out of school, or perhaps referred to the police for criminal prosecution, where of course they will have full civil rights protections, and might even have a sympathetic judge who will sentence them to less than a year in jail for raping a woman behind a dumpster."

I know: I shouldn't argue with a troll. But this is such pompous rubbish that I cannot resist.
(1) "more akin to civil, not criminal, proceedings." I would call them quasi-criminal. Certainly they require investigative work typical of a criminal case, and adjudication by a qualified body of neutral parties with full and fair presentation of evidence responding to charges duly noticed and with assistance of counsel. Instead what has been constructed, by panicky amateurs under threat of being investigated endlessly by the DOJ and stripped of all funding by the DoE, has been a clown show re-enactment of the Inquisition. Time and time again we see REAL court judges forced to rule in cases brought by railroaded (usually male) students, that they were given not even a pretense of due process; far less than they would have received in a civil proceeding, let alone a criminal one.
(2) "the worst that can happen..." Right: a railroaded student only faces loss of diploma, loss of as much as 4 full years of time and MONEY (Newsflash: your student loans aren't cancelled if you get thrown out on some kangaroo court verdict), loss of reputation, loss of future career prospects, loss of sleep and confidence and heart. Essentially a complete destruction of a promising young life. So, yeah, nothing at stake here. No need to be careful of anyone's rights: because the victim is always right. Believe it! That's why we go to university and spend the big bucks: so we can just believe a victim --or more accurately "first one into the Title IX office with a good story."
(3) or perhaps referred to the police for criminal prosecution..." Yes, it's important to let the university go first and completely fuck up the investigative process with its compromised "fact-finding." Once Title IX gets through with the shattered defendant, the prosecutor can take a turn. Witnesses will have scattered to the four winds, the record of proceedings will be poor or nonexistent (is a court reporter taking a transcript? Is evidence being collected and preserved with chain of custody intact?) and it will be easy to defend a case where GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY is already carved into the defendant's forehead.

I could go on but maybe you see the point. Your lazy and self-indulgent remarks are frankly a disgrace. You either don't know or don't care about the real Title IX situation. Obama's pet, Catherine Lhamon, introduced a cancer into higher education with that "Dear Colleague" letter in 2011. She and Eric Holder worked hard to undermine the very notion of due process in the next generation. The sooner their work is undone, the better.

Amadeus 48 said...

Re: Freder

Sometimes someone, even a smart person like Freder, makes a comment so detached from the realities of the situation that you have to ask yourself the comment is a diversion.

These campus kangaroo courts (or, more aptly, kampus kangaroo kourts) deal out results that can ruin a young person's start in life. The least these tribunals can do is observe minimum due process.

Freder, would you feel differently if you knew that young black men are disproportionately the victims of these inadequate processes? Emily Yoffe in the Atlantic says that they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-question-of-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/

FleetUSA said...

I would love to hear our esteemed emeritus conlaw Professor's comments on this.

n.n said...

Girls for sex equity. Gender... or rather trandgender, and the Church, are pushing them to remain barefoot, available, and taxable.

Gahrie said...

So, they say, if a wealthy guy is accused he can have an attorney question the accuser, but she doesn't have someone to represent her.

Except the entire system.

JCA1 said...

The majority of these Title IX complaints (and their harsh results) have been borne by African Americans. So, the question is, why is Freder so racist?

Matt Sablan said...

"So, they say, if a wealthy guy is accused he can have an attorney question the accuser, but she doesn't have someone to represent her."

-- If instead of trying to hush it up at the university level, they went to real police and prosecutors, there will be people representing her interests. Right now, at the university, you have people representing the university's interests, maybe someone representing the accused's interests, and the university pretending to the victim that they've got her best interests at heart -- which maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Howard said...

The ACLU is on the wrong side here. Treat adults like adults. The en loco praying mantis power of University is the real problems. Boomer administration ghouls have udderly f***ed up higher education.

Amadeus 48 said...

Howard--are you drinking this morning?

"The ACLU is on the wrong side here. Treat adults like adults."

OK

"The en loco praying mantis power of University is the real problems"

I didn't know you were Latinx.

"Boomer administration ghouls have udderly f***ed up higher education."

Are you signalling that you went to Michigan State (Moo U)? That is Gretcehn Whitmer country (Moooo!) Any way, you may be on to something, but how can we tell?

gilbar said...

The important thing to remember, is that womyn are SO WEAK, and SO FRAGILE, that they Require Special consideration compared to men.
Men are
Bigger
Stronger
Smarter
Faster
Wiser
More assertive
More aggressive

Than womyn...
Right?
I mean, right?

Michael K said...

JCA1 said...
The majority of these Title IX complaints (and their harsh results) have been borne by African Americans. So, the question is, why is Freder so racist?


That is the story that may not speak its name. My youngest daughter went to U of AZ, graduated 10 years ago. She was in a beauty parlor watching TV and saw a black UA football player she had dated a few times accused of sexual something or other. She said he had never been anything but a gentleman.

She is not shy. She saw a drunken guy she knew beating up his girlfriend and called him on it. He went after her so she locked herself in her car and called the cops. She testified against him in court.

YoungHegelian said...

Let's not just blame the Obama administration for the moral horror of the "Dear Colleague" letter that began the kangaroo courts on American campuses. Let's also put a goodly portion of the blame on the academic institutions who willingly & even enthusiastically welcomed these rulings from the Dept of Education's Civil Rights division.

These "rules" came out of one sub-office of the Dept of Education. I doubt Arnie Duncan was even behind them. They weren't even quite an "executive order". If a sizable fraction of educational institutions had pushed back, the regulations would have instantly become a dead letter.

But, aside from a small group at Harvard Law, no one did. They welcomed this opportunity to fuck with the lives of their charges, their customers. In my mind, they are far worse human beings than the small & no doubt crazed feminists who inhabited the Obama DoEd Office of Civil Rights.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"...effectively bolster the rights of due process...."

Ummm. Should not that be "require Constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process?"


Izzat deviousness or ignorance on the part of writer Erik Ortiz?

Earnest Prole said...

I'm old enough to remember when the ACLU was an organization that protected Americans' civil liberties.

Steven said...

You know, in real civil proceedings, the respondent is, in fact, allowed to hire and be represented by counsel, cross-examine witness testimony, have an impartial judge, and many other protections Freder and the ACLU explicitly want to deny people brought before these tribunals.

Freeman Hunt said...

Why aren't the guidelines, "Call the police?"

Fernandinande said...

The en loco praying mantis power of University is the real problems.

In place of a parent, a crazed carnivorous insect.

Thanks to auto-correct?

stan said...

ACLU gave up on principles a long time ago. Just another hard core partisan, left-wing activist group pushing propaganda. The lawyers in Skokie were courageous heroes. ACLU hasn't had any since.

Ralph L said...

Why did it take 3 years for this "rule" to change?

Ralph L said...

She said he had never been anything but a gentleman.

But did she see him in the dark, when he wasn't smiling or sober?

cubanbob said...

Perhaps it's time to go back to old school ways and eliminate co-ed education.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

I thought the ACLU fought for the rights of the accused. What happened?

bagoh20 said...

The modern university is an example of how civil rights, tolerance and even culture would operate under a leftist social justice system of law. People would be discriminated against by sex, race, age, sexual preference, political affiliation, and probably an ever-growing list of other criteria. Speech would be highly regulated, even mandated. Guilt would often be assumed from the start, and punishment would be dealt out without due process or appeal. Rules would be fast-changing, and numerous, and often contradictory.

That's why people who push for the leftist idea of social justice need to be resisted at every front. They are in direct opposition to the greatest traditions of real social justice and civil rights that have freed the slave, the serf, and the common man over centuries of very hard sacrifices and diligence all around the world, and especially under American exceptionalism. That phrase was never about how strong this country is, but how fair it's standards have been and strive to be, and the resulting opportunities and prosperity they allowed to take place.

Freeman Hunt said...

Sexual assault allegations shouldn't be adjudicated by schools. That's insane. Sexual assault is a major crime. If you assault someone on campus in a non-sexual way, I assume they call the actual police. Why is this different?

Jim at said...

Here's hoping someone, anyone, files an anonymous complaint against Freder Frederson for sexual assault or harrassment at his place of work.

Exactly. And provide him absolutely no recourse with which to challenge those allegations.

Why, the worst thing that could happen is he loses his job and finds himself behind some dumpster.

bagoh20 said...

"Why is this different?"

Fen's Law

Mr. T. said...

The American Corrupt Leftist Union and their fellow misandrist associates (the same groups that tweet screamed all through 2017 that we must STANDWITHJACKIE) can gnash their teeth and sue all they want but the Sixth circuit has already ruled on these matters (via x3 ass-handings to University of Michigan) . The DOE is just putting in place what the courts have already mandated.

The Godfather said...

From what I read, the best advice you could give to college-bound girls is: Don't get drunk and don't go back to the dorm with a drunk guy. But another bit of good advice might be: Don't think that you can avoid the consequences of your own stupid behavior by making the guy the fall guy. I don't think we do our young women any favors if we tell them that, even though they are legally adults, their "institution of higher learning" will protect them from the consequences of their mistakes by treating them as infants.

bagoh20 said...

If you care about the travesty that is justice and rights on campus and want to do something to fight the attack, I suggest doing what I do: donate to F.I.R.E., an organization that does the legal work of pushing back. They have had a lot of success turning around bad treatment an making it less comfortable for administrations trying it get away with it.

https://www.thefire.org/

Howard said...

No, the praying mantis just came to me in what dyslexic alcoholics call a moment of obscurity.

MayBee said...

Freeman Hunt said...
Sexual assault allegations shouldn't be adjudicated by schools. That's insane. Sexual assault is a major crime. If you assault someone on campus in a non-sexual way, I assume they call the actual police. Why is this different?


I totally agree.

Big Mike said...

Over at Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi is making the case that the Democrats, and the people who vote for Democrats, have totally abandoned civil rights except when they need those rights themselves. Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don’t say something — however true — that might offend a Democrat or someone from a bloc that votes for Democrats. Right to a presumption of innocence? Not for folks that Althouse calls “splooge stooges.” Freedom of religion is fine, as long as only Muslims go to their worship on a holy day like Eid-al-Fitr. Not Jews on Passover nor (gasp!) Christians on Easter. The right of peaceable assembly is only okay when you aren’t protesting a Democrat governor. The list goes on. It’s all part of a pattern, and I argue Althouse fits right in.

Caligula said...

"The suit, filed [by the American Civil Liberties Union] on behalf of four advocacy groups for people who have been sexually assaulted, including Know Your IX and Girls for Gender Equity, is the first that seeks to block the Education Department's new provisions before they go into effect on Aug. 14."

Ya gotta love today's ACLU, proudly in the forefront in attempting to limit the civil rights of disfavored groups.

Kirk Parker said...

Freeman,

Contra bagoh20, it's not just Fen's Law; it's also that doing it this way allows them to roll all kinds of other things under the 'rape' label.