|
|
|
Save - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On CampusSave - Leading The Policy Movement For Fairness and Due Process On Campus
|
|
|
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org
Universities and Colleges Take Steps to Implement New Title IX Regulation
WASHINGTON / June 25, 2020 – Following lengthy public debate, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new Title IX regulation on May 6, 2020, which carries the force and effect of law. [1]
The new regulation takes effect on August 14, 2020. This means school administrators and Title IX Coordinators have only about 50 days to enact policies and revise training procedures to ensure fairness and equality for all students.
Within this time frame, schools must restore fairness on campuses by upholding students’ rights to written notice of allegations, the right to an advisor, as well as the right to submit, cross-examine, and challenge evidence at a live hearing. One of the key provisions will require colleges to post their Title IX training materials on the websites for public review.[2]
To date, the regulation has been endorsed by editorial boards of the following newspapers: Detroit News, The Oklahoman, New York Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Philadelphia Enquirer. [3] The Independent Women’s Forum has highlighted how the new regulation will help restore due process on campus and bring an end to the so-called “Kangaroo Courts.” [4]
SAVE has identified numerous ways that the new rule will support sexual assault complainants. [5] Most importantly, the regulation establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
Schools have varied in their initial responses to the new standard.
In a letter to the University of Wisconsin System (UWS), Governor Tony Evers stated, “UWS is required to implement these changes through administrative rule making.” Evers mandated his Board of Regents to do so by submitting a scope statement to him, but rejected the first one on the grounds it was too vague. [6]
The South Dakota Board of Regents was scheduled to vote this week to implement the procedures: “Using a hearing examiner and affording full due process at the onset enhances the probability of getting to the correct outcome sooner, rather than a later, an issue that has haunted Title IX nationally in a litany of high profile court appeals in recent years.” [7]
Anecdotal reports indicate other leading universities have initiated the process of implementing the new regulation.
In contrast, a memo from University of Denver Chancellor Jeremy Haefner indicates the University is focusing on ensuring the changes in the final rule support survivors: “I am writing to ensure you that these changes will in no way compromise our commitment to creating an environment in which all members of the DU community feel safe reporting their experiences and remain confident that their cases will be heard thoroughly, fairly, and with respect.” [8] Unlike other schools, the memo does not mention fair and equitable procedures for all parties.
In October 2019, SAVE launched its Title IX Equity Project to assure compliance with Title IX requirements. As a result, the Office of Civil Rights has opened over 100 investigations to date regarding university scholarship policies that discriminate against male or female students. [9] The Title IX Equity Project has enjoyed extensive media coverage, as well. [10]
Citations:
[1] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/newsroom.html
[3] http://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/
[4] https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/new-title-ix-regulations-restore-due-process-on-campus/
[8] http://www.saveservices.org/2020/06/university-of-denver-chancellor-memo-regarding-title-ix-compliance/
Campuses are the frontlines of a take-no-prisoners war over Title IX, enacted in 1972 to prohibit sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
In a January 15 op-ed for Inside Higher Education, Brett Sokolow — president of the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) — advised: “About 20 to 25 percent of the (new Title IX) regulations are potentially very detrimental to the cause of sex and gender equity in education, and we will need… to work within those requirements, challenge them in court or find clever work-arounds.”
What is the conflict?
In 2011, the Department of Education changed Title IX to assert gender equity. “Sexual harassment” was redefined to “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” — those accused were denied due process. Sexual discussion and conduct on campus were regulated at the expense of free speech and justice.
On May 6, 2020, new rules from the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights moved Title IX closer to its original intent. The definition of “sexual harassment” narrowed, and due process returned.
But hostile administrations may not allow the policies to function. ATIXA exemplifies the resistance. It is the main source of national training and legal interpretation for Title IX, with the mission of “gender equity in education.”
ATIXA collides with one specific rule: Campuses must post “all materials used to train… any person who facilitates an informal resolution process.” Transparency may seem to be common sense, but many accused students have had to sue to access their colleges’ guidelines and material on their own hearings.
The College Fix reported on ATIXA’s reaction to the transparency requirement. On May 11, at a webinar, Sokolow told more than 4,200 participants to publish only the title — not the content — of training materials. Why? “Materials from ATIXA … are proprietary and copyrighted.”
“Those materials cannot be posted… because it will violate our copyright. People … are not permitted to have a copy,” he observed, which can be reviewed only in an administrator’s office. Objections were to be sent to ATIXA, which would make “the materials available” under “comfortable” circumstances.
Colleges that comply with the DOE, he stated, would “get a letter from us kindly asking to make sure” the materials “are removed.” The College Fix observed, “The implication is clear: ATIXA will sue colleges for following a legally binding regulation.”
The Education Department swiftly responded. The College Fix related, “OCR wrote a blog post … reiterating that Title IX training materials, among other ‘important information,’ must be posted on schools’ websites — no exceptions.”
The OCR declared that its regulations do “not permit a school to choose whether to post the training materials or offer a public inspection option. … If a school’s current training materials are copyrighted or otherwise protected as proprietary business information (for example, by an outside consultant), the school still must comply with the Title IX Rule.”
ATIXA has since granted permission to use its materials. But if Solokow’s webinar session had not been publicized, would ATIXA’s obstruction have been addressed so quickly, or at all?
There is deep-state resistance to the new Title IX. “Deep State” refers to largely unseen but influential bureaucrats who work behind the scenes to thwart policies they dislike; it includes quasi-private organizations, like ATIXA, that facilitate the bureaucracies. The stakes for the Title IX-industrial complex are high. Its power, status and wealth depend on the regulations created by the Education Department in 2011.
ATIXA is not alone in campus resistance. In January, the National Women’s Law Center sued the DOE over Title IX changes. ATIXA co-signed a March 25, 2020 letter in which the NWLC called to suspend the then-preliminary regulations. In May, the NWLC brought suit…again.
The war for free speech and due process on campus is a war against established bureaucracies. By comparison, Title IX clashes in Congress will seem like a clean fight because it was out in the open. Obstruction on campus will largely consist of clever work-arounds and plausible excuses for why implementation is not possible, whether or not it is
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@EndToDV.org
Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe
WASHINGTON / June 11, 2020 – The Coalition to End Domestic Violence today reports that the oft-repeated claim that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a global “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence has been refuted by police reports gathered from countries around the world.
On April 5, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres issued a Tweet declaring, “Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes….I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic.” (1) The following day, UN Women director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka issued a statement warning, “We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women.” (2)
But police reports received from 10 countries across the globe, listed below in alphabetical order, reach a different conclusion:
Many countries have reported increases in calls to domestic violence hotlines. But commentator Wendy McElroy explains why police reports are more accurate than hotlines in tracking trends: “People access [domestic violence] hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” (17)
While it is possible that domestic violence has increased in some areas, the United Nations’ startling prediction of a new “pandemic” of violence against women around the world has been shown to be false. And extensive global research shows men and women engage in domestic violence at equal rates (18).
In India, Smriti Irani expressed dismay over the domestic violence “scaremongering” at the hands of certain non-governmental organizations (11). In Austria, one group charged feminist-oriented domestic violence groups with using the coronavirus issue to make “untrue statements,” thereby ignoring male victims of violence (7). In Australia, Corrine Barraclough noted, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (19)
Links:
https://www.startribune.com/evers-blocks-uw-from-complying-with-trump-sex-assault-rules/571273442/
By TODD RICHMOND Associated Press
JUNE 15, 2020 — 4:45PM
MADISON, Wis. — Gov. Tony Evers blocked University of Wisconsin System officials Monday from taking the first steps toward complying with new federal rules that bolster the rights of sexual misconduct defendants and narrow the range of cases colleges are required to investigate.
Evers wrote in a letter to UW System President Ray Cross that he was rejecting the system’s outline for a rule complying with changes the Trump administration made last month to Title IX regulations. Evers said the outline doesn’t clearly state whether the system will weaken or strengthen the definition of sexual harassment. The outline also doesn’t recognize the economic impact of providing more mental health services to victims frozen out of the complaint process, the governor said.
“Education and civil rights leaders across the nation have voiced strong concerns about the new federal regulations and the chilling effect they will have on survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault,” Evers wrote.
UW System spokesman Mark Pitsch had no immediate comment.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued new rules last month tweaking Title IX, a 1972 law barring discrimination based on sex in education. The changes narrow the definition of sexual harassment and require colleges to investigate claims only if the misconduct is so severe and offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to education.
Obama administration guidelines, by contrast, defined sexual harassment as an unwelcome sexual advance. The final policy was quickly condemned by opponents who say it weakens protections for victims and will discourage many from reporting misconduct.
DeVos’ revisions also state schools can be held accountable for mishandling complaints only if they acted with deliberate indifference and allow student to question one another through representatives during live hearings.
The changes take effect Aug. 14. Evers earlier this month authorized Attorney General Josh Kaul to join a 17-state lawsuit alleging DeVos’ changes undercut Title IX’s mandate to eradicate sexual discrimination in federally funded education programs.
UW System President Ray Cross submitted a scope statement to Evers on May 21 regardless, noting in the statement that refusing to comply could lead to federal enforcement action and lawsuits.
By TODD RICHMOND Associated Press
JUNE 15, 2020 — 4:45PM
MADISON, Wis. — Gov. Tony Evers blocked University of Wisconsin System officials Monday from taking the first steps toward complying with new federal rules that bolster the rights of sexual misconduct defendants and narrow the range of cases colleges are required to investigate.
Evers wrote in a letter to UW System President Ray Cross that he was rejecting the system’s outline for a rule complying with changes the Trump administration made last month to Title IX regulations. Evers said the outline doesn’t clearly state whether the system will weaken or strengthen the definition of sexual harassment. The outline also doesn’t recognize the economic impact of providing more mental health services to victims frozen out of the complaint process, the governor said.
“Education and civil rights leaders across the nation have voiced strong concerns about the new federal regulations and the chilling effect they will have on survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault,” Evers wrote.
UW System spokesman Mark Pitsch had no immediate comment.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued new rules last month tweaking Title IX, a 1972 law barring discrimination based on sex in education. The changes narrow the definition of sexual harassment and require colleges to investigate claims only if the misconduct is so severe and offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to education.
Obama administration guidelines, by contrast, defined sexual harassment as an unwelcome sexual advance. The final policy was quickly condemned by opponents who say it weakens protections for victims and will discourage many from reporting misconduct.
DeVos’ revisions also state schools can be held accountable for mishandling complaints only if they acted with deliberate indifference and allow student to question one another through representatives during live hearings.
The changes take effect Aug. 14. Evers earlier this month authorized Attorney General Josh Kaul to join a 17-state lawsuit alleging DeVos’ changes undercut Title IX’s mandate to eradicate sexual discrimination in federally funded education programs.
UW System President Ray Cross submitted a scope statement to Evers on May 21 regardless, noting in the statement that refusing to comply could lead to federal enforcement action and lawsuits.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tulane-university-accused-of-anti-male-title-ix-violation/
A complaint filed on April 17 with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) could echo through college corridors across America. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)—a “national policy movement for fairness, due process and the presumption of innocence”—accuses Tulane University of sexual discrimination against male students. A review of 300 large colleges conducted by SAVE’s Title IX Equity Project found many institutions to be vulnerable to similar complaints.
The issue is federal funding. Tulane is a private university, but it accepts tax money for student aid. This obligates it to accept the policy conditions attached to funding. Title IX prohibits sexual discrimination in federally supported schools. 34 CFR 106—Title IX’s implementing regulation—prohibits scholarships or other financial aid that, “on the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance…or otherwise discriminate.” (106.37(a)(1)) The alternative is to refuse federal money, as some religious colleges do, and maintain more control over policy.
Instead, Tulane’s tuition-aid page “strongly” encourages “all families” to apply for a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) as well as for Tulane Institutional aid; a FAFSA must accompany the latter. The page claims that “all admitted students are considered for merit-based scholarships.”
There is reason to question this claim.
Tulane has a history of offering female-only scholarships. It is laudable to promote women’s education, but Tulane’s methods create problems. For one, in accepting federal funds, the university accepted Title IX. And then there is the ethical matter of privileging one class of student over another, especially since males are a minority at Tulane (slightly over 40 percent) and have a lower graduation rate within four years.
Tulane also has a history of being investigated by the OCR for sexual discrimination. In 2018, Title IX attorney and mother of two boys, Margaret Valois filed a complaint that sparked an OCR investigation. Valois offered female-only scholarships as examples of sexual discrimination. She stated elsewhere, “Tulane’s implementation of Title IX provides greater educational opportunities for female students…When opportunities and benefits are offered to one group because of their sex…it is patently unfair”
Tulane and the OCR quickly entered into a resolution agreement that stated, “By September 6, 2019, the University will ensure that it is not treating male students differently on the basis of sex…with respect to financial assistance.” Relevant faculty were to receive Title IX training, with Tulane’s Institutional Equity Team presumably preventing discrimination.
Or, perhaps, not. The university appears to be currently violating 34 CFR 106 on same-sex financial aid. The provision allows an exception, however. Same-sex financial aid is permitted when “established pursuant to domestic or foreign wills, trusts, bequests, or similar legal instruments or by acts of a foreign government “ which specify sex. But a condition adheres. “….Provided, that the overall effect of…such sex-restricted…forms of financial assistance does not discriminate on the basis of sex.” (106.37(b)(1)) Overall, the financial aid must not disadvantage either sex.
SAVE says Tulane’s aid policies do. The complaint asserts that its website shows three internal scholarships designed for male students. This contrasts with ten female-only internal ones. In terms of external scholarships, the complaint alleges Tulane “lists external female-only scholarships on its website but does not list any of the external male-only scholarships identified in a national survey of sex-specific scholarships.” By contrast, six female-only external scholarships exist. “This practice is prohibited by 106.37(a)(1)),” the complaint concludes, because it disadvantages male students. The university has not responded to direct queries.
And, so, a resolution similar to the 2019 one has been requested.
In November 2018, the Inside Higher Education article “New Scrutiny for Women’s Programs” opened, “University of Minnesota ends requirement that some scholarships go to women. Tulane evaluates its programs limited to women. Other institutions face new complaints.” Whether or not SAVE’s complaint succeeds, it joins the rising cry for male students to be treated as equals.
https://www.newsweek.com/title-ix-reforms-will-restore-due-process-victims-accused-opinion-1510288
I am a former faculty member at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who personally experienced Obama-era Title IX compliance guidelines. Although Obama-era guidance was well-intentioned to combat the deliberate indifference that colleges traditionally displayed toward female students with sexual misconduct complaints, its implementation by amateurish Title IX offices has been a national debacle that has failed accusers and accused alike for the past decade.
During my ordeal, I was not allowed to know the allegations against me, the names of the complainant or her witnesses, have my own witnesses, present evidence on my behalf or defend myself in any way—and I was gagged throughout. Free speech, due process and truth-finding were out the window, and the preordained outcome was unfavorable. I was to learn a year later that the accusations against me were fabrications. The DeVos regulations will eliminate such injustices.
The DeVos rule affords a meticulous and comprehensive framework for Title IX enforcement that promotes free speech and due process and restores fairness, equitability and credibility to these quasi-judicial campus proceedings.
There are many improvements, but the most significant, as well as the most controversial, is the requirement for direct, oral and real-time live hearings that enable cross-examination of all parties, including witnesses, to a complaint. This obligated cross-examination comes with reasonable and well-considered caveats to minimize discomfort and inappropriate interrogation of all participants, including rape-shield protections for the accuser/victim, provisions to require indirect testimony through a surrogate of each party’s choice, pre-approval of all propounded questions by the neutral decision-maker and sequestration of parties in separate rooms, upon request.
It is also important to note that Title IX only applies to less than six percent of American women. If a sexual assault complaint is filed by a woman in the community (i.e., off-campus), she voluntarily acquiesces to cross-examination in a courtroom because it is mandated by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Permitting a supplementary and inferior fact-finding mechanism for resolving Title IX disputes for which only a small minority of women is eligible is inequitable and unfair.
Furthermore, despite arguments by opponents of Title IX reform that a victim of sexual assault is disadvantaged by live hearings, most lawyers and reasonable people would assert that a victim is in the superior position in such a setting. Cross-examination and live hearings are an opportunity, not a shortcoming, for any violent crime victim.
Sexual assault and rape are unspeakable acts of violence and victimization that rob women of their power. Filing charges and facing down their perpetrators in safe surroundings, such as live hearings, provides victims with the occasion to regain that power. No survivor should be denied that prospect. There is no better mechanism to return that power than through confrontation of the perpetrator in a live setting. Denying a sexual assault victim that opportunity is wrong.
Buddy Ullman is a former professor of biochemistry and molecular biology from the Oregon Health & Science University.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/do-activists-want-domestic-violence-to-increase-during-the-pandemic/
A contradiction is grabbing the narrative on domestic violence (DV) during the coronavirus lockdown: a decline in police reports on DV means the rate is increasing and more government is needed. A cynic might wonder if DV experts want to stoke the panic that drives funding and legislation. DV is too important, however, to allow either cynicism or opportunism to dominate the discussion. Reality should fill this role.
DV may tend to increase during times of stress, but this cannot be assumed. A May 8 headline in The Atlantic ventures, “The Worst Situation Imaginable for Family Violence. All over the United States, adults and children have been quarantined for weeks with people who hurt them.” Assuming that “the worst situation imaginable” is upon us quickly transforms into statements of ‘fact,’ such as the claim of increasing DV. Even so, the headline is more realistic than most others because it refers to “adult” survivors, which gives a nod to the many men who are abused. A 2015 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control found that more men than women had been physically attacked by an intimate partner: 4.2 million male victims, and 3.5 million female victims. There is a burning need for media to deal with what is real about DV.
The data on current and changing rates often rely on two sources: hotlines and police reports. The latter is far more accurate, for several reasons. People access DV hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports. When police statistics are available, they should be preferred to anecdotal accounts by advocates.
Yet media often uses more political and less reliable reports over crime ones, perhaps because they are more attention grabbing. An article in the Marshall Project is an example; “Is Domestic Violence Rising During the Coronavirus Shutdown? Here’s What the Data Shows.” It notes that police reports in three cities, including Chicago, DV appear to have declined during COVID-19. After mentioning the drop, the article states, “but police and experts say that may be a problem…News outlets across the country have written about advocates’ concerns that crime statistics are masking an uncounted rise in domestic violence.”
It is always valid to question discrepancies in information from different sources, but news stories should not work to dismiss hard evidence that casts doubt on whether there is a DV crisis. They should not turn hard data of a decline in DV into an alarm bell about an increase.
An ABC headline declares, “Fewer domestic violence calls during COVID-19 outbreak has California officials concerned.” A Los Angeles Police Chief warns “that’s going in the wrong direction with what we believe is actually happening” without adding evidence of why the direction is “wrong.” A City Attorney declares, “I am very alarmed by what appears to be a dramatic decrease in reported crimes involving our most vulnerable.” Both men presume that trapped victims are unable to reach out even though email, texting, and cell phones make communication easier than ever before.
The Denver Channel states, “In March, Denver Police reports show a decrease in calls for domestic violence compared to last year during the same month but in Aurora, Gateway Domestic Violence Services saw an increase in calls from March 19-25, 2020 compared to the previous week.” Why would it be easier for a victim to call Gateway than a police line? People know 911; how many have memorized the Gateway number? The report merely highlights conflicting accounts, both of which may be accurate.
The Chicago Tribune weighs in with an article entitled, “Why a drop in domestic violence reports might not be a good sign.” NewportRI runs the headline “Newport County hasn’t seen uptick in reported domestic violence incidents during coronavirus pandemic,” and it follows with the statement “but it’s important to note the data doesn’t tell the whole story.” The Iowa Capital Dispatch declares, “The Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has not seen a huge growth in calls to its statewide hotline, according to spokeswoman Lindsay Pingel. But it is anticipating an increase.”
News stories are becoming opinion and advocacy pieces. Typically, they present a truly wrenching story of DV; police and other statistics are mentioned; even data that shows a decrease, however, is construed as proof of an increase and is used to call for more government support, more intervention. Sometimes unsubstantiated “data” is thrown into the mix. On April 5, for example, the New Mexico Political Report asserted: “Last week, domestic violence incidents in Bernalillo County reportedly jumped 78 percent.” When the EndtoDV organization attempted to verify this alarming statistic, County Undersheriff Larry Koren could not “confirm anything resembling these numbers.”
No one knows the real rate of DV under COVID-19, and some indications point to a definite rise. Rates of DV naturally fluctuate over time and geography, however, with peaks generally occurring in Spring when the preceding figures were collected.
As a woman who has experienced severe DV, it is difficult not to react viscerally and urgently to cries for help. But people need to pause and assess whether the call is justified before rushing toward solutions that impact the lives of others; false solutions harm real victims and those accused, as well as their families. The first priority must be a respect for evidence over assumptions, for truth over advocacy. All approaches to this sensitive, explosive issue must start with what is real.
The Tahirih Justice Center joined more than 400 immigrant justice organizations and ally groups to express our solidarity with Black communities. Read the full text of the letter below:
Breonna Taylor. Ahmaud Arbery. Tony McDade. George Floyd. Yassin Mohamed. Finan Berhe. Across the country, people of conscience are saying ‘Black Lives Matter!’ ‘Enough is Enough!’ in our grief and rage. From Emmett Till to Trayvon Martin to Rodney King, Latasha Harlins to Sandra Bland, we bear witness to the injustice, to the pain and rage of our Black brothers and sisters. For too long, we have lived within a system that perpetuates institutional and direct violence against Black people. We reject this anti-Black violence and demand justice.
White supremacist institutions and the historical criminalization and over-policing of Black communities have led to heavily militarized police forces and a system that uses prison beds as a form of punishment and social control but denies people an opportunity, a job, an education, healthcare, or equal access to thrive. These are the same systems that enable the for-profit incarceration of humans, and trigger discrimination against Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.
Historically we have repeatedly seen massive transfers of wealth from communities of color to corporations. In the midst of a global health pandemic, this racialized inequality has only increased – corporations have been given billions of dollars while millions of Americans are not able to have their basic health care and economic needs met. Communities of color are left struggling to pay for food and rent, and in the case of many immigrants, excluded from federal relief packages altogether.
When asked to do more for Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities, state and local governments claim budget shortfalls. Yet they either maintain or increase inflated and unnecessary police budgets. We know that support systems, services, quality housing, and dignified jobs are what keeps our communities safe, not law enforcement. The recent violence directed at protestors has shown that the police state values property over the lives of people they’ve sworn to serve.
In order for resources to be brought back to communities, governments at all levels must divest from harmful institutions such as the prison industrial complex, surveillance, and policing. We call on governments to instead invest these funds in basic needs like quality housing and education, financial and economic support, climate justice, healthcare for all, and mental health support.
As immigrant justice organizations and ally organizations, we commit to:
Just as COVID-19 has taught us that we are interconnected, our collective well-being depends on all of us being healthy and safe, not criminalized and dehumanized. We grieve with our Black neighbors and are committed to building a country where Black Lives Matter.
Click here to for the full list Immigrant Justice Organizations and Ally Organizations who signed on.
Source: https://www.tahirih.org/news/letter-of-solidarity/
The DeVos Rule provides colleges and universities with a detailed and uniform modus operandi on how they must handle gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault disputes. The new regulations emphasize fairness, equitability, due process protections, and extensive supportive measures for all parties, all of which have been missing from the rescinded Obama-era guidance that the new Rule supersedes. In contrast, the well-intentioned Obama-era guidance was conspicuously undetailed, constitutionally and legally dubious, and decidedly unfair toward the accused.
I experienced the Obama-era guidance shortcomings in a 2014 Title IX debacle, and the DeVos rule addresses all of them.
Even before release of the DeVos Rule, letters were mailed to Secretary DeVos from 18 Attorneys General, 49 House members, and three U.S. senators (all Democrats), exhorting that the Rule be suspended for the disingenuous excuse that its implementation by campuses closed by the COVID-19 pandemic might be excessively burdensome, although campuses have been expecting the new Rule already since November 2018.
This excuse was clearly a pretext aimed to undercut the DeVos Rule, but their entreaties were rendered obsolescent when it was released in early May. On May 22nd, a letter cosigned by 105 members of the House of Representatives was sent to Secretary DeVos demanding revocation of the DeVos Title IX rule.
The May 22nd letter is profoundly disappointing and warrants debunking. The letter fails to grasp that the purpose of Title IX is to grant students equal access to their educations, not to protect “survivors” or to provide a platform for restorative justice. The House letter also fails to appreciate, or even acknowledge, that the new Rule restores the constitutional safeguards of due process and free speech to the conflict resolution process, protections that have been commanded by recent court decisions.
The letter also contains a litany of hyperbole, unsubstantiated statements, misstatements, and inaccuracies and even revisits the COVID-19 ploy. Statements such the Title IX rule “will gut protection for student survivors of sexual assault,” “effectively turn Title IX on its head,” “jeopardizes the civil rights of students,” “reinforces the false and toxic stereotype that survivors, particularly women and girls, tend to lie about sexual assault,” “makes it harder for victims to come forward,” or “unduly hinders many schools from responding effectively to many incidents of sexual violence” are unsupported by argument or evidence, inexplicit to the point of being essentially meaningless, inflammatory, and inaccurate.
Finally, several statements in the House letter to Secretary DeVos, also unsubstantiated by any line of reasoning or evidence, actually warrant refutation. For example, the new rule is not “needlessly complex and burdensome.” It is a carefully thought-out constitutional and legal primer for how schools should conduct a Title IX investigations fairly and how it should support all its students if an allegation of an infraction is made.
The melodramatic assertion that the new Rule “flies in the face of common decency to require survivors to endure live hearings with live cross-examination by the perpetrator’s advisor of choice,” ignores the fact that cross-examination in a live hearing setting is a Constitutional requirement to which 150,000,000 other women in this country must abide when making a sexual assault allegation and ignores the fact that cross-examination has long been considered the greatest single legal engine that we have to truth-finding—the aim of any dispute resolution.
Meanwhile, the statement that “it is simply unjustifiable for the Department to require schools to dismiss many complaints of sexual harassment” is absurd. In fact, the new Rule mandates that a school must robustly address every complaint of sexual harassment but asserts that a school cannot formally investigate a complaint that does not rise to the level of sexual harassment. This is reasonable.
Finally, the use of the term “survivors” or “perpetrators” in context of approaching an investigation is prejudicial and has no place in any system of jurisprudence. It’s just wrong.
Overall, the House Letter to Secretary DeVos does not make a compelling case for Secretary DeVos to rescind the new Title IX rule, and she will be justified to ignore it.