Categories
Campus Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Budget Cuts Urged for Colleges that Persist in Discriminating on the Basis of Sex

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Budget Cuts Urged for Colleges that Persist in Discriminating on the Basis of Sex

WASHINGTON / February 18, 2021 – The federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced that it currently has [number] open investigations of [name of state] universities for allegedly discriminating against male students (1). SAVE urges state lawmakers to impose a 5-10% budget cut on institutions that fail to promptly comply with the long-standing Title IX law designed to end sex discrimination.

Following is a screen shot from the OCR website that lists the [name of state] universities currently under investigation for discriminatory single-sex programs or scholarships (2):

[Screen shot here]

The Investigation Date column reveals that some colleges are resisting implementation of needed changes, even months after the federal investigation was opened. In contrast, numerous other universities promptly eliminated their sex-discriminatory programs upon notification (3).

The federal Title IX law states, “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.” (4)

Female students now represent 56% of all undergraduate students, compared to 44% male students (5). Male students are under-represented in numerous fields such as the health professions, public administration, education, and others (6).

“In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion…universities have often chosen inequity and exclusion,” commentator Adam Kissel ironically reveals (7). State lawmakers should not allow sex discriminatory policies to continue on college campuses.

Citations:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Campus Programs” or “Title IX – Single Sex Scholarships”
  2. Institution Type “PSE” signifies “Post Secondary Education”
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/case-resolutions/
  4. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-single-sex-20210114.pdf
  5. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp#:~:text=In%20fall%202018%2C%20female%20students,trends%20between%202000%20and%202018
  6. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/table-of-the-day-bachelors-degrees-by-field-and-gender-for-the-class-of-2015/
  7. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/12/pervasive-sex-discrimination-at-north-carolina-universities/
Categories
Investigations Start By Believing

Has EVAWI Been Moderating or Covering its Tracks?

Has EVAWI Been Moderating or Covering its Tracks?
By James Baresel

February 16, 2021

In 2020 End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) issued a revised version of its instruction manual Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex, an older edition of which had been in use since 2006. Both versions are based in a forensic assumption of guilt (consequent upon a prejudiced assumption of the veracity of complainants), moderation to which in the revised manual has been characterized by critics as “too little, too late.”

That, however, is something of an understatement. The truth is that the changes were not only made following years of criticism of EVAWI’s methods of investigation and report writing by legal experts, advocacy groups, academics and journalists The truth is that they were not only made after numerous court rulings in favor of due process. And the truth is that there is little reason to believe the changes do much more than (somewhat) hide the prejudiced and prejudicial nature of EVAWI’s methods from public view or a shift to more subtle ways of inculcating them.

Since EVAWI receives considerable support (both financial and otherwise) from the federal Department of Justice, and since the new presidential administration is the ideological successor to one that had a record of undermining due process, it will be useful to take a closer look at the history behind the changes to the above named instruction manual and its relationship to the practices of the organizations in question.

Founded in 2003, EVAWI purports to be an independent agency dedicated to fighting sexual assault. In that capacity it has received over $7.5 million from the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women and provides training programs for police officers accredited both by the governments of ten states and by particular agencies within others [https://evawintl.org/olti/olti-accreditation/]. But what it really does is attempt to instill a prejudiced assumption that complainants’ honesty is to be taken for granted, and, therefore, to substitute presumption of the guilt of those accused of sexual assault for forensic objectivity and the legal presumption of innocence.

Both versions of Effective Report Writing reveal the prejudiced nature of the methods advocated by EVAWI. Both teach investigators to document “suspect statements, especially those that corroborate the victim’s account or provide an implausible or even absurd version of reality.” To “especially” record statements by suspects that seem to corroborate the accounts of self-professed victims, rather than give due attention to statements that put the veracity self-professed victims’ accounts in question, is nothing other than deliberate misrepresentation. And while it might be reasonable to highlight claims impartial assessment has judged implausible, such impartiality is impossible if an investigator begins by assuming the veracity of complainants. Both version also insistent upon police reports presenting their accounts from the perspective of complainants rather than from that of a neutral third party.

Bad as this might be, the original manual contained particularly damning statements that were removed as part of the revision. The most serious of these was the instruction that, in order to “better support successful prosecution,” police investigators should “try to fill in details that are realistic, based on the kinds of sexual assault cases you have handled and the victims you have interviewed” as doing this will better “articulate the context of force, threat, or fear that the victim experience.” Detectives, in other words, are to state in their official reports that particular incidents of alleged sexual assault included actions which the complainants themselves never claimed happened but which, by being typical of the type of incidents alleged, and can communicate the “feeling” of such incidents.

While these statements are not found in the revised manual, the paragraph that followed them in the original remains unchanged and continues to refer to “‘missing information’ [details that are realistic] that is filled into the report.” It would seem that those receiving instruction from EVAWI are still taught to include made up “realistic details” in official reports despite the removal of such teaching from the written manual.

The history behind the changes to Effective Report Writing further suggest that they are little (if anything) more than cosmetic, designed to improve EVAWI’s public image or to hide evidence of its methods from the public and from government agencies. In February 2018 the Center for Prosecutor Integrity–an organization dedicated to defending due process–sent a letter to the Federal Department of Justice, informing it of the manual’s biases (1). The DOJ responded in May of the year, informing the CPI that its communication had been forwarded to Office on Violence Against Women (2), the DOJ department that funds EVAWI. Allowing for the time it would have first taken for the Office on Violence Against Women to analyze the complaint and to communicate with EVAWI and then taken for the EVAWI to act on any communications from the Office on Violence Against Women, the release date of revisions to Effective Report Writing suggest they were (at least partially) an attempt to counteract CPI criticism.

And that means that unless the DOJ and the Office on Violence Against Women possess “an implausible or even absurd” degree of naivety they must be willing to turn a blind eye to EVAWI’s attempt to hide its intentions from the public record

1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OIG-complaint-Start-by-Believing.pdf
2. https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/07/start-by-believing-program/

Source: http://ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1497

Categories
Investigations

“For 1989, that was standard practice for the N.Y.P.D., but now we know better.”

3 Detectives Obtained a False Murder Confession. Was It One of Dozens?

Huwe Burton was wrongly convicted because of deceptive interrogation techniques. How many more cases were “solved” the same way?

For Huwe Burton, the breaking point came late on the night of Jan. 5, 1989, as he sat with detectives in a cramped, windowless room on the second floor of a Bronx police precinct. He had not eaten or slept much in 48 hours.

A detective leaned in and said, “Tell us again about what happened that day.”

Mr. Burton, who was 16 then, repeated his story. He had come home two days earlier after spending the day at school and then at his girlfriend’s house, to find his mother, Keziah Burton, facedown on her bed, stabbed to death. Her nightgown was pulled up to her waist. A blue telephone cord was wrapped around her wrist.

What happened next in the interrogation room would reverberate in powerful ways over the coming decades. A false confession. An innocent man imprisoned for nearly 20 years. Serious questions about the tactics used by the three detectives involved in the investigation into Ms. Burton’s killing — and many others.

And now, a wide-ranging inquiry by the Bronx district attorney into whether the detectives’ tactics had tainted guilty verdicts in 31 homicide cases that relied on confessions.

The inquiry highlights how a new generation of prosecutors in New York and elsewhere is delving deeply into whether deceptive police interrogation tactics might have warped the criminal justice system through false confessions and wrongful convictions.

The examination comes after the emergence of hundreds of cases across the country in which people were sent to prison only to be exonerated later through the use of DNA or the discovery of new evidence.

Most of the Bronx cases being reviewed date to an era when violent crime in New York was at record highs. The police were under significant pressure to make arrests, especially in high-profile cases, and prosecutors faced similar demands to win cases they brought to trial.

But in some instances, the police and prosecutors moved too fast, made mistakes and ignored or withheld evidence that suggested they had the wrong person, exoneration experts say.

In Mr. Burton’s case, a judge exonerated him in his mother’s killing in 2019 after the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that investigates wrongful convictions, unearthed evidence not only that detectives used psychologically coercive techniques to get his confession, but that the prosecution had withheld evidence suggesting someone else was the killer.

That, and questions about other cases, prompted the Bronx district attorney, Darcel D. Clark, to order her office’s Conviction Integrity Unit to review dozens of other homicide investigations handled by the same detectives.

In a federal lawsuit filed in December, Mr. Burton accused the detectives of using lies, a false promise and a threat to persuade him to admit to something he had not done. He asserts that the detectives, to protect their reputations, and the prosecutor pressed ahead with the charges even after learning he had an alibi.

“Everybody got on board and thought it was a good idea to do this to a 16-year-old child after he had just lost his mom,” Mr. Burton said. “They chose to say ‘No, this is what we’re doing — we’re just going to lock him up.’”

The National Registry of Exonerations found that official misconduct played a role in the criminal convictions of more than half of 2,400 Americans who were exonerated between 1989 and 2019. For Black men wrongly convicted of murder, the proportion was 78 percent.

New York State has the third-highest exoneration rate — behind Illinois and Texas — and it ranks second for the number of convictions overturned because of a false confession, with 44 such cases since 1992, according to the registry.

Ms. Clark’s office will not release the names of the defendants in the cases being reviewed, but records show that the detectives in Mr. Burton’s case were involved in at least three other homicide cases that have been challenged in court.

The detectives — Stanley Schiffman, Sevelie Jones and Frank Viggiano — declined to be interviewed or did not respond to messages, but in past court proceedings Mr. Jones defended their handling of Mr. Burton’s confession and claimed it was spontaneous and credible.

A lawyer for Mr. Viggiano, Kyle Watters, said his client denied wrongdoing. Asked about the review, Mr. Viggiano said, “I don’t think it’s fair at all.”

Ms. Clark, who sought to overturn Mr. Burton’s conviction, has defended the work of the detectives, two of whom later worked for the Bronx district attorney’s office as investigators.

“What they did was not necessarily wrong — that is the way things were done then,” Ms. Clark said in 2019 shortly after Mr. Burton’s exoneration. “For 1989, that was standard practice for the N.Y.P.D., but now we know better.”

Lawyers for Mr. Burton, however, likened the detectives on his case to Louis Scarcella, a Brooklyn homicide detective who has been linked to several wrongful convictions, and whose tactics led to a review of 70 murder cases. At least eight convictions have been overturned at the request of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office.

“The question that should be on everyone’s mind is how many other people were coerced into falsely confessing by these detectives and continue to languish behind bars?” said Susan Friedman, an Innocence Project lawyer who worked on Mr. Burton’s case.

With a woman dead, police turn to her teenage son

The events that led up to Mr. Burton’s confession are detailed in his lawsuit and in other court filings related to his exoneration.

Two days after Mr. Burton’s mother was killed, the detectives arrived at a house where he was staying with his godmother and asked him to come to the 47th Precinct for a polygraph, he said in his lawsuit. When he arrived, however, he realized that the request was a ruse to get him to the police station without a guardian.

Mr. Burton did not know he had become the prime suspect after a teacher mistakenly told the investigators he had missed a morning class the day of the killing. (The teacher later said he had actually been in school.)

The detectives thought the killer was “an insider” who had staged the crime scene, according to court papers filed to vacate Mr. Burton’s conviction.

The contents of Ms. Burton’s purse were scattered on the floor and her car was missing, but there was no evidence of rape or of a struggle, the papers said. Ms. Burton’s husband was in Jamaica at the time.

Two hours into the roughly six-hour interrogation, Detective Viggiano started to bluff the teenager, pretending there was evidence that he was the killer, Mr. Burton and his lawyer in the federal suit, Jonathan C. Moore, said.

In an interview, Mr. Burton recalled breaking into tears and crying out: “I didn’t kill my mom.”

It is not illegal in New York for the police to deceive suspects about evidence to get a confession. Although state courts have thrown out some confessions obtained through such tactics, they have not banned the practice.

Mr. Burton said in an interview and in court papers that Detective Viggiano had warned him that if he did not confess to the killing, he could still go to prison for the statutory rape of his girlfriend, who was 13, and that rapists were abused in prison.

If he confessed, the detectives said, his mother’s death would be treated as an accident in Family Court and he would be released to his father, Mr. Burton said.

“I said, ‘What do I have to say?’” Mr. Burton recalled in an interview. Then, he said, the detectives began to feed him a story, asking repeatedly: “At this point you did this?” He said he responded with “yes” and “no.”

Later, he said, they had him write down his statement and make a videotaped confession.

“The state of mind I was in,” Mr. Burton recalled, “finding my mother in that state, trying to process that — if they said, ‘We want you to say you were responsible for the assassination of J.F.K.,’ everything they told me to say, I would have.”

Instead of being taken to Family Court, Mr. Burton was paraded past a phalanx of flashing cameras and news reporters as he entered Bronx Criminal Court to be charged with murder as an adult.

Excerpted from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/15/nyregion/3-detectives-obtained-a-false-murder-confession-was-it-one-of-dozens.html?fbclid=IwAR2P8Y2s4gTBs3roUEfw_mjH6Kolxq1y9UlMBsSnletP5fM6wZieLypVR2g

Categories
Sexual Harassment

HB 2155 Will Multiply Frivolous ‘Harassment’ Lawsuits, Harm Virginia Businesses Recovering from COVID Pandemic

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

HB 2155 Will Multiply Frivolous ‘Harassment’ Lawsuits, Harm Virginia Businesses Recovering from COVID Pandemic

WASHINGTON / February 16, 2021 – SAVE is calling on Virginia lawmakers to oppose HB 2155, which dramatically expands the definition of “workplace harassment” to the point that almost any employee experiencing any job-related interpersonal discomfort could claim to be a victim of “harassment.”

As a result, any Virginia business could find itself the target of a costly lawsuit made by a disgruntled or under-performing employee. This would hamper efforts to overcome the devastating effects of the COVID pandemic on Virginia businesses.

The problems with HB 2155 start with its broad characterization of “workplace harassment,” which is defined as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions including lactation, age, marital status, or veteran status, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect, or verbal or nonverbal, that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” (1)

The words “intimidating, hostile, or offensive” are not defined by the bill, so an employee who is merely “offended” by a person’s personality, awkward remarks, or even slovenly attire could claim to be a victim. A supervisor who gives a performance review that reveals areas of needed employee improvement could be accused of harassment, as well.

The bill expands the scope of “workplace harassment” in several other ways. The bill would allow trivial incidents to give rise to a lawsuit by stating that “Conduct may be workplace harassment regardless of whether:

  • the complaining party is the individual being harassed;
  • the complaining party acquiesced or otherwise submitted to or participated in the conduct;
  • the conduct is also experienced by others outside of the protected class involved;
  • the complaining party was able to continue carrying out the duties and responsibilities of such complaining party’s job despite the conduct;
  • the conduct caused a tangible or psychological injury; or
  • the conduct occurred outside of the workplace.”

The “conduct occurred outside of the workplace” provision is especially problematic for employees who gather for lunch, holiday parties, and other events.

The provisions of HB 2155 are inconsistent with court decisions and federal law (2).

Eight percent of Americans report being targeted by a false allegation of abuse (3). Such allegations undermine due process, dissipate scare public resources, undermine the credibility of future victims, and harm the reputations and careers of the falsely accused.

Citations:

  1. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?211+ful+HB2155H1
  2. https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/02/09/virginia-senate-blocks-strange-harassment-legislation-but-it-might-still-pass/
  3. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/survey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/
Categories
Campus Title IX Title IX Equity Project

233 Investigations of Colleges for Sex-Discriminatory Programs and Scholarships

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

233 Investigations of Colleges for Sex-Discriminatory Programs and Scholarships

WASHINGTON / February 15, 2021 – The federal Office for Civil Rights has announced that it currently has 233 open investigations of programs and scholarships that allegedly discriminate against male students (1). The sex-bias complaints have been submitted by a variety of individuals and groups, including the SAVE Title IX Equity Project.

The sex-discriminating universities are located in 47 states across the country. These states are listed at the bottom of this press release, along with the number of institutions in each state under investigation. The states with the largest number of colleges under investigation are Pennsylvania (22 institutions), California (19), New York (16), and Ohio (10).

Last week, for example, it was reported that OCR has opened an investigation of the BOLD Leadership program at Ithaca College, which “requires that applicants identify as women.” (2) The University of Missouri – Columbia offers 70 scholarships for female students, and one for male students. The scholarship for male students, the Eric G. Rowe Scholarship Fund, is reserved for “deserving farm boys,” according to a description on the university website (3).

Sex-discrimination in higher education appears to be widespread. A review of North Carolina’s largest colleges concluded that discrimination on the basis of sex is “rampant.”  “In the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, North Carolina universities have often chosen inequity and exclusion,” author Adam Kissel ironically comments (4).

A number of the institutions have eliminated their sex-discriminatory programs (5). But many of the OCR investigations were opened over six months ago, revealing that some universities may be resisting efforts to assure equal opportunity for all students.

The federal Title IX law states, “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.” On January 14, the Department of Education released a guidance that re-affirms the ban on sex discrimination, stating, “a school may not administer scholarships, fellowships or other forms of financial assistance that impose a preference or restriction on the basis of sex, with limited exceptions.” (6)

Female students now represent 56% of all undergraduate students, compared to 44% male students (7). Male students are under-represented in numerous fields such as the health professions, public administration, education, and others (8).

To avoid government sanctions, SAVE urges university officials to take steps to assure sex-discriminatory programs and scholarships are promptly removed.

Listing of States with Universities Under Investigation for Sex-Discriminatory Programs

  • AL – 5 universities
  • AR – 3
  • AZ – 4
  • CA – 19
  • CO – 3
  • CT – 3
  • DC – 2
  • DE – 1
  • FL – 9
  • GA – 4
  • HI – 1
  • IA – 4
  • ID – 5
  • KS – 6
  • KY – 7
  • LA – 2
  • MA – 4
  • MD – 5
  • ME – 1
  • MI – 1
  • MN – 8
  • MO – 4
  • MT – 4
  • NC – 3
  • ND – 1
  • NE – 3
  • NH – 2
  • NJ – 5
  • NV – 3
  • NY – 16
  • OH – 10
  • OK – 2
  • OR – 4
  • PA – 22
  • SC – 2
  • SD – 2
  • TN – 3
  • TX – 3
  • UT – 5
  • VA – 9
  • VT – 1
  • WA – 4
  • WI – 9
  • WV – 2
  • WY – 2

 

Citations:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Campus Programs” or “Title IX – Single Sex Scholarships”
  2. https://theithacan.org/news/bold-program-under-investigation-for-title-ix-complaint/
  3. https://endowedscholarships.missouri.edu/EndowmentPublicInfo.aspx?id=2344
  4. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/12/pervasive-sex-discrimination-at-north-carolina-universities/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/case-resolutions/
  6. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-single-sex-20210114.pdf
  7. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp#:~:text=In%20fall%202018%2C%20female%20students,trends%20between%202000%20and%202018
  8. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/table-of-the-day-bachelors-degrees-by-field-and-gender-for-the-class-of-2015/
Categories
Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Defense Attorneys Should Tell Police Chiefs to Halt Program that Will Bias Investigations, Worsen Wrongful Convictions, and Target Black Men

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Defense Attorneys Should Tell Police Chiefs to Halt Program that Will Bias Investigations, Worsen Wrongful Convictions, and Target Black Men

WASHINGTON / February 12, 2021 – SAVE is today calling on defense attorneys to urge the International Association of Chiefs of Police to promptly suspend a proposed program to promote so-called “victim-centered” investigations around the country (1). Such methods serve to negate the presumption of innocence and remove investigative impartiality.

“Victim-centered” approaches, sometimes referred to as “trauma-informed,” are known to bias the conduct of police investigations, which contribute to one-third of all wrongful convictions (2).  A recent National Registry of Exonerations report documents five ways in which biased police investigations contribute to wrongful convictions (3):

  1. Concealment of evidence
  2. Fabrication of evidence
  3. Witness tampering
  4. Misconduct in interrogations, or
  5. Making false statements at trial

Such guilt-presuming investigations were found to target Black men. For murder cases, 78% of Black exonerees, compared to 64% of White exonerees, were victims of official misconduct. The misconduct disparity was even greater for drug crimes: 47% among Blacks and 22% for Whites, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (3).

A recent editorial describes victim-centered investigations as a “Pandora’s Box” because they place “emotional sympathy, prejudice, and ideologically driven agendas above cool-headed forensic and legal reasoning.” (4)

On January 28, 2021, CPI sent a letter to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, calling on the group to suspend the project (5).  To date, the IACP has not acknowledged or provided a substantive response to the letter.

The inter-related problems of police accountability, wrongful convictions, and racial bias have been repeatedly cited as top legislative priorities for 2021 (6,7,8).  Defense attorneys are urged to tell the International Association of Chiefs of Police to suspend its unethical and harmful “victim-centered” program. Contact IACP Executive Director Vincent Talucci at talucci@theiacp.org , or telephone: 703-836-6767.

Citations:

  1. https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Case%20Study%20Invitation%20Flyer%20(final%20condensed).pdf?fbclid=IwAR0LMB3YEE4rfhmrKmKeEkKlwR68q4sRQOoV5GhP3W0TyGFoZwHRWTOTUag
  2. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/police-officers/
  3. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf
  4. http://ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1495
  5. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/IACP-letter-re-Victim-Centered-Jan.-28-2021.pdf
  6. https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explainers/how-state-attorneys-general-can-lead-on-reform/
  7. https://innocenceproject.org/facts-racial-discrimination-justice-system-wrongful-conviction-black-history-month/
  8. https://www.sentencingproject.org/
Categories
Campus Title IX

ATIXA’s Plan to Push a ‘Title IX Restoration Act’

ATIXA’s Plan to Push a ‘Title IX Restoration Act’

Wendy McElroy

February 4, 2021

President Joe Biden vowed to put a “quick end” to the Trump administration’s Title IX regulations and return to Obama-era ones at universities. If this happens, the sexual misconduct hearings will be deeply impacted. These “trials” judge whether those accused of sexual misconduct are innocent or guilty. The Obama-era hearings expressed social justice standards that greatly favored an accuser; the Trump-era ones were closer to the Western tradition of due process…..

Now a woke regime has returned to campus justice. Whatever happens will offer a window into how mainstream justice may evolve in the coming years. And ATIXA offers a window into the dynamics.

ATIXA is influential. Indeed, it is currently drafting what may be the next Title IX bill. ATIXA is “a professional association for approximately 5,500 Title IX coordinators, investigators, and administrators,” (as of January 18, 2021). It has the mission of “helping to advance gender equity in schools and colleges”; since 2011, it has trained and certified “more than 7,250 Title IX Coordinators and more than 23,550 Title IX investigators.” ATIXA’s job might seem to be the facilitation of whatever laws and policies are on the books, but it adamantly resisted implementing DeVos’s changes.

The College Fix documented one example. DeVos required the training materials used by Title IX administrators to be posted. This allowed an accused to access the rules and procedures by which he would be tried. ATIXA president Brett A. Sokolow has a history of covertly resisting such regulations. In a January 15, 2020, op-ed for Inside Higher Education, he advised: “About 20 to 25 percent of the (new Title IX) regulations are potentially very detrimental…and we will need…to work within those requirements, challenge them in court or find clever work-arounds” (emphasis added). Sokolow tried to work around posting training materials by claiming they were copyrighted and not able to be shared. The College Fix’s interpretation: “ATIXA will sue colleges for following a legally binding regulation.” Sokolow backed down, however, when the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) noticed and doubled down on its demand.

Passive-aggressive obstruction is no longer necessary. A memorandum to ATIXA listserv members in early January 2021 commented, “Dear Members….The Senate will now be in Democrat control.” A lobbying firm was duly engaged, as Sokolow now considers new Title IX legislation to be “a realistic possibility”; it is an endeavor in which ATIXA wants to take a leadership role. “Our initial thoughts include the promulgation of a model Title IX Restoration Act (TIXRA, naturally),” he writes, to show “how Title IX should be reshaped by the Biden administration and Congress to best serve the field and the goals of sex/gender equity.” (Sex/gender equity is not clearly defined.)

Sokolow’s memo gives lip service to “due process”—a term that appears with scare quotes around it. Elsewhere, a poll of “ATIXA Title IX experts” offers a more concrete sense of the looming danger to due process. JD Supra reported on the poll in an article by Sokolow entitled “Biden Is President-Elect. Can We Just Ignore the Title IX Regulations Now?“ The new woke hearings should include:

  • Relief from direct cross examination by an advisor
  • Removal of nonsensical exclusionary/hearsay rule regarding “statements”
  • Revocation of the confusing rules on relevance v. directly related evidence
  • Two ten-day review periods likely collapsed into one period
  • Formal complaint requirement will be reversed
  • Hearing requirements for at-will employees will be limited
  • Hearings only required when some form of separation is on the table, and the definition of hearing will be broader and less formal
  • Mandated dismissal of Title IX complaints removed
  • Broad retaliation protections rolled back, especially as applied to respondents
  • Removal of any necessity for two processes

In short, the woke campus hearings would discourage direct cross-examination, allow hearsay, loosen rules of evidence, be conducted quickly, and bypass the need for a formal complaint…the denial of due process would be policy. This despite the fact that, as Sokolow stated in a phone interview, “Probably 40 or 50% of allegations of sexual assault are baseless. There are a lot of cases where someone says they were incapacitated, but the evidence doesn’t support that they weren’t able to make a decision.” A “model” Title IX bill is currently being drafted by ATIXA and will be circulated the “to Congress and Biden Administration.” An earlier draft entitled “ATIXA Submission to the ED ART on Title IX 12.18.2020” that was submitted to Biden’s education transition team hints at the content. The hints are confusing, however. The bill endorses Biden’s progressive approach while stating, “a return to…the 2011 DCL (Dear Colleague Letter) or maintaining the status quo of the 2020 regulations would not be supported by ATIXA’s 6,000 practitioner members.” In short, there is pushback from the membership. Also, a mountain of complaints and lawsuits have proven expensive in time and money.

Therefore “ATIXA seeks a balanced approach that honors the rights of all parties in the Title IX resolution process.” So far, so good. The same hearing standards would seem to apply to all participants regardless of gender or race. Yet, elsewhere, the submission commits to “focusing broadly on the impacts that Title IX work can and should have on the LGBTQIA+ community [and] on people of color.” There is a tension between the two statements.

Moreover, an accused’s due process rights are directly attacked. The right of cross-examination, for example, would be restricted to spare an accuser distress; “if cross-examination is required in a jurisdiction [where the campus is located], it is sufficient to have party-proposed questions submitted to and then posed by the neutral, impartial decision-maker,” presumably appointed by the university. The right of direct examination by the accused or his advocate would be denied. (Nothing is said about jurisdictions in which courts do not require the cross-examination.) Currently, if a witness refuses to submit to cross-examination, his or her statements during the investigation are not considered at the hearing. ATIXA wants this rule to be “revisited,” because “it’s too drastic, is too complicated for laypersons to apply, has no litigation equivalent, and takes away the discretion of the recipient to appropriately assess relevance and credibility.” Why “laypersons” are holding court-like hearings when the basics of due process and court procedure are too complicated for them to understand is not addressed.

Elsewhere, the clarity of ATIXA’s recommendations is chilling. For example, “ATIXA supports universal application of the preponderance of the evidence standard….Existing regulations permit a choice of standards.” Preponderance of the evidence means that if a hearing believes a rape complaint to be supported by 50.01 percent of the evidence, the accused is “guilty” and open to expulsion or other common punishments.

All in all, a prediction in the JD Supra article seems half correct. “If we had to prognosticate, we’d guess that fairly early on, the Biden administration will rescind the 2020 regulations, and implement another new Dear Colleague Letter/Q&A style approach.” BUT the new Title IX is likely to be a new Obama-style DCL approach that is tweaked to avoid the legal pitfalls visited on the 2011 one. I disagree; withdrawing the 2020 regulations will not be a quick process.

The DeVos administration did not use a DCL or other guidelines to impose its regulations. It went through the arduous Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment process, which is why it was not enacted until 2020; the process and obstructionist tactics made it take that long. To rescind DeVos’s regulations requires the same long slog through bureaucracy and Congress. This alone makes new regulations unlikely before 2022 at the earliest.

ATIXA and Title IX may seem arcane to those not on campus or without a loved one who is. But the incredible bias and injustice embedded in earlier sexual misconduct hearings was integral in promoting a social division that borders on hatred. Close attention must be paid to the social justice measures on campuses, because they are part of the ideology promoting street riots, increased violence and hostility between groups. College administrators and professors have actively stoked hatred between the genders and the races for decades. And now society reaps a whirlwind.

Excerpted from https://mises.org/wire/title-ix-will-become-vehicle-more-injustice  

Categories
Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Biden OCR Acting Head Appointee Has Dubious Record

Biden OCR Acting Head Appointee Has Dubious Record
by James Baresel

February 1, 2021

For over fifteen years Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg has intermittently hovered around the fringes of major news stories. In 2003 she nearly achieved 15 minutes of fame as co-council in the Lawrence v. Texas case that saw the Supreme Court contradict its own precedents and declare a law against sodomy unconstitutional. Just over 10 years later she was a special advisor to her university’s president on matters of sexual assault during one of the first high profile controversies over academic institutions’ responses to rape allegations. Now Joe Biden has appointed her assistant secretary of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

Goldberg’s new position only sounds obscure. In fact it means she will be acting director of the OCR, responsible for planning and implementing the thousand and one details needed to translate a broad agenda into practical action—rendering its new holder’s record of considerable interest.

One key point in assessing Goldberg is the distinction between how she interprets the meaning of laws is interpreted and how handles allegations concerning the facts of particular cases. Where the former is at she undoubtedly favors “spinning” laws (including Constitutional law) to fit her own ideological presuppositions, as displayed in Lawrence v. Texas. The issue here is not what one thinks of the anti-sodomy law the Supreme Court struck down. It is Goldberg’s support for a judicial activism that disregarded the original intentions of legislators and spun the meaning of texts in order to bring about a change she desired through a court’s fiat rather than normal legislative processes. That she will give similar treatment to the meaning of the civil rights legislation she is now responsible for implementing seems probable.

What this does not tell us is what standards Goldberg would set for assessing allegations that a particular person violated (her interpretation of) civil rights legislation. This question does not concern what behaviors she believes violate such legislation or whether her beliefs correspond to legislators’ intentions. It concerns the standards of evidence that must be met for allegations to be officially “proven.” On this topic her record at Columbia University is too ambiguous to be reassuring.

Insight into Goldberg’s attitudes can be gained from the case of Emma Sulkowicz, who attained notoriety in 2014 as a sort of forerunner to the “Me Too” movement by melodramatically carrying a mattress around Columbia’s campus for her entire senior year. To the media she claimed to be protesting the university’s refusal to expel a student who had raped her. In reality a university investigation had concluded her allegation failed to meet even the standard of “more likely than not,” a decision reached despite excluding evidence in the accused student’s favor . The New York City police also determined Sulkowicz’s claims could not be substantiated, while the accused student voluntarily met with a member of the district attorney’s office and was assured there were no grounds for prosecution.

Sulkowicz then took her story public, launching a campaign to drive her alleged attacker from the university and revealing his name in violation of Columbia’s confidentiality policies. Short of expelling the accused student without evidence, the university surrender as abjectly as possible. Policies establishing that the break of confidentiality was grounds for disciplinary action were changed rather than enforced One of Sulkowicz’s professors accepted her mattress carrying as a “visual art project” that served as her major’s equivalent of a thesis with the full acquiescence of the administration. Not surprisingly, the accused student was subjected to ostracism and harassment.

Goldberg would not only have played a role in formulating the administration’s response to this situation as an adviser on sexual assault policies but was appointed to the office of Executive Vice President for University Life created (in part) to more thoroughly address such matters It is hard to imagine she would have been in such positions of trust while deeming the university’s low standards of proof unacceptable. When Sulkowicz’s supporters staged a “Day of Action” (carrying their own mattresses) Goldberg and the university president issued a statement saying that: “No person who comes to a university or college to learn and live should have to endure gender-based misconduct today, particularly the young women who most frequently sustain these violations.” After the accused student sued the university, its entrusted its defense to a lawyer with whom Goldberg co-taught classes rather than a member of the firm it usually employed.

Despite her indulgence of unofficial tarring of individuals cleared by formal investigations, Goldberg does seem to have the integrity to insist that such investigations be conducted in an unbiased manner aimed at objectively determining whether or not allegations are corroborated by the level of evidence stipulated by whatever regulations happen to be in force. On this point at least she has been willing to protect justice despite the ire of Columbia’s would-be lynch mobs She also revised Columbia policies not only to more effectively respond sexual assault allegations but to better assure due process for the accused in formal investigations. Subsequent to this, however, it introduced further policies revisions aimed at countering federal regulations instituted by the Trump administration in the interests of due process.

While Goldberg has the integrity to rise above show trials and (at least in official proceedings) guilty until proven innocent assumptions, her concern for justice seems too meager to be reassuring.

Source: https://ifeminists.org/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1492

Categories
Investigations Start By Believing Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: New Resource for Defense Attorneys: Mounting an Effective Defense in Proceedings Tainted by ‘Victim-Centered’ Philosophy

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Resource for Defense Attorneys: Mounting an Effective Defense in Proceedings Tainted by ‘Victim-Centered’ Philosophy

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2021 – A new report released today addresses the growing influence of guilt-presuming “victim-centered” concepts in criminal proceedings. Titled, “Defending Against ‘Victim-Centered’ Proceedings: Guide for Criminal Defense Attorneys,” the report features strategies and verbatim statements to counter bias during each stage of the legal process:

  • Voir Dire
  • Opening Statement
  • Cross Examination: Complainant
  • Cross Examination: Investigator
  • Cross Examination: Prosecution Expert Witness
  • Closing Argument

“Victim-centered” approaches, also known as “trauma-informed” or “Start By Believing,” are gaining wider acceptance among police officers, prosecutors, and even judges in sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse cases:

Investigative bias by police officers has been linked to 35% of all wrongful convictions (1).  But the International Association of Chiefs of Police makes the claim that “Victim-centered, trauma-informed approaches to crime can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system.” (2)

Prosecutors increasingly are invoking victim-centered theories. One of the most common theories is the complainant experienced “tonic immobility,” resulting in the person being unable to resist an impending assault. This claim has been refuted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (3).

Judges are being urged to embrace victim-centered philosophy, as well.  The website of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for example, reveals, “The NCJFCJ’s work with courts is informed by a focus on trauma using a universal precautions approach that assumes children and families involved in the court system have experienced some form of trauma that may be mitigated through court-based interventions.” (4)  Policies that “assume” a party has been traumatized serve to vitiate the presumption of innocence and harm judicial impartiality.

Many authorities have voiced criticism of “victim-centered” and “trauma-informed” methods. Defense attorney Scott Greenfield ironically reasons, “The ‘trauma informed’ approach is not to ask, not to question, but to believe.…Who is the victim would seem to be a critical question, but ‘trauma informed’ policing says it’s the woman and should it be the falsely accused man, too bad, so sad. Take a bullet for the cause, guy.” (5)

Victim-centered methods remove a defendant’s due process right to a fair investigation and adjudication. Defense attorneys making discovery requests of police, prosecutors, and judges are urged to ask if they have received “victim-centered” training in order to assess the potential for actual bias and/or the need for recusal.

The new report, developed by SAVE, is available online: https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Defending-Against-Victim-Centered-Proceedings.pdf

Links:

  1. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf
  2. https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Case%20Study%20Invitation%20Flyer%20(final%20condensed).pdf?fbclid=IwAR0LMB3YEE4rfhmrKmKeEkKlwR68q4sRQOoV5GhP3W0TyGFoZwHRWTOTUag
  3. https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/7e0ec516-a34a-487a-a7fc-51d4e54a48c9/nacdl-position-on-aba-resolution-114.pdf
  4. https://www.ncjfcj.org/child-welfare-and-juvenile-law/trauma-informed-courts/
  5. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/08/22/short-take-fight-or-flight-or-whatever/#more-41334

 

Categories
Title IX

Will Biden’s Education Secretary Avoid Ideological Battles?

Will Biden’s Education Secretary Avoid Ideological Battles?
By James Baresel

No sooner had United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos issued new Title IX regulations for the handling of sexual assault and harassment allegations by colleges and universities this past May than Joe Biden pledged a reversal of policy—claiming that restoring the presumption of innocence and mandating opportunities for cross examination of accusers would “shame and silence survivors.” Whether or not due process will come under renewed assault now largely depends on the man Biden has chosen as DeVos’s replacement, Miguel Cardona.

A former public school teacher and administrator who became Connecticut’s Educational Commissioner in 2019, Cardona has yet to take public stances on most contentious issues, Title IX included. His record, however, suggests a man who, though disconcerting enough, is about as tolerable as any Biden might have appointed. The bad news is that he seems to embrace the usual leftist laundry list of policies and “causes.” The good news? Strong indications that they are not his real priorities. One cause for concern is Cardona’s promotion of the narrative claiming certain segments of the population constitute “victim groups” that are habitually mistreated by “privileged” ones. Though the context in which he did so concerned racial issues rather than women or sexual assault, a certain mindset approaches these various matters in the same way. “Victim groups” (women or racial minorities) are given the strong benefit of the doubt. The “privileged” (men or white people) are treated as guilty until proven innocent.

That Cardona shares such presuppositions is suggested by his reference to “several tragic, high profile and disturbing acts of violence against people of color at the hands of police.”

Aside from George Floyd’s death, fuller investigation into such cases has generally shown narratives based in anti-police prejudice to be false. Even those officers not fully exonerated by the evidence have tended to be guilty of no more than poor reactions to tense situations created by their alleged victims. In other cases the final evidence has been inconclusive. For a man who promotes a “guilty until proven innocent” narrative to an entire state’s public school system to be charged with the administration of justice under Title IX can only be cause for concern.

Concern is also raised by Cardona’s promotion of the theory of “microaggressions.” The question is not so much what Cardona believes to constitute harassment as the potential consequences of broader attitudes he has attempted to inculcate. If students come to believe that making a “fake-smile” while “our body language says we’d rather be somewhere else” can be a “microaggression” they can be depended upon to allege sexual harassment when others’ behavior can be (artificially) construed as “insufficiently” avoiding the slightest hints of unwanted romantic or sexual attention.

As already mentioned, however, Cardona does seem to be primarily concerned with educating children rather than pushing ideological agendas. Continuing the policy he pursued in Connecticut, the first task he has assigned himself in his new role is reopening schools that have continued using online learning to control the spread of Covid. This does not just indicate his real priorities. It also suggests a man willing to buck party lines for the good of children and a realist willing to accept dangers, risks and imperfections.

Further evidence that Cardona’s ideological orientation might not be central to his new work comes from the Center for Education Reform. A conservative organization devoted to reducing federal influence on schools, the Center praised him for expressing “understanding about the importance of options and of communities making decisions for their own unique circumstances.”

Such dispositions could take the edge off implementation of Biden’s agenda. A man focused on getting students back into classrooms probably won’t be in a rush to alter Title IX regulations, a process that could take years to complete. And he could bring moderation to the latter issue rather than see it become a partisan quagmire that, each new administration revising regulations at the cost of time and effort that could be focused on education efforts.

Taken as a whole, Cardona has the potential to follow somewhat moderate courses. Finding areas of agreement that allow for bipartisan cooperation could help him to develop respect for and goodwill towards more conservative individuals and interest groups. Work on time consuming common projects might leave him putting more contentious matters on the back burner. Reopening of schools provides an issue on which conservatives and libertarians can ally with Cardona. Left-wing Covid alarmists might alienate him.

Fighting the new education secretary might become necessary. But since some ideologues will be doing their best to drag him into their combative camp, it would be best to find ways of enticing him towards moderation rather than pushing him into their arms.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1489