Author: saveadmin

Categories
Title IX

Tulane University Accused Of Anti-Male, Title IX Violation

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tulane-university-accused-of-anti-male-title-ix-violation/

Tulane University Accused Of Anti-Male, Title IX Violation

by  | Jun 12, 2020

Gibson Hall, 2019

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.

Categories
Title IX

Title IX Reforms Will Restore Due Process for Victims and the Accused

https://www.newsweek.com/title-ix-reforms-will-restore-due-process-victims-accused-opinion-1510288

BUDDY ULLMAN 

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has released new Title IX regulations that radically change how gender sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes are resolved on college campuses. This is a good thing. I am a liberal Democrat, feminist and advocate for Title IX and women’s issues, but the way these disputes have been adjudicated on college campuses using Obama-era administrative guidance has been catastrophic. Those guidelines, encompassed in a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, are vague, imprecise, constitutionally and legally dubious and patently unfair toward the accused, contributing to investigation outcomes that are unreliable and too often erroneous. There have been more than 600 court cases filed by accused students challenging unfavorable Title IX rulings, with the majority of the judicial decisions supporting the plaintiffs and scores of additional cases settled favorably prior to judgement.

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.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos
Education Secretary Betsy DeVosALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES 

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.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/do-activists-want-domestic-violence-to-increase-during-the-pandemic/

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

by  | Jun 8, 2020

Coronavirus News On Screen 3970332

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.

About Wendy McElroy
Wendy McElroy is an individualist anarchist and individualist feminist who has written or edited over a dozen books, scripted dozens of produced documentaries, worked as a writer for FOX News for 5 years and published in periodicals ranging from Penthouse to The Hill.
Categories
Immigration Violence Against Women Act

The Radical Agenda Being Pursued Under the Violence Against Women Act

Letter of Solidarity from the Immigrant Justice Movement

JUNE 4TH, 2020

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:

  • Standing in solidarity with Black communities to demand justice by advocating for their recommendations and solutions.
  • Working to dismantle white supremacy, white nationalism, and the anti-Blackness that permeates our society, including within the immigrant justice movement.
  • Joining the calls to dismantle the police state by defunding and decreasing police budgets.
  • Demanding governments invest in communities by increasing funding for housing, education, healthcare, and other supports.
  • Demanding a COVID-19 recovery and reconstruction that benefits communities, not corporations.
  • Denouncing the use of criminalization and militarization as a response to people’s pain and people demanding more change.
  • Rejecting the “national security” frame and redefining “public safety” so that it truly means communities — including Black communities — are free to live without fear of being killed.

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/

Categories
Title IX

I’m a Democrat; Secretary DeVos Is Right on Title IX Reform

By Buddy Ullman
June 17, 2020
I am a progressive Democrat and enthusiastic supporter of the new Title IX Rule that was recently issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

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.

Buddy Ullman is a retired Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from The Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, Oregon.

Categories
Uncategorized Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

by  | Jun 3, 2020

Pow Wow 4384973 1920

A recent study by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Commission on Indian Affairs should change how the media and lawmakers view violence against Native Americans. They should look carefully at male victims, but it is far from clear that they will.

The Omaha World-Herald offers a surprising statistic, “The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.” In fact, they account for 59.6% of missing people in the state. The data is even the more remarkable because it resulted from LB 154, a state bill to “require a report on missing Native American women in Nebraska.” The 21-line bill that authorizes the study mentions “Native American women” six times; men and boys are not mentioned at all.

At long last, male victims of violence may receive the same attention as female ones. Or will they?

Some telling comments conclude the study. Under “Important Related Information,” it states, “During the period of this investigation…there have been several tragic events involving young Native women in Nebraska: the cases of Ashlea Aldrich and Esther Wolfe. These alleged crimes against Native women make plain” why the study and “its ongoing follow through are vitally important.” State Senator Tom Brewer, who co-sponsored LB 154, is quoted: “We need all law enforcement to communicate and work together to address the exploitation and victimization of Native women.” The concluding words of Judi M. Gaiashkibos, Executive Director, Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, speaks only of “women and children” and laments “actions and policies” that “have displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and diminished their status…leaving them vulnerable to violence.”

Men and boys are nowhere. Nor does the media seemingly note even the possibility of male victims. A Lincoln Journal Star article that anticipated LB 154 was entitled “Senators want to step up investigations of missing or abused Native women.” And a word commonly applied to violence against Native American women is “epidemic.” These women deserve every bit of attention and compassion they receive, but so do males.

Lawmakers also ignore male victims. The latest Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which awaits reauthorization, is an example. It sets the national standard on how sexual abuse is handled, including “Standardized protocols for…missing and murdered Indians.” (Sec. 904) Native American women is one of the Act’s core issues with TITLE IX—Safety for Indian Women addressing the problem. Title IX opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime”—a statistic drawn from a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey entitled “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.”

The statistic is appalling, but VAWA makes a curious omission in quoting it. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure, the Survey cited reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” In other words, Native American men experience only 2.7 percent less violence than women. A few lines later, the  Survey states “55.5 percent” of women and “43.2 percent” of men “have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner,” figures that differ by 12.3 percent. And, yet, this data does not make it into VAWA.

It is difficult to avoid concluding that VAWA slants important evidence in order to champion female victims and dismiss male ones. In theory, the programs VAWA administers are available to both sexes even though the language is gendered for females. In practice, VAWA is widely accused of making only a tiny portion of its considerable resources available to men.

The plight of male victims must be well known to lawmakers who appear to be passionate about issues like domestic violence (DV). A 2019 article in Indian Country Today, “Breaking the silence on violence against Native American men” cites “a recent study by the National Institute of Justice”; it reported that “more than 1.4 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in their lifetime.” The total may be an understatement. Males victims of DV ”are often reluctant to seek help or tell friends or family out of embarrassment and/or fear of not being believed. They may worry that they—and not their partner—will be blamed for the abuse.”

The blind eye to male victims is not limited to Native Americans, however, but pervades most discussions of DV. Consider the VAWA provision that allows battered immigrants to petition for legal status. In 2016, Attorney Gerald Nowotny called out the provision’s unfairness to men. Nowotny wrote, “The irony is that when it comes to the perception of domestic abuse, the focus is almost exclusively on men as the perpetrators of violence and abuse. The statistical reality is that more men than women are victims of intimate partner physical violence and psychological aggression.” Nowotny’s assessment derived from a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice that found more men than women experienced physical violence from an intimate partner and over 40% of severe physical violence.

But the assumption of mainstream media and lawmakers seems unshakable: men commit violence against women; men are not victims. What if this gender bias were a racial one? What if VAWA was the Violence Against Whites Act? There would be and there should be outrage. The same people should be as outraged as by the suffering of men who too often remain silent for fear of being ridiculed or not believed. In this regard, male victims today resemble female ones from decades ago; they are revictimized by a system that does want to hear their voices.

Categories
Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus

By L. Douglas Wilder

June 3, 2020

 

Wilder is the former governor of Virginia. He currently serves as a distinguished professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.

 

As colleges and universities across the country plan what higher education will look like on the post-pandemic campus, the Department of Education has taken a major step toward improving one area with a longtime culture of injustice.

 

Of course, our top priority is clamping down on sexual misconduct. Every year, thousands of students are exposed to unwanted sexual activity on campus, most of them being women. This ruins their college experience and can leave them traumatized long after they graduate.

 

Sexual misconduct is simply unacceptable. Campus officials must do their best to hold the perpetrators accountable and keep our students safe.

 

What they cannot do, however, is ignore due process — the bedrock of our judicial system. Too often, those accused of sexual misconduct are publicly vilified before their side of the story is ever heard. Too often, the accused are presumed to be guilty before the facts of their case are even known. This is just as unacceptable.

 

In America, people are always innocent until they’re proven guilty. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a perversion of our judicial system. The system relies on due process to keep both the accusers and the accused on a level playing field. Only then can we assess the validity of the allegations at hand and draw the right conclusions from them.

 

Unfortunately, I’ve experienced the presumption of guilt firsthand. For over a year now, I have undergone an unimaginable nightmare at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where I lecture at the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. In December 2018, a complaint was filed against me by a 20-year-old student, alleging that I had touched her leg and kissed her without consent. The complainant was directed to file criminal charges with the Richmond Police Department. However, the charge was determined to be “unfounded.”

 

Nevertheless, VCU’s Title IX office carried on behind my back. Although the office notified the complainant that her complaint would be investigated thoroughly within two days of receiving it, I wasn’t notified of anything relative to any complaint until almost two months later.

 

At the end of January 2019, I finally received a “Notice of Investigation” letter, which detailed four specific allegations: Non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, Sex-Gender-based Discrimination, and Retaliation. The matter was assigned to an external investigator by Laura Walsh Rugless, the Executive Director of Equity Access Services and Title IX Coordinator, who has subsequently resigned her position at VCU.

 

Weeks later, I was notified that the initial external investigator was removed and replaced by Jody Shipper, co-founder and managing director of Grand River Solutions. This is the same Jody Shipper who conducted a Title IX investigation at the University of Southern California, an investigation whose determination was overturned by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Court in December 2018.

 

Why? Because the accused was denied a fair and transparent Title IX proceeding. Yet VCU recruited Shipper anyway, and she subsequently concluded that the “unfounded” charge against me was true (while determining the three other allegations were not true).

 

To the hearing panel’s credit, they rejected Shipper’s findings, ruling that I was not in fact responsible for non-consensual sexual contact. But it was too late: Shipper’s reckless pursuit of guilt — emboldened by VCU’s Title IX office — was the most unsettling experience of my life. Becoming the first elected African American governor in U.S. history was a walk in the park compared to this ordeal. And it has permanently damaged my reputation, regardless of my innocence.

 

Hopefully, campus officials can learn from the mistakes of the past. I came to learn that VCU was already under a voluntary resolution agreement signed by President Michael Rao in 2014, due to issues with its mishandling of previous Title IX cases. It is imperative that VCU and all institutions of higher education ensure fairness for both parties in situations such as these.

 

I hope that my experience will inform future Title IX proceedings, as we continue to clamp down on sexual misconduct. I pray that we can protect accusers and the accused by upholding due process.

 

Fortunately, the Department of Education is doing its part to guarantee due process for all parties, while recognizing the tragedy of sexual misconduct on campus. Following Secretary DeVos’ lead, administrators, faculty, staff, and students can rest assured that their voices will be heard.

 

With due process, we can all rest assured that the presumption of innocence will prevail—followed by the truth.

 

Source: https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/wilder-secretary-devos-right-to-restore-due-process-on-campus/article_dfac7ff4-7d4d-5109-9657-2532a0816f1d.html

Categories
Sexual Assault

Media Coverage of New Title IX Regulation

Following is a partial listing of media accounts about the new Title IX regulation, published through May 20, 2020. The articles represent a broad range of perspectives, both pro and con:

DATE OUTLET REPORTER/EDITORIALIST URL
5/20/20 Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed: Jordan Draper
5/19/20 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial
5/19/20 Washington Post Editorial
5/17/20 The Oklahoman Editorial https://oklahoman.com/article/5662439/a-needed-change-to-campus-assault-protocols
5/15/20 Washington Examiner op-ed: Brad Polumbo
5/15/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/15/aclu-betsy-devos-title-ix-rule-due-process/
5/15/20 NBC News Erik Ortiz https://news.yahoo.com/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-over-194951672.html
5/13/20 Wall Street Journal Letter to the  Editor https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-title-ix-and-rights-of-the-accused-11589391121
5/11/20 New York Daily News Editorial
5/9/20 Detroit News Editorial
5/8/20 Newsweek op-ed: Shiwali Patel https://www.newsweek.com/even-crisis-trump-devos-are-determined-fail-students-opinion-1502688
5/8/20 Ms. Magazine op-ed: Carrie N. Baker https://msmagazine.com/2020/05/08/devoss-campus-sexual-assault-regulations-are-an-abomination/
5/8/20 Houston Chronicle Brittany Britto
5/8/20 City Journal op-ed: KC Johnson https://www.city-journal.org/joe-biden-title-ix-regulations
5/8/20 FoxNews.com op-ed: Curt Levey
5/8/20 National Review Rich Lowry
5/8/20 Wisconsin Public Radio Dean Knetter https://www.wpr.org/changes-title-ix-rules-will-impact-sexual-assault-cases-college-campuses
5/7/20 ABA Journal Debra Cassens Weiss
5/7/20 AEI Blog Frederick Hess https://www.aei.org/education/devos-gets-title-ix-right/
5/7/20 Associated Press Collin Binkley
5/7/20 Breitbart Dr. Susan Berry
5/7/20 BuzzFeed Ellie Hall https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/betsy-devos-title-ix-campus-sexual-assault
5/7/20 CBS News Associated Press https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexual-assault-rules-college-campuses-student-rights-betsy-devos/
5/7/20 Cornell Daily Sun Kathryn Stamm
5/7/20 Daily Wire Ashe Schow
5/7/20 Fox News Channel Tucker Carlson https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154828829001?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips
5/7/20 National Association of Scholars Statement https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/statement-on-the-new-title-ix-regulations
5/7/20 FoxNews.com Greg Re https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pelosi-devos-schools-sexual-misconduct
5/7/20 Inside Higher Education Greta Anderson https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/07/education-department-releases-final-title-ix-regulations
5/7/20 National Review Mairead McArdle
5/7/20 National Review NR Staff https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fixing-title-ix/
5/7/20 NBC New York
5/7/20 Newsweek Katherine Fung https://www.newsweek.com/what-new-title-ix-rules-will-mean-campus-sexual-assault-cases-1502439
5/7/20 Reason Samantha Harris https://reason.com/2020/05/07/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-title-ix-regulations/
5/7/20 Refinery 29 Erin Corbett https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/05/9788732/title-ix-changes-betsy-devos-college-sexual-assault
5/7/20 Salon.com Roger Sollenberger https://www.salon.com/2020/05/07/betsy-devos-unveils-new-title-ix-rules-are-they-aimed-at-silencing-survivors/
5/7/20 Teen Vogue Clarissa Brooks https://www.teenvogue.com/story/betsy-devos-title-ix-hurt-marginalized-survivors-most
5/7/20 The College Fix Greg Piper
5/7/20 The Conversation Editors
5/7/20 The Harvard Crimson Isabel Isselbacher https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/8/experts-on-new-title-ix-rules/
5/7/20 The Independent Danielle Zoellner
5/7/20 Yahoo Sports Cassandra Negley
5/6/20 ABC News Sophie Tatum
5/6/20 Atlanta Journal Constitution/Get Schooled Blog Maureen Downey
5/6/20 Berkeley Beacon Stephanie Purifoy https://berkeleybeacon.com/devos-releases-new-federal-title-ix-regulations-amid-internal-review-at-emerson/
5/6/20 Chronicle of Higher Education Sarah Brown
5/6/20 Chronicle of Higher Education Sarah Brown https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Colleges-Need-to-Know/248717
5/6/20 Click on Detroit Cassidy Johncox
5/6/20 CNN.com Annie Grayer/Veronica Stracqualursi https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/education-secretary-betsy-devos-title-ix-regulations/index.html
5/6/20 Daily Beast Blake Montgomery
5/6/20 Daily Bruin Julia Shapero/Genesis Qu
5/6/20 Daily Princetonian Zachary Shevin/Rooya Rahin
5/6/20 Detroit Free Press David Jessee
5/6/20 Detroit News Ingrid Jacques
5/6/20 Ed Week Evie Blad https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2020/05/title-ix-rule-final-devos-sexual-harassment.html
5/6/20 Education Dive Jeremy Bauer-Wolf https://www.educationdive.com/news/title-ix-regulations-released/566248/
5/6/20 ESPN.com Paula Lavigne
5/6/20 Forbes Evan Gerstmann
5/6/20 Fox News Channel Martha McCallum https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154815461001#sp=show-clips
5/6/20 HuffPost Alanna Vagianos
5/6/20 IWF Blog Jennifer C. Braceras https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/does-due-process-silence-survivors/
5/6/20 KPIX TV Len Ramirez
5/6/20 Los Angeles Times Teresa Watanabe
5/6/20 Louisville Courier-Journal Mandy McLaren
5/6/20 MotherJones Madison Pauly https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/devos-title-ix-campus-sexual-misconduct/
5/6/20 NBC News Erik Ortiz/Tyler Kingkade
5/6/20 NBC News Tyler Kingkade https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/betsy-devos-new-title-ix-rules-will-shake-how-k-n1201616
5/6/20 New York Times Erica Green https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/us/politics/campus-sexual-misconduct-betsy-devos.html
5/6/20 NPR Tovia Smith
5/6/20 PBS News Hour
5/6/20 Politico Bianca Quilantan
5/6/20 Politico Bianca Quilantan/Juan Perez/Michael Stratford https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131
5/6/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-title-ix-due-process-college-sexual-misconduct/
5/6/20 The Federalist Emily Jashinsky
5/6/20 The Guardian Adam Gabbatt https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/06/betsy-devos-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules
5/6/20 The Hill Jonathan Easley
5/6/20 The Lantern (Ohio State) Sarah Szilagy
5/6/20 The Michigan Daily Francesca Duong https://www.michigandaily.com/section/higher-education/betsy-devos-title-ix
5/6/20 University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank https://news.wisc.edu/message-from-chancellor-blank-on-new-title-ix-rules/
5/6/20 UPI Clyde Hughes
5/6/20 US News & World Report Lauren Camera
5/6/20 Vanderbilt University Princine Lewis
5/6/20 Vox Anna North https://www.vox.com/2020/5/6/21203255/new-title-ix-rules-campus-sexual-assault-betsy-devos
5/6/20 Wall Street Journal Robert Shibley https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-victory-for-campus-justice-11588806738
5/6/20 Washington Examiner Tiana Lowe
5/6/20 Washington Times Valerie Richardson https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/6/betsy-devos-moves-end-obama-era-kangaroo-courts-pr/
5/6/20 WILX TV Rachel Sweet https://www.wilx.com/content/news/-New-Title-IX-regulations–570261591.html
5/6/20 Trump-Pence Campaign
5/5/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/05/joe-biden-tara-reade-title-ix-rape-accusation/
5/5/20 Washington Post Laura Meckler
Categories
Title IX Uncategorized

State appeals court reverses ruling in Matt Boermeester’s USC expulsion case

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-05-28/appeals-court-overturns-expulsion-usc-kicker-matt-boermeester

State appeals court reverses ruling in Matt Boermeester’s USC expulsion case

(Rick Scuteri / Associated Press)

By RYAN KARTJESTAFF WRITER

MAY 28, 2020   7:17 PM

The California Court of Appeals reversed a ruling against former USC kicker Matt Boermeester, who sued the university after a Title IX investigation into intimate partner violence led to his 2017 expulsion.

The court concluded Thursday that the disciplinary procedures used by USC in its investigation of Boermeester “were unfair because they denied Boermeester a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine critical witnesses at an in-person hearing.”

Those limitations, the court wrote, “prevented Boermeester from fully presenting his defense, which was that the eyewitnesses misunderstood what happened between him and [his girlfriend] on January 21, 2017.”

The case will now be remanded to the superior court, with instructions to “afford Boermeester the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine witnesses at an in-person hearing.”

The reversal comes nearly three years after a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge barred Boermeester from enrolling in classes or stepping foot on USC’s campus. At the time, the case was cited as an example by Education Secretary Betsy Devos of a “failed system” for dealing with sexual assault on college campuses.

This month, Devos announced sweeping new rules governing how universities handle allegations of sexual assault. The rules force universities to adhere to a judicial process for investigating Title IX complaints, in which the accused is allowed the right to cross-examine accusers.

USC expelled Boermeester in July 2017 following an incident in which two students observed him put his hands around his girlfriend’s neck and push her against a wall. Boermeester contended, at the time, that the couple was “horsing around.”

Zoe Katz, his girlfriend, initially confirmed those allegations to investigators. But in a statement two months prior to the superior court’s decision, Katz decried the university’s investigation, proclaiming that her statements to Title IX investigators had been “misrepresented, misquoted, and taken out of context.”

“I made it very clear to USC that I have never been abused, assaulted or otherwise mistreated by Matthew Boemeester; not on January 21, 2017, and not ever,” Katz wrote in a statement at the time.

Boermeester, who kicked a field goal on the final play of the game to defeat Penn State 52-49 in the 2017 Rose Bowl, petitioned to return to the school in 2018, but was denied.

Categories
Title IX Uncategorized

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

SAVE

May 29, 2020

The new Title IX regulation, recently released by the Department of Education, contains several provisions designed to assure impartial and fair investigations on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/new-title-ix-regulatory-text-34-cfr-106/  The relevant provisions, with key words in bold, are listed below:

Section 106.45 (b)(1): A recipient’s grievance process must—

(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably….

(ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence—including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence—and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;

(iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal resolution process, not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;

These regulatory provisions represent an important step in restoring impartiality and fairness to campus investigations.