Category: Campus

Hartford Sex Hearing Marred by Actions of Lawmakers and Staffers

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 18, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Recalling Campus Kangaroo Courts,

Hartford Sex Hearing Marred by Actions of Lawmakers and Staffers

WASHINGTON / February 18, 2020 – A February 13 hearing designed to elicit public comment on a bill regarding campus sexual assault was marred by unprofessional behavior exhibited by several lawmakers and staffers. Convened by the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, the hearing aimed to obtain public input into the proposed Act Concerning Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses, SB 19 (1).

Several representatives of Connecticut colleges testified in opposition to the bill, saying it duplicated existing university policies and removed their flexibility to address unique circumstances (2).

The SAVE witness highlighted recent judicial decisions against Yale, Quinnipiac, Sacred Heart, and the University of Connecticut, suggesting that “Connecticut may be the worst state in the nation for campus fairness.” SAVE noted the opinion of federal Judge Michael Shea who wrote, “UConn’s procedures for investigating alleged misconduct and imposing discipline are so one-sided that the accused was denied an opportunity to present a meaningful defense.”

The SAVE representative acknowledged that sexual misconduct is a major problem on Connecticut campuses but concluded, “SB 19 would trample on fairness, and perpetuate campus Kangaroo Courts. It is not the answer to a serious issue plaguing Connecticut’s higher educational system.”

Although she was one of the first to sign up to testify, when she was finally allowed to deliver her testimony, only 30% of the Committee members were present. During the allotted 3-minute period, the timer prematurely sounded at roughly two minutes, distracting the presentation.

Upon completion of the testimony, one Committee member wondered out loud if the SAVE presenter represented a “misogynistic” group, a comment that was implausible on the surface since the SAVE witness was female.

In contrast, seeking a constructive bi-partisan solution to address campus sexual assault, a third Committee member posed thoughtful questions how Connecticut lawmakers can “get this right” as they propose legislation around this issue.

SAVE’s full testimony is available online (3). A video of the testimony is also available online, beginning at 2:31:10.

SAVE urges Connecticut legislators to assure future hearings are conducted in a professional and impartial manner, and to work so both identified victims and accused students are treated in a respectful and professional manner in campus proceedings.

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – is leading the national policy movement for campus fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

PR: Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2020 – As evidence continues to mount of inept campus administrators and biased adjudications, SAVE urges lawmakers to take prompt steps to reform college sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

The federal Department of Education issued in 2011 a policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, including felony-level incidents (1). But problems with the new approach became immediately obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights soon increased by more than five-fold (2).

Three recent incidents again illustrate the urgent need for reform:

On January 23, it was reported that the University of Idaho agreed to a $160,000 payment to Mairin Jameson. When Jameson had been sexually harassed and assaulted by a member of the school’s football team, school officials told her the school had no authority to act (3).

Two days later, federal Judge Michael Shea ordered the University of Connecticut to reinstate a male student who had been subjected to a biased campus hearing. The judge found the campus disciplinary committee denied the male student “the right to respond to the accusations against him in a meaningful way, because he had no opportunity to question or confront two of Roe’s witnesses on whose statements the hearing officers chose to rely.” (4)

Then on January 26, Columbia University in New York was in the news when campus adjudicators failed to consider as evidence a 30-minute audio recording suggesting the female was the perpetrator, not the victim, of a sexual assault. Former student Ben Feibleman is now suing Columbia U. for $25 million (5).

The Dept. of Education is expected to issue a new sexual assault regulation in the near future. The Independent Women’s Forum recently announced its support of the new policy, saying, “Campuses have a legal and moral obligation to investigate and address claims of sexual harassment and assault; but they also have an obligation to investigate claims objectively, without presuming the guilt of the accused, and with respect for due process.” (6)

This week, SAVE is launching a month-long campaign designed to raise awareness among lawmakers, campus administrators, and the public about the serious injustices confronting college students. The campaign hashtag is #StopKangarooCourts.

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

End to the Campus Kangaroo: Department of Education Needs to Promptly Implement New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 12, 2020

Constitutionally rooted due process is one of the foundations of American society, because it protects individuals from government over-reach and from false allegations.

In 1975, Judge Henry Friendly identified key due process procedures.[1]

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pre-emptively issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual assault.[2] The document was unlawful in the sense that it violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it severely weakened constitutionally-rooted due process protections for the accused.

On August 4, 2011, SAVE sent a letter to the OCR expressing concern over the new requirement for use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and calling for the Dear Colleague Letter to be rescinded.[3] The OCR did not respond to the substance of the request or even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

It wasn’t until six years later that SAVE’s request was fulfilled. On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.[4]

Last year SAVE published a Special Report, Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.[5] The report analyzes the 14 appellate cases decided in favor of the accused student involving campus sexual assault. These were the most common due process violations identified in the Judicial Findings, in descending order:

Insufficient hearing process
Lack of cross-examination/Inadequate credibility assessment
Insufficient notice
Inadequate investigation
Conflicting roles of college officials
Improper use or exclusion of witness testimony
Potential sex bias
Misuse of affirmative consent policy

These eight violations closely track the due process procedures that Judge Friendly identified 45 years before.

Sexual assault complainants are unhappy with the current state of affairs, as well. SAVE has identified examples of persons who said their mistreatment at the hands of inept college officials was more traumatic than the original sexual assault. A recent CBS News documentary highlighted victims who complained that the current system is not working for them.[6]

In short, the current campus “Kangaroo Courts” represent a failed response to the problem of campus sexual assault.

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.[7] Among other things, the proposed regulation will restore a series of due process procedures on college campuses:[8]

A presumption of innocence for the respondent throughout the grievance process;
The school must objectively evaluate all relevant evidence including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
All Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must not have conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents;
Training materials for Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must foster impartial determinations without relying on sex stereotypes;
A respondent cannot face discipline without due process protections;
Ensure the burden of proof and burden of gathering evidence rest on the school, not on the parties;
Provide equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and evidence;
Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations or gather relevant evidence (e.g., no “gag orders”);
Provide the parties with the same opportunity to be accompanied at all phases of the grievance process by an advisor of the party’s choice (who may be an attorney);
Give written notice of any interview, meeting, or hearing at which a party is invited or expected to participate;
Provide equal access to review all the evidence that the school investigator has collected, including the investigative report, giving each party equal opportunity to respond to that evidence before a determination is made;
For colleges and universities, a final determination must be made at a live hearing, and cross-examination must be allowed (with rape shield protections against asking about a complainant’s sexual history) and must be conducted by each party’s advisor (i.e., no personal confrontation allowed).
After investigation, a written determination must be sent to both parties explaining for each allegation whether the respondent is responsible or not responsible including the facts and evidence on which the conclusion is based. The determination must be made by a decisionmaker who is not the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator
Where a finding of responsibility is made against the respondent, the written determination must describe what remedies the school will provide to the survivor to restore or preserve equal access to the school’s education program or activity, and any sanctions imposed on the respondent.

Nine years after the Department of Education issued its Dear Colleague Letter, the debate has been resolved. Neither identified victims nor accused students are being well served by the new campus regime. The current system is broken. SAVE urges the Office of Management and Budget to publish the new Title IX regulations promptly, and calls upon the Department of Education to vigorously enforce the new requirements.

[1] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5317&context=penn_law_review

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/

[7] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[8] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/background-summary-proposed-ttle-ix-regulation.pdf

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 9, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

WASHINGTON / January 8, 2020 – After nine years of campus adjudications that triggered thousands of federal complaints and hundreds of lawsuits, SAVE — a national policy organization — is calling on lawmakers to take steps to reform campus sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

In 2011 the federal Department of Education issued a controversial policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, even incidents that fell within the definition of a criminal offense (1).

Serious problems with the new approach soon became obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights increased by more than five-fold. The number of Title IX complaints skyrocketed from 391 complaints in 2010 to over 2,000 complaints in 2013 and 2014 (2). In some cases, women complained the mistreatment at the hands of inept campus officials was more traumatic than the actual assault (3).

Likewise, the number of lawsuits by accused students against universities increased dramatically, with a majority of lawsuits decided in favor of the accused student. From these many lawsuits, SAVE has identified the 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process (4). A CBS News documentary summed up the situation this way: “Students accused of sexual misconduct say Title IX isn’t working – and victims agree.” (5)

In 2018, the Dept. of Education issued a draft regulatory framework (6), which is expected to be finalized in early 2020. In support of this effort, SAVE is urging lawmakers to assure that three fundamental due process protections on college campuses are implemented in their state (7):

Clearly stated presumption of innocence
Timely and detailed written notice of the allegations
Right to a meaningful hearing process. This includes having the case adjudicated by persons other than the person who conducted the investigation. This means the institution must not employ a “single-investigator model.”

More information is available on the SAVE website (8).

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Campus Due Process False Allegations Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Eating Its Own Tail?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 6, 2019

On April 4 the House of Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – and forwarded the bill to the Senate for consideration. Seven months later, no Senate bill has been introduced, much less voted upon.

It’s not for a lack of trying. So what’s going on here?

Three top-tier issues are consuming much of negotiators’ time and energy:

Definitions of Domestic Violence — The House bill dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Just imagine what would happen if every time a woman gives her husband the “silent treatment,” he calls the police?
Over-Criminalization – Following passage of the First Step Act in December 2018, many, but not all Senators believe we need to rein in mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies. And instead, pay more attention to the proven causes of partner abuse: mental health problems, alcohol abuse, and marital conflict.
LGBT Issues – Following passage of the Equality Act in the House of Representatives – H.R. 5 – Senate Democrats are being pressured to include similar provisions in VAWA. But Republicans are unlikely to agree to this.

As if these top-tier concerns didn’t constitute enough of a Gordian Knot, the Senate is also wrestling with a host of second-tier issues:

Lack of evidence of the effectiveness of VAWA programs in reducing abuse rates
Due process for the accused
Harmful effects on families
Immigration fraud
Problem of campus “Kangaroo Courts” (VAWA Title III)
Neglect of male victims – According to the CDC, men are more likely to be victims in the previous 12 months than women
False allegations
Waste, fraud, and abuse
Onerous budgetary demands on federal and state governments
Ideological biases – The dubious notion that domestic violence is “all about power and control”

At this point, the most likely scenario is a straight-line reauthorization of VAWA through the 2020 elections.

That will give lawmakers an opportunity to re-think the issues and fashion a “Fresh Start” bill that eschews “power and control” ideology, respects the Constitution, and addresses the proven causes of domestic violence.

Campus Press Release

PR: 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 6, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / November 7, 2019 – Today SAVE, a leading campus due process organization, is releasing a list of the 25 worst colleges and university for campus fairness and due process. The colleges were selected based on a detailed review of dozens of lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault, and subsequently expelled or suspended by their university, in which the judge later issued a ruling at least partly favorable to the student (1).

The lawsuits feature a jarring range of due process violations such as a 7-hour hearing; judge-jury-executioner style investigations; exclusion of exculpatory evidence; public defamations; a made-up confession; failure to consider previous false allegations by the accuser; reliance on a flawed ‘affirmative consent’ standard; a fabricated tape recording; a victim treated as a perpetrator; and a case in which the supposed “victim” repeatedly insisted she was not a victim.

The lawsuits call to mind the guilt-presuming methods featured in Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial, the corrupt show trials exposed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and recent satires in which campus disciplinary committees are derided as “Kangaroo Courts.”

Following are the 25 colleges identified with deficient campus procedures:

California: University of California-Santa Barbara and University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Colorado: Colorado State University, Pueblo
Connecticut: Quinnipiac University, Hamden and Yale University, New Haven
District of Columbia: George Washington University, Washington, DC
Florida: University of Miami
Georgia: Georgia Tech University, Atlanta
Indiana: Purdue University, West Lafayette
Massachusetts: Brandeis University, Waltham; Amherst College; and Boston College, Newton
Michigan: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
New York: Columbia University, New York
Ohio: University of Cincinnati
Oregon: University of Oregon, Eugene
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, Centre County
Rhode Island: Brown University, Providence
South Dakota: Augustana University, Sioux Falls
Tennessee: Rhodes College, Memphis; University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Texas: University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
Virginia: James Madison University, Harrisonburg
Vermont: Middlebury College

Descriptions of each of the lawsuits, including links to the judicial opinions, are available online (2). SAVE urges students considering attendance at these colleges to identify other institutions with a record of respect for constitutionally rooted due process measures.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is expected to issue new Title IX regulations that will strengthen due process protections on college campuses (3).

Citations:

http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/25-worst-colleges-for-campus-due-process/
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=129772

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Investigations Title IX

PR: To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 4, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

WASHINGTON / November 4, 2019 – A scientific article published last week has strongly criticized the use of “trauma-informed’ investigations on college campuses. Trauma-informed methods attribute inconsistencies and contradictions in a complainant’s statements to the trauma she allegedly experienced (1). Titled “Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing” (2), the article provides a detailed analysis of the research basis for the use of trauma-informed methods by Title IX investigators.

Written by Iowa State University professors Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, the article concludes:

— “We know of no scientific studies that support this contention of neurobiological response differences between perpetrators and victims.”

— “A search of the available research literature yielded no published, peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy or effectiveness of FETI.” Forensic Experiential Trauma Interviews, known as “FETI,” are a trauma-informed method widely used on college campuses.

The Meissner and Lyles analysis was the third article published in recent months that analyzed and refuted trauma-informed precepts. In September, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity issued a report on trauma-informed concepts that concluded, “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.” (3)

A third article specifically warned of the liability risk of Title IX administrators attending such guilt-presuming training courses: “You will need to assess whether you can afford to have a non-empirical, biased training on your resume in this age of litigation,” according to the Association of Title IX Administrators (4).

The use of trauma-informed and other unproven investigative methods places universities at liability risk. A 2017 analysis of 130 lawsuits against universities found investigative failures were the most commonly listed allegation (5). A 2019 analysis of lawsuits in which the judge ruled against the university identified dozens of cases in which biased investigations were listed as significant allegations of fact (6).

Investigative journalist Emily Yoffee has written about trauma-informed philosophy, “The spread of an inaccurate science of trauma is an object lesson in how good intentions can overtake critical thinking, to potentially harmful effect….University professors and administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call out junk science.” (7)

Citations:

http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/trauma-informed/
Christian A. Meissner, Adrienne M. Lyles. Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019.
http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf
https://www.proskauer.com/report/title-ix-report-the-accused-08-28-2017
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/

7. The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 23, 2019

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

“Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
“The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
“application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100^th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

Campus

Letter to AG William Barr Regarding Campus Due Process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 12, 2019

United States Attorney General William Barr

950 Pennsylvania Ave NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr,

I am writing to you with a grave concern for our male college students. Universities across America have been denying young men their due process rights. There is a general bias against male students regarding Title IX and sexual harassment allegations. This bias is so strong and prevalent that universities have continued to wrongfully expel male students. It appears nothing is outside ethical boundaries, as universities have falsified evidence, denied due process and used their resources to punish students.

I am asking that the Department of Justice please look at the number of Court cases being brought by male students who have been wrongfully terminated since the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague letter was introduced. Even the police academy at Kent State University in Ohio falsified evidence to terminate me, a 55-year-old fully vetted volunteer Deputy with two-plus years of service and multiple awards.

Sadly, in the last five years, I have written several articles noting the damage to students and their families by the universities. I even traveled to Washington to lobby Congressional staff to make changes but with few results at the university level. The victim-centered investigations and kangaroo courts that universities utilize must stop.

I am advocating for a process to allow students, since the introduction of 2011 Dear Colleague Letter went into effect, to have their cases reviewed. This could be processed where these students submit their information and evidence for a task force to review.

Mr. Attorney General, just look at recent actions of high-level officials at the FBI and other governmental organizations against a presidential candidate and then a sitting president. If no one stands for the rule of law, then no one in America is safe.

Sincerely,

Don Corsaro

Chardon, Ohio

Campus Due Process E-lert

Has Donna Shalala ever heard of the Constitution?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 16, 2019

This past Monday, Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL) appeared at the Education Summit that billed itself as “giving every child an equal chance to succeed.” http://educationsummit2019.theatlantic.com/

But instead of talking about a balanced approach that respects the rights of both complainants and the accused, she only found fault with the proposed Title IX regulations from the Department of Education. “Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” she said.

Worse, Shalala predicted she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

Excuse me, Democrats will try to overturn regulations that are rooted in Constitutional due process protections? It’s a sad day when lawmakers who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” turn around and vow to remove due process regulations.

Let’s all call Shalala’s office: 202-225-3931.

Today.