Category: Due Process

Categories
Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

SAVE Asks, ‘Why Are Groups Pushing to Incarcerate Even More Black Men?’

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Asks, ‘Why Are Groups Pushing to Incarcerate Even More Black Men?’

WASHINGTON / May 17, 2021 – Despite long-standing disparities by the criminal legal system in its treatment of Black men, groups are currently pushing for changes that are likely to worsen such disparities. SAVE urges an about-face on consideration of these proposals.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, Black men are more likely than Black women to be victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, or stalking committed by a partner (1):

  • Black men: 1.47 million victims, annually (Table 5.6)
  • Black women: 1.38 million victims, annually (Table 5.3)

But studies reveal that ironically, Black men are more likely than Black women to be arrested for domestic violence (2). The “criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color,” according to the Ms. Foundation for Women (3).

Inexplicably, current proposals for criminal justice change are likely to worsen the problems of wrongful arrests and convictions of Black men:

  1. Expanded Definitions of Crimes: The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill, H.R. 1620, that would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse.” (4) A Black man who is falsely accused of such broadly defined actions would find it difficult, if not impossible to defend against the claim.
  2. Affirmative Consent: Two years ago the American Bar Association House of Delegates debated a controversial proposal to re-define consent as “consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact.” (5) This definition would expose any Black man who gives unconsented good-night kiss to an accusation of sexual assault.
  3. ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations: Controversial investigative methods known as “victim-centered,” “trauma-informed,” or “Start By Believing” eliminate impartiality and remove the presumption of innocence (6). For example, the Abby Honold Act, introduced in both the Senate (S. 119) and House of Representatives (H.R. 649), would promote such methods (7).
  4. Mens Rea: At the American Law Institute, activists are arguing for weakened mens rea standards, making it easier to obtain sex crime convictions where there are simple misunderstandings between two people, not an intent of one person to injure another (8). Debate on the mens rea topic will continue at the ALI annual meeting on Tuesday, May 18.

Due process for Black men is a concern on college campuses, as well (9).

Last week the Eugene/Springfield, Oregon chapter of the NAACP issued a statement in support of campus due process, announcing its “full support for the change in regulations to allow for substantive due process for all students accused of misconduct in our universities and college campuses” (10).

Nearly one year after George Floyd’s tragic death launched a national conversation on our criminal legal system, SAVE urges lawmakers, civil rights advocates, and others to ask, “Why are certain groups pushing for legal changes that will worsen the problem of mass incarceration of Black men?”

Citations:

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
  2. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/PASK.Tables12.Revised.pdf
  3. Safety and Justice for All. New York, 2003, p. 17.
  4. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1620
  5. https://reason.com/2019/08/13/affirmative-consent-aba-american-bar/
  6. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/victim-centered-investigations/
  7. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/rep-tom-emmer-urges-the-doj-to-slam-the-constitution-embrace-junk-science/
  8. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/ali/
  9. https://www.titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Plaintiff-Demographics-by-Race-and-Sex-Title-IX-Lawsuits-2020-7-6.pdf
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/05/eugene-springfield-oregon-naacp-endorses-new-title-ix-regulation/
Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Eugene/Springfield, Oregon NAACP Endorses New Title IX Regulation

May 11, 2021

As Executive Director and representative of the Eugene/Springfield, Oregon office of the NAACP, I’d like to state our full support for the change in regulations to allow for substantive due process for all students accused of misconduct in our universities and college campuses.

After consideration by our legal redress committee and  our committee chair, attorney Brian Michaels, as well as the review of articles on the topic, including a statement by SAVE, we have decided that this effort deserves our support. The SAVE release explains:

“Analyses show although black male students are far outnumbered on college campuses, they are four times more likely than white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX proceedings, and at one university OCR investigated for racial discrimination, black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violence reported to the university yet they comprised only 4.2% of the student population.“

And for added weight, this from former Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

“There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.”

Eric Richardson

Executive Director

Eugene/Springfield, Oregon NAACP

Categories
Due Process False Allegations

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax Joins Other Lawmakers in Calling for Due Process

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax Joins Other Lawmakers in Calling for Due Process

SAVE

April 14, 2021

During an April 7 debate at Virginia State University, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax made a strongly worded plea for the restoration of due process and the presumption of innocence. Fairfax joins a growing number of lawmakers, newspaper editorial boards, and others who have recently called for due process in American society.

During the debate, Fairfax stated, “In Virginia and in our nation, African-Americans, and particularly African-American men, are presumed to be guilty, are treated inhumanely, are given no due process, and have their lives impacted — and in some cases taken away.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVAsQwTyWws

Fairfax highlighted a false allegation that was leveled against him in 2019, for which some persons “immediately assumed my guilt.” Fairfax concluded, “I have a son and daughter. I don’t want my daughter to be assaulted, I don’t want my son to be falsely accused. But this is the real world that we live in.”

Fairfax joins with leaders from both political parties and two newspaper editorial boards who have recently called for the restoration of due process.

On March 23, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina sent a letter calling on the U.S. Department of Education to maintain the recently enacted Title IX rule to “ensure victims receive the protections they deserve and every student’s rights, including due process rights, are protected.” https://republicans-edlabor.house.gov/uploadedfiles/burr_and_foxx_to_cardona_title_ix_3.23.21.pdf

Two days later, former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg penned an editorial highlighting how the Obama-era campus policy had shortchanged defendants by failing to “uphold due process.” Bloomberg also noted that “Alleged victims said that schools failed to investigate their claims professionally.” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-25/title-ix-biden-should-bring-better-justice-to-u-s-universities

On March 22, the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times criticized the Obama-era policy, which “ignored common traditions of due process for the accused,” causing colleges to swing too hard in favoring accusers. https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-betsy-devoss-campus-sex-100019802.html

Then on March 28, the Washington Post Editorial Board weighed in. The editorial highlighted the due process deficiencies with the Dear Colleague Letter, which gave rise to numerous “successful court challenges.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/biden-has-a-chance-to-restore-balance-to-the-rules-on-campus-sexual-assault/2021/03/28/cc4416fc-8767-11eb-8a8b-5cf82c3dffe4_story.html

A public opinion poll by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity revealed many American are questioning the fidelity of our legal system to basic due process principles: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/survey-summary/

  • Three-quarters of respondents — 74.8% — worry our legal system often does not respect “equal treatment under the law”
  • Two-thirds of persons — 66.8% — think the presumption of innocence is becoming lost in our nation’s legal system

SAVE invites lawmakers, newspaper editorial boards, and others to issue statements supportive of due process and the presumption of innocence.

Categories
Due Process Title IX

Title IX: A Professor’s Premonition Becomes a Disastrous Reality

Title IX: A Professor’s Premonition Becomes a Disastrous Reality

By Paul Falanga, MSN, RN

March 26, 2021

I am a recently retired faculty member at the Montefiore School of Nursing (MSON). I worked there for three years, and had an excellent work record and rapport with nursing students. Two months before my retirement in April 2019, I was accused of sexual harassment. After an eight-month nightmare, the criminal court adjudicated the case in my favor. Besides the economic hardships, the emotional toll affected my physical health. I still suffer from the trauma of the experience.

Here’s my story….

One afternoon I was instructed to attend a meeting with the Human Resource department. The HR representative officiously read the Title IX sexual harassment and assault clauses from the school catalog. But oddly, she provided no explanation why I had been called in. I could not imagine what this was all about

That evening, I taught my last class. The next day was informed via email to not return to campus or speak to any students or fellow faculty members

About a week later, I was asked to give a statement to security staff. I cooperated fully, despite still not having received a copy of the allegation or having any recollection of a harassment incident. Despite my good faith efforts to cooperate, I was not allowed to ask any direct questions, even to the Title IX investigator.

As the questions were asked, I was finally able to deduce that a 50-year-old female student alleged I had grabbed her breast while in a classroom with 19 other students present. As a married gay man, the accusation seemed highly implausible on the face of it.

Under the questionable pretext of protecting the student who filed the charge, I was then forbidden to contact the students who were potential witnesses on my behalf.

As the case unfolded, I became acutely aware that not even my counsel had the right to interview the many students who were present during the alleged incident. Nor was my personal representative allowed to ask questions to the accuser, even through a third party.

Approximately one week later, the Mt. Vernon (NY) police came to my home and asked me to accompany them to the police station to give a statement. There, I was finally given the redacted copy of the allegations. I was in shock.

I was then arrested on a sexual harassment misdemeanor charge and incarcerated. My bail was set at $2,500. I quickly hired a defense attorney. Now with a criminal record, I was dismissed from an additional adjunct teaching position that I held.

Eventually I was found innocent of the charges. I had the case sealed to clear my record for employment.

Afterwards, many students reached out to me expressing their sympathy and concern. I was told that the woman had bragged about the accusation and continued to slander me, even after the case was resolved.

In retrospect, it became apparent that the accusation had been made for purposes of financial gain, as the school provided a financial settlement for the student.

The negative impact caused by false allegations has had a direct effect on my physical and mental health. I feel personally violated as my personal integrity was also assaulted. This personal violation is still a burden to me.

MSON employs five full-time instructors with approximately 120 students. As faculty members, we had been briefed on Title IX procedures via a short seminar. I recalled thinking that if a complaint were to be filed, what a daunting task it would be for our small faculty, given our lack of legal expertise. We discussed among ourselves how we all thought it would be unfair to ask a faculty member to play the role of investigator, jury, and judge. We all concurred that our group lacked the necessary expertise.

In my case, that uneasy premonition became a disastrous reality. This is why President Biden should be working to strengthen campus due process, not remove it.

Categories
Campus Due Process False Allegations Title IX

North Carolina bill aims to protect college students accused of sexual assault

North Carolina bill aims to protect college students accused of sexual assault. Critics are wary.

By KATE MURPHY

THE NEWS & OBSERVER |

MAR 13, 2021

Some North Carolina state senators have introduced a bill that would expand the rights of college students accused of sexual misconduct in all 16 UNC System universities.

The new bill would set a higher burden of proof for universities to find students responsible for sexual assault. It would ensure that all students have the right to legal counsel throughout an investigation and disciplinary process, and it would allow the cross-examination of witnesses.

But critics say the proposed changes would be unfair to those who have been assaulted.

“The cards are always stacked against the victim,” said Catherine Johnson, director of the Guilford County Family Justice Center. Johnson works with campus Title IX coordinators and faculty who sit on student conduct boards.

 

When a student reports an assault on campus or through the criminal justice system, the process could take months or years, Johnson said. She added that creating ways to support those who report assault is critical, particularly on college campuses where women are at a high risk of sexual assault.

“Anytime we try to dilute that process, that creates more systemic barriers that survivors have to navigate,” Johnson said. “Certainly we want a fair and just process, but oftentimes survivors are carrying the heaviest burden.”

And she said there’s no other crime where the emphasis is on victims to prove it, like there is with sexual and domestic violence.

The proposed changes align with Trump administration rules that strengthened the rights of accused students in campus sexual assault cases. But President Joe Biden recently signed an executive order asking the U.S. Education Department to review those Title IX policies and potentially change how schools handle sexual misconduct.

___

Impact on those who report assault and those accused

North Carolina’s Senate Bill 117 is sponsored by Republican lawmakers Rep. Joyce Krawiec, Rep. Deanna Ballard and Rep. Vickie Sawyer. If passed, the new policy would go into effect next fall.

In 2019, Rep. Mitchell Setzer, a Catawba County Republican, introduced a nearly identical bill that passed in the House, but never made it out of the Senate.

Krawiec said sexual assault and sexual harassment are serious issues, and this bill will give accused students the due process rights they are entitled to, just as if they were accused of a crime in the community.

“In this country, you’re innocent until proven guilty, but on our college campuses that’s not necessarily the case,” she said.

Krawiec said she and her colleagues have met with lawyers and parents of college students who say they’ve been falsely accused of sexual assault, suspended from a sports team, expelled and “virtually their lives were ruined.”

The prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%, studies show.

 

“It just needs to be fair,” Krawiec said. “There needs to be an investigation, and we need to make certain that everybody is treated fairly and that everybody is heard.”

Laci Hill, a senior at UNC-Chapel Hill, is a senior adviser in student government work on policies related to campus sexual assault and accessibility issues.

She said some of those assaulted might not have physical evidence and don’t feel comfortable going to a hospital and getting a rape kit done the day they were assaulted. Schools requiring more proof or evidence could further deter students from reporting incidents of gender-based violence, she said.

“A lot of people don’t want to come forward because they are afraid of being blamed for what happened to them, people won’t believe them and it can be traumatic,” Hill said.

___

How would Title IX policies change?

One of the biggest changes this bill would make at UNC System campuses is increasing the level of evidence permitted — and highly contested — under the Federal Title IX guidelines set by DeVos. Those guidelines went into effect in fall 2020.

UNC System schools currently use a “preponderance of evidence” standard in student disciplinary proceedings. That means that it is “more likely than not” that an accused student violated student conduct rules. This proposed law would increase that standard to “clear and convincing” evidence.

The UNC System now sets guidelines and a minimum standard for due process that schools must follow, but each individual university can set its own procedures. But if this bill passes, universities would be required to adopt these procedures, creating more uniformity across the system.

Some of these rules, including the right to an attorney and the cross-examination of witnesses, are already in place at UNC-CH, N.C. State and other universities.

The new policy would include the following rules:

  • Accused students are promptly notified of the details of the allegations and evidence.
  • Accused students are advised of their the right to consult legal counsel throughout the investigation and hearings and their right to appeal the decision.
  • Both sides can conduct questioning and cross-examination of witnesses, including accused students and complainants.
  • Universities ensure the disciplinary hearings are impartial — the individual conducting the investigation can’t also serve as a “finder of fact” in a subsequent hearing.
  • Provide complainant and accused students written copies of facts and conclusions of investigation and hearing
  • Raise the standard of proof of responsibility for proving sexual misconduct to clear and convincing evidence.

At disciplinary hearings, a complainant never has to come face-to-face with the accused individual and an accused individual is never allowed to personally ask questions of a complainant, according to federal Title IX guidelines.

___

How prevalent is campus sexual assault?

About one-third of female UNC-CH undergraduate students say they’ve been sexually assaulted during college, according to a 2019 campus climate survey. By their senior year, nearly half of the young women reported being assaulted.

Between 2007 and 2019, the university reported more than 300 incidents of sexual misconduct under the CLERY ACT, a federal statue aimed at keeping campus crime statistics and policy transparent. More than half of those incidents were rape.

At UNC, 15 students have been found responsible and disciplined for sexual assault since 2007, according to university documents obtained through a lawsuit.

Between 2007 and May 2020, 25 N.C. State students were found responsible for sexual misconduct, university documents show. N.C. State reported 40 incidents of sexual misconduct in 2017, 32 in 2018 and 18 in 2019, according to its 2020 annual crime report.

Hill said the data shows that campus sexual assault is prevalent at UNC. In the four years that she’s been a student, the issue has become easier for students to talk about, particularly with the #MeToo movement.

But she said this bill has the “potential to further suppress voices that have been historically silenced and dismissed.”

Source: https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-nc-bill-sexual-assault-20210313-c6pdbi2wxbgnxdpbm237egbhae-story.html

 

Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Vast Majority of NY Times Readers Support Campus Due Process

Vast Majority of NY Times Readers Support Campus Due Process

SAVE

March 16, 2021

On March 8, the New York Times ran an article titled, “Biden Will Revisit Trump Rules on Campus Sexual Assault.” The balanced and thoughtful article presented both sides of the campus due process debate, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

A review of the readers’ comments reveals a strong majority are in favor of the current Title IX regulation, based on:

  1. Number of comments generally supportive of the new regulation
  2. Number of persons who “Recommend” each comment

Following are the 14 comments with at least 50 Recommends. A strong majority express support of the new regulation, and a couple favor referral of such cases to local police. Not a single one calls for a return to the Obama-era standard.

Below the 14 strongly supported comments are all 127 reader comments that were posted on March 9.

++++++++++++++++++++

FOURTEEN COMMENTS WITH AT LEAST 50 RECOMMENDS

1. R.P. commented March 9

R.P.

Bridgewater, NJ

This is one area where the Trump Administration was on the correct side of civil liberties and due process rights, and where the Biden Administration is retreating to interest-group politics. Do any of the people who want to go back to the ‘old days’ of no due process for the accused, have sons in college? Do they want them to be subject to these kangaroo courts where you have no right to question your accuser?

122 Recommend

2. Dave commented March 9

Dave

New Jersey

One of the few things that the Trump administration did that I fully agreed with. Leave it alone.

93 Recommend

3. Tim commented March 9

Tim

NJ

The DeVos rules “require colleges to hold a live hearing with cross-examination by a third party … and also require that cases be investigated under a presumption of innocence and that parties have equal access to evidence and appeals processes.”

No person in his or her right mind could be against this. If you are accused of an infraction or crime it is the very least you would expect. In their rush to appease this activist wing of their party, many of whose assertions on the issue of campus sexual assault have been greatly exaggerated or proven outright false, the Democrats are throwing one of the foundations of democracy under the bus. When the Republican Party, which by all accounts should be taking its last breath right now, crushes the Democrats in 2022, this will be one reason why.

89 Recommend

4. RCP commented March 9

RCP

Texas

So, it’s back to the Obama inquisition on these matters? Denial of due-process to accused? What is the problem that Democrats have with fundamental fairness from college campuses to debating legislative issues? Is it that they have no winning position, no persuasive argument?

82 Recommend

5. Joyce Hill commented March 9

Joyce Hill

Maryland

Why isn’t this just a police matter? Why do victims have to be subjected to a different set of rules depending on the location of the incident? I told my daughter when she first went to college; if something, God forbid, should happen, call the POLICE first then campus security.

78 Recommend

6. RobertF commented March 9

RobertF

New York

It may well be that the present rules swung a little too far in the other direction. But we can’t go back to the way things were. Male students were prevented from graduating and had their lives ruined on accusations that were either baseless or went too far. I recall the story of mattress girl at Columbia, who had had consensual sex with a student but claimed that during consensual sex he went too far. She was almost successful in destroying his life, because the male student lost the first few rounds of school proceedings having received no due process. We can never go back to anything resembling that.

63 Recommend

7. Karen commented March 9

Karen

New York

I completely support federal laws that require colleges to provide increased protections for students with regard to sexual harassment and assault. That said, I think it would be a big mistake to reinstate the Obama-era ad hoc “tribunals” to prosecute sexual assault claims. These proceedings are often conducted by college faculty and staff with no (or little) legal training, and fail to provide even the most basic due process rights to the accused, which—unsurprisingly—disproportionately impacts male students of color and the working class, who do not have the means to adequately protect themselves. While I understand that the criminal justice system has miles to go to adequately support women and men who have suffered sexual assault, creating an ersatz court system for college students is not the way to go. Let’s continue to work to improve how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault victims—to the benefit *all* victims, whether enrolled in college or not.

63 Recommend

8. RG commented March 9

RG

upstate NY

As a male professor I feel obliged to explain to males that they are at high risk for career termination in a culture where one is presumed guilty if confused and there is no due process. There is the assumption that females never lie and cannot be presumed competent to speak up for themselves but must have their feelings protected at all costs. I now conduct all advising sessions online and record them, just in case.

62 Recommend

9. Doug R commented March 9

DDoug R

Michigan

Universities should play NO ROLE in investigations of sexual assaults. Sexual assaults are a crime and and investigations should be handled by county or state police departments, based on whether they are a private or state school.

You wouldn’t allow Microsoft or Google to investigate a sexual assault on their property, why would you let a university?

59 Recommend

10. Frank commented March 9

Frank

Boston

And this, men and parents of sons, is why you cannot trust Democrats.

They really believe that young men do not deserve due process of law.

They want to permanently deny accused young men a college education without the basic protections afforded defendants in CIVIL litigation.

No right to see the charges.

No right to discover and gather evidence.

No right to legal counsel.

No right to question the accuser.

No right to an impartial judge or jury.

56 Recommend

11. Jim commented March 9

Jim

Pittsburgh

I am a college professor and I have 2 sons and a daughter. Yes, I worry about my daughter, but more so about my sons. I have seen HR offices pursue charges against boys that even the girls themselves did not want to pursue. I have seen what it means for boys to lose their 6th amendment “confrontation clause” rights.

The problem is that schools now have administrators whose entire paycheck depends on looking for ways to prosecute boys who by third party accusations and even pure rumor are brought up on charges against unwilling women they are not allowed to confront. Bad break-ups happen ego’s are battered, but that should not mean quasi-legal life-destroying HR action is appropriate. Boys must be able to defend themselves fairly.

54 Recommend

12. Alison commented March 9

Alison

DC

This is a terrible idea, and I formerly prosecuted sex crimes in the Army. Accused individuals have rights too. The mindset of “all complaints are fact” and “all complaints describe a crime” when it comes to sex crime allegations is dangerous for the concept of due process; just because this is happening outside of a courtroom doesn’t mean it is less devastating.

What if this was your brother? Your son? Your father? Wouldn’t you want him to be given a chance?

54 Recommend

13. Talbot commented March 9

Talbot

New York

Besides “administrators and due-process activists” Harvard Law School faculty–including women–also criticized the old rules, and praised the changes DeVos made.

And since when did defending one of our core values–due process– require “activists”?

54 Recommend

14. bill commented March 9

bill

mendham nj

Under the Obama rules, if two young people with identical amounts of alcohol in their blood have consensual sex but two days later the girl believes she was too drunk to consent, the boy is thrown out of school with no meaningful ability to defend himself. We cannot return to that standard.

53 Recommend

+++++++++++++++++++

ALL 127 READER COMMENTS 

Chris-zzz commented March 9

Chris-zzz

Boston

Due process can be tough to stomach, especially for those of us who tend to side with victims. But, in the long-run, due process rights are just and essential to fairness for everyone. I do agree that more of these cases should be reported to the police and not adjudicated by universities.

6 Recommend

Chauncey Gardiner commented March 9

Chauncey Gardiner

Virginia

Good bye to due process — again. Bring back the Star Chamber persecution.

You do know that folks sorted through of due process and equality before the law during the English Civil Wars. Right? The Administration is sending us back to 1640. Enjoy the ride.

5 Recommend

Jim commented March 9

Jim

NC

Bias in the media does not take the form of explicit, mustache-twirling lies. It seeps in under the floorboards, as in this article.

  1. The subheadline (which I know is from the copy desk, not the authors): “…regulations by Betsy DeVos that gave the force of law to rules that granted more due-process rights to students accused of sexual assault.”

Excuse me: *granted* more due-process rights? The government doesn’t grant rights, which inhere in each human being from birth. The government *protects* rights. The left gets this wrong a lot.

  1. “…effectively beginning his promised effort to dismantle Trump-era rules on sexual misconduct …”

If you want to smear something, just call it “Trump-era.” Easy-peasy. Look, I’m also glad he’s gone. But I had not been in the habit of thinking of the 230-year-old Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as a “Trump-era” provision. (That’s the one about “due process of law.”)

(I confess I had been thinking of the recent assault on the Fifth Amendment in these cases as an “Obama-era” provision.)

Sexual assault is a violent crime. There are places in the world where rape is still a capital crime. Murder is the only more serious crime one person can commit against another.

If one college student were to murder another, would the killer face a Student-Faculty Adjudication Committee hearing? No: You’d call the police. Rape on campus? Call the police. Period.

7 Recommend

Rick Sanders commented March 9

Rick Sanders

Whittier

Make both of the penalties the same, If you are guilty of rape it’s prison time, If you are guilty of faking a rape it is prison time, case closed.

2 Recommend

1 REPLY

Ben S., NYC commented March 9

Ben S., NYC

New York, NY

@Rick Sanders You don’t understand the issue. If it were that cut and dried–that we could determine with certainty that one student is telling the truth and the other is lying–then we wouldn’t have the problem.

Fact is, in most of these cases, both students are telling the truth about some aspects of their encounter, and both students are lying about some aspects, and some aspects are open to multiple interpretations

1 Recommend

Angry in VA commented March 9

Angry in VA

Virginia

It is beyond clear that racist white males simply want to institutionalize their right to sexually abuse defenseless women. With regards to trans women in sports, there is no biological basis for gender. It is simply a social construct. This is discrimination against trans people by the white male patriarchy, pure and simple .

0 Recommend

Barbara commented March 9

Barbara

SC

As a former probation officer, I have never understood why allegations of rape and sexual assault are the responsibility of the school rather than law enforcement, as they would be if they occurred anywhere else. Let the law take its course, while the schools focus on making their campuses safe and educating both young men and women about what constitutes sexual assault and the fact that “no means no” at any point along the way to intercourse or other sexual activity.

7 Recommend

Concerned Citizen commented March 9

Concerned Citizen

New York

This all started when Obama declared there was a rape culture on campuses, but never produced any evidence to back it up. He then had his Education Department send out a directive – without the normal formal regulatory process which included feedback – which, among other things, changed the basis of conviction for sexual assault from the criminal standard of the court system of beyond a reasonable doubt to the civil standard of 50.001%, and eliminate normal due process and defendant rights, such as the opportunity to confront the accuser. This effectively meant that almost every college young man who was accused of sexual assault, was guilty, and his future jeopardized.

And to top it off, the Obama directive threatened any university that did not comply with the order, with a cutoff of federal funding. Numerous law suits were filed and many won by students unfairly convicted. So that reversing DeVos’ reasonable reversal of the extreme regulations of the Obama Administration will be difficult. While DeVos can be, and has been, criticized in other areas, her actions in the are of Title IX were not only fair, but exemplary.

8 Recommend

JS commented March 9

JS Midwest

Common sense and common decency demand that a balanced set of guidelines are adopted in the use of Title IX to address campus sexual assault. Quote from the article applicable here: “The (Obama-era) guidance, however, was also criticized by school administrators and due-process activists, who said it amounted to an illegal edict that incentivized schools to often err on the side of complainants. Hundreds of federal and state lawsuits have been filed by students accused of sexual misconduct since 2011, when the Obama administration issued its guidance, and dozens of students have won court cases against their colleges for violating their rights under those rules.”

The article warns that any new guidelines that violate due process rights for the accused will be treated as replacing one injustice with another and declared void. The supreme court has ruled that due process requires that laws not be “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” Too many campus proceedings have come to violate these guidelines. Withdrawal of federal funds from universities is a powerful lverage which, used properly, can right the long history of wrongful campus assault absent consequences. The same threat of fund withdrawal, sadly, has threatned universities into assault investigations which violate the basic tenets of the supreme court ruling.

1 Recommend

MR2987 commented March 9

MR2987

Washington DC

This article perpetuates the myth that Obama-era guidance required schools to curtail due process rights for students accused of sexual assault. It did no such thing. The only mandate was that the standard of proof in those cases had to be preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), something the DeVos regulation reversed. Beyond that, decisions to limit due process rights of accused students were made not by the Obama administration but by school administrators habitually focused on protecting the interests of schools at the expense of the rights of individual students. They then blamed it on the Obama-era guidance, falsely claiming it forced them to do what they were always inclined to do, which is to deal with a problem like sexual harassment in a way that will present the least risk to their institution even if it means trampling the rights of their students. In the end, students accused of sexual assault were sacrificed by their schools just as students who were victims of sexual assault had been sacrificed for decades when it was more convenient for schools to sweep their accusations under the rug. The conflict here is not between students who are victims of sexual harassment and students accused of sexual harassment – all of whom benefit from a system that includes a full set of due process protections – but between students and school administrators. You can already see the lobbying beginning from the latter to weaken protections for students.

1 Recommend

Greg commented March 9

Greg

hingham, MA

This is what happened in Salem in 1692. Accusation equates to guilt. Spectral evidence is admissible. What could go wiring?

0 Recommend

CC commented March 9

CC

San Francisco

Reading the comments I’m reminded that Defending Our Children is #1 on any list, and it looks like more parents can imagine their children being accused than being victimized.

0 Recommend

John commented March 9

John

Upstate NY

So much confusion about the difference between legal proceedings and administrative tribunals. As always, follow the money. Colleges are deathly afraid of losing federal funds, so they demonstrate that they have in place a system that complies with the non-discrimination purpose of Title IX. At the end of their administrative process, a “guilty” party is not thrown in jail; that person is usually suspended or removed from the institution. If that person equates that to having ruined his (in most cases) life, couldn’t he sue for damages? That would bring the whole matter before the courts, where it becomes a legal proceeding, which is where it should have been in the first place.

7 Recommend

4 REPLIES

MR commented March 9

MR

Chicago

@John Doesn’t that administratively guilty person still carry a Scarlet Letter when he/she attempts to enroll for employment for or student admission to another college? Won’t they also need to disclose their past in other situations?

7 Recommend

Joe commented March 9

Joe

Here

@MR No, the student will not have to disclose anything in the future. Only criminal convictions (or professional sanctions in certain licensed professions) meet that criteria.

1 Recommend

John commented March 9

John

Upstate NY

@MR Not if they won the lawsuit I suggested. My notion is that a proper legal proceeding would expose all the weaknesses of an unjustified “guilty” ruling from an unqualified panel operating under a murky set of standards. I’d still much prefer that people take sensible steps to keep themselves out of these situations.

2 Recommend

Donald

New Orleans

@John That has been the case. Some universities are losing their drawers because they didn’t give students due process. University of California SD, U of Tenn Chattanooga, Middlebury, George Mason and so on. They all got sued by male students punished by these schools. They have to pick their poison. Lose funding due to Title IX or lose lawsuits when they get sued for running kangaroo courts.

2 Recommend

GRH commented March 9

GRH

New England

What happened to the supposedly moderate, centrist Biden? It was bad enough when the Obama administration forced this through in the “Dear Colleague” letter during Obama 2nd term but at least then it was more of a good faith effort and they had no idea how the real-world results would play out. Now, everyone has seen the real world results and it was absolutely disastrous.

Just because Trump the man was outrageous does not mean every single policy issued by his administration was itself de facto outrageous. In one of the few positives, Ms. DeVos did a thorough deep dive on this issue and brought badly needed corrections. Biden may have a “moderate” and “centrist” demeanor or tone but the policies coming out of his administration are anything but.

The Democratic Party has given up any pretense of its once consistent principles and values, such as civil liberties and due process, in favor of catering to the very worst instincts wired into humanity, most especially tribalism, and in doing so, have become nothing more than the mirror image of Trumpism. Sad and strange times.

20 Recommend

1 REPLY

BayArea101 commented March 9

BayArea101

Midwest

@GRH Well said – thank you.

1 Recommend

Nick Costantino commented March 9

Nick Costantino

Ridgefield, New Jersey

Assaulted: inform the police, file charges.

Harassed: enlist a lawyer, file a lawsuit.

Make sure students understand the foregoing, and have on campus a legal aid office and a branch of the local police.

Investigations and adjudications of civil and criminal wrongs don’t need to be/shouldn’t be done by the schools.

The schools are free to disqualify from enrollment/continued enrollment persons convicted of sexual assault and/or found liable for sexual harassment.

13 Recommend

2 REPLIES

Andrew commented March 9

Andrew

Colorado

@Nick Costantino All major universities have their own police department. That’s where students go to report their assaults, and for decades those reports have then been not taken seriously or even overtly hidden to protect the university’s reputation.

Even ignoring the issues with universities running their own police departments, just think about how private business handle this. You don’t have to be convicted of criminal charges for HR to terminate you for inappropriate behavior. You don’t get criminal due process because it isn’t a criminal trial.

2 Recommend

Joe commented March 9

Joe

Here

@Nick Costantino I agree that victims of sexual assault should contact the police, but your comment is simplistic. The criminal justice system has never come close to adequately addressing the epidemic of sexual crimes in this country and we know that victims have often been thoroughly abused a second time by the system. It is for that reason that all victims, male and female, are being afforded another venue in which to address these issues. The standards are lower because the stakes are lower; these are not criminal proceedings. Requiring a criminal conviction or judicial finding of civil liability for a simple removal from an institution of learning is an unreasonably high bar in my view. Certainly workplaces don’t have to meet that standard before they hand you a pink slip. They can show you the door for no reason at all, and often do.

1 Recommend

czarnajama commented March 9

czarnajama

Warsaw

I just hope that people at the White House read the commentaries here, and realise how overwhelmingly people oppose any reversion to the Obama era “Dear Colleague” rules.

The Administration should instead provide assistance to cities and town with universities and colleges to improve the police stations adjoining campuses, with properly trained male and female officers able to correctly and sympathetically deal with complaints, and encourage the reduction of administrative units bloated with personnel supposedly mandated by Title IX. The cost of tertiary education must be brought down.

I spent six years at a Canadian university with an effective RCMP unit next to it, and was most impressed by their understanding and efficiency. Even today, that unit handles more complaints than the University administration. But then, that University has an idyllic location, miles from any difficult neighbourhood.

11 Recommend

Diane Merriam commented March 9

Diane Merriam

Kentucky

I would hope that due process is not thrown out again. There may be limits on what a student’s representative might do, just as no badgering or “blaming” the victim in regular court, but the consequences of a “conviction” for a student are almost as bad as they are in regular court. A person’s life can be destroyed.

11 Recommend

SK commented March 9

SK

Chicago

So the article quotes Jill Biden’s Chief of Staff as stating that the accuser and the accused deserve due process and the article simply conveys that the administration is reviewing and modifying the current policy. Yet a majority of the commenters conclude that the accused will have no due process rights going forward. This is the overreaction and lack of critical reading that leads to someone like Trump being elected.

5 Recommend

5 REPLIES

czarnajama commented March 9

czarnajama

Warsaw

@SK A good point. I think most commenters here just don’t want to see any reversion to the “Dear Colleague” guidelienes, and hopefully the review will not recommend such a reversion.

8 Recommend

Lilo commented March 9

Lilo

Michigan

@SK “As vice president, Mr. Biden was integral to President Barack Obama’s efforts to overhaul Title IX…”

“The Obama administration issued guidance to schools, colleges and universities that critics in and out of academia said leaned too heavily toward accusers and offered scant protections or due process for students and faculty accused of sexual harassment, assault or other misconduct.”

It is not an overreaction when a Democratic apparatchik promises “review and modification” to a policy which overturned her boss’ husband’s previous policy.

When it comes to allegations of assault or harassment made by women against men, some of the current Democratic ideas about “fairness” are not in line with what is constitutionally guaranteed.

4 Recommend

independent voter commented March 9

independent voter

Wisconsin

@SK ” Mr. Biden said they would “return us to the days when schools swept rape and assault under the rug, and survivors were shamed into silence.””

When that is the quote from the current president who wants to “review and modify the current policy”….it sounds like he wants to do much more that just review…..

1 Recommend

Hudsucker Proxy

AZ

@czarnajama It’s not a good point. At all. An accuser has no due process rights.

1 Recommend

Hudsucker Proxy

AZ

@SK Good God. An accuser has no constitutional right of due process.

This is the kind lack of critical thinking that gets people like Joe Biden elected. You view the accuser and accused as having equal rights because neither you nor anyone in Biden’s administration has any idea what the law actually is.

1 Recommend

David R. Segal commented March 9

David R. Segal

College Park, MD

Perhaps the one thing I have agreed on with the Trump DOE is the protection of the rights of the accused under Title IX. While most claims have some substance to them, a significant minority do not. Universities have pursued all with a vengeance, apparently to develop a body count to demonstrate due diligence, trampling the rights of all accused.

12 Recommend

acule commented March 9

acule

Lexington Virginia

Lucky me.

My false accuser merely lied in a divorce court and I soon moved permanently to another part of the USA.

Interestingly, false accusers need to break two of the Ten Commandments (you’d think Do Not Lie would suffice). It must have an ancient history.

6 Recommend

Driftwood commented March 9

Driftwood

WNC

Reading the comments, it appears that there may exist a fundamental misunderstanding. This process is a student code of conduct hearing for sanctions within the academic institution (somewhat akin an HR complaint in the workplace) and NOT a criminal trial. Should all academic sanctions hold more due process? Perhaps. They can have serious repercussions. However, the repercussions are not on par and are completely separate from criminal proceedings.

5 Recommend

1 REPLY

Paul commented March 9

Paul

Chicago, IL

@Driftwood Apparently you haven’t really researched the impact that the Obama era policy had on people. They were expelled from college. Many were unable to gain admittance to another. Scholarships were lost. There names were made public, and jobs were lost. In extreme cases they became homeless.

Yes they are different than a criminal proceeding. Such a proceeding affords the accused due process. The hearings that Biden supported previously did not.

While there is no jail time involved, the repercussions do have life long ramifications.

1 Recommend

Michael commented March 9

Michael

Manchester, NH

It seems that some of the commenters do not fully appreciate what due process means. The full term is “due process of law” and it is a legal standard used in a court of law. Due process-like proceedings are used in administrative tribunals but it is not true due process because it is not a court of law. Allowing the schools to set the evidentiary standards is not due process. Allowing third-parties to cross-examine witnesses deprives the accused the right to confront the accuser. This is presumably to erect a firewall to ensure impartiality. But impartiality is the role of the court, not the advocates.

Bottom line, this needs to be done in the courts, not by the schools. These issues are always fraught because there usually is no physical evidence. It will never be easy but the schools are not set up for it and none of it applies to privately funded schools.

12 Recommend

Russ commented March 9

Russ

Chicago

This is one of the best and most balanced articles on a sensitive topic that I’ve read in the Times in years. Well done to both writers and editors.

6 Recommend

Mike commented March 9

Mike

NY

It’s he-said she-said with a kangaroo court jury of professors who may be highly biased or deeply fearful of making a call that is perceived to be anti-victim. In reality, they have absolutely no place being involved in this sort of investigation, especially when the decision can bear so much weight on their own reputation and their employer’s.

As abhorrent as sexual assault is, this isn’t the answer, and these sort of half-baked appeasement bandaids make Democrats look ridiculous. It’s like they already want to lose in 2022. Please, for the love of god get it together and don’t elect another Trumpist.

16 Recommend

Todd commented March 9

Todd

Key West

This is bad idea. I realize that the Biden adminstration is committed to ridding the earth of anytime from the Trump adminstration regardless of the merits. But this issue isn’t even close. Courts across the nation have found in favor of men adjudicated against under the previous Obama “dear colleague letter” for having their rights violated.

Many feminists law professors, hardly Trump’s base, strongly supported the new standards. And it is worth noting these, pick your favorite name, Star Chambers, Kangaroo courts, disproportionately have been used against black male students.

21 Recommend

Amy Siegel commented March 9

Amy Siegel

Santa Fe

It has always eluded me as to why women on campus rely on the institution to address sexual assault on campus. It is a legal issue and should be handled by the police and the district attorney. The institution is incapable of denying their own self interest in the resolution to the crime. They do not have the capability to investigate the crime.

Why should women on campus be denied the same protections as women in the town?

If you are faced with any kind of assault, go to the police, document the evidence, take a friend with you. Don’t go to your TA or the student life administrator, go to the police.

16 Recommend

1 REPLY

A Thinker, Not a Chanter. commented March 9

A Thinker, Not a Chanter.

USA

@Amy Siegel The reason is the title 9 approach is different. Go to the police and you get rape kit tested, charges maybe brought, you’ll be cross examined at trial, with a high burden of proof.

Title 9 – just file a complaint. No test, no cross, no beyond a reasonable doubt burden. Even the definition of sexual assault is different in title 9, depending on the student handbook (in many places, intimate contact requires affirmative consent before each act. No affirmative consent obtained? Sexual assault).

But what people miss is that this is also a student conduct code issue. Like plagiarism. The school needs to address the allegation. It also needs a fair system.

6 Recommend

Donna Gray commented March 9

Donna Gray

Louisa, Va

What happened to Blackstone’s concept of “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” ? Or as John Adams said defending British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre,

“It is of more importance to the community that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished….when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.”

14 Recommend

anneoc commented March 9

anneoc

massachusetts

Sexual and other abuse allegations must have some burden of proof. Remember the Salem Witch Trials? On the other hand, there is the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” idea. Both sides need to be able to present their case to a neutral party.

6 Recommend

just Robert commented March 9

just Robert

North Carolina

Judgment especially in areas such as sex that are run by our emotions is done by the beholder. We need in sexual harassment cases impartial boards that can judge evidence on the facts without judgment on either party until they can be pinned down more effectively. And these boards of inquiry must be separate from the institutions where the events occurred to be. If possible we must find a middle ground that respects the individuals involved then take actions either legal or otherwise.

1 Recommend

K commented March 9

K

NY

If Obama’s rules were applied to Biden himself, he would not be president.

But, hey, no worries about turning a whole generation of young men into Republicans, right?….

12 Recommend

alyosha commented March 9

alyosha

wv

You write that the Biden administration will reconsider “rules on sexual misconduct that afforded greater protections to students accused of assault.”

What you should have written is: “rules that afford a modicum of the normal rights of an accused person..”

11 Recommend

Thomas commented March 9

Thomas

Buffalo

Does Biden realize the irony that this means more Tara Reades on college campuses. Should we believe all accusers all the time?

8 Recommend

Honora commented March 9

Honora

NY

Who would argue against more due process rights for the accused? Don’t liberals have sons?

13 Recommend

Callie commented March 9

Callie

New York

Every needs to check out HelpSaveOurSons.com. The Obama era policy has devastating effects, on men of color in particular, accused of sexual assault. We need Due Process for both involved.

9 Recommend

Disillusioned commented March 9

Disillusioned

NJ                                                                                                                                    Times Pick

As with most issues today, Party views on sexual assault or sexual harassment are diametrically opposed. Republicans refuse to recognize that the “boys will be boys” attitude no longer flies. Many believe that harassment is a badge of honor, a sign of masculine virility. But too many Democrats are also willing to blindly accept a victim’s story without a complete investigation. Not every rape claim is true, just as not every allegation of consensual sex is accurate. Schools need to educate the student body and thoroughly investigate all claims without the influence of bias.

13 Recommend

3 REPLIES

Todd commented March 9

Todd

Key West

@Disillusioned Thinking that young men accused are entitled to some sembalance of due process when accused of something that may well ruin their lives is hardly thinking “boys will be boys” And courts across the nation have agreed.

11 Recommend

GRH commented March 9

GRH

New England

@Disillusioned , the Betsy DeVos led rules on this matter in no way support a “boys will be boys” attitude. They worked with all stake-holders and, as even this article acknowledges, took into account feedback from victims’ rights groups and provided a dating violence definition; rape shield protections; supportive measures for victims, etc. Also, it is discrimination to frame this in terms of assuming all alleged harassers are male (check out the Avita Ronell case at NYU). Of course there were many outrages from the Trump administration but on this particular issue, they got it right. It is disturbing to see the supposedly “moderate” and “centrist” Biden taking action to possibly undermine and weaken the DeVos led rules. Let’s hope they leave the new rules in place after conducting their review instead of doubling and tripling down on the worst instincts of tribalism that threaten to turn the new Democrats into a mirror image of Trumpism.

1 Recommend

Paul commented March 9

Paul

Chicago, IL

@Disillusioned Where is the evidence that Republicans won’t give up the boys will be boys attitude? If any thing it is the Democrats that haven’t given it up. Whenever a Republican does something along the lines of this article, they are generally expelled within days. Only once have I seen the Democrats oust someone, the comedian from MN and his loudest accuser in the Congress now says it was a mistake. Biden’s accuser was ignored. Originally Cuomo’s accuser was ignored. It was only after the heat started to come down about the nursing homes (which the Dems wanted to avoid) did they pick up the banner and yet it was left to the Republicans in NY to put the impeachment before the NY house. What about the AG from Virginia. Why is he still in office with no investigation? Bill Clinton? Who did you say can’t let go of boys will be boys?

1 Recommend

PTROTH47 commented March 9

PTROTH47

NYC

Where is the fairness in allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports? Individuals who are biologically men and have gone through puberty will have the physical advantage of much greater muscle mass, which renders than faster and stronger. It may be that there are many individual women who are still better athletes than the transgender women, but, at a competitive level, there is no doubt that transgender athletes have an advantage. I don’t see that as an issue of civil rights for the transgender woman. She has every right to undergo a sex change operation and every right not to be discriminated against in areas such as housing and employment. However, that does not entitle this person to an advantage over non transgender women in competitive sports. If the same advantage were obtained by taking steroids, including testosterone, the person would be barred from competition.

43 Recommend

RobertF commented March 9

RobertF

New York

It may well be that the present rules swung a little too far in the other direction. But we can’t go back to the way things were. Male students were prevented from graduating and had their lives ruined on accusations that were either baseless or went too far. I recall the story of mattress girl at Columbia, who had had consensual sex with a student but claimed that during consensual sex he went too far. She was almost successful in destroying his life, because the male student lost the first few rounds of school proceedings having received no due process. We can never go back to anything resembling that.

63 Recommend

Jim commented March 9

Jim

Pittsburgh

I am a college professor and I have 2 sons and a daughter. Yes, I worry about my daughter, but more so about my sons. I have seen HR offices pursue charges against boys that even the girls themselves did not want to pursue. I have seen what it means for boys to lose their 6th amendment “confrontation clause” rights.

The problem is that schools now have administrators whose entire paycheck depends on looking for ways to prosecute boys who by third party accusations and even pure rumor are brought up on charges against unwilling women they are not allowed to confront. Bad break-ups happen ego’s are battered, but that should not mean quasi-legal life-destroying HR action is appropriate. Boys must be able to defend themselves fairly.

54 Recommend

3 REPLIES

Marcel commented March 9

Marcel

New York

@Jim You’re pointing to a larger issue with today’s American colleges. The explosion of the administrative-punitive complex on campuses. Energy and vast resources are being spent on keeping the faculty and students in check, regulating every aspect of academic and co-curricular life. All those deans and office holders have top justify their existence and they often rely on the support of the most loud and extreme voices on campus.

11 Recommend

Nemo commented March 9

Nemo

coral reef

@Jim Do you understand that these are not criminal proceedings and that therefore the 6th amendment confrontation clause does not apply? You can have an opinion on this issue but the basic misunderstanding of how our Constitution works is depressing. It’s like the right yelling about free speech when a publisher decides not to sell a certain book. The free speech protections of the Constitution are not implicated in that case either. Likewise, the constitutional protections due to a defendant in a criminal proceeding have no bearing on an administrative action taken by a college.

1 Recommend

Jim commented March 9

Jim

Pittsburgh

@Nemo Do you understand that that is exactly the problem? If these are not criminal charges they should be, and it is by circumventing the law by HR offices that boys are unable to defend themselves and their lives are destroyed by mere allegations.

5 Recommend

CanadianAlly commented March 9

CanadianAlly

Manitoba

It seems simple and why is it not: due process for all sides following an accusation of a criminal act involving students on school property and, call the police, not the school. Thus we would not see a different process conducted by each school in the country as each struggles to conduct their own trial while interpreting rules that the Justice system has a hard enough time with.

19 Recommend

Almighty Dollar commented March 9

Almighty Dollar * this person makes several negative comments about DeVos, not the regs

Michigan

Speaking from Michigan, anything Devos is involved with is most likely partisan, ideological, and not well thought out.

The policies she has bought here have been universal failures. From her charter schools (always in poor areas) to her advocating for religion, to her animus towards unions (so many black teachers are in public school unions).

Sadly, she is a dilettante with lots of “ideas” but no education in the field, and no experience as a teacher or administrator.

Another reason for massive inheritance taxes.

12 Recommend

8 REPLIES

Independent Observer commented March 9

Independent Observer

Texas

@Almighty Dollar “Speaking from Michigan, anything Devos is involved with is most likely partisan, ideological, and not well thought out.”

What’s not well thought out is your so-called argument, which fails to address the specific “Due Process” rights that she restored to university campuses. Your own attacks are simply ad hominem in nature, which generally fail in debate settings.

10 Recommend

mother commented March 9

mother

Ohio

Actually, had DeVos’s new policy had taken place in time, my son would be alive today. His ex girlfriend couldn’t accept his break up and went on to accuse him of sexual misconduct 7 mos after the breakup. She incited internet mob, he had “hearings” in the middle of november (during heavy testing in his 300 and 400 level classes) he was found dead the weekend before thanksgiving. He had no due process rights.

20 Recommend

Almighty Dollar commented March 9

Almighty Dollar

Michigan

@Independent Observer The best guess or a persons (future) performance is past track record. That’s why so much worry about CV’s.

Devos bought her way in to a job she had no ability to fill.

From Devos – Asked whether Christian schools should continue to rely on giving—rather than pushing for taxpayer money through vouchers—Betsy DeVos replied, “There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”

Again; “I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence,” DeVos once remarked. “Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.”

And this: DeVos has taken this pay-for-play approach before. Just consider the impact she had in her home state of Michigan last year. As a reward for passing a no-accountability charter school law in the state, the DeVos family once gave state Republicans $1.45 million in a seven-week period. That’s about an average of $25,000 a day. “A filthy, moneyed kiss” is how the Detroit Free Press’ editorial page editor described the lobbying effort.

Ad hominem? No.

Her own words reveal her. She bought her way in, and is a dilettante. Charter’s here have been failures, filled with fraud. And almost always in poor black areas. Not the multi million dollars public schools in Ada.

2 Recommend

Doug

IndianaMarch 9

@Almighty Dollar I fail to see where your critique actually draws on evidence. Yes, you disagree with charter schools and agree with teachers’ unions as a matter of principle, but you haven’t actually demonstrated in any way how DeVos’ policies harmed or helped students. How are public schools better for poor students than charter schools? What makes teacher’s unions morally correct simply because they have black members? A deeper level of analysis is required.

2 Recommend

Almighty Dollar commented March 9

Almighty Dollar

Michigan

@Doug From Politico: Despite two decades of charter-school growth, the state’s overall academic progress has failed to keep pace with other states: Michigan ranks near the bottom for fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-grade reading on a nationally representative test, nicknamed the “Nation’s Report Card.” Notably, the state’s charter schools scored worse on that test than their traditional public-school counterparts, according to an analysis of federal data.

Critics say Michigan’s laissez-faire attitude about charter-school regulation has led to marginal and, in some cases, terrible schools in the state’s poorest communities as part of a system dominated by for-profit operators. Charter-school growth has also weakened the finances and enrollment of traditional public-school districts like Detroit’s, at a time when many communities are still recovering from the economic downturn that hit Michigan’s auto industry particularly hard.

1 Recommend

czarnajama

WarsawMarch 9

@Almighty Dollar This has nothing whatever to do with the article and issue we are discussing here.

3 Recommend

Almighty Dollar commented March 9

Almighty Dollar

Michigan

@Almighty Dollar The DeVoses have at times targeted Republicans who didn’t fall in line with their education agenda. When state Rep. Paul Muxlow, a Republican elected in 2010, voted against a 2011 effort to lift a cap on the number of charters that can operate in the state, the couple’s Great Lakes Education Project spent nearly $185,000 to support a primary opponent against

Muxlow a year later. Muxlow said he was viciously attacked by DeVos-financed campaign mailers even though the law to lift the cap passed easily, and he is a reliably conservative lawmaker. He said he felt like the DeVoses were looking for a reason to get rid of him, largely because he was a former public-school teacher. Muxlow hung on to survive the 2012 primary by just 132 votes.

“They were watching me like a hawk. I was a teacher on the conservative side — and how could that be?” Muxlow said. “My sense is that Great Lakes Education Project, under the control of the DeVos family, would like to close out public schools.”

0 Recommend

Almighty Dollar commented March 9

Almighty Dollar

Michigan

@czarnajama Please reread my original comment. I stated any policy Devos crafted is most likely not very good. And I was challenged and told I had no evidence. So I offered some. Crete a new policy, hold offenders accountable. Fine. Just know whatever it is Devos was behind is most likely political and not practical.

0 Recommend

Oliver commented March 9

Oliver

New York

If your son is accused of sexual harassment you run to his side. If your daughter is the accuser of sexual harassment you run to her side. It’s whoever’s ox is being gored. That’s how these things tend to work.

6 Recommend

1 REPLY

mother commented March 9

mother

Ohio

Had DeVos’s new policy had taken place in time, my son would be alive today. His ex girlfriend couldn’t accept his break up and went on to accuse him of sexual misconduct 7 mos after the breakup. She incited internet mob, he had “hearings” in the middle of november (during heavy testing in his 300 and 400 level classes) he was found dead the weekend before thanksgiving. He had no due process rights. My daughter went on 1 year later to die by suicide. This single “policy” took both of our beloved children.

2 Recommend

Shamrock commented March 9

Shamrock

Westfield

The Obama rules were clearly a denial of due process and of simple human decency. Let alone incredibly sexist.

41 Recommend

Doug commented March 9

Doug

Indiana

The paper of record would certainly never miss an opportunity to point out that the rules the Biden Administration is reinstating disproportionately target Black and Latino students, were it not the Biden Administration doing so. A glaring omission.

20 Recommend

bill commented March 9

bill

mendham nj

Under the Obama rules, if two young people with identical amounts of alcohol in their blood have consensual sex but two days later the girl believes she was too drunk to consent, the boy is thrown out of school with no meaningful ability to defend himself. We cannot return to that standard.

53 Recommend

Ehillesum commented March 9

Ehillesum

Michigan

So the left doesn’t care for due process, eh? What a surprise.

26 Recommend

1 REPLY

Kb commented March 9

Kb

Ca

@Ehillesum I’m as far left as they come, and I supported most of the changes the trump administration enacted. Why? Because I believe in due process. I also think that in cases of rape/sexual assault, they should be reported to the police and tried in a court of law, not by professors and administrators.

9 Recommend

Driftwood commented March 9

Driftwood

WNC

I was raped on campus at NC State at 18. I couldn’t find justice and facing my rapist in class was so impossible I turned to substances until I was expelled that same semester. I didn’t finish my degree until almost a decade later. It nearly destroyed me. The monster of my attack chased me and constantly had me considering jumping off the proverbial cliff. It seems that as a society that we tend to worry so much about the wrongly accused that we dismiss the victims lives lost to the violence, made easier by the fact that it’s mostly women. And what is a woman’s life worth in comparison to the man’s? That seems like the real question we tend to avoid in this process.

15 Recommend

2 REPLIES

Todd commented March 9

Todd

Key West

@Driftwood While I certainly feel sorry for you personal situation I think this is the answer to your question. Our entire system of law is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And guilty has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think it has or even had anything to do with a man’s life’s value verses that of a women. And you may think a world were men acccused by women are automatically guilty is preferrable. Unfortunately we have tried that system. It is how young black men in the south were accused of rape by white women. The were typically lynched immediately. And it is worth noting that the Obama adminstration standard was disproportionately victimizing young men of color.

6 Recommend

Driftwood commented March 9

Driftwood

WNC

Times Pick

@Todd I think we need a system that balances needs better. Having experienced it I could never recommend another survivor go through it. There has to be a better way that doesn’t destroy the lives of the minority of survivors brave enough to come forward, especially when the perpetrators are so often able to walk away without consequence. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. And having been expelled,* I can assure everyone that it’s not the same as a criminal trial and does not carry the same consequences. I can agree, however, that it is too arbitrarily applied and the system needs to be reformed. But in a way that also values the lives and education of the survivors of rape and sexual assault.  *expelled for failing after sexual assault

9 Recommend

Gary Cohen commented March 9

Gary Cohen

Great Neck NY

Colleges and universities have little incentive to enforce laws that will put their “higher learning” institutions in a bad light and hurt fund raising. At many large division 1 schools the football and basketball coaches earn more than the president of the universities.

8 Recommend

Daddy commented March 9

Daddy

WyomIng

Regressive move.

Biden cannot be in control of his faculties. Didn’t he go to law school? It’s one thing if you never studied western civilization, Judeo Christian values or law that removing due process seems like a good idea but Biden had that education.

12 Recommend

1 REPLY

Victoria Charlton commented March 9

Victoria Charlton

NJ

Did you read the article or simply decide Biden was incompetent based upon your conservative bias?

3 Recommend

Midwest Josh commented March 9

Midwest Josh

Four Days From Saginaw

Difficult to have buyers remorse given that Trump was the other option. That being said.. Decisions like this, the $86 billion in union bailouts without strings covered here yesterday, and the underreported mess now at our southern border – get to work NYT – Biden is going to wear out his welcome in the middle very quickly. We can’t afford another Trumplican gaining any traction off of these policy decisions. Do better, Mr. President.

30 Recommend

1 REPLY

GRH commented March 9

GRH

New England

@Midwest Josh , it’s frightening because Biden was supposed to be moderate and centrist but his policies have been anything but. Instead of trying to hew to the center a la Bill Clinton or Obama (during his first term, that is), the Democrats have gone far left from the get-go and may be in serious danger of empowering and electing another Trump, but this time someone more disciplined and savvy. Trump was rightly rejected because of his many outrages but it was not an endorsement of the far left.

Perhaps Bill Clinton was a once-in-a-generation type political talent but Biden does not seem to have the Bill Clinton savvy for finding the center at all.

1 Recommend

Lilo commented March 9

Lilo

Michigan

So basically if you are a male college student you will be found guilty with no ability to defend yourself. Yeah, THAT makes sense..

35 Recommend

Suzanne Storms commented March 9

Suzanne Storms

Hong Kong

Are we calling that four years an “era” now?

2 Recommend

Oliver commented March 9

Oliver

New York

Just because Trump was a horrible president doesn’t mean he didn’t get some things right. He got this one right. No need to tinker. Sometimes it’s best to leave well enough alone.

37 Recommend

tom commented March 9

tom

ireland

there should be no action taken by institutions these complains should be dealt with by the police only

20 Recommend

RG commented March 9

RG

upstate NY

As a male professor I feel obliged to explain to males that they are at high risk for career termination in a culture where one is presumed guilty if confused and there is no due process. There is the assumption that females never lie and cannot be presumed competent to speak up for themselves but must have their feelings protected at all costs. I now conduct all advising sessions online and record them, just in case.

62 Recommend

Talbot commented March 9

Talbot

New York

Besides “administrators and due-process activists” Harvard Law School faculty–including women–also criticized the old rules, and praised the changes DeVos made.

And since when did defending one of our core values–due process– require “activists”?

54 Recommend

LaFaye commented March 9

LaFaye

Nova Scotia

And again the Dems choose to distract with culture war nonsense rather than implement meaningful change (read: increasing the minimum *ahem* starvation wage, medicare for all, etc ) that will *actually* improve the lives of increasingly beleagured and abused middle-and working class people. I am dissappointed, but in no way surprised.

If Biden actually believes in these outrageous standards he’s pushing, let his administration revisit the Tara Reade case and apply them there.

26 Recommend

KPO commented March 9

KPO

Colorady

All of these comments so far are disturbing. Do people really think that false accusations are the rule here rather than the very rare exception? It speaks volumes that the commenters think that young women would put themselves through the shame, humiliation and trauma of accusing someone of sexual assault just for what? Revenge? Laughs? Also, we’re NOT talking about a civil right being taken away in these cases—it’s a privilege to study on a particular campus. And revoking a privilege does not require due process at the level a criminal case does. Want your sons lives not to be ruined? Teach them to respect women’s bodies as under the women’s control. It’s really not that difficult.

16 Recommend

4 REPLIES

Lori commented March 9

Lori

AZMarch 9

I can’t thank you enough for this comment.

1 Recommend

Adrienne commented March 9

Adrienne

Virginia

Why should anyone’s life be turned upside down and inside out over an accusation he has little to no recourse in refuting before a committee that has the power to mark them a sexual predator absent any judicial finding? And, good luck transferring to another school with this on the record. If a student believes herself to be the victim of a crime, she should report such to the police, with the assistance of her school.

8 Recommend

Doug commented March 9

Doug

Indiana

@KPO Would you care to address the fact that black men make up only 6% of the college population but over 25% of Title IX investigations under the Obama-era guidance? Your argument would seem to imply that this is a just outcome.

5 Recommend

Lilo

Michigan

@KPO Because we all know that women never ever ever make mistakes, misinterpret events, or lie.

3 Recommend

SAH commented March 9

SAH

New York

“The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action.”

And make no mistake, college actions for sexual assault are criminal actions, and are downright unconstitutional! To add insult to severe injury, the make up of the “court, history teachers, geology professors and the like, are INCOMPETENT to deal with and decide such serious legal matters.

I hated Trump and DeVos. But their change towards due process was “correct!” The police and real courts should handle this anyway.

Biden, in my view, seems to be ramping up identity politics. I hope my early impressions are wrong. If my impressions prove accurate, the 2022 elections could turn into a disaster for the Democrats!! Beware!!

31 Recommend

4 REPLIES

Tim commented March 9

Tim

NJMarch 9

@SAH I fear your early impressions are right. By leaning into identity politics, “hurtfulness,” cancel culture (real and imagined) and the cult of victimhood, the Democrats are going to lose half of their voters over 40 and get wiped off the electoral map in 2022.

5 Recommend

Victoria Charlton commented March 9

Victoria Charlton

NJMarch 9

Hate to tell you, but private institutions are not subject to the constitution. They can use whatever rules they wish to use.

0 Recommend

SAH commented March 9

SAH

New YorkMarch 9

@Victoria Charlton What you say may be true ..but perception equals reality in many minds.

And although you may be technically correct, most people think it’s wrong BECAUSE it makes a mockery of “due process”, one of the cornerstones of American society.

Maybe we should “re-examine” whether private institutions should be subject to the Constitution in many aspects.

2 Recommend

czarnajama

Warsaw

@Victoria Charlton The trouble is that they also receive federal funding in the form of research grants and the like, putting them under federal regulations such as Title IX if they want to continue receiving those funds.

1 Recommend

Peter commented March 9

Peter

Joppa Flats

IMHO, the schools should be cut completely out of the determination process. They are far too conflicted to properly adjudicate fairly in these matters.

44 Recommend

Doug R commented March 9

DDoug R

Michigan

Universities should play NO ROLE in investigations of sexual assaults. Sexual assaults are a crime and and investigations should be handled by county or state police departments, based on whether they are a private or state school.

You wouldn’t allow Microsoft or Google to investigate a sexual assault on their property, why would you let a university?

59 Recommend

1 REPLY

Driftwood commented March 9

Driftwood

WNC

@Doug R but they do investigate employees and whether they should continue employment based on their conduct in the workplace as per workplace policy. This isn’t a criminal investigation in universities, either. That is a separate issue. I think that perhaps this is the fundamental misunderstanding.

2 Recommend

MIMA commented March 9

MIMA

heartsny

I disliked many of Trump’s choices, but Betsy DeVos was number one on my list of dislikes.

DeVos did not even hold a college degree in education! Can anyone quite believe that?

DeVos was a religion pusher. She pushed religious vouchers for private religious schools. Many were religious schools that had no programs, no chance for disabled kids in their “educational” buildings. They never provided programs for the disabled and didn’t care.

DeVos was an anti educational promoter. She was all about religion and that was ok with those around her and certainly her appointer. And obviously he knew absolutely nothing about public education – seriously, going to a military all boys high school way away from his home? And his child going to a private elite school? What did he know, what did he care?

DeVos also was one of the first to walk out on the past president after the election last winter! Very interesting.

She came from money and never had a sprit or soul for public school kids – she had no idea about kids, scholastic achievement, scholastic advancement, and did nothing for US education for four long years.

I worked as a school nurse once, in a public Native American school. I could not imagine Betsy DeVos even knew those schools existed let alone do anything to make provisions. She was a detriment, not a leader of any means!

11 Recommend

1 REPLY

Tim commented March 9Tim

NJ

@MIMA Everything you say about DeVos is true, but it does not change the matter at hand. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this was one of those times for DeVos. IN any event this is not about one person. Anyone who is accused of a crime has the right to due process. Period. Obama was right about a lot of things but dead-wrong on this matter. Trump and DeVos were wrong about just about everything but they were right on this.

24 Recommend

Alison commented March 9

Alison

DC

This is a terrible idea, and I formerly prosecuted sex crimes in the Army. Accused individuals have rights too. The mindset of “all complaints are fact” and “all complaints describe a crime” when it comes to sex crime allegations is dangerous for the concept of due process; just because this is happening outside of a courtroom doesn’t mean it is less devastating.

What if this was your brother? Your son? Your father? Wouldn’t you want him to be given a chance?

54 Recommend

1 REPLY

Victoria Charlton commented March 9

Victoria Charlton

NJMarch 9

A college has every right to use whatever rules it chooses in determining who stays on campus and who does not. This is not a military tribunal nor is it a criminal one. The thing is that it should be. Colleges and universities should not be investigating a crime that takes place on its campus anymore than Google should be investigating one that takes place on theirs.

I don’t get why the government just does not butt out other than to require educational facilities to do one simple thing: call 911.

3 Recommend

R.P. commented March 9

R.P.

Bridgewater, NJ

This is one area where the Trump Administration was on the correct side of civil liberties and due process rights, and where the Biden Administration is retreating to interest-group politics. Do any of the people who want to go back to the ‘old days’ of no due process for the accused, have sons in college? Do they want them to be subject to these kangaroo courts where you have no right to question your accuser?

122 Recommend

2 REPLIES

Independent Observer commented March 9

Independent Observer

Texas

@R.P. Exactly. If a charge as serious as sexual assault is levied at someone, the local police and justice system needs to be in charge of the process, not some academic admin board. This protects both the rights of the accuser and the accused, as it’s supposed to be. How anyone could think that should be “dismantled” is beyond me.

21 Recommend

Michael Browder commented March 9

Michael Browder

Chamonix, France

@R.P. Absolutely right. I hate Trump, but the accused need protection. What has happened in the past has been disgusting.

24 Recommend

R.P. commented March 9

R.P.

Bridgewater, NJ

This is one area where the Trump Administration was on the correct side of civil liberties and due process rights, and where the Biden Administration is retreating to interest-group politics. Do any of the people who want to go back to the ‘old days’ of no due process for the accused, have sons in college? Do they want them to be subject to these kangaroo courts where you have no right to question your accuser?

36 Recommend

Dave commented March 9

Dave

New Jersey

One of the few things that the Trump administration did that I fully agreed with. Leave it alone.

93 Recommend

Tim commented March 9

Tim

NJ

The DeVos rules “require colleges to hold a live hearing with cross-examination by a third party … and also require that cases be investigated under a presumption of innocence and that parties have equal access to evidence and appeals processes.”

No person in his or her right mind could be against this. If you are accused of an infraction or crime it is the very least you would expect. In their rush to appease this activist wing of their party, many of whose assertions on the issue of campus sexual assault have been greatly exaggerated or proven outright false, the Democrats are throwing one of the foundations of democracy under the bus. When the Republican Party, which by all accounts should be taking its last breath right now, crushes the Democrats in 2022, this will be one reason why.

89 Recommend

Joyce Hill commented March 9

Joyce Hill

Maryland

Why isn’t this just a police matter? Why do victims have to be subjected to a different set of rules depending on the location of the incident? I told my daughter when she first went to college; if something, God forbid, should happen, call the POLICE first then campus security.

78 Recommend

5 REPLIES

Concerned citizen commented March 9

Concerned citizen

Connecticut

@Joyce Hill Many of the behaviors under campus student conduct policies are not criminal, so the police wouldn’t be an option. For those behaviors that are criminal, students can choose to pursue a campus proceeding or a criminal process, or BOTH.

1 Recommend

Donna Gray commented March 9

Donna Gray

Louisa, Va

@Concerned citizen -Rape is a police matter!

4 Recommend

Mike commented March 9

Mike

NY

@Concerned citizen yeah but a sexual assault allegation is a criminal matter that should be viewed through an objective investigative lens that follows our laws, and not the political/PR lens of university employees.

6 Recommend

Driftwood

WNC

@Joyce Hill The police do not always listen. In my case, they refused to even take my statement. Rape kits sit untested for years. Criminal proceedings rarely result in conviction and can destroy the life of the survivor of the rape or assault. It takes great bravery to come forward and is often met with vitriol. Should the survivor have to choose to see their rapist in class everyday? And if the survivor cannot handle it, should they be the only one to face consequences and have to leave school and take on the debt? This isn’t simply philosophical- it’s costing lives as survivors are facing impossible choices. I’m not saying the solution is easy or should ever be blanket belief, but the system does not seem to work in the survivor’s favor, either.

2 Recommend

Karen                                                                                  Times Pick

New York

@Driftwood, the answer is to fix the criminal justice system, not to create a parallel campus tribunal. This ensures that *all* sexual assault victims — not just college students — receive fair and just treatment.

7 Recommend

A Thinker, Not a Chanter. commented March 9

A Thinker, Not a Chanter.

USA

“[The Trump rules] also require colleges to hold a live hearing with cross-examination by a third party and offer schools the flexibility to choose their evidentiary standard. The rules also require that cases be investigated under a presumption of innocence and that parties have equal access to evidence and appeals processes.” Among the people who praise this in criminal cases are the people who condemn this is title 9 hearings. Why? Because of the crime and who is getting accused. They discovered an easier standard under Obama in title 9 cases than in criminal courts and that is why you hear so much advocacy here: they want their venue of easier convictions.

16 Recommend

Karen commented March 9

Karen

New York

I completely support federal laws that require colleges to provide increased protections for students with regard to sexual harassment and assault. That said, I think it would be a big mistake to reinstate the Obama-era ad hoc “tribunals” to prosecute sexual assault claims. These proceedings are often conducted by college faculty and staff with no (or little) legal training, and fail to provide even the most basic due process rights to the accused, which—unsurprisingly—disproportionately impacts male students of color and the working class, who do not have the means to adequately protect themselves. While I understand that the criminal justice system has miles to go to adequately support women and men who have suffered sexual assault, creating an ersatz court system for college students is not the way to go. Let’s continue to work to improve how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault victims—to the benefit *all* victims, whether enrolled in college or not.

63 Recommend

1 REPLY

Matt commented March 9

Matt

San Francisco

@Karen “creating an ersatz court system for college students is not the way to go.” How true. And that court system, with the number of employees it entails, along with the apparatchiks who staff the broader inquisition, seriously add to the already inflated cost of tuition, in addition to the payments made to those accused who win judgements against the colleges in court. I think Obama was probably the best president in my lifetime, and I go back to Truman, but his administration’s handling of Title lX was one of its few serious errors. I hate to say it, but Trump, who was, by far, the worst president, was far more rational and fair in this matter.

10 Recommend

Frank commented March 9

Frank

Boston

And this, men and parents of sons, is why you cannot trust Democrats.

They really believe that young men do not deserve due process of law.

They want to permanently deny accused young men a college education without the basic protections afforded defendants in CIVIL litigation.

No right to see the charges.

No right to discover and gather evidence.

No right to legal counsel.

No right to question the accuser.

No right to an impartial judge or jury.

56 Recommend

1 REPLY

Technologist commented March 9

Technologist

Ft. Lauderdale

@Frank No Frank, that is not what “Democrats” want. Democrats want the due process and evidentiary rules that align with our ideal of a justice system. We don’t want a campus administration attempting to talk a young woman of her accusations if the subject is a star athlete.

I for one don’t believe the schools should be handling the cases at all. If the claim is rape, then the police should be brought in with their investigators that specialize in this area.

I can see the schools handling harassment and other non-criminal offenses that can be settled with administrative actions, but even then the regular rules of evidence, due process, and standard of guilt should be equal. DeVoss went too far. The Obama rules were too far from the other direction. We should have learned from both, so let’s get it right this time.

Rape and sexual assault have nothing to do with political parties. We both have boys and girls that should be given equality in all proceedings.

2 Recommend

RCP commented March 9

RCP

Texas

So, it’s back to the Obama inquisition on these matters? Denial of due-process to accused? What is the problem that Democrats have with fundamental fairness from college campuses to debating legislative issues? Is it that they have no winning position, no persuasive argument?

82 Recommend

2 REPLIES

s.chubin commented March 9

s.chubin

Geneva

@RCP It is important to get the balance right(.It should not be a partisan issue as masks became in your country.)

10 Recommend

J Lance commented March 9

J Lance

Chesterfield, VA

@ RCP When “courtlike tribunals and cross-examination of accusers” is written as a pejorative in this article that answers your well stated comment.

9 Recommend

+++++++++++++++++++

This article was prepared with the assistance of Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

 

Categories
Believe the Victim Campus Due Process False Allegations Investigations Title IX Trauma Informed

PR: Defense Attorneys Urged to Speak Out on H.R. 1620, Which Would Remove Impartial and Fair Investigations

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Defense Attorneys Urged to Speak Out on H.R. 1620, Which Would Remove Impartial and Fair Investigations

WASHINGTON / March 15, 2021 – A bill recently introduced in Congress, H.R. 1620, would vitiate the right of defendants to an impartial and fair investigation, thereby removing a key due process right and increasing the risk of a finding of guilt. H.R. 1620 seeks to promote so-called “victim-centered” and “trauma-informed” investigations, which are known to remove the presumption of innocence and sharply bias the investigation in favor of the complainant (1).

H.R. 1620 defines “victim-centered” as asking questions of a complainant “in a manner that is focused on the experience of the reported victim.” This description is an admission of the one-sided nature of such investigations, because it says nothing about focusing on the experiences of the defendant, or on the objective facts of the case.

A report from the National Registry of Exonerations found that investigative misconduct contributes to 35% of all wrongful convictions. The investigative misconduct includes concealment of evidence, fabrication of evidence, witness tampering, misconduct in interrogations, and making false statements at trial (2). To date, 2,754 wrongful convictions have been documented (3), a figure that is believed to substantially underestimate the actual number.

Settlement agreements involve compensation payments to exonerees typically in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment (4).

Black male defendants are often targeted by such “victim-centered” methods. A recent article by Wendy McElroy reported that 73.6% of wrongful convictions involved Blacks who were victimized by officer misconduct (5).

Ethics codes admonish police officers to conduct investigations that are impartial, fair, and honest (6).  The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics of the International Association of Chiefs of Police states, for example, “As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is…..to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.” (7)

SAVE urges defense attorneys to contact the bill sponsor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, and tell her to remove the unconstitutional provisions from H.R. 1620, found at Sections 206 and 303. The full text of H.R. 1620 is available online (8).

A vote on H.R. 1620 is expected to take place later this week. Jackson Lee’s telephone number is 202-225-3816.

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/victim-centered-investigations/
  2. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={faf6eddb-5a68-4f8f-8a52-2c61f5bf9ea7}&FilterField1=OM%5Fx0020%5FTags&FilterValue1=OF&SortField=Exonerated&SortDir=Desc
  3. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
  4. http://www.wrongfulconvictionlawyers.com/state-statutes/#:~:text=At%20least%20%2450%2C000%20and%20not,as%20a%20result%20of%20imprisonment
  5. http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1500
  6. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/ethics-codes/
  7. https://www.theiacp.org/resources/law-enforcement-code-of-ethics
  8. https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/violence_against_women_act_2021.pdf
Categories
Department of Education Department of Justice Due Process Law & Justice Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

The Biden Plan For Title IX Must Protect Due Process

By: MICHAEL POLIAKOFF | January 25, 2021

The 18th-century British jurist William Blackstone pronounced, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” There are few principles of law we hold more sacred than “innocent until proven guilty.” For most of the last decade, however, this doctrine has had negligible impact in matters of campus sexual assault.

There are policies of the previous administration that President Joe Biden is already in the process of overturning or altering. It would be well, however, for him to reconsider his campaign promise to “return to and then build on” the Obama administration’s Title IX policies, which led to more than 500 investigations of accused students and shattered an untold number of lives. Having himself been the object of unproven allegations of sexual assault, he must look into his own heart before reinstituting campus procedures that make a mockery of justice.

The victim of sexual assault is likely to bear the emotional and psychological scars for years to come. It is a moral imperative for an institution of learning to protect students from the trauma that ensues. But the mirror image of that horror happens when an innocent person is unjustly found guilty of sexual assault and punished – typically by expulsion or long-term suspension – by his college. The reputational scars and career damage may last a lifetime. Due process provides a greater likelihood that punishment will fall on the guilty and not those wrongfully accused.

There are many instances in which the courts have found wrongful prosecution. Sometimes the case hinged on spectacular mendacity, like the invented account of a brutal gang rape in a University of Virginia fraternity house in 2014 that provided Rolling Stone with a fraudulent cover story. Or the dishonest prosecution launched by an opportunistic district attorney—later disbarred—of Duke lacrosse players that showed how quickly a prestigious university, from the president on down, called for punishment when no crime was committed.

Last spring, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos signed a Final Rule that provided key definitions and regulations for the enforcement of Title IX when students accuse other students of campus sexual assault. In addition to the rule’s protection of alleged victims, including reporting procedures and survivor support, it notably provides to the accused the rights to present, cross-examine, and challenge evidence in campus hearings.

You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to recognize that Secretary DeVos was right to redress a longstanding ethical and procedural abuse. The Biden administration must not reverse her important work and bring back the guilt-presuming process that the Obama administration demanded in its April 4, 2011, “Dear Colleague Letter” and in subsequent, egregious misinterpretations of Title IX.

These extra-legal Department of Education decrees, which never went through a formal regulatory review process, pressured universities to stack proceedings against accused students. They even threatened to take away institutions’ federal funding if they allowed cross-examination of accusers in campus hearings. Thus, did the Obama administration deprive accused students of what the Supreme Court has repeatedly called “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”

“Innocent until proven guilty” does not fare well against dramatic claims of sexual violence. At the extreme end, recall then-congressman Jared Polis, now governor, who inverted Blackstone’s wisdom by stating in a House higher education subcommittee meeting on sexual assault: “If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard, maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about them being transfer to another university, for crying out loud.”

For crying out loud, indeed. What college or university is going to admit a person, innocent or not, who has been expelled on a charge of sexual assault? What company, scholarship foundation, or professional school is going to take that person whose academic record will forever show expulsion or even suspension for sexual assault?

President Biden should consider documented cases like that of the Amherst student who was expelled based on a woman’s claim that he had forced her into sexual contact more than 20 months before—even though her own text messages proved that in fact she had been the active party when he was blackout drunk in her room.

Had the accusations hurled against President Biden on the campaign trail been leveled years ago against College Joe and adjudicated under a campus regime like the one later decreed by the Obama-Biden administration, he would probably have had no meaningful chance to defend himself or clear his name. His career and American history would have been entirely different.

Michael Poliakoff is president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an independent, non-profit organization committed to academic freedom, excellence, and accountability at America’s colleges and universities. He previously served as vice president for academic affairs and research at the University of Colorado and in senior roles at the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. He has taught at Georgetown University, George Washington University, Hillsdale College, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Wellesley College. He received his undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Yale University, a Class I Honours B.A. at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and a Ph.D. in classical studies from the University of Michigan.

The Biden Plan For Title IX Must Protect Due Process (forbes.com)

Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Law & Justice Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Keep Cross-Examination Out of College Sexual-Assault Cases

By Suzanne B. Goldberg
JANUARY 10, 2019

Requiring cross-examination in campus sexual-misconduct proceedings is among the key features of the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX reforms currently open for public comment. The department, relying on an oft-cited 1904 legal treatise, calls cross-examination “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” Although this new mandate might seem at first like a good idea, a closer look shows otherwise.

The usual image of cross-examination includes trained lawyers asking precise, rigorous questions of individuals on the other side of a case and a judge ruling on well-crafted objections to improper questions. But campuses are not courtrooms, and the reality at most colleges and universities would look quite different if the proposed regulations take hold.

Traditionally, students involved in college-misconduct processes have been permitted to choose an adviser to provide them with support and information. In many instances, peer advisers, faculty members, and even parents have ably filled that role. Likewise, at most colleges, neutral faculty members or administrators are assigned responsibility for asking questions and otherwise investigating to determine whether wrongdoing occurred.

But the new regulations would change this by requiring colleges to allow each student’s adviser to do the questioning of the other student or anyone else involved in the case — not as a neutral party but as an adversary. This means that parent-advisers would have government-sanctioned authority to question their child’s accuser or alleged assailant, and a student could wind up cross-examining another student, even on the same small campus.
One might think that colleges would voluntarily assign faculty members and administrators to take that responsibility. But it is one thing for a faculty or staff member to inform and support a student, as many currently do, and quite another to adversarially cross-examine a student who is also part of his or her own institution. Individual educators, as well as the college, may see this as conflicting with their responsibility to support all students. Still, the regulations would require institutions to provide students with an adviser to do the cross-examining if a student does not bring his or her own adviser to a hearing.

Training these campus-based advisers would pose additional challenges. As a general matter, preparing administrators and professors to conduct investigations and hearings in a fair and impartial way fits well with what colleges already do in committing to value all students equally. But training in techniques for casting doubt on a student’s credibility, which is an essential function of cross-examination, cuts in a different direction.

To be sure, some students will hire lawyers or find a family friend to help. For many, though, that option will be unaffordable or unavailable. This disparity between students may not be as significant when advisers play a quiet, supporting role, but it almost certainly will amplify inequities and increase the risk of obscuring efforts to learn the truth of what happened when a lawyer questions one student and a nonlawyer questions the other.

Through my work on these issues nationally, I have heard some advocates propose that colleges provide students with lawyers when charges are serious even if they do not do so for other serious misconduct cases. Even the Department of Education has not gone that far, however, perhaps recognizing that most American colleges could not do this without diverting funds from financial aid, faculty hiring, and other core educational needs. Of more than 4,000 higher-education institutions in the United States, few have lawyers on staff to serve in that role, and even fewer (just over 200) have accredited law schools with faculty members or students who might pitch in.

Still, some say adversarial questioning is necessary for campus sexual-misconduct cases, even when it is not used for other student-misconduct matters such as those involving illicit drug use, vandalism, and nonsexual assault. As one court wrote, adversarial questioning “takes aim at credibility like no other procedural device” because it enables the accused to “probe the witness’s story to test her memory, intelligence, or possible ulterior motives.”

But questions need not be adversarial to assess credibility. Nearly all courts to consider the issue have found fairness can be fully achieved through questioning by a neutral college administrator. And although the Department of Education says that its proposal will avoid “any unnecessary trauma” that might come from students questioning one another directly, some advocates argue that concerns about trauma remain strong and will probably deter students — especially those who are afraid of the accused student — from filing complaints at all. Exacerbating the risks here, the proposed regulations would forbid institutions from relying on statements of students who decide they are unable, for emotional or other reasons, to subject themselves to cross-examination.

More broadly, it is a serious question whether cross-examination is even effective in this setting. Many scholars say that aggressive, adversarial questioning is more likely to distort reality than enable truth-telling. Research shows, for example, that a witness’s nervous or stumbling response to adversarial questioning is more likely an ordinary human reaction to stress than an indicator of false testimony.
Since the Department of Education has stressed its respect for colleges’ expertise, it might consider commissioning a study to test the effectiveness and risks of campus cross-examination. But to override current, experience-based procedures and impose a national cross-examination rule across all higher-education institutions in the United States would undermine, not enhance, the fair and impartial treatment that all students deserve.

Suzanne B. Goldberg is a law professor at Columbia University. She is also director of the law school’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law and its Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic.

A version of this article appeared in the January 18, 2019, issue

Keep Cross-Examination Out of College Sexual-Assault Cases (chronicle.com)

 

Categories
Department of Education Due Process Sexual Assault Title IX

To Protect Both Victims and the Accused, Biden Should Preserve Trump’s Title IX Reforms

By Buddy Ullman
December 14, 2020

President-elect Joe Biden has suggested that he will put a “quick end” to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s rule that details how educational institutions must comply with Title IX, the transformative civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance.

This is a terrible idea.

In 2011, the Obama administration under Biden’s leadership stipulated equivocal and mostly discretionary guidance to colleges and universities on Title IX (TIX) compliance and, in particular, how these institutions should adjudicate TIX disputes. The quasi-judicial proceedings that resulted generally lacked due process and free speech protections, were legally dubious and patently unfair toward the accused, and too often resulted in erroneous conclusions.

Some 669 court cases filed by accused students have resulted, for which the majority of judicial decisions rendered have been favorable to the plaintiffs, mostly on constitutional and fairness grounds. In a nutshell, the Obama/Biden TIX guidance created a mess, and the need for TIX compliance reforms emphasizing due process and other constitutional and civil liberties was compelling. These reforms were achieved in DeVos’s TIX compliance rule.

While a professor at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), I had the misfortune of experiencing Obama/Biden TIX guidance firsthand. I was a respondent in a duplicitous sexual harassment investigation, in which I wasn’t allowed to know the allegations against me or the identities of the complainants or witnesses; nor was I permitted to present witnesses on my behalf, to submit or review evidence, or to defend myself. What happened to me is not unusual for a respondent in a Title IX investigation.

Ultimately, I was found responsible for sexual misconduct and punished, only to learn ten months after my case was closed that the charges against me were complete fabrications and motivated by retribution. Notably, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights refused to intercede on my behalf because it concluded that OHSU had applied Obama/Biden era guidance appropriately. The DeVos rule, had it been operative at that time, would have precluded these shenanigans.

Ironically, President-elect Biden experienced multiple accusations akin to those faced by TIX respondents. In 2020, he was accused of sexual assault and numerous past incidents of inappropriate behavior toward women and girls but survived the ensuing storm because he was powerful, privileged, presumed innocent, and given a platform to defend himself.

Most TIX respondents aren’t so lucky. Had Biden walked in my shoes, he would have been prosecuted mercilessly under his own guidance.

Biden has not offered a persuasive rationale for voiding the DeVos rule other than a few platitudes about how the rule aims to “shame and silence survivors” and “gives colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.” Survivors, Biden says, “deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and…. not silenced.” The DeVos rule does nothing of the sort: it ensures fairness, equitability, and impartiality when a sexual misconduct dispute requires investigation or resolution, something Biden’s own guidance did not.

Of greater concern, the President-elect does not appear to understand TIX’s purpose. TIX has nothing to do with sexual violence, survivorship, or campus safety issues. Rather, TIX is about equal educational access, which the DeVos rule protects admirably. The only time that sexual harassment or assault concerns TIX is when the misconduct secondarily affects participation in school programs and facilities.

The DeVos rule has proved controversial and partisan, but it shouldn’t be regarded that way. I am a liberal, progressive Democrat who finds little to like among DeVos’s educational policies, but her TIX rule is a meticulous, detailed, and well-considered nonpartisan document predicated on the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and congressional intent. Emphasizing fairness and justice, the DeVos rule is far superior to the guidance that it supplanted. This Democrat can separate the message from the messenger.

Reverting to the Title IX compliance nightmare of the Obama/Biden era would be a major setback to the cause of fairness and due process. We can only hope that Biden doesn’t follow through.

Buddy Ullman is a former Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the Oregon Health & Science University.

To Protect Both Victims and the Accused, Biden Should Preserve Trump’s Title IX Reforms | RealClearEducation