Category: Due Process

Release the Regs! Release the Regs!

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 21, 2020

The civil rights of K-12 students, and university students and faculty, continue to be trampled on as each day passes. It is past time for the Department of Education to publish the new Title IX regulations, because “Justice delayed is justice denied.” [1]

We need your help.

Apparently Secretary DeVos and her team are pushing to get the regulations published, but there is a difference of opinion at the White House, as to whether to publish the regulations during the COVID-19 crisis.

SAVE and other due process advocacy groups [2] say now is the best time to publish the regulations because the campuses are quiet and empty of students. The administrators have the time and capacity to put implementation plans in place before the fall semester begins.

Most importantly, students and faculty deserve the right to have fair and equitable procedures when accused of a sexual misconduct issue. This includes presumption of innocence, timely and adequate written notice, and a meaningful hearing process.

No more Kangaroo Courts! Release the Regs!

Please email the White House today at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ and tell them to let the Department of Education release the Title IX regulations. When students walk onto campuses in the fall, they should be taking their civil rights with them, not leaving them at home.

[1]https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/16/betsy-devos-civil-rights-office-240610

[2]https://www.thecollegefix.com/times-up-to-restore-due-process-groups-urge-devos-to-ignore-coronavirus-stalling-tactics-for-title-ix-reform/

Due Process Sexual Assault Title IX

Reform Title IX Now

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 15, 2020

The Department of Education’s (DOE) reform of Title IX—the law that bans discrimination based on sex at federally-funded schools—has been a long time coming. For three Senators, it has not been long enough. They strenuously object to the impact on how colleges handle accusations of sexual misconduct. No longer will an accused be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Instead, he will be accorded due process.

On March 31, Patty Murray—the leading Democrat on the Senate education committee—Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand sent a letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to express their opposition to finalizing the reform. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time,” they argued, “and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is an odd argument. Now seems to be the perfect time for colleges to work on policy and administrative matters. Campuses are empty. No sexual misconduct hearings will be interrupted; students will be spared the confusion of a mid-semester policy change; administrators can implement regulations before the new academic year.

Colleges are hardly caught off guard. The reform began on September 22, 2017 when the DOE withdrew the controversial Dear Colleague Letter (2011) that governed the treatment of sexual misconduct accusations on campus. The Obama-era Letter was widely criticized for mandating a low standard of proof for findings of guilt and encouraging the denial of due process, such as a defendant’s right to a lawyer. The DOE’s replacement guideline was officially made public on November 29, 2018 when the Federal Register published “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.”

The proposed reform received vast attention and backlash in this time of #MeToo that demands automatic belief of women’s accusations. in January 2018, three national public interest organizations, including the highly influential National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), sued DeVos and the DOE to block the Title IX reform. The lawsuit claimed that the “new and extreme Title IX policy…was issued unlawfully and based on discriminatory beliefs about women and girls as survivors of sexual violence, in violation of the Constitution.” The lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

Senator Murray has also attacked the Title IX proposals. A news release from her office reported on Murray’s statements at a Senate hearing on campus sexual assault. “I stand with you [accusers] and I’m going to keep fighting to stop what happened to you.” Murray accused the DOE of being “callous” and ignoring “the experiences of survivors,” which would “discourage students from coming forward after being sexually assaulted.” Gillibrand has decried DeVos as favoring “predators over survivors.” Warren has stated, “There’s no greater example of how we’re failing students and teachers than Betsy DeVos, the worst Secretary of Education we’ve seen.” These statements do not argue for the delay but for the derailment of DOE’s plans.

Liberals view the new rules as a shift to the right and an abandonment of Obama-era policies. Consider two definitions of a key term, “sexual harassment.” According to the Dear Colleague Letter, “Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This broad characterization includes bad jokes and leering glances. By contrast, DeVos uses the reigning Supreme Court definition of “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” This is a far more limited definition.

Why, then, are the 3 Senators calling for delay rather than dismantlement? The coronavirus is unlikely to disappear as an issue before the 2020 election. And, if Joe Biden wins, he has promised the reform would be withdrawn. This process would be be easier, however, if policy changes were not already implemented.

Stalling the DOE reform seems to be a conscious strategy of its opponents. According to Tulane University Title IX coordinator, Meredith Smith, the NWLC orchestrated a sequence of delays with various victims rights groups. Smith stated, “So there was this delay strategy happening. We would hear that the Department of Education was about to release the regulations and then the National Women’s Law Center and all these other groups would parachute in and get more and more meetings on the calendar which push [the release date] back.” They requested a long series of meetings with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example. During the final public commentary on a regulation, individuals can meet in person or over the phone with OMB officials to share concerns; this process usually takes a couple of days, With the DOE regulation, the first meeting was November 13, 2019, and the process ended on March 27, 2020. It stretched over 4 months.

A recent article in the National Review, entitled “Coronavirus Is No Excuse to Delay the Education Department’s New Title IX Regulations,” declared, “Those making this argument [for postponement] are taking advantage of a crisis to try to keep due process out of college campuses.” They are gaming the system.

The DOE reform returns due process to campuses. It also offers relief to lawsuit-prone schools that now function as police, judge and jury in handling students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct. Increasingly, colleges are sued in federal court by those who were found guilty without a fair hearing. As a headline in the Detroit Free Press stated. “Courts ruling on side of students accused of sexual assault. Here’s why.” The “why” is the violation of their due process rights.

Justice delayed is justice denied. And Justice must not be further denied.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1467

Campus Due Process Sexual Harassment

Open Letter to the 18 Attorneys General Opposed to the New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 12, 2020

The long-awaited Department of Education regulations on adjudicating allegations of
sexual misconduct on college campuses are poised for release. In response, the
American Council on Education (ACE) (1) and eighteen state attorneys general (2) have
sought to block the guidelines. I believe this effort is misguided.

The regulations would restore basic fairness to sexual misconduct proceedings on
campus. Over the past ten years, a shadow legal system has simultaneously failed
either to sanction campus predators, or to provide basic due process rights to students
and faculty accused of sexual misconduct. This failed regulatory regime is a result of the
2011 Dear Colleague Letter, guidance from the U.S. Department of Education that
expanded Title IX to address campus sexual misconduct, including both sexual
harassment and sexual assault.

The failure of the existing system to ensure due process for accused faculty and
students is well documented. A 2016 report from the American Association of University
Professors assailed campuses for “inadequate protections of due process and
academic governance.” (3) Open letters from 28 faculty members at Harvard Law School (4)
and 15 professors at the University of Pennsylvania Law School (5) have shared similar
concerns, as did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2016 interview by
The Atlantic. (6) When challenged in court, colleges and universities have suffered over
170 setbacks to students accused of sexual misconduct. (7)

Nor has the existing system proved successful in reducing campus sexual misconduct.
Data collected by the Association of American Universities indicate that reports of
sexual assault, whether by physical force or inability to consent due to intoxication,
actually increased between 2015 and 2019. Moreover, only 45 percent of campus
survivors said that school officials were “very” or “extremely likely” to take their
allegations seriously. (8) And most infamously, the serial abuser Larry Nassar was
allowed to remain in his position at Michigan State University after the school’s Title IX coordinator somehow concluded in 2014 that Nassar’s behavior was “medically appropriate.” (9)

The American Council on Education and the eighteen state attorneys general offer
specious arguments for blocking the new regulations. In their open letter, ACE contends
that, “at a time when institutional resources already are stretched thin, colleges and
universities should not be asked to divert precious resources away from more critical
efforts in order to implement regulations unrelated to this extraordinary crisis.” Yet
colleges and universities have known for eighteen months that the new regulations were
forthcoming. Moreover, COVID-19 means that school Title IX officers, directly
responsible for implementing the guidelines, have more free time than ever before. With
campuses shuttered and students sent home, opportunities for campus sexual
misconduct have plummeted. In short, this is the ideal time for the new regulations to be
implemented.

The new Department of Education regulations aren’t perfect, but they will establish
adjudication mechanisms that are much fairer to accused students, faculty, and staff. A
fairer system, in turn, will enjoy greater support and credibility among stakeholders. And
with any luck, this means fewer dangerous predators on campus. For all these reasons,
I urge you to withdraw your opposition to the new regulations.

Citations:

1. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Higher-Education-Regulation/Letter-ED-
delayt9s117-032420v2FINAL.pdf
2. https://files.constantcontact.com/bfcd0cef001/71385110-7632-4adc-a7ae-0f47bc4f6801.pdf
3. https://www.aaup.org/report/history-uses-and-abuses-title-ix
4. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-
policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
5. http://media.philly.com/documents/OpenLetter.pdf
6. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-opens-up-about-metoo-voting-rights-
and-millenials/553409/
7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
8. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/04/aau-climate-surveys-reveal-failure-of-campus-sexual-assault-policies/

9. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-nassar-investigation-that-never-made-headlines/551717/

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

State Attorneys General, Mailing Addresses

JOSH SHAPIRO

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Office of the Attorney General

Strawberry Square

Harrisburg, PA 17120

XAVIER BACERRA

Attorney General, State of California

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

PHILIP J. WEISER

Attorney General, State of Colorado

Office of the Attorney General

Colorado Department of Law

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Building

1300 Broadway, 10th Floor

Denver, CO 80203

WILLIAM TONG

Attorney General, State of Connecticut

Office of the Attorney General

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

KATHLEEN JENNINGS

Attorney General, State of Delaware

Delaware Department of Justice,

Office of the Attorney General

Carvel State Building

820 N. French St.

Wilmington, DE 19801

KARL A. RACINE

Attorney General, District of Columbia

Office of the Attorney General

441 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

CLARE E. CONNORS

Attorney General, State of Hawai‘i

Department of the Attorney General

425 Queen Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

BRIAN FROSH

Attorney General, State of Maryland

Office of the Attorney General

200 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202

MAURA HEALEY

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Office of the Attorney General

1 Ashburton Place, 20th Floor

Boston, MA 02108

DANA NESSEL

Attorney General, State of Michigan

Office of the Attorney General

Mennen Williams Building

525 W. Ottawa Street

P.O. Box 30212

Lansing, MI 48909

KEITH ELLISON

Attorney General, State of Minnesota

Office of the Attorney General

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400

St. Paul, MN 55101

AARON D. FORD

Attorney General, State of Nevada

Office of the Attorney General

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717

HECTOR BALDERAS

Attorney General, State of New Mexico

Office of the Attorney General

408 Galisteo Street

Villagra Building

Santa Fe, NM 87501

LETITIA JAMES

Attorney General, State of New York

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224-0341

JOSHUA H. STEIN

Attorney General, State of North Carolina

Office of the Attorney General

114 West Edenton Street

Raleigh, NC 2760

PETER F. NERONHA

Attorney General, State of Rhode Island

Office of the Attorney General

150 South Main Street

Providence, RI 02903

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.

Attorney General, State of Vermont

Office of the Attorney General

109 State St

Montpelier, VT 05609

MARK R. HERRING

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia

Office of the Attorney General

202 North Ninth Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Campus Civil Rights Due Process False Allegations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Victims

To Senators Murray, Warren and Gillibrand: Secretary DeVos CAN Multi-task

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 3, 2020

For over two years, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) urged Secretary DeVos and the Department of Education to not create new Title IX regulations, fallaciously claiming victims will be further harmed. The trio jumped on the crowded coronavirus excuse train, and now claim it is unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule during the coronavirus outbreak.

The Senators urge DeVos “not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.” [1]

However, the Department’s accomplishments show on March 6, the Department promptly created a coronavirus information and resources website for school and school administrators [2]. Throughout the month they continued this focus on students with disabilities [3], provided student loan relief [4], and announced broad flexibilities for states to cancel testing [5]. There have been multiple task forces, webinars, and conference calls focused on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the corona virus pandemic.

The Senator’s asking Secretary DeVos to suspend due process protections because of the coronavirus is irresponsible, impractical, and unfair to institutions, students and professors.

Ashe Schow, a reporter and columnist, appropriately pointed out in her commentary: “Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.” [6]

DeVos has shown competing priorities are possible to navigate and combat. She is prioritizing the immediate needs, which include both navigating through this pandemic while ensuring students are given their due process rights.

As students and professors step onto their campuses in August, they will also be stepping into a more fair and equitable and safe environment than they stepped off in March.

Citations:

[1]https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/murray-warren-gillibrand-urge-secretary-devos-to-halt-title-ix-rule-focus-on-helping-schools-during-the-covid-19-crisis

[2]https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[3]https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-releases-new-resources-educators-local-leaders-k-12-flexibilities-student-privacy-and-educating-students-disabilities-during-coronavirus-outbreak?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[4] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/delivering-president-trumps-promise-secretary-devos-suspends-federal-student-loan-payments-waives-interest-during-national-emergency?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[5] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/helping-students-adversely-affected-school-closures-secretary-devos-announces-broad-flexibilities-states-cancel-testing-during-national-emergency?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[6] https://www.dailywire.com/news/three-democrats-use-coronavirus-to-demand-delaying-due-process-rights-for-college-students

Campus DED Sexual Assault Directive Due Process Sexual Assault

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

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

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

Three recent incidents again illustrate the urgent need for reform:

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 12, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 9, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

Campus Due Process False Allegations Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Eating Its Own Tail?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 6, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affirmative Consent Due Process Trauma Informed

Will the ABA Reject Due Process?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 12, 2019

In August 2014 the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga deemed student Corey Mock guilty of sexual assault, finding that in the disputed encounter he failed to prove he had obtained “affirmative consent” from the accuser. According to Mr. Mock’s unrebutted testimony, the female student’s actions during intercourse led him to believe that she had consented to sex. Mr. Mock sued the school, and a Tennessee judge ruled in his favor. “Affirmative consent,” the judge wrote, “is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded.” The standard “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the accused.

Mr. Mock’s experience is hardly unique. State laws in California, Connecticut and New York require educational institutions to find against students or personnel accused of sexual misconduct unless they can prove the accuser gave “affirmative consent,” meaning a positive manifestation by words or actions of consent to each sex act during an encounter. In practice, as Janet Halley of Harvard Law School has noted, these statutes authorize “proceedings in which the decision maker effectively presumes guilt and requires the accused to disprove it.”

In the past few years thinkers and politicians of diverse ideologies have recognized the excessively punitive nature of the American criminal justice system. Against this backdrop, it’s incredible that the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates plans this week to consider a resolution that would urge legislatures and courts to redefine criminal sexual assault and apply standards like the one in the Mock case.

The resolution, originally advanced by the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section and Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, says that the law should “define consent in sexual assault cases as the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact” and “provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances.”

Due-process advocates have denounced the proposal. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers calls it a “radical change in the law” that “assumes guilt in the absence of any evidence regarding consent . . . merely upon evidence of a sex act with nothing more.” By “requiring an accused person to prove affirmative consent to each sexual act rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent,” the association contends, any law based on the proposal would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. Scott Greenfield, a New York criminal-defense lawyer, put the point more bluntly: It would “result in the conviction of innocent men.”

To be sure, rape and sexual-assault laws long were outrageously lenient. Husbands had legal rights to force sex on their wives, and many women were held not to be rape victims because they had not resisted fiercely, at risk of life and limb. Mindful of this history, NACDL excluded from its criticism a clause urging rejection of “any requirement that sexual assault victims have a legal burden of verbal or physical resistance.” But the rest of the ABA proposal would give prosecutors who cannot prove sexual assault an easy way to coerce guilty pleas from men who have committed no crime.

Advocates of the proposal cite dubious science in support of diminishing the constitutional rights of the accused. The report justifying the resolution touts “current research on the neurobiology of trauma,” including studies of “frozen fright,” which allegedly occurs when “a person confronted by an unexpectedly aggressive partner or stranger succumbs to panic, becomes paralyzed by anxiety, or fears that resistance will engender even greater danger.”

These claims are based on circular reasoning, as Emily Yoffe notes in a September 2017 Atlantic article. She notes the researchers argue not only that “the absence of verbal or physical resistance, the inability to recall crucial parts of an alleged assault, a changing story . . . should raise questions or doubt about a claim,” but that “all of these behaviors can be considered evidence that an assault occurred.” As Ms. Yoffe recognizes, this type of “science” already has played a prominent role in promoting unfairness in campus Title IX tribunals. The University of Mississippi, for instance, trained sexual-assault adjudicators that even lying by an accuser should be interpreted as evidence that the accused is guilty. By such logic, Ms. Yoffe writes, “the accused is always guilty.”

A more elite legal group, the American Law Institute, had already considered this issue. The ALI’s members voted overwhelmingly to reject affirmative-consent language proposed by activists who have for years sought to revise the group’s Model Penal Code. Rather than acknowledge this dramatic vote, the ABA report suggests that the ALI’s decision “is not yet final.” That characterization is misleading at best: A letter signed by more than 100 ALI members to the ABA’s president insists that moving forward on such an “obviously deficient” record would question “the essential integrity of the ABA.”

On Saturday, in a highly unusual move, the Criminal Justice Section—whose membership includes prosecutors and defense lawyers—voted unanimously to rescind its co-sponsorship of the resolution. But unless the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence reverses its position and agrees to pull the offering, the ABA House of Delegates will vote. If the resolution is adopted, it will stain the reputation of the nation’s largest organization of lawyers.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-aba-reject-due-process-11565559212

Campus Due Process E-lert

Has Donna Shalala ever heard of the Constitution?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 16, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

Today.