Category: Uncategorized

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 18, 2020

by Ashe Schow

A group of 18 Blue State attorneys general filed a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos earlier this month to try and block new regulations that would provide much needed due process to college students accused of sexual assault.

The lawsuit is meant to delay the final rule’s implementation at least until after the November election, with filers hoping former Vice President Joe Biden will become president and cancel the rule all together.

As Inside Higher Ed reported earlier this month, the lawsuit claims the new rules would “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education,” ignoring the fact that denying due process makes it easier for false accusations to limit access to education and does nothing to stop actual sexual harassment.

The AGs also took issue with the fact that the new regulations limit who can make an accusation (the new rules state the accuser must be a student of the school), are unfair. The whole point of Title IX wading into sexual harassment and assault was to claim accusers had their educational opportunities limited by a college that ignored their sexual assault claims. If the accuser isn’t even a student, their educational opportunities can’t be limited by a school they don’t attend.

The AGs that filed the lawsuit were all from Democrat states: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Last week, a coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.

The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.”

The AGs take particular issue with the notion that because the adjudications can’t result in jail time (at least the schools can’t impose such a punishment, they can and do send information gathered to police in order to circumvent students’ constitutional due process rights), then due process isn’t necessary or can be severely limited.

“The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct. Although not a criminal proceeding outright, the underlying act at issue in a harassment-related disciplinary hearing overlaps with illegal conduct. A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus,” the AGs wrote.

They also quoted a ruling against Brandeis University from an accused student. The judge in that case wrote, “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”

The AGs writing in support of the final rule are from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Uncategorized

After Dems Exaggerate Impact, Panicked Kids Are Suing Over Betsy DeVos Title IX Changes

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 13, 2020

Distorted partisan descriptions of the Department of Education changes could be doing real damage.

ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN | 7.10.2020 5:05 PM

Seven students are joining a National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) lawsuit challenging new guidelines related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits education discrimination on the basis of sex. Some of their stories suggest that Democrats’ distorted descriptions of the changes could be doing real damage.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos formally issued the new rules—set to take place August 14—in May 2020, following a massive influx of public comments since she first proposed them back in 2018. But her proposal also ushered in a wave of hyperbolic, misleading, and dishonest claims about what these proposed changes would mean.

Reality-challenged rhetoric about the rule changes has come from folks claiming to represent students’ best interests, like the NWLC. But it’s hard to see how letting young people think the federal government wants schools to stop punishing rapists benefits students—or anyone but Democrats looking to portray the Trump administration as soft on campus rape.

In the NWLC lawsuit, “plaintiffs include a fifth grader in Michigan who fears that her elementary school will not be required to formally investigate and punish her classmate for assaulting her four times over two months” and “a recent graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who decided not to formally report her rape at an off-campus apartment because she believed that the final rule rendered her complaint futile,” according to The New York Times.

That’s incredibly sad, since of course there’s nothing in the new rules saying schools shouldn’t investigate and punish students for sexual assault. (Read more details about what the changes will do here.) Students are being misled by what’s turning out to be a damaging disinformation campaign.

Shiwali Patel, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, told the Times “the fear these students are living with show how real the consequences are of DeVos’s rule.”

But much of this student fear isn’t rooted in what the DeVos rules actually say, it’s driven by Democratic politicians and groups like the NWLC fearmongering about them.

When the new rules were first released, Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) said they would “undoubtedly make students less safe,” while Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) called theman attack on “student survivors’ rights.” And Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said they send “the message loud and clear that there is no point in reporting assault.”

The NWLC is far from alone in legally challenging the Department of Education’s new Title IX guidance. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuitagainst DeVos and the Education Department, on behalf advocacy group Know Your IX.

And 18 state attorneys general (AGs) are challenging the new rules, in an action filed June 4 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and led by Democratic attorneys general Xavier Becerra of California, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gubir Grewal of New Jersey.

Attorneys general for Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.—all Democrats—are also part of the lawsuit.

New York is also (separately) challenging the rules, with state Attorney General Letitia James explicitly invoking Trump in her explanation.

“The president has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t think sexual harassment is a serious matter, but his callousness now threatens our youngest and most vulnerable and could increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and abuse of students in schools,” James said in an announcement about the suit. The announcement misleadingly describes DeVos’ rules as “undo[ing] protections required by Title IX,” as if prohibitions of gender and sex discrimination at schools will no longer exist.

Presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden has already vowed to reverse the rule changes if elected.

It seems pretty clear that despite the seriousness of the issues involved, Title IX has become yet another set of partisan talking points to tussle over. But those using the DeVos changes to spread misinformation about campus assault might want to think about who is really being harmed by their rhetoric.

Uncategorized

Black students four times as likely to allege rights violations in Title IX proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 7, 2020

Jonathan Taylor, Founder

Title IX for all

Among plaintiffs whose races are known and when adjusted for student population, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in higher ed Title IX disciplinary proceedings. This data, sourced from lawsuits in our Title IX Legal Database, is based on Title IX For All’s recent research analyzing plaintiff demographic data from the ~650 lawsuits filed against higher-ed institutions since 2011.

This data confirms what many have long suspected: that students of color are significantly more likely to be impacted by higher ed Title IX proceedings. While a sizable portion of plaintiffs are of unknown race, we see no reason to suspect this would disconfirm the basic issue of proportionality.

Please see this attachment for a PDF of the race/sex breakdown of plaintiffs in lawsuits by accused students based on our analysis. The data reveals that when the race of the plaintiff is known, white and black students file lawsuits in fairly even numbers overall. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, however, white students outnumber black students four to one. If they file lawsuits in even numbers, this means that black students are four times as likely as white students to file a lawsuit when adjusted for student population.

These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher ed settings.

As always, Title IX For All advocates that the rights to due process and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights for all people and do not stop at the campus property line. Public officials should be consistent with their values and acknowledge that these rights are not in conflict with one another; on the contrary, they are part of the same mission of equal rights for all.

Uncategorized

University of Minnesota considers policy changes to comply with new Title IX regulations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 3, 2020

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-considers-policy-changes-comply-new-title-ix-regulation

What and when: University of Minnesota Board of Regents Meeting and Retreat (Wednesday, July 8 and Thursday, July 9, beginning at 9 a.m. both days)
Where: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these meetings will be conducted virtually with a livestream publicly available at youtube.com/UMNRegents

As public higher education institutions throughout the country consider necessary adjustments to sexual misconduct policies to comply with new federal Title IX regulations, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents will consider proposed amendments to the University’s policies and processes during its July meeting.

Released by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) last month, these regulations narrow the scope of sexual misconduct (including sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, and relationship violence) that educational institutions are required to prohibit. They also set requirements for how institutions must conduct grievance processes related to Title IX concerns. The University’s policies and procedures must comply with the federal regulations by Aug. 14.

In many places, the DOE regulations set minimum standards and allow individual institutions to make policy choices appropriate for their unique needs. Since the DOE publicly announced these changes, University leaders have reiterated that the discretion built into this guidance will allow the University to continue providing effective and fair response to all types of sexual misconduct that harms University community members, whether that misconduct occurs on- or off-campus.

The Board will discuss the following primary considerations related to these changes:

A uniform standard of evidence for all Title IX cases, whether these matters involve students, faculty or staff;
Adjustments to how live hearings are conducted, as well as the process for appealing University Title IX decisions;
The size and composition of Title IX hearing panels;
The scope of advisor roles for those assisting parties involved in these matters, and;
The level of systemwide centralization the University will employ as it moves forward with updates to its processes.

Since the initial DOE announcement, the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, in collaboration with other University offices, has consulted broadly with students, faculty and staff systemwide to determine how the University can best meet these federal mandates on all five of its campuses. Though University administrators are continuing to gather feedback from governance groups and beyond, consultation in recent months is reflected in materials coming before the Board for consideration in July.

As part of its July meetings, the Board is also expected to:

Act on a recommendation for a one-time employee retirement incentive option.
Hear the annual report from the University of Minnesota Alumni Association, which represents nearly 500,000 alums from the University’s Twin Cities and Rochester campuses.
Act on the purchase of 501 Oak Street SE in Minneapolis and the sale of 1.66 acres at UMore Park in Rosemount.

For more information, including future meeting times, visit regents.umn.edu.

Uncategorized

In college I was falsely accused of sexual harassment. Men like me deserve due process.

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 2, 2020

Uncategorized

University of Denver Chancellor Memo Regarding Title IX Compliance

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 24, 2020

OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR

June 10, 2020

Dear DU Community,

As you may be aware, the U.S. Department of Education has issued final regulations that put into place new legally binding requirements that will impact the way DU and all universities that receive federal funding manage and report cases of sexual assault. I am writing to assure you that these changes will in no way compromise our commitment to creating an environment in which all members of the DU community feel safe reporting their experiences and remain confident that their cases will be heard thoroughly, fairly, and with respect.

Through the wecanDUbetter campaign, we heard painful stories about how survivors feel that DU has let them down in the past. Those stories united our campus, and I made a public commitment that DU would respond swiftly and proactively to all future incidents of gender-based violence and sexual assault.

As promised, I am writing today to provide an update to the statement and detailed action plan to combat sexual harassment and assault that I shared on March 5. You can find an update to that action plan here.

Because the new rules are complex, and require DU to implement some new processes by August 14, we want to keep the community fully informed. Toward that end, I hope you will join me and a panel of experts and interested parties on June 16 at 3:30 pm MT for Ask the Experts about Title IX: A Dedicated Town Hall. The Zoom link is here. Our panelists will be:

Jeremy Enlow, interim executive director of equal opportunity and Title IX coordinator, Office of Equal Opportunity & Title IX;
Molly Hooker, interim deputy Title IX coordinator, Office of Equal Opportunity & Title IX;
Michael J. LaFarr, interim associate vice chancellor and executive director of the Health and Counseling Center, Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence;
Kristine McCaslin, director, student rights and responsibilities, Campus Life & Inclusive Excellence;
Josh Richards, vice chair, of the Higher Education Practice at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP;
Beth Robischon, associate general counsel, Office of General Counsel;
Kayla Rodriguez, coordinator, CAPE Advocacy Services, Health and Counseling Services;
Jack Thomas, doctoral student in the Graduate School of Professional Psychology and member of the Healthy Masculinity Working Group; and
Grace Wankelman, undergraduate student, Undergraduate Student Government senator, and co-founder of the wecanDUbetter campaign.

You can find important resources on DU’s Title IX website, including links to the Title IX Final Rule Overview, the Title IX Final Rule as published in the Federal Register on May 19 and anonymously share concerns, questions or ideas for the new Title IX process at DU. We plan to address your questions and concerns on June 16 and at other future programs. Also, we are seeking volunteers to be part of a Title IX policy/procedure advisory committee to provide feedback as we develop our new processes. Nominations can be emailed to titleix@du.edu. We welcome feedback and invite participants to help us make our process as effective and supportive as possible.

Our progress in this important area must continue and I am dedicated to ensuring it does. Please join us on June 16 to share your questions, suggestions or responses to the new federal regulations. Our unequivocal goal remains to make DU a place where all members of our community feel safe, welcome, and supported.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Haefner
Chancellor

Domestic Violence Uncategorized Violence Against Women Act

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 17, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@EndToDV.org

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

WASHINGTON / June 11, 2020 – The Coalition to End Domestic Violence today reports that the oft-repeated claim that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a global “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence has been refuted by police reports gathered from countries around the world.

On April 5, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres issued a Tweet declaring, “Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes….I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic.” (1) The following day, UN Women director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka issued a statement warning, “We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women.” (2)

But police reports received from 10 countries across the globe, listed below in alphabetical order, reach a different conclusion:

Albania: In March 2020, the number of domestic violence reports decreased by 141, as compared to the same month in the previous year (3). Likewise, Judge Durim Hasa reported a decrease in domestic violence cases in his district (4).
Australia: In New South Wales, domestic violence assaults decreased from 2,434 in April, 2019 to 2,145 in April, 2020, representing a 12% drop. Bureau executive director Jackie Fitzgerald said there was no evidence that social isolation measures have led to an increase in domestic violence (5). In Queensland, “Reports of domestic violence breaches dropped 5.6% between March 6 and 27, while court applications related to such matters fell 20% in that time.” (6)
Austria: The incidence of domestic violence has not risen, and many places have seen a reduction, according to reports from dozens of police departments across the country (7).
Canada: The Ottawa Police Service reported that calls requesting an officer’s intervention in domestic disputes were down more than 23% from March 16 to April 30, compared to the same period in 2019. (8) In Toronto, police report a “small drop” in domestic violence numbers since social distancing measures went into effect (9). Police in Vancouver have not seen any increase in domestic violence statistics (10).
India: Earlier this week, Smriti Irani, Minister for Women and Child Development, was asked whether the lockdown has increased domestic violence against women. Her response, “It is false.” (11)
Netherlands: A March newspaper account reported the National Police noted a 12% domestic violence decline, compared to the same week in 2019. (12)
Russia: The number of domestic violence crimes fell by 13% during the lockdown, compared to the same month in 2019. (13)
Spain: During the first two weeks of April, “there has been a sharp drop in complaints being made to the police.” (14)
Tasmania: According to police Acting Commander Stuart Wilkinson, “we’re not seeing an increase at all.” (15)
United States: Among reports gathered from 33 police departments across the country, 11 noted a decline and 19 saw steady numbers of domestic violence cases. Only three offices indicated an increase of 10% or more in domestic violence cases (16).

Many countries have reported increases in calls to domestic violence hotlines. But commentator Wendy McElroy explains why police reports are more accurate than hotlines in tracking trends: “People access [domestic violence] hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” (17)

While it is possible that domestic violence has increased in some areas, the United Nations’ startling prediction of a new “pandemic” of violence against women around the world has been shown to be false. And extensive global research shows men and women engage in domestic violence at equal rates (18).

In India, Smriti Irani expressed dismay over the domestic violence “scaremongering” at the hands of certain non-governmental organizations (11). In Austria, one group charged feminist-oriented domestic violence groups with using the coronavirus issue to make “untrue statements,” thereby ignoring male victims of violence (7). In Australia, Corrine Barraclough noted, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (19)

Links:

Uncategorized Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 4, 2020

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

by Wendy McElroy | Jun 3, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title IX Uncategorized

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 2, 2020

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

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

(Rick Scuteri / Associated Press)

By RYAN KARTJESTAFF WRITER

MAY 28, 2020 7:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title IX Uncategorized

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 29, 2020

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

SAVE

May 29, 2020

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

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

(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably….

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

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

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