Showing posts with label colleges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colleges. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2019
Tell Sen. Patty Murray: 'Due process IS America'
From SAVE Services:
Tomorrow morning, the Senate HELP Committee will hold a hearing on "Addressing Campus Sexual Assault and Ensuring Student Safety and Rights."
In the past, Sen. Patty Murray, who is the highest ranking Democrat on the Committee, has often pushed the "one in five" fake statistic in order to justify the existence of the campus Kangaroo Courts.
Somehow, Murray has forgotten that all Americans, including college students, are guaranteed due process by the Constitution.
So please telephone Murray's office at (202) 224-2621. Tell her, "Due process IS America!"
Better yet, tell her to watch the attached video, "Due Process Goes to School:"
Sincerely,
The SAVE Team
Or if you prefer to email her you can do that. The more of us she hears from the better.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Secretary of Education shuts down Obama's kangaroo courts
A judicial process that doesn’t allow the accused to cross-examine his accuser or reliably see the evidence against him is a civil libertarian’s nightmare. It traduces every principle of fairness and is blatantly un-American.
Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.
The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.
In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.
The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.
It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.
It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.
It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.
The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.
In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”
The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.
One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.
The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.
A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “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. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”
This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.
Source
Let's thank Betsy Devos: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and let her know that what she is doing is fantastic and that we fully support it and her. The more of us they hear from the better so let's do it.
Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.
The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.
In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.
The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.
It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.
It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.
It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.
The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.
In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”
The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.
One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.
The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.
A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “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. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”
This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.
Source
Let's thank Betsy Devos: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and let her know that what she is doing is fantastic and that we fully support it and her. The more of us they hear from the better so let's do it.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Kirsten Gillibrand’s crusade for campus injustice
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is furious that the Trump Department of Education is pulling back from Obama-era demands that colleges junk due process in the name of fighting sexual assault.
She and 30 other congressional Democrats last week wrote Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that they’re “extraordinarily disappointed and alarmed” over actions to diminish “enforcement of federal civil rights law.” Specifically, they complain that DeVos has hired staff hostile to the department’s 2011 guidance on how schools should approach campus sexual assault.
False rape charges again expose injustice of campus kangaroo courts
They’re absolutely right about the hostility: DeVos and her team are ending the jihad by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which was launched at the behest of extremists like Gillibrand and her colleagues.
Behind the campaign was the claim, based on a single study that’s since been fully discredited, that one US coed in five is a victim of sexual assault. In fact, later — and much more extensive — FBI research shows that women on campus are safer than their off-campus peers.
Which of course doesn’t mean that rape (and lesser offenses) don’t happen on campus, but merely that there’s no unique “rape culture” to be fought.
But the advocates still got their jihad, as Team Obama ordered colleges and universities to institute kangaroo courts to handle sex-assault claims — star chambers where the accused typically has no right to counsel, to examine (and so be able to challenge) evidence and testimony against him or sometimes even to know the specific charges against him.
The Democrats’ letter warns that when a school “mishandles an incident of sexual assault, that this is rarely an isolated incident on that campus” — which is certainly true, if your definition of “mishandling” is giving the accused any rights at all.
The lack of due process has schools across the nation facing lawsuits for expelling students on laughable grounds — including at least one case where even the supposed victim insisted everything was consensual.
Of course, Gillibrand is too committed to admit to any excesses: She’s even still a big fan of Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz, aka “Mattress Girl” — whose nationally publicized charges against a fellow student have been utterly debunked by extensive evidence, including her texts with him before and long after the fact.
Sexual assault, on campus or anywhere, is a serious issue. Too bad Gillibrand and her allies are set on exploiting it for their own political gain at the expense of basic justice.
Source
This was written by the Editorial Board of the New York Post not by a fellow MRA on his website which means we are gaining traction as feminism and their followers are losing power,the noose is loosing which means there is hope.
She and 30 other congressional Democrats last week wrote Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that they’re “extraordinarily disappointed and alarmed” over actions to diminish “enforcement of federal civil rights law.” Specifically, they complain that DeVos has hired staff hostile to the department’s 2011 guidance on how schools should approach campus sexual assault.
False rape charges again expose injustice of campus kangaroo courts
They’re absolutely right about the hostility: DeVos and her team are ending the jihad by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which was launched at the behest of extremists like Gillibrand and her colleagues.
Behind the campaign was the claim, based on a single study that’s since been fully discredited, that one US coed in five is a victim of sexual assault. In fact, later — and much more extensive — FBI research shows that women on campus are safer than their off-campus peers.
Which of course doesn’t mean that rape (and lesser offenses) don’t happen on campus, but merely that there’s no unique “rape culture” to be fought.
But the advocates still got their jihad, as Team Obama ordered colleges and universities to institute kangaroo courts to handle sex-assault claims — star chambers where the accused typically has no right to counsel, to examine (and so be able to challenge) evidence and testimony against him or sometimes even to know the specific charges against him.
The Democrats’ letter warns that when a school “mishandles an incident of sexual assault, that this is rarely an isolated incident on that campus” — which is certainly true, if your definition of “mishandling” is giving the accused any rights at all.
The lack of due process has schools across the nation facing lawsuits for expelling students on laughable grounds — including at least one case where even the supposed victim insisted everything was consensual.
Of course, Gillibrand is too committed to admit to any excesses: She’s even still a big fan of Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz, aka “Mattress Girl” — whose nationally publicized charges against a fellow student have been utterly debunked by extensive evidence, including her texts with him before and long after the fact.
Sexual assault, on campus or anywhere, is a serious issue. Too bad Gillibrand and her allies are set on exploiting it for their own political gain at the expense of basic justice.
Source
This was written by the Editorial Board of the New York Post not by a fellow MRA on his website which means we are gaining traction as feminism and their followers are losing power,the noose is loosing which means there is hope.
Friday, June 30, 2017
DOE reverses dear colleague
Under the Obama administration, the Department of Education (DOE) pushed the "rape culture" narrative — that one quarter of women would be raped or sexually assaulted on college campuses, and that colleges could not trust the police to handle these crimes. This created a perverse system of campus tribunals which denied due process rights to (mostly) men accused of sexual assault.
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Due process is still being kicked off campus
Academia’s descent into perpetual hysteria and incipient tyranny is partly fueled by the fiction that 1 in 5 college students is sexually assaulted and that campuses require minute federal supervision to cure this. Encouraged by the government’s misuse of discredited social science (one survey supposedly proving this 1-in-5 fiction), colleges and universities are implementing unconstitutional procedures mandated by the government.
The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.
Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:
“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.
Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).
Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.
In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.
Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.
The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.
CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.
Source
Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.
The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.
Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:
“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.
Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).
Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.
In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.
Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.
The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.
CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.
Source
Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.
It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).
And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.
Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.
Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?
McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.
A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.
A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.
So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”
Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”
Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.
Source
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.
It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).
And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.
Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.
Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?
McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.
A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.
A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.
So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”
Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”
Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.
Source
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Men's centers in acadamia
I'm reading where a lot of college men are starting men's centers on university and college campuses and they are getting a lot of flack from feminists and manginas. If you are anti-feminist,pro-MRA and you are one of these guys we have your back. If you fit the criteria I previously mentioned then we will back you and help you get the center set up and fight off the feminasties. Universities and colleges should be the place for free speech and the fair exchange of ideas. Under feminism it is anything but that. It is time to restore what once was and return freedom to university and college campuses. You young college men are the future and when we get these centers set up and running things should get better for college men everywhere. A men's center will give men a male positive perspective by letting them know that masculinity is not evil just as femininity is not virtuous . The day and age of men accepting female abuse is over and we are not going to take it anymore and we're going to let other men know they don't have to take it either. Let's get those centers up and running.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)