From SAVE Services:
Since the release of the infamous Dear Colleague Letter in 2011, the federal government, through the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has eliminated procedural protections. Through their guidance letters, OCR has made the campus disciplinary process unreliable, thereby undermining the seriousness of sexual assault allegations on our college campuses.
Now, with a new Secretary of Education, we have a chance to drain the swamp at the OCR and restore due process and fairness to campus procedures. This week, we are asking you to reach out to Secretary DeVos and urge her to make meaningful changes at the OCR. Some suggested requests:
Allow students to have active attorneys during their hearings;
Use justice centered investigations;
Raise the standard of proof to "clear and convincing"
You can contact the Secretary at her direct email:
Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
or
You can call the Department of Education at:
1-800-872-5327
Thank you for your continued support,
Jonathon P Andrews
Project Coordinator
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
If you're a man on college or university campuses this is something you should be very interested in. Your rights are on the line. If you're an 18 year old man about to go to a college or university then you want to support it too. Let's all support these changes.
Showing posts with label dear colleague letter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dear colleague letter. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Friday, July 8, 2016
So that's who's behind it
College association calls civil-rights agency a ‘Star Chamber’
It may have confused some observers why a constitutional law professor-turned-president would preside over the most blatant denial of due process rights to college students in recent history.
An intriguing Washington Post analysis might have the answer: President Barack Obama ceded all responsibility for campus sexual-assault to his vice president before they were even in office.
And Joe Biden has proven a zealot without any regard for the rights of students who face accusations bereft of any evidence beyond an accuser’s oft-fuzzy memory:
Biden said he spoke to Obama about the issue even before they won the White House in 2008, requesting a staff to work on violence against women “within the office of the vice president,” rather than at the Justice Department.
“He said, ‘Okay.’ He knew how strongly I felt about it,” Biden said, adding that over time Obama became more engaged with the issue.
Biden’s influence has apparently led the White House to judge all colleges that provide a fair process for accused students as cavalierly harboring rapists:
According to White House officials, top members of the administration — including the president, the vice president, their wives and members of the Cabinet — will not visit institutions whose leaders they consider insufficiently serious about pursuing sexual-assault allegations and punishing perpetrators.
Biden told the Post he also wants the feds to “take away their money” if schools provide basic fairness to accused students.
That echoes the federal funding threats made by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) when universities don’t immediately turn their adjudication proceedings into a fait accompli, as happened at Tufts University in 2014.
An official with the American Council on Education, which represents 1,600 college and university presidents at the federal level, aptly characterized OCR as “a Court of Star Chamber, with arbitrary rulings, no rights for those under investigation and a secret process” governing schools who fall under Title IX investigation.
Meanwhile, the legality of OCR’s “guidance” on Title IX is the subject of at least three federal lawsuits by students or their parents – meaning it’s likely that whoever succeeds Obama and Biden will have to clean up the legal mess they left.
Source
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Catherine Lhamon: the woman behind "Dear Colleague"
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
There is no other way of saying it. This bitch needs to go to prison. She has deliberately fucked up men's lives. She needs to pay. The best way of doing that is to contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to send Lhamon to prison.
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
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wrongfully expelled man sues Xavier Unversity
Maryland guard Dez Wells suing Xavier for expulsion
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Tell McCain not to let go
DOJ disregards McCain, McCain fails to react
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Tell Arne Duncan to repeal "dear colleague"
From SAVE Services:
After a Duke Law Review article chided the Department of Education's Sexual Assault Directive for its "fatally inadequate discussion" and "unacceptable" and "perverse" effects on due process, Russlynn Ali resigned. Ali headed the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights and was the lead author of the Directive.
Today, email or call Dept. of Ed. Secretary Arne Duncan with the message, "Repeal the Sexual Assault Directive!"
Email: arne.duncan@ed.gov
Call: 1-800-USA-LEARN (872-5327)
Nearly 90 editorials have criticized the Directive for ignoring civil rights, removing the presumption of innocence, and fostering false allegations: click here.
Let's end this nonsense now!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director Stop Abusive and Violent Environments www.saveservices.org
Sounds good. We're rid of Russlynn Ali but the stench she created with that mandate continues on. It's time to vacate it and it is up to us to let Arne Duncan know to repeal this mandate. If you have sons,brothers,nephews or male cousins that are attending a college or university that receives federal money then you definitely want this repealed and the sooner the better.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Help rescind the "dear colleague" letter
Students returning to campuses are facing the curtailment of student civil rights, thanks to a 2011 U.S. Department of Education (DED) sex assault mandate. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is calling on the federal agency to retract the Directive, and restore due process to campuses across the nation.
Under the policy, rather than the usual "reasonable doubt" standard used in courts of law, colleges are now mandated to use the 50.1% "preponderance of evidence" standard when adjudicating claims of sexual assault.
Release of the Directive has resulted in a number of high-profile debacles across the country:click here
Learn more at click here
SAVE wants to stop the Directive from inviting false allegations, which harm the credibility of true victims and dissipate needed services for victims.
Help us convince the DED to rescind the Directive. Sign the petition: sign the petition or write to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov.
Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Or we can do both,sign the petition and contact Arne Duncan. Let's see if the Obama administration reaches out to men,a voting bloc they desperately need or are they going to make Team Romney clean up their mess on January 21 or after. Let's see.
Under the policy, rather than the usual "reasonable doubt" standard used in courts of law, colleges are now mandated to use the 50.1% "preponderance of evidence" standard when adjudicating claims of sexual assault.
Release of the Directive has resulted in a number of high-profile debacles across the country:click here
Learn more at click here
SAVE wants to stop the Directive from inviting false allegations, which harm the credibility of true victims and dissipate needed services for victims.
Help us convince the DED to rescind the Directive. Sign the petition: sign the petition or write to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov.
Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Or we can do both,sign the petition and contact Arne Duncan. Let's see if the Obama administration reaches out to men,a voting bloc they desperately need or are they going to make Team Romney clean up their mess on January 21 or after. Let's see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)