DeVos backstabs men on college and university campuses

This is outrageous. We need to contact Devos: betsy.devos@ed.gov and President Donald Trump
about this matter. We tell DeVos not to railroad innocent men and to let Trump know that his Secretary Of Education is discriminating against men on college and university campuses. Let them both know about the video.

Rapist Joe goes back to school

The Unofficial Democratic Nominee for President, Joseph Biden, is doing two things: he is only looking for a female for vice-president. Proof that Biden is highly misandric. Also, Biden wants to put back into place the draconian mandate "dear colleague" which destroys the due process rigths of male students accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment on the nation's college and university campuses. Biden wants to destroy the due process rights of young college/university men. The same due process rights he clings to. Apparently, with Biden it is "due process for me but not for thee". Perhaps the men of America should send Joe Biden a message and that is: "because of me the Presidency is not for thee".

Campuses Cautious As They Adjust To New Sexual Assault Guidelines

New federal guidelines for handling allegations of sexual assault are prompting a range of reactions from school administrators. While many are expressing concerns and vowing to maintain current policy, others are breathing a sigh of relief or scratching their heads in confusion.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos officially rescinded Obama-era rules last week, replacing them with interim guidelines, until new permanent rules can be implemented. The Department of Education's new "Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct" may change everything from how much evidence should be required to prove allegations to how accused students can cross-examine witnesses.

Universities are "scrambling right now" to figure out what it all means, says Kristi Branham, associate professor and director of gender and women's studies at Western Kentucky University, who serves on a committee that works on education, training and awareness around sexual assault. "This is a tricky area."

"We're reading the new guidance carefully," says Kathleen Salvaty, systemwide Title IX coordinator for the University of California. "I definitely have some questions."

For example, Salvaty says that according to the new guidance, applying "special procedures" in sexual misconduct cases "suggests a discriminatory purpose, and should be avoided."

"I'm not sure what that means," Salvaty says. Schools have lots of special procedures for sexual misconduct cases, she says, precisely because they are different from cases of plagiarism, for example. And many of those are required by federal regulations. Schools are also unclear whether new language in the new guidance means that Title IX rules would no longer apply off campus — at a fraternity, for example.

"That is causing some concern and confusion," Salvaty says. "We're just not sure what to do."

Others have raised concerns that the new interim guidance contradicts a 2001 directive that was not among those rescinded by DeVos. John Clune, an attorney with Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC, says "the whole purpose of the 2001 guidance is that grievance procedures be prompt and equitable." But, he says, the new guidance removes time limits on investigations, allows schools to offer an appeal option exclusively to accused students, and permits schools to raise the evidentiary bar from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" standard, making allegations harder to prove.

"That discriminates against complainants," Clune says. "It certainly undermines the concept ... that the proceedings be prompt and equitable."

Many schools say they are also confused by mixed signals on whether schools can try informal resolution methods, like mediation; the new guidance allows it, but the 2001 guidance bars it.

Skidmore College sociology professor David Karp says he hopes it signals a new opportunity for an alternative process he has been promoting known as restorative justice, a nonadversarial model that focuses on a victim's healing, and how offenders can contribute to that. Schools have refrained from trying the idea for fear it would be seen as a form of mediation.

"I do think this is a green light that hasn't existed before," Karp says. He cautions that more guidance and training is needed, because "if badly implemented, [RJ] can backfire and cause further harm." But "I think schools will feel like they have more latitude to explore this as an additional option," he says.

Oklahoma Wesleyan University is one school feeling freed up by DeVos' decision to rescind the Obama-era guidance, which OKWU President Everett Piper calls "nothing short of a disaster."

Last year, the university sued the Department of Education, arguing that those guidelines resulted in a "growing number of innocent students being trampled [by the] 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach."

Piper says he is relieved now that OKWU will no longer feel pressure to "compromise ... students' rights" and can now "operate ... without threat of government intrusion and overreach." But OKWU has not yet announced any specific change in policies or practices.

Indeed, most schools appear to be holding off on any immediate action. Officials from schools including Harvard, Cornell, the University of Missouri and the University of Michigan say they are still reviewing the new guidance to see what, if any, changes need to be made. And many more have announced they are simply staying the course.

"All of us are continuing as usual," says Sarah Berg, deputy Title IX coordinator of prevention, training and outreach at the University of Colorado, Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus.

A letter to the Yale University community says the school has "no plans to deviate" from current Obama-era policies. California State University, Northridge says "Regardless of this new DOE action ... we will not waver in our commitment to Title IX and its protections." Similarly, Washington University in St. Louis says "regardless of decisions at the federal level, we have no intention of turning back on our commitment or resolve."

While that kind of resolve is reassuring to some, it's frustrating to others.

"It is disappointing, but not surprising," says Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group that has criticized previous policies as unfair to the accused. Many schools see the new guidance as "designed to go back to the Stone Age," he says. "But really this is about an adjustment to make sure that both sides' needs are met, because that wasn't happening before."

Attorney Andrew Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, who represents dozens of accused students, says the "pushback" from universities is unfortunate. "It's a stubborn 'we're still going to do it our way,' " he says.

While the interim guidance is technically just a recommendation, not a binding rule, Miltenberg says schools that stick to old policies do so at their own peril. He says DeVos' recent comments, and her decision to rescind the old guidance, will be a big boost to accused students' lawsuits.

"It's a significant acknowledgement that there is a problem in [that] process," says Miltenberg. "It's a great thing to say to a judge that 'before last week, you didn't have to believe that there might be inherent bias throughout the process, but now those arguments carry much more weight. The secretary of the Department of Education publicly announced those very things.' "

Miltenberg rejects the notion that the new guidance causes chaos or confusion, or even what he calls the "false hysteria" that the new guidance represents a setback for rape victims.

"This constant refrain is an attempt to create a ... big lie," he says. "It's like if you say it loud enough and often enough, people will believe it."

Ultimately, Miltenberg says, real change will require not only new policies but also a shift in who is administering them on campuses.

"The reality is that most of the people that I've come in contact with as part of any school's Title IX apparatus have some sort of victimcentric view, or previous work history, or something in their lives that I think makes them unable to be as impartial and objective as someone should be," Miltenberg says.

Title IX administrators deny any bias in their work, but they don't dispute how fervently they want to maintain current policies. "Everyone I know who does this work ... wants to hold on to this process, because we've really put our careers into this," says Berg. "We're really proud of where we've gotten. So to have someone essentially gut that policy would be really painful."

Source

This is great news. Let's thank Betsy DeVos for rescinding Dear Colleague. The more of us she hears from the better. Contact her: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov

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.

Feminist's son is accused of rape

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.

These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?

The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?

My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.

Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.

There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.

I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

Source

Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.

Top Senate Republican vows end to ‘unchecked’ Office for Civil Rights under Trump Grace Curtis - Converse College •January 12, 2017

‘It was this type of overreach that the American people repudiated’
Congressional leaders who have long criticized the Obama administration for the Department of Education’s perceived overreach are promising big changes under a Trump administration.

That includes pressing for a leader of the Office for Civil Rights who will “stop the practice of using the office as an unchecked regulatory entity,” Republican Sen. James Lankford, who chairs the regulatory affairs subcommittee, told The College Fix in an email.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, the new chair of the House Education Committee, has said she has even grander designs: “to see the [entire] department scaled back.”

Advocates for the department’s current methods, including a sweeping interpretation of Title IX that micromanages how colleges handle sexual-misconduct complaints, have already tried to thwart anticipated changes.

They are speaking out against President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary, Betsy DeVos, for her donations to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a vocal critic of the department’s sexual-misconduct “guidance.”

Republicans will ‘put a stop to this abuse’

Under the Obama administration, the department used alternate means to issue de facto regulations to colleges without going through the required rulemaking process, according to critics.

“Some of the most egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” took place at the department, “and I believe it was this type of overreach that the American people repudiated in this election,” Lankford told The Fix.
Administration officials “have abused ‘Dear Colleague’ letters and ‘guidance documents’ to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally-required regulatory processes,” he said.

Lankford’s top priority for Trump’s incoming department is the appointment of an Office for Civil Rights director who understands and abides by proper regulatory processes.

“The new leader of the Department of Education, and especially the Office [for] Civil Rights, must restore the action of the office to their original construct and stop the practice of using the office as an unchecked regulatory entity,” he said: Unified Republican governance should “put a stop to this abuse.”


‘Very little tolerance’ for huge student loans

Incoming Chairman Foxx, a former college president with a Ph.D. in higher education, has been vocal in speaking against the federal government’s intrusion into states’ decisions on education policy.
After Trump’s election, she told Inside Higher Ed that the new Congress will “have a lot of emphasis on oversight,” but said she wanted “some really, really competent people” who will investigate “what’s going on” in the department from the inside.

Asked about the rumors that the Trump administration will eliminate or scale back the department’s reach, Foxx said: “I definitely see the opportunity to see the department scaled back,” in particular by devolving its functions to the state and local level.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Foxx wants to torpedo an Obama rule (currently blocked by a federal judge) that “would make more salaried employees on college campuses and elsewhere eligible for overtime pay.”
She also wants to eliminate regulations on for-profit colleges and teacher-prep programs. Those regulations also bailed out student victims of fraud with taxpayer dollars.

Foxx once told a radio program she has “very little tolerance” for students taking out large loan amounts and their consequent dependence on the government. She is an advocate for early-college programs to save both students and governments money, as well as encouraging students to explore vocational training.
Foxx’s office responded to an initial Fix inquiry but did not provide a staffer to answer questions.

Uncertain future for speech codes
One of the open questions about a Trump presidency is how colleges might modify their speech codes in response.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte asked colleges in August 2015, and again in February 2016, to tell him how they are promoting “free and open expression” and bringing campus policies in line with the First Amendment.
MORE: Universities keep Congress waiting as they scramble to overhaul speech codes
He targeted 160 colleges slapped with a “red light” rating by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, meaning they have “at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”
In his second letter, Goodlatte targeted 33 colleges that had not responded a full six months after his deadline.
Goodlatte’s office did not return multiple emails and voicemails sent by The Fix seeking an update on his effort.

No excuse for violating due process without ‘guidance’

DeVos, Trump’s nominee for secretary of education, is best known for her philanthropy related to education reform in Michigan and charter-school expansion. She has also supported reform in Florida and Michigan, as well as the school-voucher movement.

But in the higher education realm, observers are focused on how she might change federal rules on disciplinary proceedings for sexual-misconduct allegations.
“Many believe” a DeVos-led department will get rid of the Office for Civil Rights’ 2011 guidance document on the subject, Inside Higher Ed reported.

That document, portrayed as nonbinding, told colleges to use a low evidence standard and abandon common protections given to the accused in civil-court settings, such as the right to cross-examination.
MORE: Senate chairman orders OCR to ‘immediately rein in’ Title IX ‘abuses‘
If it’s junked, colleges won’t be able to cite the guidance if they are sued by students who allege they were deprived of due process in campus proceedings.

Higher education legal consultant Gary Pavela told Inside Higher Ed that it was wrong for OCR to have “transformed that floor into a ceiling,” referring to the “preponderance” evidence standard mandated by the guidance.
Choosing an evidence standard “should be based [on] our own campus-based analysis and experience,” not dicates from Washington, he said. But as long as “other reasonable due process standards are applied,” colleges can probably continue using preponderance without “legal risk.”

Colleges won’t miss the 2011 guidance, if previous comments by the American Council on Education are any indication.
The group, which represents 1,800 college presidents at the federal level, last year called OCR “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.

Source

Let's thank Senator James Lankford for standing up for men who's due process rights are being violated. You can call his office at (202)224-5754 or you can email him here. Let's thank him for pursuing this as he has. The more of us he hears from the better so let's contact him right away.

Let's tell Donald Trump to dismantle Dear Colleague

I was at the Community Of The Wrongly Accused or COTWA and I was reading how Donald Trump is going to dismantle the Office of Civil Rights division of the Department Of Education. A lot of publications and organizations are bringing this to the forefront. Among them are Inside Higher Ed,Weekly Standard,Buzz Feed and Vox. This is a good thing if you are an MRA or you actually care about due process for the accused. I thank them for bring these issues to the forefront so the rest of country and planet can see what goes on at America's Universities and Colleges. Contacting Senators Lamar Alexander and James Lankford was a good idea. They are pressing on this with the tenacity of a pit bull. Congress has the power to yank the DOE's funding and with the Republicans running Congress that is a safe bet. Donald Trump has a Twitter account so let's contact him there and let him know what we think on this subject.

Let's ask Donald Trump were he stands on due process for male students accused of sexual misconduct

Rights group calls on presidential candidates to denounce 'victim-centered investigations'

By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 8/11/16 2:17 PM

An organization dedicated to overturning and preventing wrongful convictions is calling on presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to denounce "victim-centered investigations."

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity works with prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the falsely accused to prevent wrongful convictions and over-criminalization. The group says victim-centered investigations have led and will lead to more wrongful convictions and false accusations.

"Victim-centered investigations emphasize the collection of evidence supportive of the complainant and discourage the collection of exculpatory evidence, thereby increasing the likelihood of a guilty verdict," the group wrote in a press release. "Victim-centered investigations represent a departure from ethical standards of investigative impartiality, neutrality and objectivity."

Both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms discussed fairness in accusations of sexual assault, specifically on college campuses. But requiring victim-centered investigations removes fairness, as investigators — whether actual law enforcement or campus bureaucrats — are told to believe accusers and pressured by the federal government to punish the accused no matter what the evidence shows.

As I've written before, one of the few times the general public was able to review just what constituted a "victim-centered" investigation, the results were unnerving. Investigators were outright told that false accusations are rare (so best not to ever disbelieve the accuser) and to predict what a likely defense would be, so as to counteract it during the investigation.

Investigators for the University of Texas system were told not to repeat questions with accusers (or not to take notes when doing so), so that there would not be evidence of inconsistencies that could be an indication the accuser was lying.

The CPI press release mentions the case of a young man who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman even though he had never been to the town the alleged assault was said to have occurred.

The group called for Clinton and Trump to endorse a "justice-centered" approach that "protects due process, preserves the presumption of innocence and utilizes an impartial evaluation of all evidence."

Accusers, CPI notes, should be treated with respect and taken seriously, but investigators must remain impartial. I've previously advocated for a "trust but verify" approach, which would ensure accusers aren't disbelieved from the start, but that the accused would also not be treated as guilty from the beginning.

Trump hasn't mentioned campus sexual assault during his campaign, but Clinton has tweeted that we should "listen and believe" anyone who makes an accusation (unless they're accusing her husband, of course).

Source

As you can plainly see that as far as men's rights go Hillary is a lost cause. The proof is here and here. Which is causing this and rightfully so. That means our best bet is with Donald Trump. So contact him at facebook or send him a tweet and let him know that we are very concerned about this. The more of us that contact him the better so don't delay.

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.

CSU student sues DOE for gender discrimination

A former Colorado State athlete who was suspended for sexual assault last fall is now suing the United States government for gender discrimination, while alleging that the Department of Education’s sexual assault guidance violates federal laws, therefore suggesting that every campus sex assault case decided under that guidance could be overturned.

According to the lawsuit, Grant Neal, a sophomore at Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) who played football and wrestled at the school, had consensual sexual intercourse with a female classmate, who is not named in the lawsuit, last October. The next day, a peer of that woman, who is also not named, reported to the school that Neal had raped the woman.

In December, after investigating, the school found that Neal was more than likely responsible for sexual misconduct—the standard that the federal Department of Education tells schools to use—and suspended him for as long as the alleged victim remained at the school. The woman said he never raped her, according to the lawsuit.

After the ruling, Neal apparently lost athletic scholarships and has found that no other school will admit him. His suspension had critics, and a petition for the university to overturn it has nearly 2,000 supporters.

The lawsuit names the university and several school officials, including its president, as defendants, and notably also includes the U.S., the Department of Education and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), as well as Secretary of Education John King Jr. and Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon—a first in such cases by male students accused of sexual assault, according to legal experts.

The basis for the lawsuit is the OCR’s controversial “Dear Colleague” letter, which it issued to colleges and universities in 2011. The letter stated that sexual violence at schools falls under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education settings. The OCR offered guidance for how schools should handle sexual assault and violence cases. It also said those that mishandle them would be in violation of Title IX and could lose federal funding.

Advocates for male respondents in campus sexual assault cases say the 2011 guidance led to an overcorrection on the issue in a way that discriminates against young men, is inherently anti-male and denies them due process. Neal’s lawsuit alleges that the OCR’s guidance violates the law.

“We believe the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education is illegal and unconstitutional,” Andrew Miltenberg, who represents Neal and has become a go-to lawyer for male respondents in sexual assault cases, tells Newsweek via email. “By essentially encouraging male gender bias, the Administration’s directive has violated Title IX and created a new class of victims on campus—accused male students who have had their right to due process stripped away.”

Male students accused of sexual assault are increasingly suing their schools, and especially since 2013, more of them are claiming Title IX discrimination—the same violation that female sexual assault complainants have made, alleging that schools mishandled their claims in a way that goes against their Title IX rights. Most of these so-called reverse-Title IX cases have been unsuccessful: In March, a judge dismissed a high-profile case against Columbia University by Paul Nungesser, the student who was the subject of classmate Emma Sulkowicz’s “mattress” art project and protest. Nungesser has until April 25 to file an updated complaint. Miltenberg represents him too and has said he plans to file.

However, a handful of these cases have recently survived motions to dismiss, including ones against Washington and Lee University, Brown University and Brandeis University.

Neal is suing for violations of Title IX and due process and breach of contract. He also alleges that the “Dear Colleague” letter violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates a notice and review process for when the government issues a new rule. The lawsuit claims that the OCR issued “binding law” under the guise of “guidance” without following the APA procedures.

Such a violation, the lawsuit alleges, means the “Dear Colleague” letter and all disciplinary decisions made under it are “unconstitutional, arbitrary and void.” A ruling in favor of that claim might open any campus sexual assault decision a school made since 2011 to a challenge.

Hans Bader is a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization, who practices education law and previously worked as an attorney at the OCR. He points out that a footnote to the “Dear Colleague” letter says it does not add to existing law, and yet “it requires colleges to follow those letters to the T,” he asserts.

“Requiring schools to apply that as gospel when they essentially made it up out of nothing—that’s a plain violation of the APA because you have an entirely new legal obligation without notice and comment, without even the pretext of any real basis,” he says.

Several advocates for male respondents have recently vowed to take on the OCR. Last week, Families Advocating for Campus Equality, a due process advocacy organization led by mothers of male students accused of sexual misconduct, filed testimony with a Senate subcommittee opposing a federal proposal to increase the OCR’s funding by about 30 percent. “Approval of such a dramatic increase in OCR’s budget will only reward OCR for its much-criticized overreach,” the organization said.

And earlier this month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that advocates for free speech and due process on campus, called for students to help challenge the OCR for the same “abuse of power” that the Neal lawsuit alleges. A FIRE spokesman says the Neal lawsuit is unrelated to the organization’s effort.

“When an administrative agency wants to promulgate a regulation that will force people to change their behavior in some way,” says Justin Dillon, an attorney who is working with FIRE on its effort, “the agency, No. 1, has to put out a notice that it’s thinking of taking this action, and No. 2, allow people to comment on this action, whether they’re for or against it.”

Those procedures, Dillon says, ensure that only federal employees with accountability to the voting public are the ones setting rules. “Agencies are not Congress. Agencies are unelected people,” he says. “The staff of the agency are just garden-variety federal employees with absolutely no democratic accountability. The idea is, you don’t want to have people who are not accountable to the voters basically making laws” without those review procedures.

Should a judge determine that the “Dear Colleague” letter is null and void, Dillon says, some “might argue that they have a right to reopen a case” under pre-2011 procedures—unless the ruling that vacates the letter only applies moving forward.

Dillon, who is not involved in Neal’s case, says he and FIRE are “very close to filing” their own lawsuit that makes a similar argument.

The OCR has been a defendant in at least one other lawsuit. In 2005, plaintiffs sued the OCR, alleging its investigation into a possible Title IX violation involving male and female high school hockey teams was flawed. A federal court judge dismissed the case in 2007.

A CSU-Pueblo spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation. A Department of Education spokesman declined to comment for the same reason.

As of April 13, the OCR is investigating 175 colleges for their handling of sexual violence cases.

“We’ve seen just a cataclysmic change around the country in terms of attention to the issue; responsiveness to it; and training, preparation for our students so that we can see safer campuses,” Lhamon, the civil rights assistant secretary, told Newsweek last year. She said the OCR had not yet rescinded funding from a school for mishandling a sexual violence claim but added, “I would absolutely be prepared to do it.”

Source

If this was me I would name the little fink who butted her nose in my business like she did and teach her a lesson. I hope he did just that.

It’s Time To Defund The Out-Of-Control War On Due Process For College Students

Since 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has blatantly violated college students’ rights to free speech and due process. Congress has done nothing to fix this abuse of power. Its members are, in fact, currently entertaining President Barack Obama’s proposal to increase OCR’s budget by $137.7 million of funding for the 2017 fiscal year.

When do we, as students, say enough is enough?

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is responsible for enforcing Title IX at federally-funded colleges and universities. Title IX is a federal statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in educational programs that receive federal funds. The Office for Civil Rights has authority over almost all of the nation’s colleges and universities because almost all of them receive federal funds for their educational operations.

The Office for Civil Rights often gives schools guidance on how to maintain compliance with Title IX’s mandates. In years past, such guidance properly balanced prohibiting acts of harassment with protecting the free speech and due process rights of students. In 2001, for example, the office’s guidance adhered to the Supreme Court’s legal definition of sexual harassment. In an effort to defend students’ rights to due process, the 2001 guidance also granted schools the ability to develop their own specialized procedures for handling sexual misconduct disciplinary hearings. The 2003 guidance explicitly separated Title IX enforcement policies from protected speech.

However, the guidance provided five years ago by the Office for Civil Rights guidance — in a now-notorious 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter — ruined this balance.

The policy promulgated in the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter lacked the well-crafted protections which enabled institutions to prohibit Title IX violations and promote free speech.

Obama’s Office for Civil Rights has redefined sexual harassment as mere “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” Under “Dear Colleague” letter’s directives, single instances of “jokes,” “insulting sounds” and “degrading remarks” can constitute Title IX violations. The “Dear Colleague” letter has created an atmosphere in which sexual harassment no longer needs to be pervasive or even “objectively offensive.”

The 2011 directives are a drastic, radical shift from the Education Department’s past conformity to Supreme Court precedent and guarantee of First Amendment protections.

According to a federal judge, the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter also advised disciplinary proceedings which deny accused students the “most basic and fundamental components of due process of law.” The “Dear Colleague” letter has created a bizarre situation which strips America’s college students of many due process rights. Accused students no longer have the ability to see the evidence filed against them. They no longer have the right to an impartial decision-making panel. They no longer are availed the use of a standard of evidence that is consistent with the severity of the charges filed. They are denied the right to have an appeals process that allows a case to be completely reevaluated after the accused party has been found innocent.

The Office of Civil Rights claims that the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter is not binding upon all colleges and universities. In fact, however, the office has threatened to pull federal funding from those schools that do not comply with these policies. Thus, fearful college officials all over the country have adopted its restrictions on constitutional rights.

Prior to making a decision on the office’s funding request, the Senate Appropriations Committee adheres to a period of public commentary. During this period, citizens can submit their opinions regarding funding requests in the form of public testimonial.

I am a freshman at Tufts University. My fellow students at Tufts and my peers at schools around the country can no longer afford to allow Congress to further fund an agency that conducts itself in a way that fails to provide basic free speech and due process rights. I have drafted a letter of testimony asking the Senate to place a hold on the Office for Civil Rights funding request until it readjusts its policies to guarantee students’ rights to free speech and due process.

Thus far, Tamas Takata, James Grant, and I have accumulated over 320 student signatures of support for my testimonial. These signatures include the name of the supporting students and the schools they attend. If you are a college student who wishes to add your name to this testimonial in support, please contact me at jaketg19@gmail.com.

Source

If you click on "proposal" it will take you to a PDF page that shows members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The two that I contacted are Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Roy Blunt. The other two Senators Patty Murray and Barbara Mikulski are feminists so I wouldn't bother with them. The more of us that counter feminists lies the better so let them know today.

Thank Senator James Lankford for standing up to the Department Of Education femibullies

Senate chairman demands Department of Education ‘immediately rein in’ its Title IX ‘abuses’

Greg Piper - Associate Editor
March 7, 2016

Acting Secretary of Education John King, who could be confirmed to the post Wednesday, won’t be able to pacify Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., with tautologies.

In a letter Friday, the chairman of the Senate Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee dispensed with every argument by King’s underling at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Catherine Lhamon, that Title IX gives the department the power to unilaterally issue broad new regulations related to harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct with no public rulemaking. (Read the footnotes in particular.)

Lankford minced no words with King:

I again call on you personally to clarify that these policies are not required by Title IX, but reflect only one of various ways schools may choose to develop and implement policies for the prevention and remedy of sexual harassment and sexual violence that best meet the needs of their students and are compliant with federal law. I further ask that you immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education and take measures to ensure that all existing and future guidance documents issued by your agency are clearly and firmly rooted in statutory authority.

The senator is greatly annoyed that the department keeps citing its own earlier guidance as justifying its later guidance.

RELATED: Department of Education official bizarrely claims it’s not threatening colleges in rape disputes

Regarding OCR’s 2010 Dear Colleague letter on sexual harassment and bullying, Lankford wrote King that the office improperly included examples of conduct that “can” violate Title IX – many of which are protected by the First Amendment – in and of themselves, not as one element of a “three-part test” as it has previously laid out:

But more importantly, regardless of however well-developed these citations to previous guidance documents are, they … do not have the force and effect of law, and therefore [cannot answer Lankford’s primary question] … What statutory or regulatory authority do you construe to arrive at the conclusion that Title IX requires that this proscribed conduct “can” be prohibited?

Lankford is also flabbergasted that OCR chief Lhamon thinks that “letters of findings” – her office’s settlements with colleges – justify its 2011 Dear Colleague letter that told colleges they must use the preponderance-of-evidence standard in sexual-misconduct proceedings in order to provide an “equitable resolution,” as required by Title IX:

[L]etters of findings carry no precedential value themselves and are a poor vehicle to alert regulated entities of new requirements … [These particular letters also] demonstrate that you have penalized those you regulate by enforcing standards never articulated by the Department and for which I question your authority.

In order for preponderance to be the only appropriate standard under Title IX, the statute would have to impose “strict liability” on colleges regardless of their response to sexual harassment or violence by students, which it doesn’t, Lankford said.

He noted that OCR “strongly discourages” schools from letting parties cross-examine each other, prohibits schools from letting accused students appeal unless their accusers get the same right, and even allows schools to make the same person the “fact-finder” and the “decision-maker” – all of which contradict “essential protections [that] defendants in a court of law enjoy”:

OCR’s silence on important due process considerations, coupled with the requirement of a lower standard of proof, indisputably tips the playing field against the accused, making the disciplinary process anything but “equitable.”

If OCR is really only telling colleges “its construction of the statutes and regulations” it enforces, it needs to cite actual statutes and regulations – not its own guidance and letters of findings, Lankford wrote.

Read the letter and excerpts from Lankford’s office.

Source

This is great. Finally lawmakers are standing up to these femibullies that enjoy pushing men around,stealing from them and depriving them of an education but leaving a black mark on their records that will haunt them throughout their professional and personal lives. Let's thank Senator James Lankford for standing up for college and university men accused of rape and for demanding due process be observed. Let's all thank him. The more of us he hears from the better. Click on email comment.

Georgia lawmaker stands up for due process for accused students

From SAVE Services:

We have a victory! Georgia state representative Earl Ehrhart, Chair of the Georgia Appropriations Committee, held a hearing on Monday about due process on college campuses.

During the hearing, he grilled college administrators on why they don't provide due process to students, threatening that the schools will not get funding if they don't immediately start providing fundamental due process protections:see video

Please call Rep. Ehrhart and thank him for speaking so boldly on behalf of due process.

Email: earl.ehrhart@house.ga.gov

Telephone: (404) 463-2247

Let's keep the momentum going and have a state we can use as an example for the nation!

Thank you!

Gina Lauterio, Esq., Policy Program Director

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

www.saveservices.org

You may want to contact your state legislators and governor and let them know that if Georgia can do they can do it.

Men shun women

Fallout from campus sexual assault hysteria: College men now suspicious of women
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.

At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.

This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.

Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.

“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”

Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.

Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.

“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”

William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.

“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”

Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.

“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”

Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.

“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.

“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”

Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.

Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.

Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).

I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.

“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.

We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.

And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.

Source

These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.

Another university gets sued because of the "dear colleague" directive

MAY 16, 2014

A Win for an Accused Male at St. Joe's
Posted by KC Johnson


A federal judge has permitted a second denial-of-due process suit against a university to proceed. First it was Xavier--after which the university quickly settled with Dez Wells. Now it's St. Joe's, where district court judge Felipe Restrepo (an Obama appointee) has issued a ruling that narrowed the lawsuit filed by Brian Harris, but has allowed the case to proceed.

The Harris case is one of a number with depressingly similar facts: a student is accused of sexual assault by an accuser who either doesn't go to the police or who authorities deem non-credible. The college nonetheless proceeded forth, seemingly cutting corners along the way, and branded the student a rapist despite what appeared to be sketchy evidence.

Restrepo allowed Harris to continue with his case on three grounds, the most significant of which flows form a Pennsylvania law holding that "'[a]ny person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property' as a result of the seller's deceptive or unlawful actions." Based on Restrepo's ruling, Harris will now have the opportunity to subpoena the university's records regarding how it "investigated" his case. (Restrepo also dismissed St. Joe's claims that the university's investigation should be deemed "quasi-judicial" and therefore immune from a civil suit.) The ruling permitted Harris' defamation claims against St. Joe's and against his accuser, Lindsay Horst, to proceed. And finally, over St. Joe's objections, Restrepo accepted an amicus brief from FIRE.

That said, Restrepo dismissed two of Harris' claims, regarding breach of contract and Title IX violation (though the judge did grant permission to amend the complaint within 20 days). And the manner in which Restrepo ruled provides a reminder of why courts shouldn't cling to the old, pre-2011 reality, and recognize that in an environment in which colleges are strongly pressured to carry out rigged criminal investigations and judicial inquiries, some type of oversight from a real judge is necessary.

Regarding the breach of contract claim, Restrepo conceded that the student handbook is a contract. (This issue varies from district to district; in the Duke case, Judge James Beaty held that Duke had no legal obligation to enforce its student or faculty handbook.) But he held that Harris had not been specific enough in outlining which portions of the handbook St. Joe's violated, and urged Harris to specify in an amended complaint. That said, Restrepo cast strong doubt as to whether Harris could successfully amend this portion of the complaint, given that St. Joe's handbook holds that "subsequent reviewers shall not determine anew whether there was a Community Standards violation" and "the decision made on appeal [by the Vice President for Student Life/Associate Provost ('VPSL')] will be final."

These provisions make perfect sense regarding academic matters. But in an environment in which colleges are functioning as investigators, prosecutors, and judges regarding an allegation that's a crime, a schools should not be allowed to wholly immunize themselves from judicial review for failing to respect their (minimal) due process protections.

Regarding the Title IX claim, Restrepo held that the facts alleged by Harris "do not suggest gender bias as a motivating factor." Yet the entire thrust of sexual assault policy over the last three years is that "gender bias" requires college to minimize due process protections for students accused of sexual assault. If--as the OCR has claimed--an intimate connection exists between gender bias and due process protections, then presumably male students should be allowed to explore the issue (from the other direction) in court.

Regardless of the manner in which he reached his decision, Restrepo has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and on multiple grounds. Will St. Joe's follows Xavier's path and quickly settle?

Source

There is a pattern here. All these colleges and universities getting sued and forced to settle meanwhile those that crafted this directive and those who made contributions toward it get away without paying a penalty. Meanwhile more men are going to sue more universities and more universities are going to either settle out of court or take their chances with a jury civil trial. Most colleges and universities will of course do the former which will either keep them out of the limelight all together or minimize bad publicity because of it. Like I said the feminists crafted this directive and as usual someone else takes the blame for them. A blame the feminists richly deserve too.

SB 967 UPDATE

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S) : De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Cannella, Evans,
Galgiani, Monning, Pavley, Torres, Wolk, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Fong, Gonzalez,
Quirk-Silva, Skinner, Ting, and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 03/27/2014


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/29/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 7.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 04/07/2014

TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.

Source

Current status of SB 967,California's answer to the Federal "Dear Colleague" directive. If you are unfamiliar with SB 967 click here. Time to act is now. Go to the California government's links by clicking on the preceding link.

Protest misandric bill SB 967

Law proposal will increase access to sexual assault justice

STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.

By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014

The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.

The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.

But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.

Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.

Source

This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.

Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:

Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators

Senate: click here

Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor

If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.

(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.

TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.

Source

Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.

Department of Justice hit with a lawsuit over dear colleague

Falsely accused student sues Delaware State University

December 18, 2013 By Robert O'Hara

A Delaware State University student is suing that school for defamation of character and violation of his civil rights delawareonline.com. reported yesterday.

Andre L. Henry was brought up on criminal charges after a woman with whom he had consensual sex on October 24 falsely accused him of raping her. The charges were dropped on November 1 according to his lawsuit but around that time the University notified him that he was barred from campus pending an investigation and hearing provided by the school. He was not allowed on campus grounds or adjacent areas for 45 days.

“For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, … he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation” said Daniel C. Herr, Henry’s attorney. “You can’t do that for 45 days and then finally say ‘Oh, we’ve come to our decision. He was found not guilty.’ ”

On Nov. 1 Henry was informed by DSU’s Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Paula Duffy, that a hearing would be held in front the General Judicial Council on Nov. 6. The suit says that he was not informed of his right to have an attorney present.

The suit also says he was not informed of his right to remain silent and that he was not given the right to face his accuser who was not present at the hearing.

A separate hearing, of which Henry wasn’t informed, was held especially for the alleged victim.

Jesse Allen, Henry’s roommate, testified at his hearing saying he had been in the apartment’s common room the evening Henry and the woman had sex and testified the woman did not scream for Henry to stop, as she previously alleged.

Henry’s suspension was lifted upon the conclusion of the hearing.

“We found out yesterday that his on-campus disciplinary charges were found to be ‘not responsible,’” said Herr on Tuesday, referring to DSU’s General Judicial Council’s investigation.“We are still moving forward for damages because he was suspended for a total of 45 days pending a full investigation and full hearing, which we allege is a violation to his right to due process,”

The lawsuit comes at a time when the Department of Education and Department of Justice has come under fire for recent developments in the way they expect schools to pursue alleged sexual assaults and sexual harassment. On November 14 the Department of Education, in a letter sent to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, renounced it’s overall support of the “blueprint” letter drafted by the Department of Justice in which it was deemed appropriate to suspend students, as well as meting out other punishments, before hearings were even held.

“The lawsuit looks good on DSU, and this sort of thing is way overdue. Colleges and universities have been blatantly violating the civil rights of male students since the Obama administration issued the ‘Dear Collegue’ letter’,” said Paul Elam, a men’s advocate and founder of A Voice for Men. “If they won’t stop it for the sake of decency, then perhaps financially bleeding them will do the trick.”

Source

I wish Andre L.Henry well and may he be victorious against this injustice called "dear colleague" which demonizes men and make women damsels in distress regardless of the facts. We at the Men's Rights Blog salute Mr. Henry and wish him well. If he is reading here he should go to the Community of The Falsely accused at COTWA where he can gain valuable information which should hopefully serve him well.

Rescind the "dear colleague" letter

From SAVE:

On April 4, 2011 without public comment or debate, the Department of Education issued its controversial "Dear Colleague" letter on sex assault. The directive requires federally supported universities to institute numerous changes to their policies and procedures regarding allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Concerned that the Dept. of Ed. policy fails to protect fundamental constitutional principles, over 50 editorials have criticized the mandate. SAVE and 12 other organizations have issued statements opposing the directive: click here

It's been over a year since Dept. of Ed. secretary Arne Duncan starting getting complaints, yet he's still disturbingly silent.

"Stonewalling these requests, and allowing false accusations of rape to continue, constitutes a parody of justice," notes SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook in Unblinding Lady Justice: SAVE Calls on Dept. of Education to Respond to Civil Rights Complaints.

Seems Arne thinks he can ignore us. So we need your help. Tell Arne Duncan to rescind the Sexual Assault policy, immediately. Tell him once, tell him twice, tell him three times!

Contact Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov

Thank you, all, for the miracles we create together!

Sincerely,

teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

Let's ask Arne Duncan why he didn't rescind that letter. Let's tell him it's a good idea to rescind it.