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".

Male student at USC takes on title ix

To help Kursat Christoff Pekgoz click here.

This young man is engaging in activism. He is going about it in the right way. Let's support him.

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Education Secretary Betsy DeVos officially rescinded Obama-era rules last week, replacing them with interim guidelines, until new permanent rules can be implemented.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

Betsy Devos rescinds the Dear Colleague suggestion

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos today criticized the previous administration's approach to campus sexual assault, accusing it of imposing a "broken system" that mistreats both accused students and rape survivors.

The Obama-era Office for Civil Rights compelled universities to design sexual assault adjudication policies that have deprived students of due process rights and weakened protections for freedom of expression. In a speech this afternoon, DeVos said her department would revise its existing guidance for complying with Title IX, the federal statute at the center of the effort.

DeVos cited several examples of colleges putting students through Kafkaesque quasi-judicial procedures. I promise you they are real. We've written about them at Reason.

Here's a list of some of DeVos's examples, with links to our articles about them.

1. Stony Brook University

"The current failed system left one student to fend for herself at a university disciplinary hearing," said Devos. "She told her university that another student sexually assaulted her in her dorm room. In turn, her university told her she would have to prosecute the case herself. Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits and find witnesses."

I covered that case here: "College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women. Here's Why."

2. The University of Southern California

"You may have recently read about a disturbing case in California," said DeVos. "It's the story of an athlete, his girlfriend, and the failed system. The couple was described as 'playfully roughhousing,' but a witness thought otherwise and the incident was reported to the university's Title IX coordinator. The young woman repeatedly assured campus officials she had not been abused nor had any misconduct occurred. But because of the failed system, university administrators told her they knew better. They dismissed the young man, her boyfriend, from the football team and expelled him from school. 'When I told the truth,' the young woman said, 'I was stereotyped and was told I must be a 'battered' woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.'"

Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote about that one here: "Star-Crossed Student Athletes Torn Apart By Title IX Witchhunt at USC."

3. George Mason University

"Another student at a different school saw her rapist go free," said Devos. "He was found responsible by the school, but in doing so, the failed system denied him due process. He sued the school, and after several appeals in civil court, he walked free."

There are a few different cases that arguably meet this description; I wrote about one of them here: "Students Had BDSM Sex. Male Says He Obeyed Safe Word. GMU Agreed, Expelled Him Anyway."

4. The University of Tennessee

"A student on another campus is under a Title IX investigation for a wrong answer on a quiz," said DeVos. "The question asked the name of the class Lab instructor. The student didn't know the instructor's name, so he made one up—Sarah Jackson—which unbeknownst to him turned out to be the name of a model. He was given a zero and told that his answer was 'inappropriate' because it allegedly objectified the female instructor. He was informed that his answer 'meets the Title IX definition of sexual harassment.' His university opened an investigation without any complainants."

That can't be true. It's just too crazy, right? Wrong. It happened, and I wrote about it here: "Tennessee Student Accused of Sexual Harassment Because He Wrote Instructor's Name Wrong." And I posted a follow-up here: "UT Student Now Being Investigated for Sexual Harassment After Writing His Instructor's Name Wrong."

5. various colleges

"Too many cases involve students and faculty who have faced investigation and punishment simply for speaking their minds or teaching their classes," said DeVos.

Consider the case of Northwestern University's Laura Kipnis, whose skepticism about rules forbidding sexual relationships between students and professors led to her being investigated under Title IX: "This Prof Dared to Challenge Her Students' Views on Sex. Here's How They Retaliated."

Or the case of Louisiana State University's Teresa Buchanan: "LSU Professor Fired for Telling Jokes Is Latest Victim of College Anti-Sex Hysteria."

Or a case at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, where residence advisors claimed that making jokes about Harambe, the dead gorilla and internet meme, could constitute a violation of Title IX: "UMass-Amherst: Harambe Jokes Are Racist Microaggressions, Violate Title IX."

Then there are some Title IX cases DeVos neither mentioned nor implied, but could have easily served as examples of the sort of mania that has taken hold on campuses:

6. Amherst College

A male student was expelled for sexual assault, even though he had credible evidence that his accuser had assaulted him: "Amherst Student Was Expelled for Rape. But He Was Raped, Evidence Shows."

7. Brandeis University

A gay male student accused his ex-boyfriend of sexual assault. Even though the alleged infractions—a stolen glance in the shower, a wake-up kiss—were incredibly silly, the investigator found the accused responsible for sexual misconduct: "Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend."

8. Colorado State University-Pueblo

An athlete of color, Grant Neal, was accused of sexually assaulting a female trainer—but not by her. When questioned, the trainer said, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped." University officials pointed out that according to Title IX, they got to be the judge of that, not her. Neal was deemed guilty and expelled: "Female Student Said, 'I'm Fine and I Wasn't Raped.' University Investigated, Expelled Boyfriend Anyway."

9. University of Texas-Arlington

A gay male student claimed a classmate, Thomas Klocke, told him to "consider killing himself." The classmate denied ever saying such a thing; according to his version of events, the accuser came on to him and didn't appreciate being rejected. The gay student filed a Title IX sexual harassment complaint against Klocke, who was found responsible. He then committed suicide: "Lawsuit: Male Student Accused of Sexual Harassment for Rejecting Gay Advances Commits Suicide After Title IX Verdict."

Critics of DeVos will say that her plan to reform Title IX is some kind of giveaway to rapists. But it's not. Today, DeVos recognized a basic and obvious truth that every objective chronicler of the college rape crisis already knows: The Obama-era modifications to Title IX utterly failed to bring justice to campuses.

Source

This is great. Let's contact her at Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and thank her for rescinding the Dear Colleague suggestion. The more of us she hears from the better so let her know today.

Betsy DeVos' meetings with 'men's rights' groups over campus sex assault policies spark controversy

Following a series of meetings Thursday in Washington examining Title IX sexual assault procedures on college campuses, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is reexamining guidance to schools.

In addition to survivors' groups and educational institutions, DeVos met with "men's rights" organizations, including the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), as well as groups that speak out on behalf of the accused, including Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) and Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).

Though the secretary refused to say whether the administration wants to amend directives to colleges and universities, survivors' advocates worry that DeVos' engagement with these controversial groups -- which opponents have dubbed insensitive to victims -- signals a possible willingness to shift the process to the advantage of alleged perpetrators by rolling back Obama-era guidance directing schools to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof, rather than the higher "clear and convincing" standard, during Title IX sexual assault violence investigations.

"She's meeting with groups and individuals today who believe that sexual assault is some sort of feminist plot to hurt men," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, who joined other like-minded individuals gathered outside the Department clamoring to keep the focus on survivors.

Natalie Green, online communications coordinator with women's right group UltraViolet, tells ABC News, "In all honesty, we think she should be listening to the survivors first and foremost, not rape apologists."

And Annie Clark, executive director and co-founder of End Rape on Campus, said, "The evidentiary standard in the criminal justice system is higher, and should be, than on campus because the penalties are different."

Asked about the aforementioned concerns, DeVos told reporters at the Department of Education, "today was a time to listen."

"No student should be the victim of sexual assault," DeVos said. "No student should feel unsafe ... and no students should feel like the scales are tipped against him or her."

According to NCFM, FACE and SAVE, who all fight what they claim are false accusations, accused rapists should be afforded stronger due process by schools investigating allegations of sexual violence. Though difficult to measure, researchers from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts reported that their findings -- published in the Journal of Violence Against Women -- in conjunction with other studies, "indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2 percent and 10 percent."

The false accusation rate for rape is 60%. The reasons given for this false accusation rate: spite,revenge,even boredom. These are the cases where the accuser deliberately lied. This is from a U.S. Air Force study by Dr. Charles McDowwell. From the book The Myth Of Male Power by Warren Farrell.

"It was clear that their stories are not often told, and there are lives that have been ruined and lives that have been lost in the process," DeVos said of these groups representing people they believe were wrongfully accused.

Jonathon Andrews -- a 23-year-old SAVE and FACE volunteer who says he was falsely accused of rape by "homophobic fraternity brothers" after he himself was sexually assaulted -- says the groups just want to ensure all involved get a fair shake.

"Victims for a long time weren't taken seriously, and President Obama tried to correct that -- but some of us think that he over-corrected, to the point where those who haven't committed any crimes, like myself, are at a risk of losing their futures, losing their lives, and being destroyed, essentially," Andrews told ABC News, bristling at "insulting" critiques of his organization as rape-apologist.

"A system without due process protections ultimately serves no one in the end," DeVos said Thursday during a press conference at the Department of Education. "There are substantive legal questions to be addressed, including the evidentiary standard, due process, and lack of public input."

Her meetings come as the Education Department's civil rights chief, Candice Jackson, was forced to apologize for a controversial comment made to the New York Times in article published Wednesday.

The majority of sexual assault allegations -- "90 percent," according to Jackson -- "fall into the category of 'we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right," she told the Times.

She's right. A lot of times that is what these things are. I'm glad someone is seeing the truth and talking about it.

"As a survivor of rape myself, I would never seek to diminish anyone's experience," Jackson clarified in a statement provided to ABC News. "My words in the New York Times poorly characterized the conversations I've had with countless groups of advocates. What I said was flippant, and I am sorry. All sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously."

DeVos on Thursday declined to answer questions about whether she agreed with Jackson's 90 percent comment.

Source

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.

California insanity

Kathleen Salvaty
California colleges to make proving innocence a punishable offense

By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 1/15/16 4:53 PM

Advocates for due process knew this day was coming. We knew that one day colleges would notice that there was only one way for students accused of sexual assault would be able to defend themselves and that the colleges would make that defense itself a violation of policy.

Of course the new policy is coming out of California, which led the way in inserting campus bureaucrats into the bedroom with its "affirmative consent" policies. These policies mandate how students must engage in sexual activity – not as a passionate act but as a contractual question-and-answer session. The only way to prove one followed such a policy is to videotape the encounter, but now, California colleges are making such recordings a violation of school policy.

Due process advocates knew that one day a student would try to record an encounter to retain evidence that he obtained sober consent. We also knew that if an accuser claimed she was too drunk to consent to sex, someone would make the argument that she must have also been too drunk to consent to a recording. And that's where the new policy comes in.

In a Q&A with the University of California's daily newspaper, the Daily Bruin, Title IX officer Kathleen Salvaty said students could be expelled for recording sexual encounters without consent.

Salvaty had been asked about the new policies including mandatory minimums for sexual assault, which include a two-year sanction for most cases. We'll set that aside for a moment. Salvaty said the sanctions can include expulsion, and listed the offenses that were subject to the mandatory minimums.

"Aggravated conduct is sexual assault, domestic violence or stalking, in which at least one of the following factors is present: use of force, causing or taking advantage of incapacitation or recording or showing sexual images without consent," Salvaty said.

New policies in effect at California universities also shift the adjudication process away from hearings and evidence and deliberation to the single-investigator model, which is opened to severe bias. Now, an investigator and the university (who is under pressure from the Education Department to find more students responsible) will conduct the investigation and determine culpability. If the accused student is found responsible he or she (more likely he) can appeal the decision and only then will he get a hearing.

The odds of the appeal body overturning a decision will be slim when the evidence they have is from a biased investigator. I've seen cases where appeals courts refuse to accept new evidence from accused students and end up affirming the original decision. The new California policies all but guarantee accused students will be found responsible without a fair or impartial investigation.

Now back to the mandatory minimums. These schools don't provide accused students with the means to defend themselves (and are now actively punishing them for providing the only evidence they could possibly present in their favor) and then want to impose mandatory minimum sanctions. Schools in California are railroading students and then ruining their lives without any care for the truth or due process.

Men looking to attend school in California should take note.

Salvaty did not respond to a Washington Examiner inquiry prior to press time.

Source

If you're a California resident you may want to contact your Congressperson along with United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and tell them you believe Title IX is going to far and disrupting the social interaction between the sexes.

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.

Let's take a bite out of misandry at the collegiate level

For all 20 videos click here

Who's going to stand up for boys and men? We are. Let's write to our elected officials and protest this misandry. You can contact your Representative and Senators here. You can also email Speaker of the House John Boehner,House Majority Leader Eric CantorCongressman Darrell Issa,Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell,Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Rand Paul. Also email Arne Duncan: arne.duncan@ed.gov and let him know about this and to vacate the "dear colleague" directive.If you can think of contacting anyone else feel free to add it to the list.

Also feel free to include this and this from SAVE in your emails. We can cause things to change for the better but we have to stick together. Who's with me?

Obama screws men on STEM courses

Probable Anti-Male Caps in Math and Science MONDAY, 01 OCTOBER 2012 07:19 EAGLE FORUM 1338 readings

Feminists intent on limiting opportunities for men and boys have long abused Title IX when it comes to school athletics. Now we can expect the same assault against men who are interested in math and science.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that schools and colleges receiving federal funding not discriminate “on the basis of sex.” The law is traditionally associated with school sports programs, where radical feminists have used it to forcefully eliminate hundreds of men’s sports teams in the name of “proportionality.”

The White House has announced a new set of policies that would step up enforcement of Title IX, explicitly applying the rule to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Title IX has always applied to all federally funded education programs, but the Department of Education’s new enforcement efforts will “develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX in STEM.

Just as enforcement of Title IX has meant gender quotas on school sports teams, increased enforcement in STEM education will likely lead to artificial enrollment caps aimed at keeping men out of math and science classes. “Title IX isn’t just about sports,” President Obama wrote in Newsweek earlier this year. It’s also about “addressing inequality in math and science education” and “a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.”

“To Obama, gender disparities are only bad when they disfavor women,” wrote the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader. “Under his strange idea of equality, equality means men losing out to women. . . . The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.”

Fewer women major in subjects like science and engineering because they choose to study other things, not because anyone discriminates against them. Charlotte Allen of Minding the Campus noted in a July blog post:

When college women study science, they tend to gravitate toward biology – about 58 percent of all bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in biology go to women. In contrast, women earn some 17 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and computer science and just over 40 percent of bachelor’s degrees in physical sciences and mathematics. The likely reason for this . . . is that women tend to be drawn to “organic” fields involving people and living things, whereas men are more interested in the objects and abstractions that are the focus of STEM majors.

Yet the Obama administration sticks closely to the hard-line feminist argument that the problem is bias: women are somehow being denied access to STEM courses.

These new policies come at a time when women frequently outnumber men in classes of all subjects. 25 percent fewer men than women now graduate from college. Title IX was passed to correct a much smaller gender disparity in the days when 17 percent fewer women attended than men. So many more women than men now attend college that the Richmond-Times Dispatch asked in March whether colleges ought to begin considering affirmative action for men:

In every other academic realm, the existence of a statistical disparity . . . is taken as definitive proof of gender discrimination. . . . We look forward to a robust debate on how institutions of higher learning can correct the discriminatory circumstances that are leading them to graduate nearly three women for every two men.

“The fact that engineering departments are filled mostly with men does not mean they discriminate against women,” notes Bader, “anymore than the fact that English departments are filled mostly with women proves that English departments discriminate against men. . . . Deep down, the Obama administration knows this, since it is planning to impose its gender-proportionality rules only on STEM fields . . . not other fields that have similarly large gender disparities in the opposite direction.”

Charlotte Allen pointed out that applying gender quotas to STEM is not merely bad policy:

The use of Title IX to force universities to restructure their curricula and alter the composition of their hard-science and engineering departments in order to achieve a supposed gender equity that matches neither the aptitudes nor the interests of many women isn’t just heavy-handed and totalitarian. As study after study indicates, it’s bad science as well.

The Washington Post’s Christina Hoff Sommers warned in 2009 that the sciences would become radical feminism’s next favorite target:

The idea of imposing Title IX on the sciences began gaining momentum around 2002. Then, women were already earning nearly 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and at least half of the Ph.D.s in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education. Meanwhile, men retained majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering. Badly in need of an advocacy cause just as women were beginning to outnumber men on college campuses, well-funded academic women’s groups alerted their followers that American science education was “hostile” to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive “Left Out, Left Behind” letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings.

The Department of Education says that it has “not expanded the jurisdiction of Title IX, nor has the department issued new Title IX regulations or guidance regarding the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM),” but has instead created a new multi-agency initiative “to develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX as it relates to STEM:

The goal of this coordinated multi-agency collaboration is to reduce the burden on schools and institutions, who may benefit from common guidance about their Title IX responsibilities and way to improve access and outreach to women and girls in STEM fields. There is no truth to claims that the Department plans to impose STEM quotas or caps.

But, as the Heritage Foundation noted:

The heart of the matter remains the same: Title IX has a track record of measuring “opportunity” in athletics on the basis of whether participation is proportional to enrollment. This shifts the focus from equality of opportunity to equality of results, substituting policymakers’ desired outcomes for students’ own preferences. . . . Will this new collaboration result in quotas, substituting policymakers’ predetermined outcomes for the preferences of students, and diminished opportunities for men in STEM fields? If implementation of Title IX in the intercollegiate athletics context is a reliable indicator, there is strong evidence that it might.

Legal precedents have made it very difficult for school sports teams to comply with Title IX without imposing gender quotas, and it’s unlikely that STEM education will be different. Bader explains:

The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. In light of this fact, courts have rejected lawsuits by men’s teams cut by colleges to achieve proportionality (that is, quotas), concluding that such quotas are required by Title IX, which thus overrides any rights the men’s teams might otherwise enjoy.

Bader, who used to work in the Office for Civil Rights, which administers Title IX, believes that gender caps are just as unwise as they are unconstitutional: “I think that it would be a grave mistake to apply its standards, which were designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams, to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.” Math and science classes, he noted, “are open to all students, regardless of gender, and are supposed to be gender-blind, not gender-specific or gender-based.” Applying gender quotas to STEM classes “is simply unconstitutional.”

Source:click here

Men,if getting rid of Obama didn't mean that much before this ought to change that way of thinking real quick. It's obvious Obama is against us so the faster we are rid of him the better. Vote Obama out.

Tell the House to vote yes on HR 4970

From SAVE services:

After careful examination of both House versions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), we find HR 4970 the better choice.

HR 4970 puts victims first, with stronger fiscal accountability.

HR 4970 includes reform to curb VAWA immigration fraud.

HR 4970 is gender inclusive, (except Title IX, re: Indian women)

Please call the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202.224.3121.

Tell the operator your zip code and ask to be connected to your Representative's office.

Or find their phone number here: click here

Tell your Representative to vote YES on HR 4970.

We're in the homestretch, folks! Let's give it our all!

teri

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

I'm not a big fan of Title IX that favors Indian women but I guess this is better than VAWA in its current version. Contact your Congressperson,you may also want to contact Speaker of the House John Boehner:click here and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:click here. We're in the homestretch,let's make this count.