Showing posts sorted by date for query dear colleague. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query dear colleague. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Saturday, May 9, 2020
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".
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Secretary of Education shuts down Obama's kangaroo courts
A judicial process that doesn’t allow the accused to cross-examine his accuser or reliably see the evidence against him is a civil libertarian’s nightmare. It traduces every principle of fairness and is blatantly un-American.
Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.
The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.
In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.
The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.
It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.
It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.
It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.
The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.
In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”
The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.
One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.
The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.
A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”
This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.
Source
Let's thank Betsy Devos: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and let her know that what she is doing is fantastic and that we fully support it and her. The more of us they hear from the better so let's do it.
Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.
The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.
In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.
The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.
It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.
It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.
It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.
The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.
In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”
The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.
One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.
The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.
A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”
This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.
Source
Let's thank Betsy Devos: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and let her know that what she is doing is fantastic and that we fully support it and her. The more of us they hear from the better so let's do it.
Friday, September 29, 2017
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
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
Friday, September 8, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
DOE helps out men
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is using her office to legitimize a misogynist organization that has dedicated itself to defending rapists, attacking female victims of sexual assault, and promoting the conspiracy theory that domestic violence is exaggerated.
Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s secretary of education, is scheduled to meet with a group that has made a name for itself by casting doubt on rape cases, questioning the existence of domestic violence, and promoting conspiracy theories about women.
DeVos is meeting with several groups that have been critical of the Title IX guidance on campus rape. Those policies were put in place by the Obama administration to protect woman on college campuses from sexual assault.
Among those meeting with DeVos is the National Coalition for Men. The group is part of the so-called “men’s rights” movement, which exists to promote misogynist ideas and to continually push back on the fight for women’s equality.
The website for the group’s North Carolina chapter offers legal guidance to accused rapists and publishes photographs of women the group claims have falsely accused men of rape. The technique serves as an intimidation tactic toward victims: If you speak up, you will be exposed and attacked.
Daily Tarheel columnist Alice Wilder noted that the group has “a clear animosity toward feminists and anyone who advocates for an end to gender-based violence.”
The National Coalition for Men has been behind tons of nuisance lawsuits alleging sex discrimination toward men, including one that said events attempting to bring more women into the technology industry were “anti-male.”
Attorney Al Rava, who filed the lawsuit and serves as the group’s press secretary, told a reporter working on the story he would not talk to her, saying, “I do not trust you will quote me correctly or in the proper context given your leftwing, pro-female, anti-male bias.”
Harry Crouch, president of National Coalition for Men, defended NFL player Ray Rice after surveillance video captured him dragging his then-fiancée after allegedly knocking her out in an elevator. Crouch said, “If she hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit.”
In the same conversation, he complained about the NFL’s annual breast cancer awareness campaign.
“Football is always happy to put on pink suits to celebrate women,” he said. “Why can’t they have a week, or just one day, where they celebrate men?”
National Coalition for Men even sued Trump National Golf Course in 2011 for promoting breast cancer awareness, arguing that to do so was discriminatory towards men.
The group also whined that the movie “Sully” discriminated against men, because it did not depict women and children exiting the crashed airplane first, as part of a feminist plot.
Crouch told the L.A. Times that men are “disadvantaged in almost every way.”
DeVos is also meeting with SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — which has also sided with domestic abusers. SAVE pushed for lawyers to have the power to ask domestic violence victims “detailed, often intrusive questions about the accuser’s prior sexual history.”
DeVos’ nomination was among the most contentious of Trump’s cabinet selections, largely thanks to her demonstrated ignorance of important education issues. Since squeezing by into office, those concerns have been validated by her open hostility toward LGBTQ students, her support for budget cuts helping disabled students, and now, this sad decision to grant misogynists the official blessing of the federal government.
Source
This is great. A government official meets with MRA's to fix the problem with the messed up Dear Colleague suggestion from the Obama administration and to reestablish men's rights on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's take a moment and thank the Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for meeting with our fellow Men's Rights Activists in the National Coalition For Men and SAVE Services. You can contact her here: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
The more of us she hears from the better so let her know that she has done a service that we thank her for.
Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s secretary of education, is scheduled to meet with a group that has made a name for itself by casting doubt on rape cases, questioning the existence of domestic violence, and promoting conspiracy theories about women.
DeVos is meeting with several groups that have been critical of the Title IX guidance on campus rape. Those policies were put in place by the Obama administration to protect woman on college campuses from sexual assault.
Among those meeting with DeVos is the National Coalition for Men. The group is part of the so-called “men’s rights” movement, which exists to promote misogynist ideas and to continually push back on the fight for women’s equality.
The website for the group’s North Carolina chapter offers legal guidance to accused rapists and publishes photographs of women the group claims have falsely accused men of rape. The technique serves as an intimidation tactic toward victims: If you speak up, you will be exposed and attacked.
Daily Tarheel columnist Alice Wilder noted that the group has “a clear animosity toward feminists and anyone who advocates for an end to gender-based violence.”
The National Coalition for Men has been behind tons of nuisance lawsuits alleging sex discrimination toward men, including one that said events attempting to bring more women into the technology industry were “anti-male.”
Attorney Al Rava, who filed the lawsuit and serves as the group’s press secretary, told a reporter working on the story he would not talk to her, saying, “I do not trust you will quote me correctly or in the proper context given your leftwing, pro-female, anti-male bias.”
Harry Crouch, president of National Coalition for Men, defended NFL player Ray Rice after surveillance video captured him dragging his then-fiancée after allegedly knocking her out in an elevator. Crouch said, “If she hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit.”
In the same conversation, he complained about the NFL’s annual breast cancer awareness campaign.
“Football is always happy to put on pink suits to celebrate women,” he said. “Why can’t they have a week, or just one day, where they celebrate men?”
National Coalition for Men even sued Trump National Golf Course in 2011 for promoting breast cancer awareness, arguing that to do so was discriminatory towards men.
The group also whined that the movie “Sully” discriminated against men, because it did not depict women and children exiting the crashed airplane first, as part of a feminist plot.
Crouch told the L.A. Times that men are “disadvantaged in almost every way.”
DeVos is also meeting with SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — which has also sided with domestic abusers. SAVE pushed for lawyers to have the power to ask domestic violence victims “detailed, often intrusive questions about the accuser’s prior sexual history.”
DeVos’ nomination was among the most contentious of Trump’s cabinet selections, largely thanks to her demonstrated ignorance of important education issues. Since squeezing by into office, those concerns have been validated by her open hostility toward LGBTQ students, her support for budget cuts helping disabled students, and now, this sad decision to grant misogynists the official blessing of the federal government.
Source
This is great. A government official meets with MRA's to fix the problem with the messed up Dear Colleague suggestion from the Obama administration and to reestablish men's rights on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's take a moment and thank the Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for meeting with our fellow Men's Rights Activists in the National Coalition For Men and SAVE Services. You can contact her here: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
The more of us she hears from the better so let her know that she has done a service that we thank her for.
Friday, June 30, 2017
DOE reverses dear colleague
Under the Obama administration, the Department of Education (DOE) pushed the "rape culture" narrative — that one quarter of women would be raped or sexually assaulted on college campuses, and that colleges could not trust the police to handle these crimes. This created a perverse system of campus tribunals which denied due process rights to (mostly) men accused of sexual assault.
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
President Obama’s legacy lives on and continues to thrive under the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers.
The White House and Congress, which ostensibly want to undo the expansive regulatory framework of a Democratic administration, are doing nothing as its Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) expands its longstanding mission of blackmailing colleges into judging all accused students guilty of rape.
Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, co-author of The Campus Rape Frenzy, writes at Minding the Campus that OCR is amassing enormous power for itself without so much as a peep from the White House.
Don’t be fooled by the “skinny budget” request by the Trump administration for the department as a whole, which doesn’t address OCR, says Johnson.
An OCR leader hired three days before Donald Trump’s inauguration is now enforcing its lawless diktats, former Harvard Title IX coordinator Mia Karvonides, who is a “true believer” in Johnson’s words:
The slowness with which Trump has filled executive appointments has maximized the power of Obama holdovers. … Karvondes’ rushed appointment leaves the impression that the outgoing administration intended to maintain the unfair Obama rules regardless of what Trump did. Every day that passes without Trump staffers in OCR allows Karvonides to implement her agenda unchecked.
The rogue office also continues to impose “voluntary” resolutions on schools under Title IX investigation, meaning they won’t be affected by any Trump reversal, and on its way out the door, the Obama administration sought funding for 157 new OCR staff investigators.
That’s because OCR’s years of encouraging students to file Title IX complaints had produced a bumper crop of sexual-violence allegations – and they aren’t just going to be investigated case-by-case.
Johnson cites a recent BuzzFeed article that says the recently departed OCR chief – now the chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights – secretly changed its protocol:
When Catherine Lhamon ran OCR under Obama, she expanded all Title IX sexual violence investigations to become institution-wide, so investigators reviewed all cases at a school rather than just the cases that sparked federal complaints, former Education Department officials told BuzzFeed News.
Here’s what this means, according to Johnson:
[Lhamon] had decided OCR would investigate not merely the complaints it received but thousands of other cases, even though no accuser had filed a Title IX complaint about any of these individual cases. On this matter, as on virtually all OCR-related matters during the Obama years, no sign of congressional oversight existed.
The next step is for the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions to show it’s consistent about reining in Title IX abuse, and refuse to defend OCR’s 2011 and 2014 “Dear Colleague” letters that junked due process for accused students.
But more importantly, Congress needs to wake up and use “the power of the purse” to stop OCR’s vast agenda in the Trump administration, Johnson says.
Source
This is getting old. Real old real fast. We need to get in touch with the right people. We've got to shove this in the face of the Republican leadership. That is why we contact the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senators James Lankford and Lamar Alexander are not to friendly to this bullshit either so we write them as well. Let's also contact President Trump and let him know too. The more of us they hear from the better. We helped to get rid of Cantherine Lhamon now let's get rid of Mia Karvondes and Dear Colleague.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Drain the swamp at the DOE Office for Civil Rights
From SAVE Services:
Since the release of the infamous Dear Colleague Letter in 2011, the federal government, through the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has eliminated procedural protections. Through their guidance letters, OCR has made the campus disciplinary process unreliable, thereby undermining the seriousness of sexual assault allegations on our college campuses.
Now, with a new Secretary of Education, we have a chance to drain the swamp at the OCR and restore due process and fairness to campus procedures. This week, we are asking you to reach out to Secretary DeVos and urge her to make meaningful changes at the OCR. Some suggested requests:
Allow students to have active attorneys during their hearings;
Use justice centered investigations;
Raise the standard of proof to "clear and convincing"
You can contact the Secretary at her direct email:
Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
or
You can call the Department of Education at:
1-800-872-5327
Thank you for your continued support,
Jonathon P Andrews
Project Coordinator
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
If you're a man on college or university campuses this is something you should be very interested in. Your rights are on the line. If you're an 18 year old man about to go to a college or university then you want to support it too. Let's all support these changes.
Since the release of the infamous Dear Colleague Letter in 2011, the federal government, through the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has eliminated procedural protections. Through their guidance letters, OCR has made the campus disciplinary process unreliable, thereby undermining the seriousness of sexual assault allegations on our college campuses.
Now, with a new Secretary of Education, we have a chance to drain the swamp at the OCR and restore due process and fairness to campus procedures. This week, we are asking you to reach out to Secretary DeVos and urge her to make meaningful changes at the OCR. Some suggested requests:
Allow students to have active attorneys during their hearings;
Use justice centered investigations;
Raise the standard of proof to "clear and convincing"
You can contact the Secretary at her direct email:
Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
or
You can call the Department of Education at:
1-800-872-5327
Thank you for your continued support,
Jonathon P Andrews
Project Coordinator
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
If you're a man on college or university campuses this is something you should be very interested in. Your rights are on the line. If you're an 18 year old man about to go to a college or university then you want to support it too. Let's all support these changes.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Tell the Secretary of Education to rescind Dear Colleague and to support Gail Heriot for leadership of the Office for Civil Rights
From the National Coalition For Men:
ACTION ALERT from NCFM: Please help us. Earlier this week the "all college men are rapists" activists launched a telephone campaign to intimidate the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos asking her to keep the Title IX witch hunt against male students in place. We need everyone that cares how college men are treated to call Secretary Betsy DeVos' office at 202-401-3000 and leave a message asking her to oppose Title IX in its current form. It is important that that the Dept. of Education hears from all of you. We want the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter rescinded and constitutional Due Process Rights restored to everyone attending school. Students and/or faculty should never be expelled based on unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct. Please contact the Dept. of Ed's office ASAP to voice your concerns. Thank you for your support!
Also:
Tell Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to carefully consider the candidacy of professor Gail Heriot: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
Let's kill two birds with one stone and ask her to take care of both. We can end the institutionalized misandry on our college and university campuses nationwide. Now is the time to act. You can contact DeVos by phone 202-401-3000 and/or email Betsy.Devos@ed.gov. The more of us they hear from the better so do it today.
ACTION ALERT from NCFM: Please help us. Earlier this week the "all college men are rapists" activists launched a telephone campaign to intimidate the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos asking her to keep the Title IX witch hunt against male students in place. We need everyone that cares how college men are treated to call Secretary Betsy DeVos' office at 202-401-3000 and leave a message asking her to oppose Title IX in its current form. It is important that that the Dept. of Education hears from all of you. We want the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter rescinded and constitutional Due Process Rights restored to everyone attending school. Students and/or faculty should never be expelled based on unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct. Please contact the Dept. of Ed's office ASAP to voice your concerns. Thank you for your support!
Also:
Tell Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to carefully consider the candidacy of professor Gail Heriot: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
Let's kill two birds with one stone and ask her to take care of both. We can end the institutionalized misandry on our college and university campuses nationwide. Now is the time to act. You can contact DeVos by phone 202-401-3000 and/or email Betsy.Devos@ed.gov. The more of us they hear from the better so do it today.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Mississippi burning
Legislation that would add a contentious Obama administration mandates on campus sexual assault procedures to Mississippi law is still alive in the state Legislature, even if they are tottering at the Department of Education.
The bill was approved Tuesday by the House Judiciary B Committee and is already on the House calendar.
The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Angela Cockerham, D-Magnolia, would require the state institutions of higher learning to implement a comprehensive policy toward allegations of sexual violence, domestic violence and stalking that goes a step beyond one proposed by the federal government in 2011.
SPONSOR: Mississippi state Rep. Angela Cockerham wants to enshrine in Mississippi law controversial federal mandates on campus sexual assault cases.
The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights said in its 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter that under Title IX — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity — that universities and colleges are to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard to adjudicate claims of sexual violence, a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof used in criminal courts.
The “preponderance” standard means that campus adjudicators just have to be 50.01 percent sure that an assault took place.
Critics say the policy has reduced due process rights for the accused and compromised the impartiality of investigators. It also restricts an accused’s right to counsel and doesn’t require that the accuser be present at a hearing.
Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, recently wrote of the Mississippi bill:
“Legislators should keep in mind that procedures that are unfair to the accused actually harm the long-term interests of victims of sexual assault, because they damage the credibility of campus proceedings and diminish public confidence in their results. FIRE hopes the legislature will rethink the bill and either replace its problematic provisions with language that reflects the rights of all students or abandon the bill altogether.”
FIRE noted several instances in which the bill is unfair to the accused beyond the low standard of evidence. The bill refers to accusers as “survivors” throughout, creating a bias against the accused right from the beginning. To be a “survivor,” one must have survived something, making a false or exaggerated accusation determination impossible.
The bill provides students little chance to cross-examine their accuser, and can only submit questions to the campus fact-finder, who has discretion in which questions to ask. The bill also would not allow accused students to be represented by an attorney. Since anything they say in a campus investigation and hearing can be used against them in criminal court, not letting an attorney speak for them puts them in potential danger further down the road.
Accusers, under the Mississippi bill, would also have access to resources the accused would not, such as psychological help.
The bill insists that schools use “trauma-informed” or “victim-centered” investigative techniques. In practice, in college sexual assault cases these techniques have been used to make it impossible for an accuser’s story not to be deemed truthful by insisting that inconsistencies and vagueness are proof of trauma.
Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy, said new guidance from the Trump administration will likely supersede the Obama directive.
“They (the Obama administration) took these Title IX requirements for campus rape and drove a truck through that,” Taylor said. “It’s ironic that Mississippi is trying to enshrine into law a very questionable federal policy that is about to get rescinded.”
A lawsuit was filed in June challenging the legality of the lower evidentiary standard and lack of due process protections promulgated by the 2011 federal mandate.
Beyond the lawsuit, U.S. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., has been a thorn in the side of OCR after asking questions as to why the 2011 guidance document avoided public scrutiny. The original Obama-era directive is considered by critics to be invalid because it did not go through the proper notice-and-comment period required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
If the Mississippi bill is enacted, it would be the only state in the union required to use the lower standard of evidence if the Obama-era guidance is rescinded.
Source
If this bill becomes law a lot of young men are going to get hurt. If you live in Mississippi in Cockerham's district then her you don't like this bill because of its misandry. Even if you don't live in her district or Mississippi let her know that we won't put it with it. Contact info: (601)783-4979 or acockerham@house.ms.gov The more of us they hear from the better.
Friday, January 13, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
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.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Due process is still being kicked off campus
Academia’s descent into perpetual hysteria and incipient tyranny is partly fueled by the fiction that 1 in 5 college students is sexually assaulted and that campuses require minute federal supervision to cure this. Encouraged by the government’s misuse of discredited social science (one survey supposedly proving this 1-in-5 fiction), colleges and universities are implementing unconstitutional procedures mandated by the government.
The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.
Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:
“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.
Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).
Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.
In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.
Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.
The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.
CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.
Source
Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.
The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.
Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:
“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.
Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).
Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.
In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.
Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.
The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.
CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.
Source
Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, April 25, 2016
The Georgia lawmaker taking on "dear colleauge" and the female bureaucrat who thought she was a queen
A Georgia lawmaker is suing the federal government on behalf of taxpayers for what he calls "illegal and unconstitutional directives" from the Education Department.
Republican State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, who chairs the influential Georgia House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education, filed the lawsuit along with his wife, alleging the federal government violated the Administrative Procedure Act when they issued a "guidance document" that included onerous new regulations for schools to follow. If schools fail to abide by the Department's Office for Civil Rights' ever-changing guidance, they risk losing federal funding.
Ehrhart has been a vocal critic of the Department's "Dear Colleague" letters, which began forcing colleges to spend more and more money to adjudicate felonies in 2011. In January, Ehrhart told school administrators: "If you don't protect the students of this state with due process, don't come looking for money." It was the strongest statement yet on the issue from a legislator.
In his lawsuit, Ehrhart claims the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter imposed "unnecessary costs and expenses that flow directly to both Federal and Georgia Taxpayers, including Plaintiffs, under the threat of Federal funding being revoked for the schools' failure to comply."
"The illegal and unconstitutional directives issued in the Obama Administration's 'Dear Colleague' letter have resulted in a clear disregard for the due process rights of male college students and fostered an environment of male gender bias on campuses throughout the country," Ehrhart said in a press release. "As Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education, I have seen firsthand how colleges and universities, intimidated by [the Education Department's Office for Civil Right's] threat to their federal funding, have set up kangaroo court systems to comply with the Obama Administration's unconstitutional policies."
He added: "It is unacceptable that state and federal taxpayers in this country continue to fund these mandates and their attendant costs at higher education institutions."
The 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter demanded that schools adopt processes that make it easier to find accused students culpable without affording them much chance to defend themselves. Schools aren't required to allow them legal representation and lack subpoena power to obtain relevant evidence; and it's up to the schools what evidence is "relevant" or "exculpatory," meaning oftentimes accused students aren't made aware of evidence that could exonerate them.
It's all due to the Obama administration's agenda on looking tough when it comes to sexual assault. The belief that women are oppressed and victimized at large numbers in this country permeates the administration, and it has introduced policies that take self-reported, manipulated surveys as fact and eviscerates due process rights in pursuit of ending a non-existent "epidemic."
Ehrhart and his wife claim they have standing to sue as taxpayers of the state, who help fund the colleges and universities. The Ehrharts are also deeply concerned about the policies forced upon colleges because they have a son enrolled in the Georgia Institute of Technology, a school that has a horrendous track record on sexual misconduct accusations.
Ehrhart is represented by Andrew Miltenberg, Jeffrey Berkowitz and Tara Davis of Nesenoff Miltenberg Goddard Laskowitz, LLP and Jonathan Hawkins of Krevolin & Horst, LLC. Miltenberg is also representing a former Colorado State University-Pueblo student who was suspended for multiple years (essentially expelled) for sexual misconduct even though his alleged victim said she wasn't raped. The student in that case is also suing the Education Department.
"It is our hope that his case, together with the Grant Neal case (commenced earlier this week), have cornered the OCR, highlighting its abuses and providing a compelling narrative as we try to dismantle the OCR's continued assault on the rights of young men," Miltenberg told the Washington Examiner in an email.
Ehrhart told the Examiner that if he got the "right panel" on the Georgia court where his lawsuit was filed, "we could be in very good shape." And if they lose, he said, "we'll appeal. We'll take this right up to the Supreme Court."
Source
This is a man. Earl Ehrhart is perhaps one of the last of the men left in government. A brave man that is taking on the feminist juggernaut. Fine,we will stand beside him and let him know that there are men standing beside him. That we at the Men's Rights Blog stand with him and wish him the best as he rights this wrong and restores and gets justice for the wrongfully accused men whom this suggestion "dear colleague" has destroyed. In fact let's tell him ourselves: earl.ehrhart@house.ga.gov The more of us he hears from the better so let's let him know we appreciate what he is doing. After all he is doing this on our behalf as well so let's let him know today.
There is a second take on this story:
Georgia lawmaker sues Department of Ed officials for exceeding authority in campus rape rules
Greg Piper - Associate Editor •April 22, 2016
Our son could be ‘wrongly accused and found responsible’
The Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have harmed not only students but their parents and taxpayers by enforcing unlawful rules in campus sexual-misconduct investigations, according to a lawsuit by a Georgia lawmaker.
State Rep. Earl Ehrhart chairs the Georgia House subcommittee that controls the purse for the state’s public colleges and universities, and he has used his position to pressure schools to restore due-process rights, with some success.
But in the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Ehrhart and his wife Victoria spoke as parents of a son enrolled at Georgia Tech.
They have “heard countless stories of young men being accused, investigated, and subsequently expelled from Georgia colleges and universities without being provided appropriate due process protections,” owing to OCR’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, the suit says.
They are “concerned that in the current regulatory climate” their son could, “like any other male college student, be wrongly accused and found responsible under the directives imposed by the Dear Colleague Letter.”
‘Imperative language’ means it is intended to be enforced
The Ehrharts’ lawsuit names Education Secretary John King and OCR chief Catherine Lhamon as defendants, as well as the agencies they lead and the United States government itself.
It was filed by the same lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg, who earlier this week sued Colorado State University-Pueblo on behalf of a male student who was functionally expelled for a sexual encounter that his partner has repeatedly said was not rape. That suit also named Department of Ed officials.
The core of the suit is that OCR did not follow the proper regulatory procedure in issuing substantive new rules, including the use of an “excessively low” evidence standard and the discouragement of cross-examination, while threatening the federal funding of schools that didn’t comply.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a notice-and-comment rulemaking for any substantive rules, which are often marked by “imperative language” such as “must,” the suit says. It points to the repeated use of “should,” “must,” “requires” and “strongly” throughout the letter.
When OCR’s Lhamon was challenged on the letter’s legality by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. and chair of the Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, she claimed the Dear Colleague was “interpretive” because the Title IX statute went through notice-and-comment 44 years ago, the suit says.
All decisions from the past five years are ‘arbitrary and void’
The Ehrharts are calling for “all disciplinary decisions arising” from the Dear Colleague letter – five years of misconduct findings from proceedings that were tailored to OCR’s demands – to be rendered “unconstitutional, arbitrary and void.”
The 2011 letter “was not, in practice or effect, a genuine guidance document” that carries no force of law, because it “coerced the schools’ compliance” with rules that were not implemented in the last rulemaking in 2001.
Because it set up “quasi-legal” proceedings that “violate many civil liberties,” the Dear Colleague has become “a highly divisive document, criticized by law professors, lawyers, educators, journalists, civil liberties groups and members of Congress,” the suit says.
The Ehrharts argued that the Department of Ed and OCR couldn’t avoid judicial review, as provided by the APA, by simply calling the Dear Colleague a guidance document.
The letter “is a final agency action in that it is the consummation of the agency’s decision-making and has been carried out as binding law since its adoption in 2011,” with “direct legal consequences” for institutions that do not comply.
The suit notes that Lhamon has repeatedly said in public settings that she expects colleges to follow the 2011 letter and “I will enforce” it – a threat made good when Tufts University “balked” at agreeing to an OCR finding that its policies suddenly violated Title IX in 2014.
Georgia taxpayers and academic programs are threatened
Those threats have forced all Georgia public colleges to create Title IX enforcement offices and hire personnel, costing them millions of dollars, to avoid the risk that their federal funding could be cut – with taxpayers hit and academic programs slashed as a result, the suit says.
It contrasts the multi-billion dollar endowments of Ivy League schools that have each hired dozens of Title IX staff in response to the Dear Colleague, with the endowments of Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia, which are “a shadow of their Ivy League peers.”
The suit notes Ehrhart’s own subcommittee hearings into how state schools handle sexual-misconduct investigations and says money can’t make students safer: The feds are demanding that colleges “micromanage the sex lives of students.”
The closest the suit gets to arguing that male students face inherent bias in post-Dear Colleague investigations – the core claim in lawyer Miltenberg’s CSU-Pueblo lawsuit – is its reference to the “rapid increase” in suits filed by students who were “wrongly disciplined.”
“Typically, these cases are brought by male students erroneously found responsible for sexual misconduct after being subjected to an arbitrary, biased and Kafkaesque investigation and adjudication,” it says.
Washington University Law Prof. John Banzhaf, who has called the 2011 Dear Colleague “unconstitutional,” said other states or municipalities could also challenge OCR in court by approving rules that contradict OCR’s, such as the right to cross-examination.
“Here it is not even clear that the [Title IX] statute authorized the Department of Education to have any involvement in the issue of rape complaints involving college students,” Banzhaf wrote in an email blast Thursday, “much less that it clearly intended to preempt any statutes individual states or municipalities might adopt. ”
Source
You know where this bitch came up with "dear colleague"? If it wasn't handed down to her then she reached as far up her ass as she could and pulled it out. It's not a law. It has no enforcement value yet she is acting like a smug little bitch about it. Let's see how smug she is with a congressional investigation looking up her ass. We'll see how smug she is then. Let's contact our Congressional representative and our Senators,especially Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford. Let's teach this little bitch she can't just fuck with innocent men just because she feels like it.
Republican State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, who chairs the influential Georgia House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education, filed the lawsuit along with his wife, alleging the federal government violated the Administrative Procedure Act when they issued a "guidance document" that included onerous new regulations for schools to follow. If schools fail to abide by the Department's Office for Civil Rights' ever-changing guidance, they risk losing federal funding.
Ehrhart has been a vocal critic of the Department's "Dear Colleague" letters, which began forcing colleges to spend more and more money to adjudicate felonies in 2011. In January, Ehrhart told school administrators: "If you don't protect the students of this state with due process, don't come looking for money." It was the strongest statement yet on the issue from a legislator.
In his lawsuit, Ehrhart claims the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter imposed "unnecessary costs and expenses that flow directly to both Federal and Georgia Taxpayers, including Plaintiffs, under the threat of Federal funding being revoked for the schools' failure to comply."
"The illegal and unconstitutional directives issued in the Obama Administration's 'Dear Colleague' letter have resulted in a clear disregard for the due process rights of male college students and fostered an environment of male gender bias on campuses throughout the country," Ehrhart said in a press release. "As Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education, I have seen firsthand how colleges and universities, intimidated by [the Education Department's Office for Civil Right's] threat to their federal funding, have set up kangaroo court systems to comply with the Obama Administration's unconstitutional policies."
He added: "It is unacceptable that state and federal taxpayers in this country continue to fund these mandates and their attendant costs at higher education institutions."
The 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter demanded that schools adopt processes that make it easier to find accused students culpable without affording them much chance to defend themselves. Schools aren't required to allow them legal representation and lack subpoena power to obtain relevant evidence; and it's up to the schools what evidence is "relevant" or "exculpatory," meaning oftentimes accused students aren't made aware of evidence that could exonerate them.
It's all due to the Obama administration's agenda on looking tough when it comes to sexual assault. The belief that women are oppressed and victimized at large numbers in this country permeates the administration, and it has introduced policies that take self-reported, manipulated surveys as fact and eviscerates due process rights in pursuit of ending a non-existent "epidemic."
Ehrhart and his wife claim they have standing to sue as taxpayers of the state, who help fund the colleges and universities. The Ehrharts are also deeply concerned about the policies forced upon colleges because they have a son enrolled in the Georgia Institute of Technology, a school that has a horrendous track record on sexual misconduct accusations.
Ehrhart is represented by Andrew Miltenberg, Jeffrey Berkowitz and Tara Davis of Nesenoff Miltenberg Goddard Laskowitz, LLP and Jonathan Hawkins of Krevolin & Horst, LLC. Miltenberg is also representing a former Colorado State University-Pueblo student who was suspended for multiple years (essentially expelled) for sexual misconduct even though his alleged victim said she wasn't raped. The student in that case is also suing the Education Department.
"It is our hope that his case, together with the Grant Neal case (commenced earlier this week), have cornered the OCR, highlighting its abuses and providing a compelling narrative as we try to dismantle the OCR's continued assault on the rights of young men," Miltenberg told the Washington Examiner in an email.
Ehrhart told the Examiner that if he got the "right panel" on the Georgia court where his lawsuit was filed, "we could be in very good shape." And if they lose, he said, "we'll appeal. We'll take this right up to the Supreme Court."
Source
This is a man. Earl Ehrhart is perhaps one of the last of the men left in government. A brave man that is taking on the feminist juggernaut. Fine,we will stand beside him and let him know that there are men standing beside him. That we at the Men's Rights Blog stand with him and wish him the best as he rights this wrong and restores and gets justice for the wrongfully accused men whom this suggestion "dear colleague" has destroyed. In fact let's tell him ourselves: earl.ehrhart@house.ga.gov The more of us he hears from the better so let's let him know we appreciate what he is doing. After all he is doing this on our behalf as well so let's let him know today.
There is a second take on this story:
Georgia lawmaker sues Department of Ed officials for exceeding authority in campus rape rules
Greg Piper - Associate Editor •April 22, 2016
Our son could be ‘wrongly accused and found responsible’
The Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have harmed not only students but their parents and taxpayers by enforcing unlawful rules in campus sexual-misconduct investigations, according to a lawsuit by a Georgia lawmaker.
State Rep. Earl Ehrhart chairs the Georgia House subcommittee that controls the purse for the state’s public colleges and universities, and he has used his position to pressure schools to restore due-process rights, with some success.
But in the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Ehrhart and his wife Victoria spoke as parents of a son enrolled at Georgia Tech.
They have “heard countless stories of young men being accused, investigated, and subsequently expelled from Georgia colleges and universities without being provided appropriate due process protections,” owing to OCR’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges, the suit says.
They are “concerned that in the current regulatory climate” their son could, “like any other male college student, be wrongly accused and found responsible under the directives imposed by the Dear Colleague Letter.”
‘Imperative language’ means it is intended to be enforced
The Ehrharts’ lawsuit names Education Secretary John King and OCR chief Catherine Lhamon as defendants, as well as the agencies they lead and the United States government itself.
It was filed by the same lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg, who earlier this week sued Colorado State University-Pueblo on behalf of a male student who was functionally expelled for a sexual encounter that his partner has repeatedly said was not rape. That suit also named Department of Ed officials.
The core of the suit is that OCR did not follow the proper regulatory procedure in issuing substantive new rules, including the use of an “excessively low” evidence standard and the discouragement of cross-examination, while threatening the federal funding of schools that didn’t comply.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a notice-and-comment rulemaking for any substantive rules, which are often marked by “imperative language” such as “must,” the suit says. It points to the repeated use of “should,” “must,” “requires” and “strongly” throughout the letter.
When OCR’s Lhamon was challenged on the letter’s legality by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. and chair of the Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, she claimed the Dear Colleague was “interpretive” because the Title IX statute went through notice-and-comment 44 years ago, the suit says.
All decisions from the past five years are ‘arbitrary and void’
The Ehrharts are calling for “all disciplinary decisions arising” from the Dear Colleague letter – five years of misconduct findings from proceedings that were tailored to OCR’s demands – to be rendered “unconstitutional, arbitrary and void.”
The 2011 letter “was not, in practice or effect, a genuine guidance document” that carries no force of law, because it “coerced the schools’ compliance” with rules that were not implemented in the last rulemaking in 2001.
Because it set up “quasi-legal” proceedings that “violate many civil liberties,” the Dear Colleague has become “a highly divisive document, criticized by law professors, lawyers, educators, journalists, civil liberties groups and members of Congress,” the suit says.
The Ehrharts argued that the Department of Ed and OCR couldn’t avoid judicial review, as provided by the APA, by simply calling the Dear Colleague a guidance document.
The letter “is a final agency action in that it is the consummation of the agency’s decision-making and has been carried out as binding law since its adoption in 2011,” with “direct legal consequences” for institutions that do not comply.
The suit notes that Lhamon has repeatedly said in public settings that she expects colleges to follow the 2011 letter and “I will enforce” it – a threat made good when Tufts University “balked” at agreeing to an OCR finding that its policies suddenly violated Title IX in 2014.
Georgia taxpayers and academic programs are threatened
Those threats have forced all Georgia public colleges to create Title IX enforcement offices and hire personnel, costing them millions of dollars, to avoid the risk that their federal funding could be cut – with taxpayers hit and academic programs slashed as a result, the suit says.
It contrasts the multi-billion dollar endowments of Ivy League schools that have each hired dozens of Title IX staff in response to the Dear Colleague, with the endowments of Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia, which are “a shadow of their Ivy League peers.”
The suit notes Ehrhart’s own subcommittee hearings into how state schools handle sexual-misconduct investigations and says money can’t make students safer: The feds are demanding that colleges “micromanage the sex lives of students.”
The closest the suit gets to arguing that male students face inherent bias in post-Dear Colleague investigations – the core claim in lawyer Miltenberg’s CSU-Pueblo lawsuit – is its reference to the “rapid increase” in suits filed by students who were “wrongly disciplined.”
“Typically, these cases are brought by male students erroneously found responsible for sexual misconduct after being subjected to an arbitrary, biased and Kafkaesque investigation and adjudication,” it says.
Washington University Law Prof. John Banzhaf, who has called the 2011 Dear Colleague “unconstitutional,” said other states or municipalities could also challenge OCR in court by approving rules that contradict OCR’s, such as the right to cross-examination.
“Here it is not even clear that the [Title IX] statute authorized the Department of Education to have any involvement in the issue of rape complaints involving college students,” Banzhaf wrote in an email blast Thursday, “much less that it clearly intended to preempt any statutes individual states or municipalities might adopt. ”
Source
You know where this bitch came up with "dear colleague"? If it wasn't handed down to her then she reached as far up her ass as she could and pulled it out. It's not a law. It has no enforcement value yet she is acting like a smug little bitch about it. Let's see how smug she is with a congressional investigation looking up her ass. We'll see how smug she is then. Let's contact our Congressional representative and our Senators,especially Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford. Let's teach this little bitch she can't just fuck with innocent men just because she feels like it.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Bipartisan drive to restore due process on college and univerity campuses
Drive to Restore Due Process on Campus Gains Traction
SAVE
March 7, 2016
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on campus sexual assault in 2011. Even though the directive imposed a substantial number of new mandates on colleges, the OCR neglected to submit the policy for public review and comment – in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In response, a growing number of lawmakers are speaking out on the need to refer campus sex cases to criminal justice authorities and restore due process on campus:[i]
•Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”
•Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation.”
•Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault.”
•Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”
•Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
In January, Sen. James Lankford, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, wrote a letter to the Department of Education asking the agency to justify the legal authority behind its DCLs of 2010 on bullying and of 2011 on sexual assault.
The Department of Education responded on February 17, saying its new mandates represented a “construction” of its interpretation of Title IX.
In his March 4 reply, Sen. Lankford stated the Dept. of Education letter “failed to assuage my concerns that OCR has issued guidance documents” that “advance policies not found within the pages of [Title IX’s] statutory and regulatory texts.” Sen. Lankford called on Acting Secretary King to “immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education.”[ii]
It’s deplorable that the Office of Civil Rights would repeatedly violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and then make shallow excuses for its pattern of abusive behavior to a Congressional oversight committee.
Source
Numerous senators have expressed concerns how current OCR policies are marginalizing the criminal justice system, about the lack of due process, and regarding federal agencys’ Title IX policy-making or enforcement methods:
A. Minimizing the Role of the Criminal Justice System:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”[1]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “Rape and assault is rape or assault whether it takes place on a campus or a dark street…If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation and that has to take place.”[2]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault. I am concerned that the specter of flawed law enforcement overshadows the harm of marginalized law enforcement.”[3]
B. Lack of Due Process:
Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”[4]
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”[5]
C. Unlawful Policy-Making Procedures:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “What you’re doing is writing out detailed guidance for 22 million students on 7,200 campuses, and it’s just — it could be your whim, your idea. We make the law. You don’t make the law. Where does such a guidance authority come from?”[6]
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): The “Department of Education’s Office for Civil Right (OCR) Dear Colleague letters on harassment and bullying (issued October 23, 2010) and sexual violence (issued April 4, 2011)… purport to interpret statements of existing law; however, while both broadly cite to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the letters fail to point to precise governing statutory or regulatory language that support their sweeping policy changes.”[7]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action.”[8] (in reference to the University of Montana Settlement Agreement that was referred to as a “blueprint” for other universities)
D. Heavy-Handed Enforcement Practices:
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Timothy Kaine (D-VA) sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan on August 25, 2015 in support of the concerns of Gov. Terry McAuliffe regarding a Title IX investigation of the University of Virginia, and called for a “fair and thorough process for all involved.”[9]
Source
Citations at source.
This is a first. This is a bipartisan look at men's rights. This is a first and it is long overdue. Thank you to both sides of the aisle for coming together to make sure justice is served and that your male constituents are not railroaded by a misandric system. Click on the links to thank these Senators for their brave stance and since they are helping us we can help them in return and the best way to do that is to vote for them when they are running for re-election or if that is not possible encourage other registered voters registered in their districts to vote for them. They fought for us the least we can do is help them keep their jobs.
SAVE
March 7, 2016
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on campus sexual assault in 2011. Even though the directive imposed a substantial number of new mandates on colleges, the OCR neglected to submit the policy for public review and comment – in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In response, a growing number of lawmakers are speaking out on the need to refer campus sex cases to criminal justice authorities and restore due process on campus:[i]
•Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”
•Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation.”
•Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault.”
•Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”
•Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
In January, Sen. James Lankford, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, wrote a letter to the Department of Education asking the agency to justify the legal authority behind its DCLs of 2010 on bullying and of 2011 on sexual assault.
The Department of Education responded on February 17, saying its new mandates represented a “construction” of its interpretation of Title IX.
In his March 4 reply, Sen. Lankford stated the Dept. of Education letter “failed to assuage my concerns that OCR has issued guidance documents” that “advance policies not found within the pages of [Title IX’s] statutory and regulatory texts.” Sen. Lankford called on Acting Secretary King to “immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education.”[ii]
It’s deplorable that the Office of Civil Rights would repeatedly violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and then make shallow excuses for its pattern of abusive behavior to a Congressional oversight committee.
Source
Numerous senators have expressed concerns how current OCR policies are marginalizing the criminal justice system, about the lack of due process, and regarding federal agencys’ Title IX policy-making or enforcement methods:
A. Minimizing the Role of the Criminal Justice System:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”[1]
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “Rape and assault is rape or assault whether it takes place on a campus or a dark street…If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation and that has to take place.”[2]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault. I am concerned that the specter of flawed law enforcement overshadows the harm of marginalized law enforcement.”[3]
B. Lack of Due Process:
Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”[4]
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”[5]
C. Unlawful Policy-Making Procedures:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “What you’re doing is writing out detailed guidance for 22 million students on 7,200 campuses, and it’s just — it could be your whim, your idea. We make the law. You don’t make the law. Where does such a guidance authority come from?”[6]
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): The “Department of Education’s Office for Civil Right (OCR) Dear Colleague letters on harassment and bullying (issued October 23, 2010) and sexual violence (issued April 4, 2011)… purport to interpret statements of existing law; however, while both broadly cite to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the letters fail to point to precise governing statutory or regulatory language that support their sweeping policy changes.”[7]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action.”[8] (in reference to the University of Montana Settlement Agreement that was referred to as a “blueprint” for other universities)
D. Heavy-Handed Enforcement Practices:
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Timothy Kaine (D-VA) sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan on August 25, 2015 in support of the concerns of Gov. Terry McAuliffe regarding a Title IX investigation of the University of Virginia, and called for a “fair and thorough process for all involved.”[9]
Source
Citations at source.
This is a first. This is a bipartisan look at men's rights. This is a first and it is long overdue. Thank you to both sides of the aisle for coming together to make sure justice is served and that your male constituents are not railroaded by a misandric system. Click on the links to thank these Senators for their brave stance and since they are helping us we can help them in return and the best way to do that is to vote for them when they are running for re-election or if that is not possible encourage other registered voters registered in their districts to vote for them. They fought for us the least we can do is help them keep their jobs.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)