Meanwhile the Dept of Education's crusade on protecting sexual assaulters...

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

One stipulation would narrow the definition of sexual harassment to mean "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school's education program or activity." The new policy would be a departure from the Obama administration's broader definition of sexual harassment as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature."

So this effectively means schools can't be involved in sexual assault cases unless the assaulter possibly attends a similar class.

I appreciate the need to ensure that an accused student not be presumed guilty, but this change has nothing to do with guilt and has everything to do with stripping a college's ability to address such a charge.

I'm so glad that the Department of Education has prioritized this issue above students dealing with fraudulent or deceptive debt collectors.

 

[Derec]

Obama/Biden caved to radical feminists and implemented a system grossly unfair to male students accused of sexual assault.

By the way, your title assumes people accused are automatically guilty. That is very wrong! People accused of wrongdoing deserve due process protections. That includes confronting their accuser.
And Obama definition is indeed overly broad. By that definition a man asking a woman out could be classified as "sexual harassment" if she says no.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's good. There was one private school up here in Toronto where a bunch of rich kids just got expelled for nothing worse than pinning a fellow student down and anally raping him with a broomstick. Now some of them will have to attend public schools and that's the sort of thing which gets one's country club applications delayed for a season or two. The liberal media frenzy this produced even forced the school to eventually mention the matter to the police and this meant that they had to let civil servants traipse all over the gymnasium where it happened and that limited access to the sauna. This really isn't the type of world we want to live in.

While forcing rapists to transfer to another class as a punishment for sexually assaulting another student does still place some aspect of the blame for the attack on the abuser instead of on the victim where it belongs (since they were probably asking for it), at least it allows them to avoid much of the drama which could make future Supreme Court nomination hearings somewhat awkward.

 

[laughing dog]

Obama/Biden caved to radical feminists and implemented a system grossly unfair to male students accused of sexual assault.

That is your opinion.

O
By the way, your title assumes people accused are automatically guilty.

No, it does not. By definition, limiting the scope means that actions that people engaging in what is no longer considered sexual assault are getting away with what was formally considered sexual assault. This definition means that a student who sexually assaults another student off campus and who never run into his/her victim in campus would not be subject to the school's policy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama/Biden caved to radical feminists and implemented a system grossly unfair to male students accused of sexual assault.

That is your opinion.

O
By the way, your title assumes people accused are automatically guilty.

No, it does not. By definition, limiting the scope means that actions that people engaging in what is no longer considered sexual assault are getting away with what was formally considered sexual assault. This definition means that a student who sexually assaults another student off campus and who never run into his/her victim in campus would not be subject to the school's policy.

I read it as it could even be on campus, however, if the interaction between the two does not impact the victim's school commitments, the school has no standing to intervene.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just to note (from the OP link):

"Samantha Harris, a vice president for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the proposed regulations "make important strides toward ensuring that complaints of sexual misconduct will be neither ignored nor prejudged" and eliminate confusion that has led to "broad definitions of sexual harassment that threaten student and faculty speech" on campuses."

An article from FIRE:

New proposed Title IX regulations feature essential safeguards for free speech and due process on campus
https://www.thefire.org/new-propose...ds-for-free-speech-and-due-process-on-campus/

Problems with the 2011 rules:

Spotlight on Due Process 2017

1. Nearly three-quarters (73.6%) of America’s top 53 universities do not even guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

2. Fewer than half of schools (47.2%) require that fact-finders—the institution’s version of judge and/or jury—be impartial.

3. 45 out of the 53 universities studied receive a D or F rating from FIRE for at least one disciplinary policy, meaning that they fully provide no more than 4 of the 10 elements of a fair procedure that FIRE rated.

4. Most institutions have one set of standards for adjudicating charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other charges. 79 percent of rated universities receive a D or F for protecting the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct.

5. Of the 103 policies rated at the 53 schools in the report, not a single policy receives an A grade.

https://www.thefire.org/due-process-report-2017/

 

[Derec]

Obama/Biden caved to radical feminists and implemented a system grossly unfair to male students accused of sexual assault.

That is your opinion.

No, it does not. By definition, limiting the scope means that actions that people engaging in what is no longer considered sexual assault are getting away with what was formally considered sexual assault. This definition means that a student who sexually assaults another student off campus and who never run into his/her victim in campus would not be subject to the school's policy.

And if there was actual sexual assault (as opposed to a regretted hookup) she can always go to the police. They are much better equipped to investigate alleged sexual assaults than college tribunals.

 

[laughing dog]

True, it is a fact that it is your opinion.

And if there was actual sexual assault (as opposed to a regretted hookup) she can always go to the police. They are much better equipped to investigate alleged sexual assaults than college tribunals.

Whether they are better equipped or better suited is an empirical question. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the issue that schools are entitled to have codes of conduct and to enforce them.

 

[Derec]

True, it is a fact that it is your opinion.

You are so obtuse, you are almost 180°.

Whether they are better equipped or better suited is an empirical question. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the issue that schools are entitled to have codes of conduct and to enforce them.

Except that the Obama/Biden policy forced them into doing so in a way grossly unfair to the accused. This change in policy restores some sanity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if there was actual sexual assault (as opposed to a regretted hookup) she can always go to the police. They are much better equipped to investigate alleged sexual assaults than college tribunals.

To me this is the real answer. It's just the government has for some time now been looking for ways around the pesky 5th amendment, using universities to punish "rapists" is merely one example. (They're also bad about the 4th--just look at the TSA.)

 

[laughing dog]

Doing so in a way grossly unfair to the accused.

No, it did not.

This change in policy restores some sanity.

No, it does not.

 

[Arctish]

Just to note (from the OP link):

"Samantha Harris, a vice president for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the proposed regulations "make important strides toward ensuring that complaints of sexual misconduct will be neither ignored nor prejudged" and eliminate confusion that has led to "broad definitions of sexual harassment that threaten student and faculty speech" on campuses."

An article from FIRE:

New proposed Title IX regulations feature essential safeguards for free speech and due process on campus
https://www.thefire.org/new-propose...ds-for-free-speech-and-due-process-on-campus/

Problems with the 2011 rules:

Spotlight on Due Process 2017

1. Nearly three-quarters (73.6%) of America’s top 53 universities do not even guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

2. Fewer than half of schools (47.2%) require that fact-finders—the institution’s version of judge and/or jury—be impartial.

3. 45 out of the 53 universities studied receive a D or F rating from FIRE for at least one disciplinary policy, meaning that they fully provide no more than 4 of the 10 elements of a fair procedure that FIRE rated.

4. Most institutions have one set of standards for adjudicating charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other charges. 79 percent of rated universities receive a D or F for protecting the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct.

5. Of the 103 policies rated at the 53 schools in the report, not a single policy receives an A grade.

https://www.thefire.org/due-process-report-2017/

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

 

[Arctish]

And if there was actual sexual assault (as opposed to a regretted hookup) she can always go to the police. They are much better equipped to investigate alleged sexual assaults than college tribunals.

To me this is the real answer. It's just the government has for some time now been looking for ways around the pesky 5th amendment, using universities to punish "rapists" is merely one example. (They're also bad about the 4th--just look at the TSA.)

Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In what way does this apply to Code of Conduct enforcement?

 

[Derec]

Doing so in a way grossly unfair to the accused.

No, it did not.

This change in policy restores some sanity.

No, it does not.

Not that I expect more from you.

 

[Derec]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

That does not mean that it's ok for entities such as universities to have capricious, nonsensical and biased (both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled) code of conduct.
And note that these standards were mandated by the federal government - they were not freely chosen by parties to the "private contract".

It's no surprise that university and college CoC enforcement differs from law enforcement since they are two different processes for enforcing two different sets of rules derived from two different sources of authority.

Yes, they differ. That is not an excuse why the former should not strive for fairness.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

But if your employer suspects you or Susan from accounting from stealing office supplies together, it doesn't mean
- you should be punished without sufficient evidence
- you should be the only one punished because you are the male
- you should be given an opportunity to defend yourself

 

[Derec]

In what way does this apply to Code of Conduct enforcement?

It probably does not, although at least in the case of state universities it might violate the 14th. But something doesn't have to be violating the Constitution to be a very bad idea.
And neither does the Constitution mandate the draconian Obama era policy, which means Trump is free to change it.

 

[Toni]

That does not mean that it's ok for entities such as universities to have capricious, nonsensical and biased (both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled) code of conduct.
And note that these standards were mandated by the federal government - they were not freely chosen by parties to the "private contract".

No, these were not standards instituted at any place of higher learning nor were any such standards mandated by the federal government. That 'mutual consent/both drunk crap is just that: crap.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

But if your employer suspects you or Susan from accounting from stealing office supplies together, it doesn't mean
- you should be punished without sufficient evidence
- you should be the only one punished because you are the male
- you should be given an opportunity to defend yourself

Accused students are given the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused students are not always male. Accused students are not always expelled nor do accused students always receive any sort of punishment.

I understand that it is a common adolescent male fantasy that girls really really want to hook up with an entire basketball team--they just need you to get them drunk enough to let them relax enough to do what their body wants to do anyway.

That is not reality.

Drunk guys are quite capable of forming the intent to insert their penis into a girl who is too drunk to stand and who has no idea what is going on and who lacks the capacity to evaluate a situation or to advocate for herself--you know: escape a gang rape. Drunk guys are quite capable of actually inserting their penis--or other object into a girl too drunk to stand or escape or protest.

Drunk guys often don't use good judgment. That doesn't mean they can't commit crimes or that those crimes are not their fault.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I am conflicted here. While I support making a less toxic environment for victims, the rule has been disproportionately used against black men. Also, false accusations are far more likely in an atmosphere with few if any consequences for making them. Give people weapons and they will use them. I don't have any good answers but I do think there is a real problem here that the wingnuts are getting at.

 

[Arctish]

Due process is an abbreviation for 'due process of law'. It refers to how the law is enforced and adjudicated. It does not refer to the enforcement of private contracts like Codes of Conduct.

That does not mean that it's ok for entities such as universities to have capricious, nonsensical and biased (both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled) code of conduct.

No one said unfair Codes of Conduct are good. No one said that fair CoCs enforced in an unfair, sexist, or gender biased manner are good. And no one here has ever shown an instance where "both parties drunk, have mutually consensual sex, only guy gets expelled" actually happened except where there was an additional offense the guy alone committed.

And note that these standards were mandated by the federal government - they were not freely chosen by parties to the "private contract".

The federal government mandated compliance with Title IX, which states:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Colleges and universities freely choose to accept federal financial assistance and therefore freely choose to abide by the associated requirements. Prospective students and employees freely choose to apply to those institutions and freely choose to sign the CoC agreement.

Yes, they differ. That is not an excuse why the former should not strive for fairness.

I agree they should strive for fairness. I think everyone does.

It's the same for law enforcement and CoC enforcement at my place of work. The cops aren't going to arrest me if I fall asleep at my desk, and my employer isn't allowed to imprison me if I steal office supplies.

But if your employer suspects you or Susan from accounting from stealing office supplies together, it doesn't mean
- you should be punished without sufficient evidence
- you should be the only one punished because you are the male
- you should be given an opportunity to defend yourself

Agreed.

I think there should to be an investigation of the allegations and the accused employees should have an opportunity to defend themselves. But that in no way involves 'due process of the law' unless the employees' civil rights are denied.

Are you under the impression that colleges and universities don't conduct investigations when a Code of Conduct violation is alleged, or that they don't give accused students an opportunity to give their version of events? I have yet to see a Code of Conduct agreement that didn't include those two steps in the disciplinary process.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it did not.

No, it does not.

Not that I expect more from you.

I used the form of argument you favor the most in the vain hope (but not expectation)you would understand it, given that you fail to understand any other mode. As usual, you did not fail expectations.

You continually conflate your biased, poorly reasoned and frankly ignorant opinion with fact in this matter.