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

[ZiprHead]

Arctish, what did you make of the comments and report(s) by FIRE? I am not familiar with that organisation, but from what I can tell, it is purported to be impartial and interested in valid and (here) relevant issues?

It/they (what was posted here) gave me the impression that there was a case for rethinking, for example, what I think has been described here as the 2011 'Obama Standard' (I write from afar and am not wholly familiar) and that yes, American colleges may not have been up to the mark as regards fair procedures over recent years.

Not really.

Sourcewatch: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Funded by the right-wing Bradley Foundation and the Koch brothers.

 

[ruby sparks]

Arctish, what did you make of the comments and report(s) by FIRE? I am not familiar with that organisation, but from what I can tell, it is purported to be impartial and interested in valid and (here) relevant issues?

It/they (what was posted here) gave me the impression that there was a case for rethinking, for example, what I think has been described here as the 2011 'Obama Standard' (I write from afar and am not wholly familiar) and that yes, American colleges may not have been up to the mark as regards fair procedures over recent years.

Not really.

Sourcewatch: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Funded by the right-wing Bradley Foundation and the Koch brothers.

Thankyou. That's more than a bit worrying. Perhaps it was already widely known by Americans here on the forum. If not, good sleuthing.

Unless of course Sourcewatch is funded by the Commies........

While I'm reminded that I'm not as au fait with all things American as I could be, can I just check something else? 'Reds Under The Bed'. That was about a fear of Republicans, right?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know the fact that the Koch brothers donate to them will cause some people around here to think FIRE must be a harshly partisan group. Don't get carried away. Remember, the ACLU defends the rights of the KKK to speak, and some members of the Board of Administrators of FIRE are former leaders of the ACLU. There is some interplay between the two groups.

FIRE is about campus freedom and equality. There is a case that can be made that because of the climate on campus some groups face more restrictions than other groups, so therefore some donors may be more inclined to give to FIRE than other donors, but that doesn't mean FIRE is exclusively "right" wing. If you look up the cases they take, you'll find they cover "both" sides, because their interest isn't confined to just one party.

https://www.thefire.org/cases/?limit=all

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Show us these reports. Link to them, or to a list of them.

You've been here long enough.

The government didn't order them to prosecute anyone. That's a function of law enforcement.

Please link to the statistics you are citing so I can see for myself what they show. Even if it's true that female college students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age who aren't going to college, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of sexual assault against females everywhere, or that institutions like colleges and universities have been doing an adequate job of enforcing rules against that sort of thing.

That memo that has been mentioned on here many times. For all practical purposes that was government instruction to persecute.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

In other words, you're not interested in having that discussion.

You don't want to draw the line.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Unfucking real.

If the rest of you aren't already aware, you should read about the school-to-prison pipeline, in which we take every possible excuse to ruin the lives and futures of schoolchildren in order to turn them into future permanent prison residents, thus increasing the profits of private companies who operate prisons.

But I guess if a student sexually assaults other children, you get a free pass to stay out the very profitable school-to-prison pipeline.

Tell me again how men are being "persecuted" by "female privilege"?

What, the fact that once in a blue moon, a man actually doesn't get away with sexual assault or rape somehow proves that society favors women? Is that how the argument works?

 

[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.

False allegations are quite rare. It's not the huge problem that a lot of rape apologists like to pretend it is.

It doesn't matter if they are rare. It really doesn't. Also you missed my point that they will get more common if there are no consequences.

It's a weird debate because everyone seems to have picked a side and now no one can actually discuss how to go about coping with a complicated situation. On the one hand, there are rarely witnesses and being victimized sucks a lot. On the other hand, the reaction of immediate and harsh punishment is pretty much never good except in cases of rape or murder. And that is a criminal matter anyway. While women and LGBT have been victimized and still are routinely, people are people and false accusations are potential weapons.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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.

Ok but I see from googling that the term is apparently used in this context. There is a wiki page on 'Campus Assault Due Process' for example.

From what I've seen, people who oppose the change in the way sexual assault complaints are handled on campus follow one of three lines of attack. The first is to attack the legitimacy of the campus disciplinary process. This usually involves criticizing college and university administrations for investigating an alleged sexual assault because they aren't part of the criminal justice system. Many posters have claimed colleges and universities don't have adequately trained staff to do investigations, although its been shown that all of the larger ones do. This is where the conflating of due process and disciplinary process keeps happening, mostly I believe because it appeals to a reader's sense of fairness. It's a fallacious argument that ignores the fact that colleges and universities aren't enforcing criminal law, they are enforcing their rules, and they can best do that through their disciplinary process.

The second line of attack is to assert bias and gender discrimination. There is a dearth of evidence in support of that argument so on this board it usually morphs into an attack on the legitimacy of the disciplinary process.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

Agreed. This is a terrible way to make policy- decide first, attack later.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

It has not been shown that the larger ones are capable of doing it right. We have plenty of reports of it being done very, very wrong.



The bias is the government de-facto ordered them to prosecute more "rapists". Never mind that the statistics show there aren't more rapists (simple test, look at police data rather than university data. Oops, female students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age not going to college)--thus the basically inevitable result that innocents are swept up.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

Well, at this point there does clearly need to be at least a small bias for the woman. That is sort of the root of the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a weird debate because everyone seems to have picked a side and now no one can actually discuss how to go about coping with a complicated situation. On the one hand, there are rarely witnesses and being victimized sucks a lot. On the other hand, the reaction of immediate and harsh punishment is pretty much never good except in cases of rape or murder. And that is a criminal matter anyway. While women and LGBT have been victimized and still are routinely, people are people and false accusations are potential weapons.

The only reason not to do a decent investigation first is if the suspect might flee--and that's not something that a university has any control over and thus not a reason. Make sure they're guilty before you punish them! Don't expel them and see if they can manage to fight it.

- - - Updated - - -

It has not been shown that the larger ones are capable of doing it right. We have plenty of reports of it being done very, very wrong.



The bias is the government de-facto ordered them to prosecute more "rapists". Never mind that the statistics show there aren't more rapists (simple test, look at police data rather than university data. Oops, female students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age not going to college)--thus the basically inevitable result that innocents are swept up.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

Well, at this point there does clearly need to be at least a small bias for the woman. That is sort of the root of the problem.

Disagree--the US operates on innocent until proven guilty. Universities shouldn't be operating on guilty until proven innocent.

Simple fix: Get rid of binding arbitration, the unjustly expelled get to sue to recoup their losses. The universities will soon behave.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

The only reason not to do a decent investigation first is if the suspect might flee--and that's not something that a university has any control over and thus not a reason. Make sure they're guilty before you punish them! Don't expel them and see if they can manage to fight it.

- - - Updated - - -

It has not been shown that the larger ones are capable of doing it right. We have plenty of reports of it being done very, very wrong.



The bias is the government de-facto ordered them to prosecute more "rapists". Never mind that the statistics show there aren't more rapists (simple test, look at police data rather than university data. Oops, female students are less likely to be raped than females of the same age not going to college)--thus the basically inevitable result that innocents are swept up.

The third line of attack is to question where exactly the lines should be drawn between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity when both parties have been consuming alcohol or drugs. This, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. But it's a discussion that calls for nuance and acceptance that there are no hard and fast rules that apply in all situations. It can be very frustrating but IMO it's the discussion worth having.

In other words, you draw the line wherever you need to to favor the woman. It's a common situation, a line should be able to be drawn.

Well, at this point there does clearly need to be at least a small bias for the woman. That is sort of the root of the problem.

Disagree--the US operates on innocent until proven guilty. Universities shouldn't be operating on guilty until proven innocent.

Simple fix: Get rid of binding arbitration, the unjustly expelled get to sue to recoup their losses. The universities will soon behave.

Hmm. We are clearly seeing different problems.