Categories
Uncategorized

Disallowing Cross-Examination Can Violate State and Federal Law

The Supreme Court has lauded cross-examination as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”  Suzanne Goldberg overlooks the Supreme Court’s praise for cross-examination, attributing this praise instead to a “1904 legal treatise” (“Keep Cross-Examination Out of College Sexual-Assault Cases,” The Chronicle, January 10).

But it is not just long-dead legal writers who view cross-examination this way. The Supreme Court still does, as it declared in its 1999 ruling in Lilly v. Virginia.

Goldberg wants to keep cross-examination out of campus sexual-assault and harassment cases. But doing that can violate state and federal law.

Some state courts have ruled that their state’s Administrative Procedures Act gives accused students the right to cross-examine their accuser. Federal law often confers this right as well. In Doe v. Baum (2018), a federal appeals court ruled that an accused student had a due-process right to cross-examination of his accuser in a college discipline hearing. That court ruling, just like the Supreme Court’s Lilly decision, touted cross-examination as ”the greatest legal engine ever invented” for uncovering the truth.

Colleges cannot ignore these court rulings in favor of accused students’ statutory and constitutional rights, even if Goldberg disagrees with them.

Hans Bader
Former Education Department Lawyer
Arlington, Va.

Categories
Uncategorized

Over Half of Accused Students Found Not Responsible by Campus Sex Tribunals

An analysis of annual reports from 48 colleges in 21 states reveals that 52.7% of campus sexual assault adjudications resulted in a finding of “not responsible” for the accused student – see table.

These online reports identify the outcomes for allegations of sexual assault hearings. The link to each report is embedded in the name of the College or University, first column in the Table, below. The information comes from both private and public institutions nationwide.

The analysis includes only reports that specifically identify the outcomes for adjudications involving allegations of sexual assault.  The information does not include other potential conduct code violations, such as sexual harassment and sexual exploitation.

This finding is similar to a 2017 NCHERM report titled “Due Process and the Sex Police” that stated, “annual summaries show that they are finding no violation of policy 60% of the time in their total case decisions.”

Most institutions review sexual misconduct cases based on the preponderance of evidence standard. In practice, this standard is essentially a measure of credibility of the statements of the accuser and the accused. The fact that a larger percentage of students was found not responsible demonstrates that most allegations investigated by colleges are determined to be unfounded.

Table: Outcomes of Campus Adjudications of Sexual Assault Claims at 48 Colleges

                                                                                                                                                    
COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY

ENROLLMENT (2017)ii

TIME PERIODiii

RESPONSIBLEi

NOT RESPONSIBLE

Amherst College

1,849

2014

5

3

Augustana College

2,537

2016

2

1

Brown University*

9,781

2016-17

0

3

California State University -Chico

17,557

2017-18

3

4

Carleton College

2,105

2017-18

3

0

Case Western Reserve University*

11,664

2015-16

1

1

Central Connecticut State University

11,784

2017

1

3

College of William and Mary*

8,617

2016-17

4

9

Columbia University, NYC

29,372

2016-17

3

6

Cornell University

22,319

2016-17

5

8

Dartmouth College

6,409

2016-17

4

4

Delaware State University

4,328

2017

3

2

Eureka College

672

2016

3

24iv

Goldey-Beacom College

2,063

2017

8

9

Hamilton College

1,883

2016-17

4

3

Illinois State University v

21,039

2017

10

4

Indiana U.-Bloomington

49,695

2016-17

13

6

Indiana University -Purdue University -Indianapolis

29,804

2016-17

1

2

Lake Forest College

1,578

2016

2

1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

11,376

2014-18

10

6

Michigan State University*

50,340

2016-17

16

16

Northwestern University

21,823

2016

4

2

Occidental College

1,969

2015-16

2

0

Oklahoma State University-Main Campusvi

25,622

2016-17

4

0

Park University

11,227

2017-18

1

2

Quinnipiac University

9,900

2017

1

0

Rhodes College

2,029

2017-18

1

3

Sacred Heart University

8,532

2017

1

1

San Jose State University vii

32,154

2016-17

4

1

Southern Connecticut State University

10,320

2017

2

0

Stanford University viii

17,184

2016-17

3

5

The California Maritime Academy

1,107

2017-18

0

1

University of Alaska Anchorage

16,318

2016-17

0

1

University of Alaska Fairbanks

8,283

2016-17

3

0

University of Arkansasix,*

27,194

2017-18

5

10

University of Bridgeport

5,658

2017

0

1

University of California-Irvine

32,754

2017-18

3

3

University of California- San Diego

34,979

2015

1

0

University of Chicagox

15,775

2016-17

3

6

University of Connecticutxi

27,721

2017

4

11

University of Delaware

23,009

2017

2

0

University of Hartford*

6,714

2017

1

4

University of Maryland-College Park

39,083

2016-17

4

6

University of Michigan- Ann Arbor

44,718

2017-18

0

3

University of Montana

12,419

2016-17

3

1

University of Oregon

23,546

2016

15

9

Western Michigan University*

23,227

2016-17

5

6

Yale University xii

12,458

2017-18

2

4

TOTAL:

175

195

PERCENTAGE:

47.3

52.7

i Decisions are mostly based on formal procedures. Exceptions for a few schools (noted below) include allegations that were screened out as not rising to the level of a policy violation. Few schools report those data, yet it is likely that many schools screen out allegations that do not rise to policy violations, suggesting that the percent not responsible would be larger than calculated here if schools reported the total number of allegations screened out. The number of decisions is usually the number of allegations, unless the report provides the number of respondents. Multiple allegations per respondent were more frequent than multiple respondents per allegation; hence the total number of decisions is somewhat greater than the number of respondents.

ii Enrollment data are from the US Dept. of Education, 2018.

iii The data represent one year from each school, usually the latest academic or calendar year for which a report is available (except MIT with 4 years).

iv If the large number of not responsible findings for this small school are considered an outlier, deleting the school’s data changes the total not responsible to 50%.

v Six “otherwise disciplined” students tallied as responsible in this table.

vi Unwelcome sexual touching and Exposure are not included in OSU’s definition of sexual assault.

vii Sexual battery is included here as sexual assault for SJSU.

viii Some of Stanford’s outcomes are ambiguous: 1 of 2 non-hearing resolutions were counted as responsible, the other is not clear and was not counted; 5 student decisions had an unspecified split between “no charge” and formal findings of not responsible. All 5 were counted as not responsible.

ix Count of 9 outcomes listed as “Available evidence did not support a charge of policy violation or necessitate further university investigation” were tallied here as not responsible.

x Sexual assault definition doesn’t include sexual abuse (non-consensual sexual contact).

xi Outcomes for employees not included here.

xii Not responsible total includes 1 screened out allegation.

* These 7 schools may have included a small number of allegations involving employees, teasing this out was not possible with the reported information.

Categories
Uncategorized

Appellate Court Decisions Generally Support Proposed Federal Regulations for Campus Sexual Assault

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Appellate Court Decisions Generally Support Proposed Federal Regulations for Campus Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / January 7, 2019 – A report released today analyzes appellate court decisions on campus sexual assault, and concludes “the findings of the 14 appellate decisions are generally consistent with, and substantially enhance the legal basis for the provisions contained in the proposed Title IX regulations.”

The report analyzes 14 appellate rulings that were at least partly favorable to the accused student, and were issued from 2013 to 2018. Of the 14 decisions, eight were rendered in 2018 alone.

Among the 14 cases, five were decided by federal appellate courts and nine were resolved by state appellate courts. Four cases came from California appellate courts, three rulings from New York courts, and three from the 6th Circuit Court. Additional rulings came from the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Circuit Courts, and the Washington state appeals court.

The decisions highlighted due process deficiencies in eight areas: Insufficient hearing process, lack of cross-examination, insufficient notice, inadequate investigation, conflicting roles of college officials, improper use of witness testimony, potential sex bias, and misuse of affirmative consent policies.

The report then compares the appellate Judicial Findings with the due process provisions enumerated in a recent Notice of Proposed Rule-Making issued by the Department of Education (1). The analysis documents a general consistency between the appellate court rulings and the proposed regulatory changes.

Last week, the California Court of Appeal issued another decision in favor of the accused student. The court chided the University of Southern California for its reliance on a single-investigator approach, noting this practice “ignores the fundamental nature of cross-examination,” which is “incompatible” with any credible effort “to uncover the truth.” (2)

The SAVE Special Report is available online (3). A summary of the 14 cases is also available (4).

Citations:

  1. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001
  2. https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/usc-iv-decision.pdf
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Appendix.pdf

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to domestic violence and campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Uncategorized

USC ignored likelihood that female student invented rape to not get fired, appeals court rules

Judges question ‘practical efficacy’ of fair hearing when single official does everythingThe era of serious punishments based on a single official’s investigation is over at the University of Southern California.

 

For the second time in less than a month, a California appeals court ruled that the private university denied a student accused of rape a fair hearing, and that the same Title IX official conducted a shoddy investigation.

The three-judge panel ordered a lower court to remove USC’s findings against “John Doe” from his record, and awarded him his costs on appeal. The university will also have to create procedures to allow accused students to cross-examine both their accusers and witnesses in some form.

This went even further than the previous appeals panel in the December ruling against USC, which explicitly declined to rule whether accused students have a right to cross-examine anyone beyond accusers.

“When credibility of witnesses is essential to a finding of sexual misconduct, the stakes at issue in the adjudication are high, the interests are significant, and the accused’s opportunity to confront adverse witnesses in the face of competing narratives is key,” said the opinion, written by Justice Thomas Willhite.

Challenging the December appeals panel even further, Willhite questioned whether the right to a fair hearing has “any practical efficacy” when a single official acts in the “overlapping and conflicting capacities” of prosecutor and tribunal.

“Under such circumstances, the performance of this key function is simply too important to entrust to the Title IX investigator in USC’s procedure,” Willhite wrote. His opinion was joined by Justice Audrey Collins and Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim Garlin Dunning, sitting by designation.

“The decision against USC appears to be consistent with the new Title IX guidelines” proposed by the Department of Education last fall, which are open to public comment through January, Doe’s lawyer Mark Hathaway wrote in an email.

‘The courts are making substantive changes,’ but USC did everything right

Both rulings fault the choices made by Title IX investigator Kegan Allee, particularly her failure to interview relevant witnesses and pursue exculpatory evidence.

USC staff identified in the past year’s rulings against the university appear to have not been sanctioned for their failures as documented by judges.

Allee is now listed as assistant director of the Title IX office. Two officials caught calling an accused student “motherfucker” – Gretchen Dahlinger Means and Patrick Noonan – still have their titles.

USC declined to answer College Fix questions about how it’s specifically changing procedures in response to the rulings, and on what timeline; when it promoted Allee (in video below), whether she’s still handling investigations, and how the rulings may affect her employment and personnel file; and whether Means and Noonan have experienced sanctions.

MOREHuge judgment against USC after calling accused student ‘motherfucker’

A spokesperson provided a statement Saturday that says the investigation at issue in Friday’s ruling, which started in fall 2014, “was conducted in compliance with its student conduct policies and with state and federal laws in place at the time of the investigation.”

USC emphasized that “no case in California required a private university to conduct a live hearing” when the lawsuit was brought, “or to permit the responding student to confront and cross examine either the complainant or witnesses”:

The courts are making substantive changes to the requirements for Title IX investigations. USC will keep abreast of these evolving judicial interpretations and requirements, and most importantly, remains committed to preventing all forms of misconduct on our campuses, to providing outstanding care to all students, and to ensuring we have policies and procedures that prioritize respect for our students and our entire university community.

Removal of sex-offender designation will help him ‘to some degree’

Though the accused student is identified pseudonymously in Friday’s ruling, he has been previously identified as former USC football player Bryce Dixon.

USC tried to head off Dixon’s lawsuit from the start, arguing he wasn’t eligible to return to USC. It expelled him in 2015 for “nonconsensual sex acts” with the accuser, “Jane Roe,” but the following year Dixon was sentenced to six years in prison for a string of violent robberies, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The university expelled him again after his conviction for “independent violations” of the student conduct code. It maintains that the lawsuit is moot because of this second unrelated expulsion.

Neither the trial judge nor appellate judges bought the university’s argument. USC has branded Dixon a sex offender, which will have “an immediate and lasting impact” on his life, from personal relationships to educational and employment opportunities, Friday’s ruling said.

Removing his sexual-misconduct expulsion from his record would make it easier for Dixon to transfer and restore his reputation “at least to some degree” for the public, it said.

A history of hooking up with football players – and being reprimanded

As with December’s ruling against USC, this Title IX proceeding involved alleged bruises on the accuser but no physical evidence.

Dixon was a freshman on a football scholarship when he had sex with Roe, a senior and student athletic trainer, just after midnight on Oct. 24, 2014.

Trainers had been warned not to “hook up” with athletes or they would lose their jobs. But according to Roe’s roommate of three years, “E.C.,” she had a history of sleeping with football players and had been “reprimanded for unprofessional conduct” before her encounter with Dixon.

The opinion notes that much of Allee’s interview with the roommate, including Roe’s relevant sexual history, was redacted in Allee’s notes. The investigator did not record interviews and only provided summaries of her raw notes in her report.

The Student Behavior Appeals Panel also refused to give the roommate’s redacted interview to Dixon, including an alleged “group text” warning to trainers, claiming it was irrelevant.

MOREAppeals court blasts USC for indifference to exculpatory evidence

Roe texted Dixon around 11:30 p.m. Oct. 23. She later told Allee that she was going to his place to smoke marijuana with him after getting “tipsy.” She said he forcefully groped her as they walked to a taco stand together, yet Roe agreed to return with him to his apartment, believing they would only smoke together, not have sex.

E.C. and Roe’s other roommates had “teased” her about the likelihood she would “hook up” with Dixon before she went over. To convince them she wouldn’t, Roe texted one of them continually while she was with Dixon. “None of Roe’s texts expressed discomfort about the way Doe touched her,” the judges note.

Dixon denied in his interview that Roe smoked any marijuana with him. His intentions for that night were clear, as revealed by a series of “flirtatious texts” that Allee left out of her report, the judges note. Dixon told Roe she “should wear nothing” and “come over naked” to his place, and she responded “Hahaha no I’m not going over to your place naked” and she couldn’t “guarantee anything.”

While claiming she couldn’t remember several details of the night, Roe told Allee that Dixon made her touch his penis, roughly grabbed her breast and then had rough sex with her while she protested. He put his hand over her mouth at one point. Roe said she was “repulsed” by how quickly Dixon moved to sexual intercourse and claimed he didn’t use a condom.

Categories
Uncategorized

Changes to Universities’ Sexual Assault Tribunals May Be Here to Stay

Education Department is planning to make significant reforms to Title IX regulations.

On November 29, the 60-day public comment period opened for Title IX regulations proposed by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The move was the latest, and most significant, step in DeVos’s efforts to encourage colleges and universities to create a more balanced adjudication system for resolving campus sexual assault allegations.

Three features distinguish DeVos’s proposed regulations from the Title IX initiatives of her Obama-era predecessors.

First, the proposed rule would redefine the relationship between the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the nation’s universities, in ways that give schools more flexibility to implement Title IX. The regulations would adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment found in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education—behavior “that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit”—rather than the more expansive language of earlier OCR guidance.

Second, the proposed regulations would no longer require schools to adjudicate some off-campus claims. Citing Title IX’s statutory language, the proposed regulations would apply to “discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” However, in contrast to a version of the proposed rules leaked in August, the published proposal notes that courts have deemed fraternities as covered under Title IX, suggesting that universities would need to adjudicate incidents that occur even at off-campus fraternities.

Third, the proposed regulations would reduce the number of employees whose knowledge of a sexual misconduct allegation would require the university to initiate an investigation.

In theory, these are substantial changes—and they have generated ferocious criticism from Obama-era officials and accusers’ rights activists. In practice, however, they are likely to have scant effect. Any college president who confined her institution’s Title IX policies to these provisions would almost certainly face massive protests from campus activists. Many schools can, and likely will, define sexual harassment more broadly than Davis. They can, and likely will, designate many or even most employees as mandatory reporters. And schools can, and likely will, continue to adjudicate off-campus conduct.

Indeed, recently a student sued Harvard after learning that the institution planned to adjudicate a sexual assault complaint against him—even though the complaint was filed by a non-student and involved an incident that occurred hundreds of miles away from campus, wholly unrelated to any Harvard-related activity.

If the definitional items in the proposed rules will not likely change much in institutions’ decisions about whether to adjudicate sexual assault allegations, the proposed rule would dramatically alter how colleges adjudicate. Although Title IX long has required “equitable” grievance procedures, Clinton-era guidance provided relatively few specifics on how to implement this mandate. Obama-era guidance, on the other hand, envisioned schools prioritizing the OCR’s interpretation of Title IX over any “due process rights” for accused students. As a result, universities increasingly employed a “single-investigator” adjudication model, handling sexual assault claims without any hearing at all, relying instead on the judgment of a Title IX employee or a lawyer hired by the Title IX office.

President Obama’s second-term OCR head, Catherine Lhamon, even deemed it “nonsense” to assert that courts have required direct cross-examination as part of due process protections for students accused of sexual assault. But, in fact, multiple federal courts have required it. The most prominent such decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum, made clear that “if a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder.” It is from this emerging body of law that DeVos’s proposed rule heavily draws.

The regulations would require schools to allow cross-examination, conducted by a lawyer or advocate for each party. They would require schools to share with both sides evidence from the investigation. The rules would require schools to divulge to both parties the materials with which Title IX adjudicators are trained. And they would require schools to presume that the accused student is innocent. Although these changes would create a more equitable adjudication process, I am aware of no college or university with a Title IX code that currently includes all four of these provisions.

Finally, unlike her predecessors, DeVos has chosen to issue new regulations, eschewing the Obama Administration’s preference for guidance documents issued without notice or public comment. President Obama’s OCR heads had threatened to pull federal funding from any school that did not implement the guidance, which gave it the same effect as if it were binding law. Making a Title IX change through a rulemaking will delay the implementation of the new policy, which now will not come into effect until well into DeVos’s third year in office. And the notice-and-comment period gives DeVos’s opponents an opportunity to mobilize against the proposed changes in a way that a comment-free guidance document does not provide.

But opting for a new regulation rather than guidance has two major advantages for DeVos. First, in recent years, both progressive activists and Democratic legislators have championed an approach to Title IX that encourages more reporting of campus sexual assault allegations at the expense of fairer investigative and adjudicative procedures. It seems all but certain that the next Democratic administration will hope to restore President Obama’s Title IX principles. A guidance document issued by DeVos would lack lasting force; regulations, at the very least, would be more difficult to overturn.

Perhaps more important, regulations likely would require adherence, albeit very reluctantly, from universities. Last year, DeVos issued interim Title IX guidance that invited, but not did require, schools to develop procedures with greater protections for the accused. Virtually no schools took her up on her offer; the leadership at many universities made clear they would change nothing unless forced to by Washington.

Any university tempted to defy the new rule’s due process provisions, however, would risk not only adverse action from the OCR but a likely defeat in any Title IX lawsuit filed by an accused student. Schools, in short, will have little choice but to comply.

Accusers’ rights organizations have called for flooding DeVos with comments; presumably they will also sue to block the new regulations if and when implemented. But, barring an unforeseen development, a dramatic shift in how universities handle Title IX tribunals looms.

KC Johnson is a professor of history at Brooklyn College.
Categories
Uncategorized

Could False Accusations Threaten the #MeToo Movement?

A dozen years ago, Tarana Burke created the slogan, “Me Too.” Burke, a Bronx, N.Y.-born African American civil rights activist, created the saying as a means to help women who had survived sexual violence.

Years later, the hashtag “#MeToo” took off, initially without properly crediting Burke.
The movement also seemed initially to exclude women of color or, in the view of many, disproportionately focus on victimized white women – prompting Burke to passionately tell African American women earlier this year, “don’t opt yourself out of what was started for you because the media isn’t acknowledging your hurt.”

Mostly white actresses in Hollywood have become the public face of the movement and men like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and Les Moonves have lost their high-profile jobs.

The success for proponents has been increasingly measured in terms of the career, stature, title or reputation loss experienced by the growing group of the (mostly men) accused in the media and a much smaller segment of accused that have been charged and/or convicted of crimes.
As some in the movement include Bill Cosby’s conviction on aggravated indecent assault charges as another consequence of #MeToo, the pending charges and trial outcomes against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein remain unsettled.

Cosby’s trials were so adversely impacted by media rhetoric and public perception that the inaccurate reporting of the actual substance was an unsworn-in additional witness against him — including a prosecutor who cited Cosby’s conviction as a centerpiece of his election campaign.

In fact, even though videos have emerged of several professional football players and other celebrities assaulting physically assaulting women in hotel lobbies, elevators and hallways, Cosby may ultimately find himself as the sole accused celebrity who serves actual prison time.
Most recently, the movement was also credited for canceled office holiday parties and a growing number of radio stations refusing to play the classic song, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” after many claimed that the singer is trying to persuade a woman to stay with him by offering her a drink.

“While it’s critically important that women who’ve been assaulted are heard, we cannot forget about the fundamental right to due process that our great country was founded upon,” said Andrew Miltenberg, one of the nation’s leading due process attorneys.

“This is a dangerous time in our nation’s history, reminiscent of the days of McCarthyism, where a single accusation is enough to end a career. Even baseless charges can ruin a lifetime of work in some situations,” Miltenberg said.

With more than 200 men losing positions and Cosby jailed, some are beginning to look at the movement with a suspect eye.

Actor Sean Penn famously said the campaign has been too black and white and it has divided men and women. Penn also said the movement “is being led by mania.”

He told NBC’s Today Show that he’d like to think that none of it was influenced by what they call the movement of #MeToo. “I think it’s influenced by the things that are developing in terms of empowerment of women who’ve been acknowledging each other and being acknowledged by men,” Penn told Today. “This is a movement that was largely shouldered by a kind of receptacle of the salacious.”

When the show’s host, Natalie Morales, asked Penn to clarify his use of the word “salacious,” the actor doubled-down. “Well, we don’t know what’s a fact in many of the cases,” Penn said. “Salacious is as soon as you call something a movement that is really a series of many individual accusers, victims [and] accusations, some of which are unfounded,” he said. “I don’t know the percentages, but I know that there are some lies that have been told publicly about people; I know of some serious omissions. I’m talking about women towards men.”

Actress and former Playboy model Pamela Anderson has also criticized the #MeToo movement.

She has argued that many of the cases stem from actresses taking meetings in hotel suites alone with male executives. Anderson has argued that she’d never go to a man’s private hotel suite for a business meeting alone, particularly if the man answering the door is “only wearing a robe.”

“I think this feminism can go too far,” she said in an interview earlier this year with Australia’s

“60 Minutes.”

“I’m a feminist, but I think that this third wave of feminism is a bore. I think it paralyzes men,” she said. “My mother taught me don’t go to a hotel with a stranger. If someone opens the door in a bathrobe and it’s supposed to be a business meeting, maybe I should go with somebody else. I think some things are just common sense. Or, if you go in, get the job.”

At its best, the #MeToo movement has been a much-needed corrective to the abuses of power, said Attorney Justin Dillon of the Washington, D.C.-based firm of Kaiser Dillon PLLC. “At its worst, though, it’s been an excuse to unfairly ruin people’s lives and reputations without any form of due process or testing of the allegations.”

“There is no #MeToo court [where] you can go to get your reputation back and filing a real lawsuit is prohibitively expensive for most people. Plus, the media often confuses allegations with proof, which is both lazy and harmful,” Dillon said.

Celebrities and business moguls aren’t alone in feeling the brunt of the #MeToo movement.
Even children have been accused.

Nine-year-old New Yorker, Jeremiah Harvey, who is black, was falsely accused of groping and sexually assaulting Teresa Klein, a white woman, at a Brooklyn store.

Klein, later dubbed “Cornerstone Caroline” by social media, called police after she falsely accused young Jeremiah of assault – cameras showed the child never touched Klein.
“I felt humiliated because of the way she was acting,” Jeremiah said in a later broadcast interview.

Historically, false allegations of sexual assault have been a frequent and persistent phenomenon – particularly for black men.

Earlier this year, the 1992 convictions of Van Dyke Perry and Gregory Counts, two African American men, were vacated when the alleged victim revised her story after new DNA evidence was discovered that exonerated the two men.

Of course, the most prominent example of someone paying a high price for a sexual assault they didn’t commit was Emmett Till. Till, who was black and only 14-years old, would never reach his 15thbirthday after becoming the victim of a lynching and murder in Mississippi, igniting the Civil Rights movement in 1955.

In 2017, Carolyn Bryant Donham, Till’s accuser, admitted that she lied. According to a story fi led by Jerry Mitchell for the Clarion Ledger, “… Carolyn Bryant Donham has admitted she lied when she testified that Till touched her — a lie she repeated to the FBI a decade ago.”
Before Emmett Till, there was the Scottsboro Boys, nine black teenagers falsely accused in Alabama of raping two white women on a train in 1931.

That case was tried in front of an all-white jury and fraught with problems, including lynch mobs, threats of violence and injustice. Modern day allegations have also torn apart college campuses. In a recent Glamour magazine article, “Inside the Organizations that Support College Rapists,”

LillyDancyger writes, “On the other end of the spectrum, [Alice] True [Founder of] Save Our Sons cites a statistic that one in three students found guilty of sexual misconduct through Title IX hearings are in fact innocent—a statistic that comes from a UCLA study that focused on mathematical probability of false accusations without analyzing actual cases.”

The nonprofit Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) notes that many college students have been tried and convicted and have had their reputations and lives torn apart over allegations that haven’t proven true.

According to FACE, at least 200 students claiming to have been falsely accused or found guilty of sexual assault on their campuses, have fi led lawsuits against their colleges, administrators and/or their accusers over the past several years.

Officials said there are more lawsuits pending across the country while nearly 100 court decisions have been issued in favor of accused students since 2013.

These lawsuits claim violations of due process, breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress, as well as decisions tainted by gender bias under Title IX, according to FACE’s website.

FACE officials said there are many, many more unjustly accused students who have resolved their disputes without legal action or are constrained by college-imposed confidentiality policies, and those whose claims have been settled are almost always bound by confidentiality clauses in their settlement agreements, officials said.

And of course, there are those whose futures have been devastated because they did not have the knowledge or resources to challenge the findings, and their college or university refused to acknowledge their innocence, FACE argues.

Categories
Uncategorized

Education Secretary DeVos’s new rules for Title IX and sexual assault will restore fairness across the board

Following the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee referred several of his accusers to the Justice Department for lying to Congress, reminding us that the importance of taking accusations of sexual assault seriously must be balanced with a presumption of innocence for the accused.

It is precisely that balance that the U.S. Department of Education was aiming for when it recently proposed rules, under its Title IX authority, governing how institutions of higher education and K-12 schools handle students’ accusations of sexual misconduct.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CURT LEVEY.

The proposed rules, which will become final after a 60-day public comment period that will likely result in some revisions, are intended to replace seriously-flawed Obama administration guidance on the same subject. That guidance, issued without public input, gave accused students—nearly always male and, as journalist Emily Yoffe has documented in The Atlantic, disproportionately black—little opportunity to defend themselves despite possible expulsion, rescission of job offers and graduate school admission, and other career-damaging consequences.

The Obama era guidance was the result of lobbying by liberal activists who portray sexual assault on campus as an exploding crisis and insist that all accusers must be believed, while dismissing inconsistencies or untruths in an accuser’s story as the understandable result of trauma – a theme that should sound familiar to those who followed the Kavanaugh saga. The guidance pressured schools to deny basic due process protections to the accused, while also mandating the lowest possible standard of proof—under which a 50 percent chance of guilt means conviction—and defining sexual misconduct so broadly that it infringed on free speech.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Among the many due process rights commonly denied to accused students were cross-examination of the accuser and other witnesses, which the Obama administration worried could be “traumatic or intimidating,” and access to exculpatory evidence and the details of the charges. More than 200 such students fought back with lawsuits against their schools. In fact, the success of many of these suits is one reason Secretary DeVos made replacement of the Obama guidance a priority.

Her proposed rules require schools to respond to any report of sexual misconduct and to investigate every complaint filed, while at the same time correcting the overbreadth problem in the definition of covered conduct and, most importantly, adding much needed due process requirements. These include written notice of the allegations, an opportunity for both parties to review the evidence, the presumption of innocence, the right of cross-examination—subject to the typical “rape shield” exceptions—and an end to the common practice of having a single school official serve as investigator, judge, and jury.

Her proposed rules require schools to respond to any report of sexual misconduct and to investigate every complaint filed, while at the same time correcting the overbreadth problem in the definition of covered conduct and, most importantly, adding much needed due process requirements.

The new rules would also allow, but not require, schools to apply the somewhat higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof. Given the severity of the consequences for students found guilty, many critics of campus kangaroo courts would have liked to have seen the rules also allow the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, the one used in the criminal justice system, where non-student claims of sexual assault are normally adjudicated.

One might hope that these common-sense reforms would meet with less resistance from the left than other Trump administration policies, given liberals’ championing of due process protections for even enemy combatants and non-citizens residing unlawfully in the U.S. Instead, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that “Reaction to the regulations was swift, with ranking Democrats in the House and Senate condemning the proposals.” A typical response was that of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who tweeted that DeVos was siding with “predators over survivors …betray[ing] her responsibility to the students she’s meant to serve. It’s sickening.”

Sen. Gillibrand and her like-minded colleagues fail to understand that only a fair adjudication process can determine who is the predator and who is the survivor, that DeVos is meant to serve male as well as female students—as is Gillibrand by the way—and that ruining the life of a wrongly accused student is as sickening as an unpunished sexual assault. Yoffe reports that she has “yet to talk to an accused student, even one who was eventually cleared, whose life wasn’t profoundly damaged; every one has told me that at some point he considered suicide.”

The reaction of liberal activists outside Congress was similar. “These changes are designed to flip Title IX on its head and give rights to accused students when Title IX was supposed to be protecting those experiencing sexual discrimination,” said Carly Mee, an attorney for a survivors advocacy group SurvJustice. Putting aside Mee’s mistaken belief that Title IX protects only accusers, it is a shame that critics of the proposed rules see the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault allegations as a choice between protecting women and affording due process to the accused.

As Secretary DeVos points out, “there is nothing inconsistent with a policy that both strongly condemns and punishes sexual misconduct and ensures a fair adjudicatory process.” “Those are not mutually exclusive ideas,” she emphasizes. “They are the very essence of how Americans understand justice to function.”

Categories
Uncategorized

The Fight Over Title IX Has Reached the Comments Section. Here’s What People Are Saying.

They quote the Bible, W. Somerset Maugham, Jimi Hendrix. They use MLA citations and footnotes, or write nothing but a single sentence. Many mention sexual-assault scandals — Larry Nassar at Michigan State University, or Richard Strauss at Ohio State University.

More than 50,000 people and counting have written to decry, praise, or try to modify the Education Department’s proposed overhaul of Title IX, according to the proposal’s docket.

Julia Schmalz
Under draft Title IX regulations proposed by the Education Department under Betsy DeVos, the rights of accused students would be strengthened and colleges’ liability would be lessened.

Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, triggered almost immediate controversy in her campaign to refashion Obama-era guidance on the gender-equity law, which affects colleges that receive federal funding. After rescinding key parts of a seven-year-old enforcement framework and replacing them with interim guidance, the department in November released its formal plan to reinforce the rights of the accused and relax colleges’ obligations to investigate cases.

Now that those regulations are open for public comments, the responses have poured in.

Many commenters describe their own experiences of sexual assault. Students, faculty members, and former academics use the space to tell harrowing stories that are months, years, or decades old.

Others say they were falsely accused, and welcome changes that they view as reinforcing due process.

The proposed rules would roll back a raft of Obama-era guidelines. They narrow both the definition of sexual harassment and the route by which it can be formally reported. They provide accused people the right to cross-examine their accusers through an adviser. They also allow colleges to raise their standards of proof, to resolve complaints through less-formal channels like mediation, and to limit investigations to cases that happen on campus.

More than 5,700 comments are publicly searchable as of Friday. A brief review of them shows how the public, and some academics, have filtered the monthslong debates around DeVos’s campaign.

Due (and Efficient) Process

DeVos’s first hints of a Title IX overhaul drew support from due-process advocates and students who said they had been falsely accused of sexual misconduct.

Many supporters of the rules who choose to name themselves in public comments cite personal experiences with proceedings gone awry.

Reginald L. Robinson, a professor of law at Howard University, briefly made headlines when a university Title IX investigation found that one of his exam questions, a hypothetical about Brazilian waxing, constituted harassment. (A federal judge dismissed some of Robinson’s claims last month after he sued Howard, a decision Robinson said he would appeal.)

“Had strong due process protections been in place,” Robinson wrote in a public comment, “Howard would have been required to show me the actual words of the two female students who made these allegations against me. Moreover, I would have been able to cross examine them and their factual allegations.” (Robinson did not respond to a request for comment.)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech advocacy group that briefly took up Robinson’s case, has supported the department’s changes on the grounds of strengthening due process.

“The accused can have their lives ruined by a false claim. Many have,” wrote A. Dwayne Ball, an associate professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, who supports the changes. Although “universities have no business setting up court systems for serious crimes,” he wrote, “the accused should be entitled to all the protections afforded in a proper court.”

But supporters of the rules aren’t the only ones to cite due process. Opponents, some in form letters, argue that the changes would deny harassment victims due process by exposing them to “retraumatizing investigations” that can be drawn out “indefinitely.”

And Colleen M. Opal, an administrator at the University of Iowa’s college of business who contributed a comment, said in an interview that the talk about due process is a “red herring.”

“University judicial proceedings are not courts of law where due process and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are the guiding principles,” she wrote in her comment.

The department justified its new rules in part by pointing to a figure from KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College who has been a vocal critic of the Obama-era Title IX framework. Johnson has written that more than 200 accused students have sued colleges for allegedly violating due process (in an email, Johnson said the current number is 271 federal lawsuits, and around 100 at the state level). As part of a routine cost analysis, the department also said the rules would lower the average number of investigations by 39 percent, saving colleges money.

Other experts, though, have said that the new rules are unlikely to lower costs. The new rules introduce “all sorts of gray space for campuses” and “could easily lead to a flood of litigation,” Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University, told The Chronicle in November.

A Wave of Opposition

Many of the comments have come from a wave of grass-roots organizing, Politico reported, as students and faculty members at campuses across the country have organized comment-writing events to voice their opposition.

Many come in the form of standardized letters provided by advocacy organizations that oppose all of the changes. Sometimes commenters add personal details to those templates.

But organizers of one comment-writing event warned against using form letters or boilerplate text. About 120 people met in early December in a law-school lecture hall at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, writing their submissions over Middle Eastern food, said Anna Kirkland, a professor of women’s studies and the director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender.

The organizers answered questions about the regulations and explained why writing public comments is important, Kirkland said. Telling your story and how you feel in your own words is more effective than using duplicate language, they said.

Kirkland, a contributor to a major report on sexual harassment released this June by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, wrote her own letter while keeping an eye on her 11-year-old son, who had tagged along.

“The new rules will propel education policy against the weight of social scientific evidence about how sexual assault on college campuses happen and how best to handle them,” she wrote.

Other Approaches?

Kirkland didn’t oppose every element of the proposed rules. “I support the move towards greater informality in adjudications, however,” she wrote in her public comment, referring to options like mediation, “because our research clearly showed that victims want more informal options with less mandatory reporting. The fact that the definition is so much more narrow, however, limits the reach of the rule.”

This is where Kirkland tried to “tread a careful line” with the rules, she said in an interview. A better framework would be “greater informality plus a very wide definition” of sex discrimination, in which smaller proceedings can match smaller offenses, she said.

“We can’t forget that people can be falsely accused, and we need to have the same level of protection,” she said. “If somebody wants an adversarial process, it should be full and fair.” But not every offense needs to be litigated in a trial-like setting.

The new rules lack that nuance, she said. Instead, DeVos’s rules mismatch the most serious assaults with more-informal adjudication.

And John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of law at George Washington University, used the comment space to promote the idea of outsourcing investigations from colleges to “regional centers,” a solution DeVos and sexual-assault-prevention advocates alike have floated before.

The new regulations will remain open for public comment through January 28, 2019.

It’s unclear how much those alternative proposals, or the comments in general, will affect the final regulations.

Since the 2011 guidance, colleges have hired Title IX coordinators and reshaped bureaucracies. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has investigated more than 500 cases in which colleges may have mishandled reports of sexual misconduct. More than 300 cases remain open.

After the department moved to scrap Obama-era guidance, many Title IX coordinators told The Chronicle they would keep the procedures they had in place, including the existing standard of evidence, though some of them welcomed the new guidance’s allowance of longer investigation periods.

Many commenters, in any case, thanked the department for providing a chance to share their views.

Some weren’t so sanguine. “I doubt anyone relevant is reading this anyway,” wrote one student. “Writing a letter so insignificant is all I feel I can do sometimes.”

Follow Steven Johnson on Twitter at @stetyjohn, or email him at steve.johnson@chronicle.com.

This article is part of: