Author: saveadmin

PR: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 9, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

WASHINGTON / January 8, 2020 – After nine years of campus adjudications that triggered thousands of federal complaints and hundreds of lawsuits, SAVE — a national policy organization — is calling on lawmakers to take steps to reform campus sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

In 2011 the federal Department of Education issued a controversial policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, even incidents that fell within the definition of a criminal offense (1).

Serious problems with the new approach soon became obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights increased by more than five-fold. The number of Title IX complaints skyrocketed from 391 complaints in 2010 to over 2,000 complaints in 2013 and 2014 (2). In some cases, women complained the mistreatment at the hands of inept campus officials was more traumatic than the actual assault (3).

Likewise, the number of lawsuits by accused students against universities increased dramatically, with a majority of lawsuits decided in favor of the accused student. From these many lawsuits, SAVE has identified the 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process (4). A CBS News documentary summed up the situation this way: “Students accused of sexual misconduct say Title IX isn’t working – and victims agree.” (5)

In 2018, the Dept. of Education issued a draft regulatory framework (6), which is expected to be finalized in early 2020. In support of this effort, SAVE is urging lawmakers to assure that three fundamental due process protections on college campuses are implemented in their state (7):

Clearly stated presumption of innocence
Timely and detailed written notice of the allegations
Right to a meaningful hearing process. This includes having the case adjudicated by persons other than the person who conducted the investigation. This means the institution must not employ a “single-investigator model.”

More information is available on the SAVE website (8).

Citations:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Title IX

DeVos restores fairness to campus sexual misconduct cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 3, 2020

Last summer, Yale University settled a lawsuit by former basketball captain Jack Montague, alleging that the university unfairly expelled him for sexual misconduct. Montague, the son of an electrical contractor and bookkeeper from Tennessee, was kicked out of Yale midway through his senior year after a female student told a Title IX investigator that, during the previous school year, she hadn’t fully consented to a fourth sexual encounter with the basketball star. Montague’s suit against Yale argued (among other things) that the college’s investigation was biased and conducted in bad faith.

In 2017, Amherst College settled a lawsuit by an Asian-American former student known only as “John Doe,” who also claimed he was unjustly expelled for sexual misconduct. A female student who willingly performed oral sex on Doe claimed, almost two years later, that she had withdrawn her consent midway through the act. Doe said he had blacked out during their rendezvous and argued that text messages from the female student to a third party about the encounter demonstrated that she was a willing participant.

Like Montague, Doe sued his former college arguing that the school’s investigatory tribunal was more interested in appearing tough on sexual misconduct than it was in ascertaining the truth.

Montague and Doe are not alone. According to a recent review by Samantha Harris, vice president at the Foundation for Individual Rights, and K.C. Johnson, a professor of American History at Brooklyn College, more than 340 students penalized for sexual misconduct by Orwellian campus tribunals have brought federal lawsuits against their schools. (Many more have sued in state court). Federal courts have issued more than 90 decisions favorable to accused students, and colleges have settled more than 70 additional cases prior to any decision.

The Harris and Johnson survey suggests that attempts to address sexual assault on campus, although well intentioned, have done so at the expense of fairness, and, in many cases, the truth. That may change when Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos issues final federal regulations governing the way schools investigate sexual harassment and assault.

Although for many years colleges showed little interest in combating campus sexual assault or providing resources for victims, over the past decade, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.

Today, many campuses define sexual misconduct broadly to include behavior that does not violate the law. Some define any sex under the influence of alcohol as non-consensual. Others require verbal consent to be obtained at each and every stage of coupling.

More disturbingly, many colleges employ investigatory procedures that are less fair to the accused than even the dreaded Star Chamber — procedures that eliminate the presumption of innocence and deny accused students any meaningful opportunity to tell their side of the story or question witnesses.

The new regulations that DeVos is expected to issue soon attempt to restore balance by formalizing the obligations of schools to address claims of sexual misconduct, but also requiring that schools investigate such claims fairly.

The rules are expected to allow the accused to submit “exculpatory” evidence — evidence that supports his or her version of events, such as witness testimony, text messages, or proof of continued sexual relations — and allow the accused to cross-examine adverse witnesses. To protect accusers, the regulations are also expected to contain a “rape shield” provision that prohibits inappropriate questioning about an accuser’s sexual past.

DeVos has made every effort to balance the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused, while providing colleges and universities the tools to assess claims accurately and punish misconduct.

Nevertheless, activists are calling the new regulations “intimidating and stressful, even “trauma-inducing,” for survivors. Others are calling for “massive national student resistance,” and demanding that colleges and universities ignore them. Four Democratic congresswomen recently introduced legislation to block the regulations, and former vice president Joe Biden has promised that, if elected, he will repeal the DeVos regulations and reinstate older guidelines that encouraged schools to lower the burden of proof in cases of sexual misconduct.

Perhaps the federal Department of Education shouldn’t micromanage college disciplinary procedures at all. But policy makers like DeVos are right to remind schools that, although federal law prohibits schools from responding to claims of sexual misconduct in a discriminatory way, schools should take care to handle all claims fairly and with due process.

Jennifer C. Braceras is director of Independent Women’s Law Center.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/02/opinion/devos-restores-fairness-campus-sexual-misconduct-cases/

Uncategorized

2019: A Banner Year for SAVE

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 31, 2019

In 2019 SAVE — a leader in the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims — had a banner year. As we close out this year, SAVE is putting a bow on 2019 and gearing up for the challenges and opportunities the New Year is sure to bring.

We take this opportunity to thank you for joining in our fight and inspiring us to keep moving the needle towards fairness. As we reflect back on 2019, SAVE…

…diligently focused on restoring campus due process and Title IX requirements.

SAVE influenced the pending Title IX regulation by submitting 3 in-depth comments during the Notice & Comment period.
SAVE assisted prospective students and parents to avoid schools with biased and unfair practices by publishing a list of the 25 worst colleges for due process.
Attorneys benefited by the publishing of a new interactive spreadsheet listing over 100 lawsuits with favorable outcomes, and also by the publication of the Special Report: Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.
SAVE visited 12 states (NM, TX, CA, OR, WA, MO, MN, NY, NY, CO, CT, MA) to shape their state’s campus sexual assault laws.
SAVE made our presence and position known on Capitol Hill with over 150 lobbying visits in the House and Senate designed to restore due process to campus Title IX proceedings.

…. educated stakeholders on unfair victim-centered and trauma informed investigative techniques.

Police departments and campus security offices across our nation received letters from SAVE to discontinue their use of biased trauma-informed investigative techniques.
SAVE assisted defense attorneys by developing legal strategies for their interest and use.
SAVE gained 3,350 signatures from concerned citizens on the Change.org Petition (“Stop Sham ‘Start by Believing’ Investigations”).
SAVE sent two letters to Attorney General Barr to stop DOJ funding of Start By Believing investigations
SAVE published a new report that debunks trauma-informed methods: “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims: Are We Trading One Prejudice for Another?”

…. saw encouraging results with campuses owning up to their Title IX obligations by ending disparities in sex-specific scholarships.

SAVE analyzed scholarship websites of 269 colleges in all 50 states and sent 228 Demand Letters to universities.
Ten colleges voluntarily ended their discriminatory, female-only scholarships due to SAVE sending a Demand Letter highlighting their obligations to Title IX.
The Office of Civil Rights received 18 complaints from SAVE to investigate universities for alleged Title IX non-compliance.

…worked to reform the Violence Against Women Act:

SAVE volunteer lobbyists held over 100 meetings in the House & Senate to educate staffers on the flawed version of VAWA.
SAVE sponsored a well-attended DC press conference to shed a bright light on the issue.
SAVE distributed flyers on a weekly basis to members of Congress.
SAVE promoted a “Fresh Start” to the VAWA law, which has begun a movement to a restored and fairer version of VAWA.

…shaped public opinion on due process, trauma-informed investigative techniques and VAWA by appearing on talk-radio in over 160 interviews. Media outlets, such as the LA Times, reported on the positive work SAVE is accomplishing with the Title IX Equity project.

We have a lot to be thankful for at SAVE and your continued support of our work is at the top of the list. We foresee challenges, opportunities and victories in 2020 and beyond. You have our commitment to continue to passionately lead the policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Title IX

New Title IX regulations are coming. FIRE’s newest report shows why reform is desperately needed.

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 16, 2019

December 11, 2019

REPORT: 7 in 10 top universities do not expressly guarantee the presumption of innocence in campus sexual misconduct proceedings.
ZERO surveyed institutions guarantee all basic due process protections, or even those required under the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations.
Almost 9 in 10 universities earned a D or an F for sexual misconduct policies; proposed regulations would raise grades to C or better.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 2019 — Innocent until proven guilty? Not on college campuses.

Top universities fail to provide students accused of campus misconduct with fair procedures, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

With new Department of Education regulations on Title IX enforcement expected soon, FIRE’s report shows that colleges currently fail to provide students with even the most basic due process protections. This means that many colleges’ policies may have to be revised significantly after the regulations go into effect.

“Would you feel comfortable defending yourself without information about what you supposedly did wrong? Would you trust a jury that didn’t get a chance to see all the evidence? You shouldn’t — but college students across the country routinely face these troubling circumstances,” said FIRE’s Susan Kruth, lead author of the report. “Disciplinary procedures at top universities aren’t fundamentally fair because they don’t guarantee even the most basic safeguards against incorrect conclusions.”

“Spotlight on Due Process 2019–2020” examines policies at 53 top national universities to see how many of 10 fundamental procedural safeguards they guarantee students. These include basic protections familiar to all Americans, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to impartial fact-finders, and the right to appeal. Of the 53 universities studied, 49 receive an overall D or F grade for guaranteeing no more than 4 of those 10 safeguards.

Most institutions maintain one set of policies for charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic misconduct, such as theft or physical assault. Notably, of the 22 institutions that received an F grade for their sexual misconduct policies, 17 have been sued by accused students over the lack of fair procedure.

Less than 30% of top universities expressly guarantee the presumption of innocence in all serious non-academic misconduct cases, and less than 60% explicitly require that fact-finders — the institution’s version of a jury — be impartial. Only 28% guarantee a meaningful hearing, where each party may see and hear the evidence being presented to fact-finders by the opposing party, before a finding of responsibility.

Although universities do not guarantee their students fair disciplinary procedures, it’s clear that students overwhelmingly want them to. Each element in FIRE’s report is supported by a majority of college students surveyed by YouGov for FIRE in 2018 about their views on campus due process protections:

85% of students think their accused classmates should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but only 28% of America’s top universities explicitly guarantee students that protection.
Although three-quarters of students support cross-examination, only 1 in 10 institutions guarantees students or their representatives a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
This landscape may shift if the proposed Department of Education regulations on Title IX — the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs — are enacted. Today, 87% of institutions receive a D or F grade for their failure to protect the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Enacting only the proposed regulations would raise surveyed universities’ grades to a C or better.

“All over the country, students accused of misconduct on campus routinely face life-altering consequences without any of the procedural protections one would expect in such serious cases,” said Samantha Harris, FIRE vice president for procedural advocacy. “It looks like the Department of Education’s new regulations will ensure greater due process for students involved in certain types of cases, but universities should already be providing these important protections in all cases of serious non-academic misconduct.”

“Spotlight on Due Process 2019–2020” can be read in full on FIRE’s website. For more information about FIRE’s student survey, see “Proceeding Accordingly: What Students Think about Due Process on Campus.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Assistant Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Uncategorized

Joe Biden Promises To Restore Obama’s Disastrous Campus Kangaroo Courts

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 16, 2019

By signaling his intention to restore unfair Title IX guidance, Biden is showing his willingness to eviscerate due process to please far-left activists.

By Inez Feltscher Stepman

DECEMBER 12, 2019

Joe Biden has learned nothing from the Title IX due process disaster plaguing America’s campuses. The former vice president has released a plan on his website to restore the Obama administration’s infamous 2011 Dear Colleague letter, which Biden’s plan describes as outlining how to “fairly conduct Title IX proceedings.” In reality, the Dear Colleague letter introduced a monstrously unfair process that has forced hundreds of young men to sue for their rights — and reputations — in federal courts.

An accused’s rights to confront his or her accuser through cross examination and to have a neutral adjudicator have long been considered the very basics of due process. In the name of protecting women, the 2011 guidance encouraged universities to abandon these well-tested pillars in favor of a single-investigator model, in which a Title IX administrator both elicits the stories from the involved parties and rules on the outcome. The Dear Colleague letter also pushed universities into lowering the standard of proof and discouraged any kind of cross examination that might probe discrepancies in an alleged victim’s story.

“It’s particularly concerning that a presidential candidate seems oblivious to the unintended repercussions of a policy he championed. Over 500 lawsuits have been filed by accused students since the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, resulting in at least 161 court decisions in these students’ favor and over 100 pre-decision settlements,” Garrett said.

She also added that to her knowledge, Biden did not even reach out to organizations concerned about due process or any of the families of those suing their universities before pronouncing the Obama administration action an unalloyed good that should be restored.

Under Secretary Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s Department of Education withdrew the Obama-era guidance and proposed a new, fairer rule, which among other changes ensures that those accused of Title IX misconduct on campus have access to a fair adjudicator, the advice of counsel, and the ability to question (through third parties) their accusers. Now, leading Democratic candidate Biden says he will restore the madhouse that federal judges have excoriated as “enough to shock the Court’s conscience.”

Is it any wonder that in the wake of watching the Kavanaugh hearings, in which a man with an impeccable record had his reputation nationally and permanently trashed by allegations countered by all the available evidence, more American men reported they’d rather be falsely accused of murder than sexual misconduct? In that same poll, almost 60 percent of both the men and women surveyed said society presumes a man accused of sexual assault to be guilty.

While we should of course have sympathy for victims of sexual assault, the unfair process Biden blithely promises to restore has victims as well. FACE collects some of their stories, mostly anonymized to protect the young men and their families still traumatized and ashamed by their experiences with unfair campus adjudication.

It’s doubtless true that many women have negative experiences in the alcohol-fueled hookup culture prevalent on most American universities, but attempting to cram the genie back in the bottle with over-broad definitions of consent and unfair processes just creates more victims. And the kangaroo processes necessary to punish men for failing to read women’s minds in ambiguous situations infantilize women, as well as cheapen the experiences of real rape victims.

Inez Feltscher Stepman is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is also a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Forum and the Thursday editor of BRIGHT, a women’s newsletter. Find her on Twitter @inezfeltscher.

Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Policy Needs to be Driven by Solid Facts, not Fluffy Ideology

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 11, 2019

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. And like previous years, VAWA is currently caught up in a partisan cross-fire with dueling versions of the law: Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 2843 and Sen. Joni Ernst’s S. 2920.

Part of the problem is that VAWA has become caught up in a broader political and ideological debate. If we want to curb domestic violence and sexual assault, we need to start with a factual understanding of the problem. These are four key facts to help resolve the current political stalemate:

1. THREE MAIN CAUSES OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Extensive research points to three main causes of domestic violence:

Substance abuse[1]
Mental health problems[2]
Marital separation:[3]

2. PARTNER VIOLENCE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

The federal Centers for Disease Control does an annual survey known as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey – NISVS. In 2011, the NISVS reported 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women had been on the receiving end of partner aggression in the previous 12 months.[4]

By 2018, these numbers had dropped by about half – 3.8% of men and 2.9% of women reported being domestic violence victims in the previous year.[5]

3. NO EVIDENCE THAT VAWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE DECLINES

Persons who have examined the trend-lines conclude that VAWA-funded programs cannot take the credit for declines in partner abuse:

“Between 2000 and 2010, rates of domestic violence actually fell less than the drop in the overall crime rate – at a time when VAWA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the criminal system.” — Leigh Goodmark, University of Maryland Law School
“We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

It’s not difficult to identify the reasons for VAWA’s lack of effectiveness. The language of VAWA does not say a word about addressing the causes of intimate partner violence: substance abuse, mental health problems, or marital separation.[6]

4. MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS

Take a second look at the NISVS numbers shown under Number 2. above. In 2011, domestic violence was essentially an equal opportunity problem between the sexes. Then look at the numbers from the 2018 report – a 3.8% male victimization rate versus a 2.9% female victimization rate

In short, men now are 31% more likely to be victims than women.

LIKELY EFFECTS OF CURRENT VAWA BILLS ON OVER-CRIMINALIZATION

Many persons believe that VAWA has contributed to the problem of over-criminalization in America:

Overly broad definitions of domestic violence
Restraining orders issued without due process
Exclusive reliance on mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies
Limited role of diversion programs

With the key facts in mind, let’s look at the two bills being considered in the Senate from the over-criminalization perspective:

Feinstein Bill, S. 2843

Good provisions:

Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
Adds new section on alternative criminal justice response that would encourage use of restorative justice approaches (Sec. 102)
Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)

Bad provisions:

Expands the definition of domestic violence to include verbal, psychological, economic, and technological abuse. Does not provide a definition of verbal or psychological abuse.
Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: The bill’s support for alternative criminal justice response is a welcome step. The most troubling aspect of S. 2843 is its expanded definitions of domestic violence. Although the language of the bill states the verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse definitions only apply to victim services, it is likely that such definitions will “bleed” into state-level definitions, especially for issuance of restraining orders.

Ernst Bill, S. 2920

Good provisions:

Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)
Recognizes value of addressing substance abuse and mental health problems (Sec. 501)
Defines due process rights of defendants in Indian courts (Sec. 804)

Bad provisions:

Expands definitions of elder abuse (Sec. 204)
Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
Does not mention use of alternative justice approaches
Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: Definitions are more constrained than S. 2843, but the bill’s other provisions do not satisfactorily address the problem of over-criminalization.

Citations:

[1] “Substance abuse has been found to co-occur in 40-60% of IPV incidents across studies.” https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2014/10/06/intimate-partner-violence-and-co-occurring-substance-abuse-addiction

[2] Dutton MA: Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J of Interpersonal Violence, 2006.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf.

[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[6] SAVE: How Effective are Domestic Violence Programs in Stopping Partner Abuse? http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

Title IX Equity Project

Public university quietly removes ‘women only’ from workout event following Title IX warning

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 14, 2019

‘After-the-fact, superficial adjustments pretending to suddenly be all inclusive’

Mark Perry’s side hustle of bugging universities that don’t employ him has borne fruit again.

The University of Michigan-Flint economist likes to send warning letters to Title IX and equity officials when he sees their schools offering events or programs that exclude participants based on gender. Sometimes he files federal complaints.

His most recent target, California State University-Long Beach, retroactively revised an ongoing event sponsored by its Student Recreation and Wellness Center that was advertised as “women only.”

Both Perry and The College Fix learned about the Oct. 16 “Women’s Night on the Strength Floor” from a self-identified student at CSULB last week. It was organized by the student government, the unnamed student wrote in an email:

I was unaware of this event and when I went to workout [sic] at the gym in the main area, I was denied access because I was a male. I was told that this is a time for only woman [sic] to work out and that it ends at 6PM.

He didn’t want to speak out publicly against the event, fearing “I will be targeted on campus.”

MORE: Stanford adds male-focused gym hours after women-only complaint

Perry took the ball from there. The same day he notified Larisa Hamada, assistant vice president of equity and diversity, that the center was advertising a women-only event. The original listing said “this program will continue at the same time for the rest of the semester. The floor will be closed for women only.”

In an email to Hamada copied to The Fix, Perry said the gender restriction in a university space was banned by Title IX:

I am aware of a specific male individual at your university, who wants to remain anonymous, who was preventing from using this public space during the most recent “Women’s Night on the Strength Floor,” which is a clear act of sex discrimination that violates Title IX.

He noted Stanford University offered “women-only” workout hours last year until Fix coverage prompted it to add men-only hours. That was the correct response to its “obvious and flagrant violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination,” Perry told Hamada.

CSULB has only one option if it wants to legally continue offering a “Women’s Night,” and that is offering a “Men’s Night” for the same amount of time on the floor, he wrote. Perry warned that he would file a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights if he did not hear back.

Perry told The Fix and the unidentified CSULB student Wednesday night that CSULB was playing the “Cover Your Ass” game, deleting an Oct. 15 tweet advertising the event. Unfortunately for the university, it was archived. Perry also took a screenshot of the original Facebook post (both below).

MORE: Schools offering women-only scholarships may violate Title IX

MORE: Scholarship and award opened to men after Title IX complaint

The Facebook post for the Oct. 16 event has been revised with no notice. It now advertises a “Womxn & Ally Night” that is “open to all genders” – but was not four weeks ago when it happened.

The banner on the rec center homepage for ongoing events also reflects the new purportedly inclusive wording (first image below).

A cached version of the page from early Wednesday morning (second image below) shows that this particular image from the slider did not exist, suggesting the university did not advertise the ongoing event for an indeterminate period following Perry’s complaint. Every other image in the current slider is available in the cached version.

MORE: Stanford bans men from workout space to protect women

But Perry said even these after-the-fact revisions still appear to violate Title IX:

Notice how the strength floor is NOT really open to all genders now, it’s only open to those who participate in the all-women (most likely) program. So it’s still not really open to men, because it will be unwelcoming and hostile to men, and I think CSULB knows this and they’ll be able to continue with “business as usual” (women only program) while pretending to comply with Title IX.

Regardless, CSULB’s quiet revisions show “how universities openly and brazenly engage in gender discrimination assuming nobody will call them on it,” he continued. “They just blatantly violate Title IX until they get caught and then make some after-the-fact, superficial adjustments pretending to suddenly be all inclusive of all genders so they don’t jeopardize their federal funding.”

The Fix has asked CSULB to explain what prompted it to change both ongoing and past promos for the event, and to respond to Perry’s criticism that the revised events still promote an “unwelcoming and hostile” environment for men.

MORE: Most colleges ‘facially violate’ Title IX with women-only scholarships

Campus Press Release

PR: 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 6, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / November 7, 2019 – Today SAVE, a leading campus due process organization, is releasing a list of the 25 worst colleges and university for campus fairness and due process. The colleges were selected based on a detailed review of dozens of lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault, and subsequently expelled or suspended by their university, in which the judge later issued a ruling at least partly favorable to the student (1).

The lawsuits feature a jarring range of due process violations such as a 7-hour hearing; judge-jury-executioner style investigations; exclusion of exculpatory evidence; public defamations; a made-up confession; failure to consider previous false allegations by the accuser; reliance on a flawed ‘affirmative consent’ standard; a fabricated tape recording; a victim treated as a perpetrator; and a case in which the supposed “victim” repeatedly insisted she was not a victim.

The lawsuits call to mind the guilt-presuming methods featured in Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial, the corrupt show trials exposed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and recent satires in which campus disciplinary committees are derided as “Kangaroo Courts.”

Following are the 25 colleges identified with deficient campus procedures:

California: University of California-Santa Barbara and University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Colorado: Colorado State University, Pueblo
Connecticut: Quinnipiac University, Hamden and Yale University, New Haven
District of Columbia: George Washington University, Washington, DC
Florida: University of Miami
Georgia: Georgia Tech University, Atlanta
Indiana: Purdue University, West Lafayette
Massachusetts: Brandeis University, Waltham; Amherst College; and Boston College, Newton
Michigan: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
New York: Columbia University, New York
Ohio: University of Cincinnati
Oregon: University of Oregon, Eugene
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, Centre County
Rhode Island: Brown University, Providence
South Dakota: Augustana University, Sioux Falls
Tennessee: Rhodes College, Memphis; University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Texas: University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
Virginia: James Madison University, Harrisonburg
Vermont: Middlebury College

Descriptions of each of the lawsuits, including links to the judicial opinions, are available online (2). SAVE urges students considering attendance at these colleges to identify other institutions with a record of respect for constitutionally rooted due process measures.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is expected to issue new Title IX regulations that will strengthen due process protections on college campuses (3).

Citations:

http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/25-worst-colleges-for-campus-due-process/
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=129772

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Investigations Title IX

PR: To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 4, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

WASHINGTON / November 4, 2019 – A scientific article published last week has strongly criticized the use of “trauma-informed’ investigations on college campuses. Trauma-informed methods attribute inconsistencies and contradictions in a complainant’s statements to the trauma she allegedly experienced (1). Titled “Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing” (2), the article provides a detailed analysis of the research basis for the use of trauma-informed methods by Title IX investigators.

Written by Iowa State University professors Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, the article concludes:

— “We know of no scientific studies that support this contention of neurobiological response differences between perpetrators and victims.”

— “A search of the available research literature yielded no published, peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy or effectiveness of FETI.” Forensic Experiential Trauma Interviews, known as “FETI,” are a trauma-informed method widely used on college campuses.

The Meissner and Lyles analysis was the third article published in recent months that analyzed and refuted trauma-informed precepts. In September, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity issued a report on trauma-informed concepts that concluded, “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.” (3)

A third article specifically warned of the liability risk of Title IX administrators attending such guilt-presuming training courses: “You will need to assess whether you can afford to have a non-empirical, biased training on your resume in this age of litigation,” according to the Association of Title IX Administrators (4).

The use of trauma-informed and other unproven investigative methods places universities at liability risk. A 2017 analysis of 130 lawsuits against universities found investigative failures were the most commonly listed allegation (5). A 2019 analysis of lawsuits in which the judge ruled against the university identified dozens of cases in which biased investigations were listed as significant allegations of fact (6).

Investigative journalist Emily Yoffee has written about trauma-informed philosophy, “The spread of an inaccurate science of trauma is an object lesson in how good intentions can overtake critical thinking, to potentially harmful effect….University professors and administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call out junk science.” (7)

Citations:

http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/trauma-informed/
Christian A. Meissner, Adrienne M. Lyles. Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019.
http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf
https://www.proskauer.com/report/title-ix-report-the-accused-08-28-2017
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/

7. The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

Title IX

NAS Commends President Trump’s Executive Orders: No More Law by Dear Colleague Letter

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 22, 2019

Last week President Trump signed two Executive Orders that significantly curb our current rule by bureaucracy – now also known as the Administrative State. The National Association of Scholars commends President Trump for these orders, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” and “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication.”

The Orders will have implications for colleges and universities and in particular for campus Title IX offices, which have mushroomed alongside expanding governmental agencies.

Title IX refers to the 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds. Title IX also served as the pretext for vast administrative expansions under the Clinton and Obama administrations. The Clinton administration announced that “nondiscrimination” meant parity in funding for female and male athletics; Obama declared that sexual violence should be treated as sex discrimination. In both instances, these Presidents introduced significant policy changes by administrative fiat, sidestepping the legislature and skirting the formal rule-making process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA)—ultimately avoiding democratic input and accountability.

The Obama Title IX directive was especially egregious: Through a 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, the Obama Education Department effectively ordered campus Title IX Offices to investigate and punish alleged sex offenders without due process protections for the accused. As a result, nearly 500 students denied justice are now filing lawsuits against their colleges and universities, claiming they were wrongly accused and denied their due process rights. President Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded the Letter in 2017 and is expected next month to issue new regulations, which did receive public comment and input.

President Trump’s Executive Orders take direct aim at this practice of law by Dear Colleague Letter – or law by any such informal document that skips the steps necessary for democratic legitimacy. The first Order, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, requires that any guidance statement from a federal agency be publicly posted and accessible in an online agency database, with the clarification that it is not binding law. The second Order, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication, allows agency enforcement action only when those affected have had the opportunity to respond to such action and when the public has had prior notice of the agency’s jurisdiction and standards for legal conduct.

Much attention has been paid to judicial activism, where judges read their preferred policies into statutes or the Constitution, resulting in law by judicial fiat. But law by bureaucracy is just as pernicious and perhaps more insidious. The bureaucracy, unlike the judiciary, is often nameless and faceless. The result in both cases is the same, of course: Depriving citizens of a government of, by, and for the people. NAS supports measures to prevent this and thanks President Trump for this executive action.