Author: saveadmin

PR: Judge Issues Scathing Decision Against Brandeis U.; Ruling is Latest in String of Cases Favoring Due Process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 5, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Judge Issues Scathing Decision Against Brandeis U.; Ruling is Latest in String of Cases Favoring Due Process

WASHINGTON / April 5, 2016 – The Massachusetts District Court has issued a strongly worded decision, ruling in favor of a student accused of sexual misconduct. The case is the most recent is a series of legal rulings supporting the need for stronger due process measures in campus sexual misconduct cases.

The case involved a same-sex relationship between two male students attending Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Following a 21-month long romantic relationship, John Doe was accused of “numerous inappropriate nonconsensual sexual interactions.” (1) The college proceeding led to a disciplinary warning and permanent notation in his educational record stating Doe had committed “serious sexual transgressions.” Doe filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, defamation, and other violations.

Writing on behalf of the District Court, Judge Dennis Saylor highlighted the basic unfairness of the University engaging an experienced attorney, while it expected “a student, approximately 21 years old, with no legal training or background, to defend himself, alone.”

The Court chided the university for its description of the accuser as a “victim,” noting, “Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.”

Judge Saylor was especially critical of the university investigator’s finding that Doe had violated the university’s affirmative consent policy because “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship.”

The judge also questioned the University’s use of a preponderance of evidence standard of proof, which he viewed “as part of an effort to tilt the playing field against accused students, which is particularly troublesome in light of the elimination of other basic rights of the accused.” The District Court concluded, “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.”

The Brandeis decision is the most recent in a series of rulings that favor stronger due process protections for accused students at Appalachian State University, Brown University, University of California-Davis, University of California-San Diego, Cornell University, George Mason University, University of Michigan, Middlebury College, Pennsylvania State University, Salisbury University, University of Southern California, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, and Washington and Lee University. (2)

(1) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/brandeis-decision.pdf

(2) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/court-decisions/

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

PR: Affirmative Consent for Sex Gets ‘Thumbs-Down’ from Lawmakers, Legal Defense Group, and Harvard Professors

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 28, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent for Sex Gets ‘Thumbs-Down’ from Lawmakers, Legal Defense Group, and Harvard Professors

WASHINGTON / March 28, 2016 – Polices designed to require explicit and ongoing agreement, often referred to as “affirmative consent,” experienced three setbacks during the past week. These developments signal broader concerns about the effectiveness, workability, and constitutionality of these policies, sometimes referred to as “yes means yes.”

Last Monday, members of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee declined to take a vote on HB 1142, a bill that would have required students at all Maryland colleges to give their “ongoing,” “clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary” agreement before engaging in sexual activities. Monday was the deadline for Maryland Delegates to approve a bill in order for it to advance to the Senate. Since no vote was taken, the affirmative consent bill is now considered “dead.” (1)

On March 22, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) released a position paper on a proposed rewrite of criminal sexual assault laws. The Preliminary Draft, currently being considered by the American Law Institute (ALI), would make the absence of affirmative consent a key element in determining whether a sexual offense had occurred. (2)

The NACDL document takes sharp issue with the ALI proposal, saying the proposed affirmative consent standard would “shift the burden of proof to the accused,” a change the NACDL views as unconstitutional. The Preliminary Draft, according to the NACDL, would “use the bludgeon of criminal sanctions to impose the new and yet untested concept of ‘affirmative consent’ upon society.”

Highlighting the difficulty of laying out a precise definition of affirmative consent, the NACDL notes, “No person should face prosecution, conviction and imprisonment based upon a vague and ambiguous law.” The NACDL concludes, “In a utopian society, transparent and free flowing communication about sexual activity would be a beneficial goal, but we are hardly a utopian society.”

Thirdly, Harvard University professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk released a scholarly article titled The Sex Bureaucracy. The paper posits that ever-expanding definitions of affirmative consent have led to the current untenable situation in which “conduct classified as illegal by the sex bureaucracy…plausibly covers almost all sex students are having today.” (3)

More information about affirmative consent is available on the SAVE website. (4)

(1) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2016rs&id=HB1142

(2) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NACDL-Comments-Draft-6-MPC-Sexual-Assault.pdf

(3) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143

(4) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault

PR: Lawmakers Double-Down on Campus Due Process Abuses

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 14, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Lawmakers Double-Down on Campus Due Process Abuses

WASHINGTON / March 14, 2016 – In an effort to restore due process rights on campuses, state and federal lawmakers have taken determined steps in recent weeks to press college administrators and a federal oversight agency to uphold constitutionally based rights for students accused of sexual assault.

In the most dramatic development, Georgia Rep. Earl Ehrhart, chairman of the House appropriations committee, disapproved a $47 million funding request for Georgia Tech University over due process concerns for accused students.

Ehrhart then called out the Georgia Tech administrators. “The president and the administration are just clueless when it comes to due process on that campus and protecting all those kids. If I have to talk to another brokenhearted mother about their fine son where any allegation is a conviction and they toss these kids out of school after three and a half years, sometimes just before graduation, it’s just tragic,” Ehrhart charged (1).

At the federal level, criticisms were voiced during the course of two hearings in which Department of Education secretary-designate John King provided testimony.

At an Appropriations Committee hearing this past Thursday, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee repeatedly confronted King with the fact that his department was threatening colleges with loss of federal funding if they did not comply with a 2011 “guidance” document (2).

During a previous hearing of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina voiced concerns that the Department of Education has issued sexual assault directives with “potential negative impact on students and institutions.” She then requested that King provide written answers to nine questions about the department’s policy-making procedures (3).

On March 4, James Lankford of Oklahoma, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, sent a strongly worded letter to the John King. The letter charged, “OCR’s silence on important due process considerations, coupled with the requirement of a lower standard of proof, indisputably tips the playing field against the accused, making the disciplinary process anything but ‘equitable.’” (4)

More information about executive over-reach by the federal Office for Civil Rights can be found on the SAVE website (5).

(1) http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/03/07/powerful-state-lawmaker-calls-for-georgia-tech-presidents-ouster/

(2) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senator-grills-acting-education-secretary-over-agency-overreach/article/2585472#.VuIfEXFPqD0.facebook

(3) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-congresswoman-questions-ed.-dept.-nominee-on-campus-sexual-assault/article/2584078

(4) https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A56B7CAF8A43C485!16667&authkey=!AA5bfF-DWgQ-dZg&ithint=file%2cpdf

(5) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/ocr/

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: Free Speech and Due Process Violations on Campus Give Rise to Budget Cutbacks, Costly Lawsuits

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 1, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Free Speech and Due Process Violations on Campus Give Rise to Budget Cutbacks, Costly Lawsuits

WASHINGTON / March 1, 2016 – A growing number of budget cutbacks and lawsuits across the nation reveals colleges that fail to respect free speech and due process rights may incur substantial financial liabilities. SAVE urges administrators and lawmakers to work cooperatively to restore the constitutionally based rights of students and faculty members on campus.

Regarding free speech, state lawmakers in Missouri recently announced they plan to reduce funding for the University of Missouri by $8 million. State House and Senate members singled out the actions of professor Melissa Click who was recorded interfering with students’ exercise of free speech rights (1).

University of Missouri trustees were also informed that the university system expects to lose $20-25 million in tuition revenues this year. Last month Standard & Poor’s lowered the system’s credit rating, citing a severe drop in new student enrollments (2).

Last July Valdosta State University in Georgia settled a First Amendment lawsuit, agreeing to pay $900,000 to former student Hayden Barnes who had been expelled due to his protests over planned construction of two parking garages (3).

Due process violations are proving to be costly, as well.

In Georgia, Rep. Earl Ehrhart warned Georgia Tech president GP Peterson on January 26 that he wouldn’t consider Tech’s budget request until the college adopted “simple, basic due process protections.” The following week, Georgia Tech withdrew its request for state bond funds for building renovations (4).

Lawsuits filed by students accused of or expelled on allegations of sexual assault have become more prevalent. At the University of Montana, administrators just agreed to pay $245,000 to former quarterback Jordan Johnson for the college’s “misconduct” in investigating a 2012 rape allegation (5).

Last week the Rhode Island District Court refused to dismiss a complaint filed by a male student who had been suspended from Brown University, citing breach of contract and a pattern of sex discrimination against male students (6).

Last month two men announced they were suing the University of Texas to prevent sanctions from being imposed on them. They charged the school is using them as scapegoats to build a reputation for being tough on sexual assault (7).

Over 100 due process lawsuits have been filed against colleges and universities across the country (8).

(1) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/um-system-could-see-m-cut-under-mo-house-s/article_14d95137-311b-5d27-ade9-d9a5275c9768.html

(2) http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/university-of-missouri-system-s-credit-outlook-is-lowered/article_3d6e872a-10b8-5285-b568-62cdb5afd4f9.html

(3) http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-education/valdosta-state-to-pay-900k-to-settle-students-civi/nm5sy/

(4) http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/02/04/tech-withdraws-library-budget-request

(5) http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/montana-to-pay-ex-qb-dollar245k-over-rape-investigation/ar-BBpB2l4?ocid=st

(6) http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Doe-v.-Brown-University-2016.pdf

(7) http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/men-accuse-ut-of-unfairly-punishing-them-for-sex-a/nqQcf/

(8) https://boysmeneducation.knackhq.com/due-process-lawsuits

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Free Speech Sexual Assault

PR: Lawmakers Push Back to Restore Free Speech and Due Process on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 16, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Lawmakers Push Back to Restore Free Speech and Due Process on Campus

WASHINGTON / February 16, 2016 – In the face of continuing pressures by campus activists, lawmakers across the country are taking steps to restore constitutionally based rights to free speech and due process. SAVE applauds these efforts to bring democratic ideals back to college campuses.

Regarding free speech, Arizona State Rep. Anthony Kern introduced a bill last week that would prohibit colleges from designating any area of campus as a free speech zone (1). In Missouri, Rep. Dean Dohrman introduced a bill last month that would require students to take a class on free speech in order to graduate (2).

Last summer the U.S. House of Representatives convened a hearing on First Amendment Protections on Public College and University Campuses (3). In January the National Association of Scholars issued a wide-ranging statement on intellectual freedom and free speech (4).

Lawmakers have expressed concerns about the lack of due process in sexual assault cases, as well.

On January 26, Georgia Rep. Earl Ehrhart, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Higher Education, held a hearing that probed the lack of due process on campuses. Ehrhart warned he wouldn’t talk to college presidents about budget requests until they adopt “simple, basic due process protections.” (5)

Lack of legal representation is another due process shortcoming, and right-to-counsel laws for students accused of sexual assault have now been enacted in North Carolina, Arkansas, and North Dakota (6).

Nationally, two senators have voiced concerns about deficiencies in due process protections.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has highlighted the problem of false allegations: “One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.” (7)

Referring to the proposed Campus Accountability and Safety Act, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) commented, “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation will probably require some additional review.”

Last Tuesday Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at Rutgers University-New Brunswick about the need for free speech on campus. In response, protesters threw blood-colored paint on themselves, vandalized the building where Yiannopoulos spoke, and repeatedly interrupted his speech (8).

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent

PR: On the Heels of Judicial Reversal, Law Professors Assail Affirmative Consent

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 8, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

On the Heels of Judicial Reversal, Law Professors Assail Affirmative Consent

WASHINGTON / February 8, 2016 – Following a landmark legal decision last summer, law professors across the country are criticizing affirmative consent policies as ineffective, unfair to defendants, and harmful to women. SAVE calls on lawmakers to focus on proven rape control strategies such as enhancing campus security measures, reducing alcohol-related assaults, and involving criminal justice authorities.

On August 4, 2015, judge Carol McCoy overturned a decision of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a student on allegations of sexual assault. McCoy ruled the university’s affirmative consent standard “improperly shifted the burden of proof” because the “ability of an accused to prove the complaining party’s consent strains credulity and is illusory.” (1)

Following the judicial reversal, legal experts began to express a range of concerns with the standard, including the policy’s unworkability, lack of effectiveness, curtailment of due process rights, wrongful convictions, constitutional problems, and broader social effects.

John F. Banzhaf, professor at George Washington University Law School, explains the affirmative consent standard “is not logical — nobody really works that way.” (2)

University of Kansas law professor Corey Yung worries that affirmative consent policies are ineffective “because the gains of the rule are likely to be minimal, the net effect for rape victims and justice will likely be negative.” (3)

Nadine Strossen, faculty member at the New York Law School and former president of the ACLU, notes: “These affirmative-consent rules violate rights of due process and privacy…Unless the guy can prove that his sexual partner affirmatively consented to every single contact, he is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct.” (4)

Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami School of Law reinforces concerns about shifting the burden of proof to the defendant: “But with affirmative consent, the accused must put on evidence.” (5)

Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Law School, explains that “Requiring the accused to demonstrate that affirmative consent was obtained, which is often difficult to prove,” would result in an “unacceptable” number of wrongful convictions. (6)

Baruch College law professor Jay Weiser highlights the constitutional problems: “The new affirmative-consent rules run afoul of many constitutional principles” because they are “vague and overbroad” and “amount to government-compelled speech.” (7)

Harvard Law School faculty member Janet Halley reflects on the broader social effects of affirmative consent policies that would “foster a new randomly applied moral order that will often be intensely repressive and sex-negative…They will install traditional social norms of male responsibility and female helplessness.” (8)

Referring to a proposal being considered by the American Law Institute, San Diego law professor Kevin Cole writes that the draft’s overly broad affirmative consent provisions would determine “the legality of every sex act between individuals who are not in an intimate, cohabiting relationship” and “will pose dangers to [women] whose protests are genuine.” (9)

University of Pennsylvania law professor Paul Robinson argues, “The most promising path to changing the culture of sexual consent on college campuses is to adopt and regularly reaffirm ‘yes means yes’ as the rule of proper conduct, but to reject it as the principle of adjudication.” (10)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) summarizes the legal pitfalls with affirmative consent, concluding, “Expanding the definition of an offense so broadly that it encompasses truly innocent people in an attempt to secure more guilty findings is unacceptable.” (11)

This week marks the two-year anniversary of the introduction of an affirmative consent bill in California. On February 10, 2014, Kevin de León introduced SB 967, which mandated the “yes-means-yes” standard for all California colleges. Seven months later Gov. Jerry Brown signed the controversial bill into law.

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

Law Professors, Lawmakers, and Others Strengthen Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 25, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Law Professors, Lawmakers, and Others Strengthen Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Cases

WASHINGTON / January 25, 2016 – In recent weeks, numerous law professors, lawmakers, and others have issued statements calling for colleges to restore due process in the adjudication of sexual assault cases. These statements reveal a dramatic shift in the focus of the ongoing debate on campus sexual assault.

During a January 8 panel on “Grappling with Campus Rape” held at the American Association of Law Schools annual conference, several panelists were sharply critical of the current state of affairs. “’Rights’ is a generous description of what these schools gave the accused,” charged University of Miami law professor Tamara Rice Lave. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/14/law-professors-against-title-ix-faculty

Two weeks later, over 80 members of the American Law Institute signed a letter deploring a proposed model penal code because the draft law would engender “expansive criminalization” of sexual assault. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2016/01/more-concerns-expressed-about-alis-affirmative-consent-project-by-ali-members.html

Presidential candidates have expressed reservations about the proper handling of campus sex cases, as well.

On January 11, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders called for the referral of campus sexual assault cases to the criminal justice system, which embodies an array of due process protections. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/13/bernie-sanders-said-something-sane-about

Republican candidate Marco Rubio recently issued a statement noting that false allegations of sexual assault “can destroy lives….Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.” https://marcorubio.com/news/marco-rubio-campus-sexual-assault-bill-due-process/

State lawmakers are calling for a renewed focus on due process, as well.

In California, governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill last fall that would have established a mandatory minimum punishment for students found responsible of rape or sexual assault. “College campuses must deal with sexual assault fairly and with clear standards of process,” Brown announced. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-college-sexual-assault-punishment_561b184de4b0dbb8000f020f

Referring to a series of alleged due process abuses at Georgia Tech, Rep. Earl Ehrhart recently declared, “I cannot in good conscience continue to fund Georgia Tech at the level that it requests without some assurance to parents that there will be due process for their children.” http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/01/17/crazy-campus-consent-conundrum- collapses/

Last week a federal court in Kentucky ruled that a campus sexual assault hearing should be regarded as a “proceeding…akin to a criminal prosecution,” and held that states should ensure that adjudicatory procedures are fair. https://www.thefire.org/opinion-and-order-in-doe-v-hazard-no-515-cv-00300-e-d-ky/

The Independent Women’s Forum just released a policy paper, Title IX and Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, which deplores the fact that colleges that adhere to “basic concepts of due process and innocence until proven guilty” could be found to be in violation of the federal Title lX sex discrimination law. http://pdf.iwf.org/PolicyFocus16_Jan_p3.pdf

In January, over 60 editorials were published that enumerated broad concerns over the lack of due process on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/editorials/2016-2/ On January 17, for example, the Editorial Board of the Oklahoman noted that the processes used to handle sex allegations on college campuses “increasingly resemble kangaroo courts.” http://newsok.com/article/5472807?utm_source=MobileNewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Facebook

Accountability Department of Justice Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Wrongful Convictions

PR: Georgia Tech Reinstatement is Evidence of Growing Public Alarm over Due Process and Free Speech on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 6, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608

Georgia Tech Reinstatement is Evidence of Growing Public Alarm over Due Process and Free Speech on Campus

WASHINGTON / January 6, 2016 – The recent decision to reinstate a Georgia Tech student expelled for an alleged sexual offense marks a growing wave of popular concern over the erosion of due process protections and free speech rights on college campuses.

Earlier this week the Georgia Tech Board of Regents overrode the decision by a school administrator who had recommended the expulsion of a student accused of sexual assault. The Board reinstated the student when it learned that the investigator failed to interview witnesses provided by the defendant and gave him only one hour to review a 13-page, single spaced summary of the investigation (1).

Numerous other judicial decisions or legal settlements in recent months have overturned the findings of campus sex tribunals for due process violations. The decisions involved the University of California-San Diego, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Washington and Lee University, University of Southern California, and Middlebury College (2).

Concerns over the loss of free speech rights are being voiced, as well. President Obama has twice called for the restoration of open debate on campuses, first at a town hall meeting on September 15 and more recently during a November 15 interview with George Stephanopoulos (3).

Legislators have also taken up the cause of restoring free speech. On June 2, 2015 the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the state of free speech on college campuses (4).

In Missouri more than 100 members of the state Legislature signed a letter to the University of Missouri’s board of curators demanding the “immediate firing” of a professor who attempted to have a reporter forcibly removed during a student protest (5).

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri likewise urged the University of Missouri to not compromise the right to free expression in its efforts to fight racism, saying, “Mistakenly addressing symptoms — instead of causes — and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response.” (6)

“Due process and free speech are part of the American DNA,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Lawmakers should not shrink from the challenge of restoring constitutionally-rooted rights and protections to college campuses.”

1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/expelled-georgia-tech-student-reinstated/article/2579610
2. http://www.saveservices.org/2015/09/pr-due-process-gains-momentum-moves-to-center-stage-in-campus-sexual-assault-debate/
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PlcALRh6Og
4. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20150602/103548/HHRG-114-JU10-20150602-SD003.pdf
5. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/missouri-lawmakers-flex-muscles-in-call-for-professors-firing.html?intcmp=hpbt2
6. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/aclu-urges-university-missouri-to-better-protect-students-free-speech.html

Campus

PR: SAVE Denounces Attempt to Muzzle Harvard U. Professors

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 15, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Denounces Attempt to Muzzle Harvard U. Professors, Calls on Office for Civil Rights to Revamp Sexual Harassment Policy

WASHINGTON / December 15, 2015 – SAVE is denouncing efforts of producers of a controversial film who are attempting to prevent 19 Harvard Law School professors from engaging in scholarly criticism. The professors’ analysis was featured in a November 19, 2015 statement chastising the movie, The Hunting Ground, for providing an “unfair and misleading portrayal” of an alleged incident of campus sexual assault (1).

In response, filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering published a statement in the Harvard Crimson accusing the Harvard professors of creating a “hostile climate at Harvard Law.”

An allegation of causing a hostile climate could be considered grounds for investigating and disciplining the professors. According to a high-level Harvard administrator, several persons have already inquired about the possibility of a formal investigation (2).

The Free Speech Guidelines of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences say, “Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching, and learning.” (3)

But the Harvard Free Speech Guidelines appear to conflict with recent directives from the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that define campus sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” A recent Letter signed by 15 professors criticized the OCR policies for causing an “alarming erosion of free speech and due process on college campuses.” For this reason, SAVE has called on Congress to rein in the federal Office for Civil Rights (4).

The Hunting Ground has been criticized in over 30 editorials for containing numerous factual errors and promoting an over-wrought “rape-culture” narrative (5). Editorialist Robbie Soave has commented that the movie co-producers apparently “believe that their work of propaganda should be immune from criticism.” (6)

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect free speech on campus and promote effective solutions to sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Campus

PR: Lawmakers Must Work to Stop Lawless Conduct on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 1, 2015

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lawmakers Must Work to Stop Lawless Conduct on Campus

WASHINGTON / December 1, 2015 – After a month of an increasing level of death threats, physical assaults, and intimidation tactics, SAVE is calling on lawmakers to take the lead to assure civil conduct, free speech, and due process on campus.

This past weekend, a death threat was issued against University of Chicago students: “At 10 a.m. on Monday mourning I am going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. I will be armed with a M-4 Carbine and 2 Desert Eagles all fully loaded. I will execute aproximately 16 white male students and or staff.” On Monday, Jabari Dean, 21 was arrested as the prime suspect in the case.

Physical assaults against students have been reported at the University of Missouri and elsewhere. At Dartmouth College, protesters pinned a woman to the wall while calling her a “filthy white b*tch.” At Occidental College, 400 students took over the school’s administrative building. At Towson University in Maryland, students occupied the president’s office until he agreed to institute mandatory campus “cultural competency” briefings.

A majority of colleges and universities across the country unlawfully deny students their free speech rights, often restricting such expressions to “Free Speech Zones.” These are a few examples

— The University of California has developed a list of verbal “microaggressions” that students and faculty must avoid lest they engage in behavior deemed to be racist.

— The words “American,” “illegal alien,” and “fathering” are deemed problematic by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide.

— At Washington State, a teacher of Women & Popular Culture threatened to fail any student who used “oppressive” expressions that refer to “women/men as females or males.

In 2011 the U.S. Department of Education issued a landmark sexual assault regulation. The regulation mandated that all allegations of felony sexual assaults be referred to campus sex tribunals and curtailed the due process rights of the accused. The Department did not seek prior public review and comment, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against colleges alleging unlawful violations of due process. Recently Georgia Tech was sued for expelling a student for sexual misconduct based on the recommendation of a single administrator with a “proven history of bias,” according to the student’s attorney.

“State lawmakers should be holding hearings, issuing resolutions, and enacting legislation to restore order on campus,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Colleges should be exemplars of peaceful protest and the rule of law.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect free speech on campus and promote effective solutions to sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/