Category: Due Process

Reform Title IX Now

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 15, 2020

The Department of Education’s (DOE) reform of Title IX—the law that bans discrimination based on sex at federally-funded schools—has been a long time coming. For three Senators, it has not been long enough. They strenuously object to the impact on how colleges handle accusations of sexual misconduct. No longer will an accused be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Instead, he will be accorded due process.

On March 31, Patty Murray—the leading Democrat on the Senate education committee—Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand sent a letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to express their opposition to finalizing the reform. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time,” they argued, “and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is an odd argument. Now seems to be the perfect time for colleges to work on policy and administrative matters. Campuses are empty. No sexual misconduct hearings will be interrupted; students will be spared the confusion of a mid-semester policy change; administrators can implement regulations before the new academic year.

Colleges are hardly caught off guard. The reform began on September 22, 2017 when the DOE withdrew the controversial Dear Colleague Letter (2011) that governed the treatment of sexual misconduct accusations on campus. The Obama-era Letter was widely criticized for mandating a low standard of proof for findings of guilt and encouraging the denial of due process, such as a defendant’s right to a lawyer. The DOE’s replacement guideline was officially made public on November 29, 2018 when the Federal Register published “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.”

The proposed reform received vast attention and backlash in this time of #MeToo that demands automatic belief of women’s accusations. in January 2018, three national public interest organizations, including the highly influential National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), sued DeVos and the DOE to block the Title IX reform. The lawsuit claimed that the “new and extreme Title IX policy…was issued unlawfully and based on discriminatory beliefs about women and girls as survivors of sexual violence, in violation of the Constitution.” The lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

Senator Murray has also attacked the Title IX proposals. A news release from her office reported on Murray’s statements at a Senate hearing on campus sexual assault. “I stand with you [accusers] and I’m going to keep fighting to stop what happened to you.” Murray accused the DOE of being “callous” and ignoring “the experiences of survivors,” which would “discourage students from coming forward after being sexually assaulted.” Gillibrand has decried DeVos as favoring “predators over survivors.” Warren has stated, “There’s no greater example of how we’re failing students and teachers than Betsy DeVos, the worst Secretary of Education we’ve seen.” These statements do not argue for the delay but for the derailment of DOE’s plans.

Liberals view the new rules as a shift to the right and an abandonment of Obama-era policies. Consider two definitions of a key term, “sexual harassment.” According to the Dear Colleague Letter, “Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This broad characterization includes bad jokes and leering glances. By contrast, DeVos uses the reigning Supreme Court definition of “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” This is a far more limited definition.

Why, then, are the 3 Senators calling for delay rather than dismantlement? The coronavirus is unlikely to disappear as an issue before the 2020 election. And, if Joe Biden wins, he has promised the reform would be withdrawn. This process would be be easier, however, if policy changes were not already implemented.

Stalling the DOE reform seems to be a conscious strategy of its opponents. According to Tulane University Title IX coordinator, Meredith Smith, the NWLC orchestrated a sequence of delays with various victims rights groups. Smith stated, “So there was this delay strategy happening. We would hear that the Department of Education was about to release the regulations and then the National Women’s Law Center and all these other groups would parachute in and get more and more meetings on the calendar which push [the release date] back.” They requested a long series of meetings with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example. During the final public commentary on a regulation, individuals can meet in person or over the phone with OMB officials to share concerns; this process usually takes a couple of days, With the DOE regulation, the first meeting was November 13, 2019, and the process ended on March 27, 2020. It stretched over 4 months.

A recent article in the National Review, entitled “Coronavirus Is No Excuse to Delay the Education Department’s New Title IX Regulations,” declared, “Those making this argument [for postponement] are taking advantage of a crisis to try to keep due process out of college campuses.” They are gaming the system.

The DOE reform returns due process to campuses. It also offers relief to lawsuit-prone schools that now function as police, judge and jury in handling students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct. Increasingly, colleges are sued in federal court by those who were found guilty without a fair hearing. As a headline in the Detroit Free Press stated. “Courts ruling on side of students accused of sexual assault. Here’s why.” The “why” is the violation of their due process rights.

Justice delayed is justice denied. And Justice must not be further denied.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1467

Campus Due Process Sexual Harassment

Open Letter to the 18 Attorneys General Opposed to the New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 12, 2020

The long-awaited Department of Education regulations on adjudicating allegations of
sexual misconduct on college campuses are poised for release. In response, the
American Council on Education (ACE) (1) and eighteen state attorneys general (2) have
sought to block the guidelines. I believe this effort is misguided.

The regulations would restore basic fairness to sexual misconduct proceedings on
campus. Over the past ten years, a shadow legal system has simultaneously failed
either to sanction campus predators, or to provide basic due process rights to students
and faculty accused of sexual misconduct. This failed regulatory regime is a result of the
2011 Dear Colleague Letter, guidance from the U.S. Department of Education that
expanded Title IX to address campus sexual misconduct, including both sexual
harassment and sexual assault.

The failure of the existing system to ensure due process for accused faculty and
students is well documented. A 2016 report from the American Association of University
Professors assailed campuses for “inadequate protections of due process and
academic governance.” (3) Open letters from 28 faculty members at Harvard Law School (4)
and 15 professors at the University of Pennsylvania Law School (5) have shared similar
concerns, as did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2016 interview by
The Atlantic. (6) When challenged in court, colleges and universities have suffered over
170 setbacks to students accused of sexual misconduct. (7)

Nor has the existing system proved successful in reducing campus sexual misconduct.
Data collected by the Association of American Universities indicate that reports of
sexual assault, whether by physical force or inability to consent due to intoxication,
actually increased between 2015 and 2019. Moreover, only 45 percent of campus
survivors said that school officials were “very” or “extremely likely” to take their
allegations seriously. (8) And most infamously, the serial abuser Larry Nassar was
allowed to remain in his position at Michigan State University after the school’s Title IX coordinator somehow concluded in 2014 that Nassar’s behavior was “medically appropriate.” (9)

The American Council on Education and the eighteen state attorneys general offer
specious arguments for blocking the new regulations. In their open letter, ACE contends
that, “at a time when institutional resources already are stretched thin, colleges and
universities should not be asked to divert precious resources away from more critical
efforts in order to implement regulations unrelated to this extraordinary crisis.” Yet
colleges and universities have known for eighteen months that the new regulations were
forthcoming. Moreover, COVID-19 means that school Title IX officers, directly
responsible for implementing the guidelines, have more free time than ever before. With
campuses shuttered and students sent home, opportunities for campus sexual
misconduct have plummeted. In short, this is the ideal time for the new regulations to be
implemented.

The new Department of Education regulations aren’t perfect, but they will establish
adjudication mechanisms that are much fairer to accused students, faculty, and staff. A
fairer system, in turn, will enjoy greater support and credibility among stakeholders. And
with any luck, this means fewer dangerous predators on campus. For all these reasons,
I urge you to withdraw your opposition to the new regulations.

Citations:

1. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Higher-Education-Regulation/Letter-ED-
delayt9s117-032420v2FINAL.pdf
2. https://files.constantcontact.com/bfcd0cef001/71385110-7632-4adc-a7ae-0f47bc4f6801.pdf
3. https://www.aaup.org/report/history-uses-and-abuses-title-ix
4. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-
policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
5. http://media.philly.com/documents/OpenLetter.pdf
6. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-opens-up-about-metoo-voting-rights-
and-millenials/553409/
7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
8. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/04/aau-climate-surveys-reveal-failure-of-campus-sexual-assault-policies/

9. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-nassar-investigation-that-never-made-headlines/551717/

+++++++++++++++++++

State Attorneys General, Mailing Addresses

JOSH SHAPIRO

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Office of the Attorney General

Strawberry Square

Harrisburg, PA 17120

XAVIER BACERRA

Attorney General, State of California

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

PHILIP J. WEISER

Attorney General, State of Colorado

Office of the Attorney General

Colorado Department of Law

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Building

1300 Broadway, 10th Floor

Denver, CO 80203

WILLIAM TONG

Attorney General, State of Connecticut

Office of the Attorney General

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

KATHLEEN JENNINGS

Attorney General, State of Delaware

Delaware Department of Justice,

Office of the Attorney General

Carvel State Building

820 N. French St.

Wilmington, DE 19801

KARL A. RACINE

Attorney General, District of Columbia

Office of the Attorney General

441 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

CLARE E. CONNORS

Attorney General, State of Hawai‘i

Department of the Attorney General

425 Queen Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

BRIAN FROSH

Attorney General, State of Maryland

Office of the Attorney General

200 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202

MAURA HEALEY

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Office of the Attorney General

1 Ashburton Place, 20th Floor

Boston, MA 02108

DANA NESSEL

Attorney General, State of Michigan

Office of the Attorney General

Mennen Williams Building

525 W. Ottawa Street

P.O. Box 30212

Lansing, MI 48909

KEITH ELLISON

Attorney General, State of Minnesota

Office of the Attorney General

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400

St. Paul, MN 55101

AARON D. FORD

Attorney General, State of Nevada

Office of the Attorney General

100 North Carson Street

Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717

HECTOR BALDERAS

Attorney General, State of New Mexico

Office of the Attorney General

408 Galisteo Street

Villagra Building

Santa Fe, NM 87501

LETITIA JAMES

Attorney General, State of New York

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224-0341

JOSHUA H. STEIN

Attorney General, State of North Carolina

Office of the Attorney General

114 West Edenton Street

Raleigh, NC 2760

PETER F. NERONHA

Attorney General, State of Rhode Island

Office of the Attorney General

150 South Main Street

Providence, RI 02903

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.

Attorney General, State of Vermont

Office of the Attorney General

109 State St

Montpelier, VT 05609

MARK R. HERRING

Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia

Office of the Attorney General

202 North Ninth Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Campus DED Sexual Assault Directive Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Urgent Need for Lawmakers to Stop Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / February 3, 2020 – As evidence continues to mount of inept campus administrators and biased adjudications, SAVE urges lawmakers to take prompt steps to reform college sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

The federal Department of Education issued in 2011 a policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, including felony-level incidents (1). But problems with the new approach became immediately obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights soon increased by more than five-fold (2).

Three recent incidents again illustrate the urgent need for reform:

On January 23, it was reported that the University of Idaho agreed to a $160,000 payment to Mairin Jameson. When Jameson had been sexually harassed and assaulted by a member of the school’s football team, school officials told her the school had no authority to act (3).

Two days later, federal Judge Michael Shea ordered the University of Connecticut to reinstate a male student who had been subjected to a biased campus hearing. The judge found the campus disciplinary committee denied the male student “the right to respond to the accusations against him in a meaningful way, because he had no opportunity to question or confront two of Roe’s witnesses on whose statements the hearing officers chose to rely.” (4)

Then on January 26, Columbia University in New York was in the news when campus adjudicators failed to consider as evidence a 30-minute audio recording suggesting the female was the perpetrator, not the victim, of a sexual assault. Former student Ben Feibleman is now suing Columbia U. for $25 million (5).

The Dept. of Education is expected to issue a new sexual assault regulation in the near future. The Independent Women’s Forum recently announced its support of the new policy, saying, “Campuses have a legal and moral obligation to investigate and address claims of sexual harassment and assault; but they also have an obligation to investigate claims objectively, without presuming the guilt of the accused, and with respect for due process.” (6)

This week, SAVE is launching a month-long campaign designed to raise awareness among lawmakers, campus administrators, and the public about the serious injustices confronting college students. The campaign hashtag is #StopKangarooCourts.

Citations:

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

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

End to the Campus Kangaroo: Department of Education Needs to Promptly Implement New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 12, 2020

Constitutionally rooted due process is one of the foundations of American society, because it protects individuals from government over-reach and from false allegations.

In 1975, Judge Henry Friendly identified key due process procedures.[1]

An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pre-emptively issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual assault.[2] The document was unlawful in the sense that it violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it severely weakened constitutionally-rooted due process protections for the accused.

On August 4, 2011, SAVE sent a letter to the OCR expressing concern over the new requirement for use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and calling for the Dear Colleague Letter to be rescinded.[3] The OCR did not respond to the substance of the request or even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

It wasn’t until six years later that SAVE’s request was fulfilled. On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.[4]

Last year SAVE published a Special Report, Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.[5] The report analyzes the 14 appellate cases decided in favor of the accused student involving campus sexual assault. These were the most common due process violations identified in the Judicial Findings, in descending order:

Insufficient hearing process
Lack of cross-examination/Inadequate credibility assessment
Insufficient notice
Inadequate investigation
Conflicting roles of college officials
Improper use or exclusion of witness testimony
Potential sex bias
Misuse of affirmative consent policy

These eight violations closely track the due process procedures that Judge Friendly identified 45 years before.

Sexual assault complainants are unhappy with the current state of affairs, as well. SAVE has identified examples of persons who said their mistreatment at the hands of inept college officials was more traumatic than the original sexual assault. A recent CBS News documentary highlighted victims who complained that the current system is not working for them.[6]

In short, the current campus “Kangaroo Courts” represent a failed response to the problem of campus sexual assault.

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.[7] Among other things, the proposed regulation will restore a series of due process procedures on college campuses:[8]

A presumption of innocence for the respondent throughout the grievance process;
The school must objectively evaluate all relevant evidence including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
All Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must not have conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents;
Training materials for Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must foster impartial determinations without relying on sex stereotypes;
A respondent cannot face discipline without due process protections;
Ensure the burden of proof and burden of gathering evidence rest on the school, not on the parties;
Provide equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and evidence;
Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations or gather relevant evidence (e.g., no “gag orders”);
Provide the parties with the same opportunity to be accompanied at all phases of the grievance process by an advisor of the party’s choice (who may be an attorney);
Give written notice of any interview, meeting, or hearing at which a party is invited or expected to participate;
Provide equal access to review all the evidence that the school investigator has collected, including the investigative report, giving each party equal opportunity to respond to that evidence before a determination is made;
For colleges and universities, a final determination must be made at a live hearing, and cross-examination must be allowed (with rape shield protections against asking about a complainant’s sexual history) and must be conducted by each party’s advisor (i.e., no personal confrontation allowed).
After investigation, a written determination must be sent to both parties explaining for each allegation whether the respondent is responsible or not responsible including the facts and evidence on which the conclusion is based. The determination must be made by a decisionmaker who is not the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator
Where a finding of responsibility is made against the respondent, the written determination must describe what remedies the school will provide to the survivor to restore or preserve equal access to the school’s education program or activity, and any sanctions imposed on the respondent.

Nine years after the Department of Education issued its Dear Colleague Letter, the debate has been resolved. Neither identified victims nor accused students are being well served by the new campus regime. The current system is broken. SAVE urges the Office of Management and Budget to publish the new Title IX regulations promptly, and calls upon the Department of Education to vigorously enforce the new requirements.

[1] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5317&context=penn_law_review

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/

[7] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[8] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/background-summary-proposed-ttle-ix-regulation.pdf

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

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

Email: info@saveservices.org

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.

Campus Due Process E-lert

Has Donna Shalala ever heard of the Constitution?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 16, 2019

This past Monday, Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL) appeared at the Education Summit that billed itself as “giving every child an equal chance to succeed.” http://educationsummit2019.theatlantic.com/

But instead of talking about a balanced approach that respects the rights of both complainants and the accused, she only found fault with the proposed Title IX regulations from the Department of Education. “Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” she said.

Worse, Shalala predicted she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

Excuse me, Democrats will try to overturn regulations that are rooted in Constitutional due process protections? It’s a sad day when lawmakers who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” turn around and vow to remove due process regulations.

Let’s all call Shalala’s office: 202-225-3931.

Today.

Campus Due Process

Rep. Shalala Tells Colleges Not To Change

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 15, 2019

When dreaded Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos withdrew the “Dear Colleague Letter” and its ensuing “guidance,” then issued new regs which were put through the rigors of Notice and Comment as required by law, heads exploded. Providing the accused with minimal due process on campus was tantamount to giving rapists a free ride, activists screamed.

But it begged the question, would any of this matter? Would colleges care what the regs provided, or would they ignore them, continue to apply rules that deprived males any chance to defend themselves? Absent mandatory language in the regs, or court decisions like Doe v. Baum, who was going to make colleges change?

Appearing at The Atlantic Education Summit, Shalala — who served as president of the University of Miami from 2001 to 2015 — criticized DeVos for her department’s rollback of several Obama-era regulations and guidance documents, including those regarding Title IX.

“Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” Shalala said, adding that “she’s a nice person, but boy she really is confused about what we’re doing out there.”

Donna Shalala, currently the congresswoman from Florida’s 27th district, and formerly Secretary of Health and Human Services, served as chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and president of the University of Miami. Her message to the summit was clear.

During the education summit, Shalala said she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

First, a representative in Congress calls for educational institutions to reject the regulations, despite court after court holding that they violate the constitutional rights of male students. Ironically, claiming “experience and tradition” as the piece DeVos is missing reflects the social engineering that was rammed down the throat of colleges at the behest of two bureaucrats during the Obama administration who circumvented law. Some tradition.

Second, she says what needs to be said, that should the Democrats regain the executive branch, they will “overturn” regulations that comport with the Constitution and return to unconstitutional process. So why bother to change? Or more to the point, hold out until 2020, when the Democrats will repeal the new regs and restore the old guidance so you can return to depriving male students of due process.

What makes Shalala’s admonition to colleges that they should persist in denying male students due process—that they shouldn’t change despite the new regs, despite the voluminous judicial opinions holding the processes invented by OCR’s Russyn Ali and her successor, Catherine Lhamon, unconstitutional—shocking is that it’s a call for lawlessness. Hardly the only one, and hardly the only side doing so, but lawlessness nonetheless. And it comes as no surprise.

All of this is true, and yet, doesn’t quite address either the situation or mandate. The “arrogance” of the Dear Colleague letters doesn’t mean that colleges, their bureaucracies built around implementation of the letters and the indoctrinated students and faculty who have become adherents to Lhamon’s and Ali’s orthodoxy, will go away.

Even if this letter, issued lawlessly, is withdrawn, that does not mean colleges will change their tune. Sure, they won’t have the Dear Colleague letters to fall back on as an excuse, but that doesn’t mean academia doesn’t actually like, no love, what Lhamon rammed down their throats.

When the old guidance was withdrawn, and new regs proffered for comment, many took for granted that this would mean change, that colleges would end their war against male students for the sexual sanctity of believing their female students. Battles were huge, as activists geared up to perpetuate the lies that women never falsely accused, that there was an epidemic on campus, that women were being raped all the time, provided one left rape to the fertile imagination of empowered co-eds.

Shalala is right, of course. Should the Democrats prevail in 2020, the DeVos regs will be gone in a jiff. But it won’t mean much as long as colleges refuse to change in accordance with the new regs, court decisions or the Constitution. Many have raised the cost of lost Title IX actions percolating through the federal courts, but it’s a price colleges seem happy to pay to keep their female students from feeling uncomfortable. Well, colleges don’t actually pay it, since they pass along the cost to students in tuition.

The battle waged to end the Obama-era guidance was nasty and ugly, and cost a lot of young men their future, but to what end?

It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

In a more rational world, perhaps a United States congresswoman would not call upon colleges to violate the Constitution, to act lawlessly for the sake of woman at the expense of men. In a more rational world, perhaps the discussions about why sex discrimination against male and deprivation of due process would make academics pause and think about the harm they are doing.

But there is little rational these days, and so there is no good reason why Donna Shalala shouldn’t take to the podium to implore that colleges ignore the regs, reject the law and persist in their discrimination. To explain why this is wrong seems to be a tale told by an idiot. They’ll fix it in 2020 anyway, when they regain control and petty constitutional concerns will no longer be an impediment to experience and tradition.

Source: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/05/15/rep-shalala-tells-colleges-not-to-change/

Campus Due Process

PR: Most Americans Want Due Process on Campus, Despite Protests

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 4, 2018

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Email: info@saveservices.org

Most Americans Want Due Process on Campus, Despite Protests

WASHINGTON / September 4, 2018 – Last week the New York Times leaked information about a sex discrimination regulation that the federal Department of Education is expected to issue this Fall. In response, campus activists assailed the policy as “downright cruel” and “willfully ignorant.” (1)

These statements contrast with the views of most Americans. According to a 2017 survey of 1,200 persons conducted by YouGov, persons overwhelmingly agree that students accused of a felony level crime should be afforded due process (2):

— A full 81% of respondents said the accused should have the right to know the charges against him.

— 71% of persons polled said accused students should be sanctioned under the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence.

— 61% said accused students should have the right to cross-examine their accusers.

— 67% agreed that students accused of crimes on campus should enjoy the same legal protections that would receive in a court of law.

These findings held across the entire political spectrum. For example, 58% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans, and 60% of Independents agreed that accused students should have the right to cross-examine their accusers.

Due process procedures serve to ascertain the truthfulness of an alleged sexual offense. The importance of these procedures was evident in the recent case of Nikki Yovino, former student at Sacred Heart University, who was convicted of falsely accusing two men of rape. On August 23, Yovino was sentenced to serve one year in jail (3).

SAVE’s Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act outlines a series of procedures designed to maximize fairness for both accusers and the accused (4). To date, the editorial boards of the New York Daily News and the Detroit News, as well as numerous commentators, have written editorials in support of bolstering campus due process protections (5).

Citations:

http://endrapeoncampus.org/new-blog/2018/8/29/statement-on-new-york-times-reports-on-proposed-title-ix-guidance

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

Campus Due Process

PR: Effort to Restore Due Process on Campus Gains Traction

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 14, 2018

Contact: Christopher Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry-at-saveservices.org

Sexual Assault: Effort to Restore Due Process on Campus Gains Traction

WASHINGTON / May 14, 2018 – Over the past seven months, leading liberal and conservative voices have worked to restore due process and fairness in campus sexual assault policies. Such initiatives reveal a growing trend being supported by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Last September, Betsy DeVos, Republican Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, rescinded the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, a policy that was widely viewed as infringing on fundamental due process rights of accused students (1). The following month, Democrat Jerry Brown, governor of California, vetoed a bill that would have imposed many of the Department of Education’s anti-due process requirements on California universities (2).

Likewise in Massachusetts, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives declined to take action on H.632, which had been previously passed by the state’s Senate. Critics of H.632 highlighted the flaws of trauma-informed training for investigators and adjudicators, a provision that had been derided as “junk science.” (3)

The pro-due process trend gathered momentum in 2018, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg offered this commentary: “The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. …There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.” (4)

In Maryland, lawmakers took up Senate Bill 607, which required disciplinary proceedings to include a description of the rights for students and specified that an institution may not prevent a student from retaining an attorney. The bill recently passed both the Maryland Senate and House with strong bipartisan support (5).

In Colorado, House Bill 18-1391 was approved in the House. But because it failed to include sufficient due process protections, the bill it was significantly amended by Republicans in the Senate, resulting in the bill’s indefinite postponement (6).

In West Virginia, House Bill 2825, a bill that would have mandated worrisome “affirmative consent” polices at the state’s colleges, was not voted upon prior to adjournment of the state legislature (7).

In Mississippi, House Bill 1438, which was devoid of adequate due process protections, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee (8).

The editorial boards of two liberal-leaning newspapers likewise have called on colleges to involve criminal justice officials to investigate felony-level crimes. In January, the Detroit News opined, “Federal, state and campus policy regarding sexual assault should change to treat it as the serious crime it is, and assure that it is probed by experienced, professional investigators independent of the university.” (9) Last month, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch board issued a similar plea: “The pain lives on at universities whenever sex-abuse cases are handled quietly in-house rather than by competent legal authorities.” (10)

A summary of the current status of the state-level sexual assault bills introduced in 2018 is available on the SAVE website (11). In Congress, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have spoken out on the need for due process and to strengthen the role of the criminal justice system (12).

SAVE urges state and federal lawmakers to recognize the growing trend for impartial and fair proceedings in campus sexual assault cases. SAVE offers a model bill titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (13).

Citations:

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

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, Joined by Dozens of Federal and State Judges, Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 7, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, Joined by Dozens of Federal and State Judges, Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Proceedings

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2018 – In a recent interview for The Atlantic, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed the need for due process in campus sexual assault proceedings. In addition, Ginsburg clarified that due process protections are not incompatible with aspirations for gender equality.

Asked, “What about due process for the accused?”, Ginsburg gave this reply: “Well, that must not be ignored and it goes beyond sexual harassment. The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.” [emphasis added]

When the interviewer sought clarification whether “some of those criticisms of the college codes valid?”, Ginsburg provided this unequivocal answer: “Do I think they are? Yes.”

Queried about her thoughts how to balance the values of due process against the principle of sex equality, Ginsburg explained, “It’s not one or the other. It’s both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get due process, so it’s just applying to this field what we have applied generally.”

Ginsburg’s sentiments on this issue have been echoed in recent rulings issued by dozens of federal and state judges.

Since 2012, over 200 lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault have been filed against colleges and universities. The SAVE report, Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases, documents that in a majority of cases, judges have ruled in favor of the accused students (1). To date, 79 of these lawsuits have resulted in decisions by state and federal judges against the defendant university (2).

Justice Ginsburg’s comments were published in the February 15, 2018 edition of The Atlantic (3).

Citations:

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for effective and fair solutions to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence: www.saveservices.org