Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

Director of Dutch Knowledge Institute for Emancipation Fired for Transgressive Behaviour

Director of Dutch Knowledge Institute for Emancipation Fired for Transgressive Behaviour

Robert van de Griend

Netherlands, Volkskrant News

30 December 2022

Kaouthar Darmoni has been fired as director of Atria, the Dutch knowledge institute for emancipation and women’s history in Amsterdam. She has seriously misbehaved in several areas, according to an external investigation by Hoffmann Bedrijfsrecherche, the conclusions of which are in the hands of de Volkskrant.

Library of Atria on the Vijzelstraat in Amsterdam. Image Joris van Gennip

Darmoni is said to have been guilty of “(sexual) transgressive and intimidating behavior” towards subordinates at Atria, a leading institute that has been committed to equal treatment of men and women since 1935. She is also said to have dealt with employees’ employment rights with ‘dishonesty’.

The conclusions, which are shared in an e-mail from the Supervisory Board of Atria with the (former) employees who participated in the Hoffmann investigation, are extra sensitive because Atria itself advises governments and companies on creating a safe working environment. and combating transgressive behaviour.

The findings also show that Darmoni, who had been a director at Atria since October 2019 and made frequent appearances in the media and the speaker circuit, manipulated the outcome of an employee satisfaction survey. She is said to have removed the “cries for help” expressed by almost half of the staff from the results and thus concealed them from the supervisory board.

In addition, Darmoni, who was born in Tunisia and studied in France, would have told untruths about her education and work experience. Hoffmann speaks of ‘deceit and/or error’.

Based on these conclusions, Atria’s supervisory board nullified Darmoni’s employment contract in early December.

‘Led around the garden’

The investigation into Darmoni was initiated in July after employees expressed their dissatisfaction with her to Atria’s confidential adviser. Since then, Darmoni has not been working, saying she was ill. In the e-mail about the findings of the Hoffmann investigation, which includes the complaints of 23 employees, the Supervisory Board (RvT) writes: can continue.” And: “Although the Supervisory Board was also fooled by Ms. Darmoni for many months and even from the outset, the Supervisory Board regrets that the supervisory system did not function properly on several occasions.”

Three former employees of Atria, with whom de Volkskrant spoke, who worked in different departments of the institute, endorse Hoffmann’s findings.

Independently of each other, they characterize Darmoni as ‘exhibitional’ and ‘uninhibited’. She is said to have seized the opportunity to undress herself on several occasions and to have stood “in her bra or her thong” on the work floor. She would also have kissed employees on the back of the head without being asked. The fact that Darmoni started the weekly meeting on Monday morning with belly dancing as standard – something she herself has said in interviews – was also seen as inappropriate by the former employees.

“We all had to participate in belly dancing,” says Nicky, who, like the two other former employees, only wants to be in the newspaper with a fictitious name for fear of reprisals. “Most of us hated that. Sometimes Kaouthar pressed her breasts or buttocks against you while dancing. If anyone said anything about her behavior, she would laugh at you squarely.”

Culture of fear

According to the former employees, who also shared their experiences with Darmoni with the Hoffmann researchers, there was a “culture of fear” among the dismissed director. Members of staff who criticized her substantive course or management style were systematically publicly insulted, bullied or put aside.

“If you fell out of favor with Kaouthar, you ended up before the tribunal,” says Charlie. “She would turn other colleagues against you or start yelling at you in front of everyone. We had a constant fear: who is going to be next?”

Ex-employee Sam says: “All the time I worked with Kaouthar I didn’t dare ask her a critical question.”

The former employees also say that under the responsibility of Darmoni, the Atria building was filled with cameras that recorded images and sound. Although this was presented as a measure to prevent theft by construction workers, in practice the cameras would also have been used to keep an eye on the staff. “We have been called to account several times about something that was observed through those cameras,” says Sam. “This has been repeatedly raised because it violates the privacy law. But nothing was ever done with it.”

Signals already in 2020

The departed employees are satisfied with the outcome of the Hoffmann investigation, but are also critical of the role of Atria’s supervisory board. They should have intervened much earlier, they think, because there had been signs for some time that Darmoni was displaying misconduct. “Our works council already sounded the alarm in 2020,” says Charlie.

The high turnover of staff at Atria should also have been an indication for the supervisory board, according to the former employees. In 2020 and 2021, a total of 34 people left, according to the institute’s annual reports, out of a workforce of about 33.

The three former employees with whom de Volkskrant spoke, criticize the fact that the supervisory board wants to give as little publicity as possible to Darmoni’s forced dismissal. In the e-mail about the findings of the Hoffmann investigation, the Supervisory Board writes that it is better to keep a low profile in the media. That would be ‘in [the] interest of Atria, the (former) employees and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science as a subsidy provider’ and ‘to protect the victims of the transgressive behaviour’.

Nicky: ‘I understand that the Supervisory Board wants to safeguard the reputation of Atria and the subsidy from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Education, Culture and Science, ed.). That is also important, because a lot of people are doing good work there. But if you keep Kaouthar’s misbehavior quiet, she will soon be in a high position somewhere else and making victims there too.”

Mediation

When asked, the Supervisory Board informs de Volkskrant that a mediation process with Darmoni had already been initiated prior to the Hoffmann investigation, after ‘serious reports’ had been received about her in December 2021. That trajectory would have been ‘aborted’ by Darmoni in February.

The Supervisory Board does not want to comment on other questions: “We are currently in the legal process. As long as this is still ongoing, Atria will not make any announcements about the matter due to due care, in the interest of all involved.

Kaouthar Darmoni tells de Volkskrant that she will challenge her dismissal in court. She calls the grounds for her forced departure “incorrect” and a “mix of fabrications”. She says she has not seen Hoffmann’s research report.

“I have seen the questions that the Hoffmann researchers have put to the Atria employees. This results in a completely incorrect picture. The opinion of employees who are positive and have objected to the insinuating question posed by the researchers has not been included.’

Furthermore, Darmoni does not want to respond to Hoffmann’s conclusions and the statements of the three former employees with whom de Volkskrant has spoken. “My focus is now completely on this summary proceedings.”

Partly due to her flamboyant appearance, her predilection for belly dancing and her openness about her sexuality, Darmoni has been a welcome guest in television programs, magazines and newspapers in recent years. In March of this year, she talked about her tendency to embrace female employees in an interview with Volkskrant Magazine: ‘Even before the pandemic broke out, I was sometimes warned: be careful with touching, it is transgressive behaviour. Some of the women at Atria found it a little scary at first, but then they loved it.”

Source: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/directeur-van-kennisinstituut-voor-emancipatie-ontslagen-wegens-grensoverschrijdend-gedrag~b633fe15/

Categories
Civil Rights Law & Justice Legal Title IX Uncategorized

Court Rules University of Colorado-Boulder May Have Violated Student’s Due Process Rights

The University of Colorado-Boulder’s (CU) refusal to allow “live adversarial questioning” in a sexual misconduct proceeding may violate an expelled student’s due process rights, a federal judge ruled last week.

Colorado District Court previously denied summary judgment to CU Boulder on multiple due process grounds: (1) Propriety of single-investigator model, (2) lack of hearing, (3) lack of cross-examination, and (4) withholding information.

The taxpayer-funded university will have to explain to U.S. District Judge William Martinez at a December bench trial why it didn’t give Girolamo Messeri, an Italian student, “a hearing before a neutral arbitrator” in his Title IX case.

On single-investigator model and right to hearing, the court notes: Requiring a hearing before a neutral arbitrator would also reduce the risk of error….providing a fresh perspective on any credibility determinations and decrease the likelihood that a party would be erroneously found responsible. It continues, “A reasonable fact-finder could thus find that the University’s failure to provide (student) a hearing before a neutral arbitrator violated his procedural due process.

Judge Martinez stated CU violated the student’s due process by not allowing cross-examination of his accuser and witnesses.

In his decision, the judge gave a remarkably blunt conclusion on cross-examination: The Supreme Court has stated that “cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.”

He continued: This is a classic ‘he said, she said’ case that turns almost entirely on witness credibility. Without live adversarial questioning, Plaintiff cannot probe the witnesses’ stories to test their memories or potential ulterior motives, or to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. Plaintiff has a substantial interest in avoiding expulsion and continuing his education. The university’s interest in limiting procedural safeguards relating to student’s hearing rights are less evident. Although the University correctly points out that it has an interest in avoiding ‘converting its classrooms to courtrooms’ to referee cross-examination amongst students and their representatives, this interest truly pales in comparison to the risk of error which may result in the wrongful expulsion of a student.

The judge was also stunned by the University’s excuse for hiding the identity of a key witness. CU-Boulder simply claimed that constitutional due process does not promise accused students “every piece of evidence they desire,” and it cited an irrelevant appeals court decision from a case where opposing witnesses openly testified. Martinez disagreed with the University. Since the witness known as “W1” didn’t testify in front of Messeri, he was “effectively deprived of an opportunity to discover any inconsistencies…that were not plainly evident” in the evidence summary given to Messeri. The judge concluded: “Disclosure of key witnesses’ names provides a minimal burden on the University. The probative value of the information and risk of erroneous deprivation, however, is potentially substantial.”

The next step in the litigation is a trial preparation conference scheduled for Nov. 13. The December bench trial will not include the student’s gender-bias claim, which was previously rejected by Martinez.

The university expelled Messeri in December 2016 after finding that he forced a female who was not a student at CU to perform oral sex on him in September. She did not notify CU Boulder administrators of her allegations, but rather reported Messeri to campus police, who interviewed “Jane Doe” three times over six weeks and Messeri once. While Messeri was charged with sexual assault, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office dismissed the case because “it did not believe it could get a guilty verdict at trial.”

Messeri is seeking both damages and erasure of his expulsion from his transcript.

Categories
Uncategorized

Myths and Hoaxes of Sexual Abuse Stoke ‘Politically Useful’ Fear

by Wendy McElroy

[S]ince love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”—Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513

For those who want to control a population, fear is more useful than love and far easier to elicit. A culture conditioned to feel knee-jerk fear allows political power to rise on a tide of emotions without the need for arguments and evidence. When the adrenaline of fear hits, people cry out for social control in the belief that government can protect them. Those who want to verify a crisis before acting on it are seen as part of the problem because they obstruct or delay the “solution.” For decades, a fear response has been embedded into society through constant cries of “danger!” Many alarm bells have been manufactured, however, because they are politically useful to those who want to produce legislation or funding.

The issue of “sexual violence and women” illustrates this process. Women have received the unrelenting message that they live in danger from men, and only government can save them from it. Predictably, many politicians support and promote this process and conclusion.

The dynamic can be glimpsed through a phenomenon that has become commonplace within feminism: declaring an “awareness month” for specific issues like domestic violence (DV). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. But the “awareness” declared usually promotes a myth that is propped up a hoax.

Consider one such event: National Stalking Awareness Month (January).

When stalking involves genuine threats of harm, it is a problem that should be legally addressed. But awareness advocates use the term so broadly that criminal behavior is lumped together with totally legal activities.  The National Center for Victims of Crime(NCADV) defines stalking as a “pattern of behavior that makes you feel afraid, nervous, harassed, or in danger” which can be physical or verbal contact, unwanted gifts and communication. This subjective definition furthers the myth that common and innocuous behavior, such as repeatedly emailing someone after a breakup, is a criminal matter. Anyone who questions whether persistent emails deserve legal intervention or who suggests a private solution instead is accused of promoting violence against women.

The myth is then given urgency by hoax statistics such as “one in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United States have experienced stalking victimization.” The alarmingly high rate of victimization is understandable when it is seen to include unwanted communication. “Repeatedly receiving unwanted telephone calls, voice, or text messages was the most commonly experienced stalking tactic for both female and male victims of stalking (78.8% for women and 75.9% for men).”

A myth joins a hoax and together they seek government support. First recognized in 2004 by the NCADV, National Stalking Awareness Month has received Congressional approval and a Presidential Proclamation. The harm the myth does becomes official. The discussion of stalking now focuses almost entirely on women as victims and men as victimizers. The expanded definition introduces immense subjectivity into the enforcement of laws and policies. The alleged pervasiveness of stalking encourages oversensitivity and fuels fear. Sensationalized rhetoric does much the same. The NCADV, for example, views stalking as a first step toward femicide.

What is the solution to this first indication that women may be murdered? The NCADV offers a list of them—every one of which involves more government intervention. “Ask your legislators to update the federal domestic violence firearm prohibitor to including misdemeanor dating violence and misdemeanor stalking” is one suggestion. Laws and policies increase dramatically, as they have over past decades, but the problem never goes away. It is too politically useful to go away.

Gradually, a climate of fear becomes the cultural norm, especially on college campuses where awareness campaigns and sexual myths are popular. But the panic hits Main Street, as well.

On April 6, the New York Times published an article entitled “A New Covid-19 Crisis: Domestic Abuse Rises Worldwide.” Lockdowns trapped women in close proximity to abusive men, it maintained, and this situation resulted in soaring rates of DV.  The conclusion was based upon warnings from DV activists, whose salaries usually depend upon the public attention given to this issue, and upon any reported increase in calls to DV hotlines—calls which were handled as though they were confirmed cases.

In an earlier article for the Libertarian Institute, I observed that police reports are more reliable sources by far, for several reasons. “People access DV hotlines…for  many non-DV issues…but they report this crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is…‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” The rate of police reports during the lockdown in many or most cities has shown a decline or little change.

Nevertheless, mainstream media around the world echoed the New York Times article. The UK Independent (April 15) stated “Domestic abuse killings appear to double during UK’s lockdown,” for example. The main source cited was an anti-DV “campaigner, who is chief executive of domestic abuse charity Nia.”

Meanwhile, other newspaper accounts indicated that crime in general was sharply down in UK during the same period. This does not mean murders were down, of course, but it raises questions, even if the Independent’s account is accurate. What was the general rate of murder? Did the crime increase for both sexes and, perhaps, more for men than for women? Can murder, which has many motives, be automatically ascribed to DV? Was the murder done by a male partner, as most articles suggested, or was a stranger or a woman the perpetrator? How can the last question be answered if those accused have not been tried?

In America, where murder rates have generally soared since the lockdown, a substantial number of police departments reported a decrease in DV. This should give pause to those reporting on the issue. Instead, the data was strangely interpreted. A recent headline in The Financial Post captured the gist of it, “No surge in domestic violence cases during COVID-19 lockdown—that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.” In short, reports of decline are reason to worry about an increase. Counter-evidence did not discourage fear mongering. Remember, it serves a political purpose and fits an established narrative.

The myths and hoaxes continue to block the possibility of genuine solutions emerging. A big step toward a genuine solution to stalking would be a definition that includes only harm or threat of harm to person and/or property and that includes men equally. A big step toward solving DV would be to credit only investigated cases and to acknowledge that both sexes are victimized at roughly the same rate.

All victims benefit from the truth. Unfortunately, the truth suffers from the disadvantage of being far less politically useful.

About Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is an individualist anarchist and individualist feminist who has written or edited over a dozen books, scripted dozens of produced documentaries, worked as a writer for FOX News for 5 years and published in periodicals ranging from Penthouse to The Hill.
Categories
Uncategorized

New Title IX Rules Strengthen Rights For Victims and Due Process For Accused

by Michelle Owens

For nearly a decade, college administrators used the pseudo-legal authority they received from the Obama Administration to set up Wonderland-worthy courts where the Queen of Hearts’ motto, “sentence first – verdict afterwards,” was the law of the land. While many argued this was done to make it easier for victims to come forward, there is no evidence it actually reduced sexual assault on campus. Nor did it help victims. This lack of clarity hurt students who’d been attacked and students who’d been unjustly accused.

I have a unique perspective on these issues.  For more than a decade I have worked as a licensed social worker with survivors of sexual abuse.  As a longtime Nashville attorney specializing in Title IX cases, I’ve also defended those falsely accused of sexual misconduct in the extremes of minor and trivial complaints that ruin lives.

These students have survived an unjust and unfair process.  My cases have included representing a student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head (this was not on a date or in a romantic setting).  Another client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person. And one male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

These are among the cases that allow college administrators to start the process of kicking students out of school and labeling them a sexual predator on their academic record.  But they barely scratch the surface of reasons of why changes needed to be made to Title IX, the law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The Department of Education recently released regulations that establish a basic level of privacy for accusers and fundamental due process for the accused. Those who say we cannot have due process and help victims are creating a false choice. We can and must have both and that’s reflected in the long overdue regulations.

In March, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights released its findings from an investigation of sexual misconduct cases at Penn State University.  A review of more than 300 case files involving reports of sexual harassment found numerous procedural errors that seriously damaged the right of both complainants and respondents to a fair process.

Unfortunately, some insist on preserving the ways of the past and say the outlined reforms hurts victims. That’s simply not true. It merely requires that accused students not be punished or expelled until/unless they’re found guilty, that all evidence including exculpatory evidence is disclosed, and that all faculty involved in the investigation are free of conflicts of interest or bias.

In reality, the new Title IX reforms strengthen the rights of victims.  Specifically, the regulations: require the school to actually investigate allegations and do so in a timely manner; ensure accusers are not required to disclose any confidential records, including medical and psychological; require the school to give the accuser support in the form of class or dorm reassignments, no-contact orders against the accused, etc., even if they have not initiated an official investigation; allow the accuser to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw their complaint if they so choose; discourage minor complaints that harm the credibility of survivors; and define the proper process of investigation including appeals.

For victims, this means the end of paperwork backlog, slow-walked investigations, disclosure of personal health records, and stalled class and dorm reassignments.  For the accused, it means the end of surprise administration letters saying that you’ve been accused of sexual assault and subject to expulsion without evidence or any specifics.

Sexual assault is a serious crime, and the patchwork response from college administrators that has stood for nearly ten years can no longer stand. We need national standards are fair to all students. That is the only way to ensure justice for survivors and due process for the accused. Thankfully, the new guidance on Title IX does just that.

Michelle Owens is a managing partner specializing in Title IX defense, education disciplinary defense, professional license defense and labor law at Agee, Owens & Cooper in Nashville, Tenn.

Categories
Uncategorized

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back

by Ashe Schow

A group of 18 Blue State attorneys general filed a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos earlier this month to try and block new regulations that would provide much needed due process to college students accused of sexual assault.

The lawsuit is meant to delay the final rule’s implementation at least until after the November election, with filers hoping former Vice President Joe Biden will become president and cancel the rule all together.

As Inside Higher Ed reported earlier this month, the lawsuit claims the new rules would “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education,” ignoring the fact that denying due process makes it easier for false accusations to limit access to education and does nothing to stop actual sexual harassment.

The AGs also took issue with the fact that the new regulations limit who can make an accusation (the new rules state the accuser must be a student of the school), are unfair. The whole point of Title IX wading into sexual harassment and assault was to claim accusers had their educational opportunities limited by a college that ignored their sexual assault claims. If the accuser isn’t even a student, their educational opportunities can’t be limited by a school they don’t attend.

The AGs that filed the lawsuit were all from Democrat states: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Last week, a coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.

The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.”

The AGs take particular issue with the notion that because the adjudications can’t result in jail time (at least the schools can’t impose such a punishment, they can and do send information gathered to police in order to circumvent students’ constitutional due process rights), then due process isn’t necessary or can be severely limited.

“The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct. Although not a criminal proceeding outright, the underlying act at issue in a harassment-related disciplinary hearing overlaps with illegal conduct. A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus,” the AGs wrote.

They also quoted a ruling against Brandeis University from an accused student. The judge in that case wrote, “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”

The AGs writing in support of the final rule are from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Categories
Uncategorized

After Dems Exaggerate Impact, Panicked Kids Are Suing Over Betsy DeVos Title IX Changes

Distorted partisan descriptions of the Department of Education changes could be doing real damage.

 | 

Seven students are joining a National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) lawsuit challenging new guidelines related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits education discrimination on the basis of sex. Some of their stories suggest that Democrats’ distorted descriptions of the changes could be doing real damage.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos formally issued the new rules—set to take place August 14—in May 2020, following a massive influx of public comments since she first proposed them back in 2018. But her proposal also ushered in a wave of hyperbolic, misleading, and dishonest claims about what these proposed changes would mean.

Reality-challenged rhetoric about the rule changes has come from folks claiming to represent students’ best interests, like the NWLC. But it’s hard to see how letting young people think the federal government wants schools to stop punishing rapists benefits students—or anyone but Democrats looking to portray the Trump administration as soft on campus rape.

In the NWLC lawsuit, “plaintiffs include a fifth grader in Michigan who fears that her elementary school will not be required to formally investigate and punish her classmate for assaulting her four times over two months” and “a recent graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who decided not to formally report her rape at an off-campus apartment because she believed that the final rule rendered her complaint futile,” according to The New York Times.

That’s incredibly sad, since of course there’s nothing in the new rules saying schools shouldn’t investigate and punish students for sexual assault. (Read more details about what the changes will do here.) Students are being misled by what’s turning out to be a damaging disinformation campaign.

Shiwali Patel, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, told the Times “the fear these students are living with show how real the consequences are of DeVos’s rule.”

But much of this student fear isn’t rooted in what the DeVos rules actually say, it’s driven by Democratic politicians and groups like the NWLC fearmongering about them.

When the new rules were first released, Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) said they would “undoubtedly make students less safe,” while Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) called theman attack on “student survivors’ rights.” And Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said they send “the message loud and clear that there is no point in reporting assault.”

The NWLC is far from alone in legally challenging the Department of Education’s new Title IX guidance. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuitagainst DeVos and the Education Department, on behalf advocacy group Know Your IX.

And 18 state attorneys general (AGs) are challenging the new rules, in an action filed June 4 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and led by Democratic attorneys general Xavier Becerra of California, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gubir Grewal of New Jersey.

Attorneys general for Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.—all Democrats—are also part of the lawsuit.

New York is also (separately) challenging the rules, with state Attorney General Letitia James explicitly invoking Trump in her explanation.

“The president has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t think sexual harassment is a serious matter, but his callousness now threatens our youngest and most vulnerable and could increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and abuse of students in schools,” James said in an announcement about the suit. The announcement misleadingly describes DeVos’ rules as “undo[ing] protections required by Title IX,” as if prohibitions of gender and sex discrimination at schools will no longer exist.

Presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden has already vowed to reverse the rule changes if elected.

It seems pretty clear that despite the seriousness of the issues involved, Title IX has become yet another set of partisan talking points to tussle over. But those using the DeVos changes to spread misinformation about campus assault might want to think about who is really being harmed by their rhetoric.

Categories
Uncategorized

Black students four times as likely to allege rights violations in Title IX proceedings

Jonathan Taylor, Founder

Title IX for all

Among plaintiffs whose races are known and when adjusted for student population, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in higher ed Title IX disciplinary proceedings. This data, sourced from lawsuits in our Title IX Legal Database, is based on Title IX For All’s recent research analyzing plaintiff demographic data from the ~650 lawsuits filed against higher-ed institutions since 2011.

This data confirms what many have long suspected: that students of color are significantly more likely to be impacted by higher ed Title IX proceedings. While a sizable portion of plaintiffs are of unknown race, we see no reason to suspect this would disconfirm the basic issue of proportionality.

Please see this attachment for a PDF of the race/sex breakdown of plaintiffs in lawsuits by accused students based on our analysis. The data reveals that when the race of the plaintiff is known, white and black students file lawsuits in fairly even numbers overall. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, however, white students outnumber black students four to one. If they file lawsuits in even numbers, this means that black students are four times as likely as white students to file a lawsuit when adjusted for student population.

These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher ed settings.

As always, Title IX For All advocates that the rights to due process and freedom from discrimination are fundamental rights for all people and do not stop at the campus property line. Public officials should be consistent with their values and acknowledge that these rights are not in conflict with one another; on the contrary, they are part of the same mission of equal rights for all.

Categories
Uncategorized

University of Minnesota considers policy changes to comply with new Title IX regulations

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-considers-policy-changes-comply-new-title-ix-regulation

What and when: University of Minnesota Board of Regents Meeting and Retreat (Wednesday, July 8 and Thursday, July 9, beginning at 9 a.m. both days)
Where: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these meetings will be conducted virtually with a livestream publicly available at youtube.com/UMNRegents

As public higher education institutions throughout the country consider necessary adjustments to sexual misconduct policies to comply with new federal Title IX regulations, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents will consider proposed amendments to the University’s policies and processes during its July meeting.

Released by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) last month, these regulations narrow the scope of sexual misconduct (including sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, and relationship violence) that educational institutions are required to prohibit. They also set requirements for how institutions must conduct grievance processes related to Title IX concerns. The University’s policies and procedures must comply with the federal regulations by Aug. 14.

In many places, the DOE regulations set minimum standards and allow individual institutions to make policy choices appropriate for their unique needs. Since the DOE publicly announced these changes, University leaders have reiterated that the discretion built into this guidance will allow the University to continue providing effective and fair response to all types of sexual misconduct that harms University community members, whether that misconduct occurs on- or off-campus.

The Board will discuss the following primary considerations related to these changes:

  • A uniform standard of evidence for all Title IX cases, whether these matters involve students, faculty or staff;
  • Adjustments to how live hearings are conducted, as well as the process for appealing University Title IX decisions;
  • The size and composition of Title IX hearing panels;
  • The scope of advisor roles for those assisting parties involved in these matters, and;
  • The level of systemwide centralization the University will employ as it moves forward with updates to its processes.

Since the initial DOE announcement, the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, in collaboration with other University offices, has consulted broadly with students, faculty and staff systemwide to determine how the University can best meet these federal mandates on all five of its campuses. Though University administrators are continuing to gather feedback from governance groups and beyond, consultation in recent months is reflected in materials coming before the Board for consideration in July.

As part of its July meetings, the Board is also expected to:

  • Act on a recommendation for a one-time employee retirement incentive option.
  • Hear the annual report from the University of Minnesota Alumni Association, which represents nearly 500,000 alums from the University’s Twin Cities and Rochester campuses.
  • Act on the purchase of 501 Oak Street SE in Minneapolis and the sale of 1.66 acres at UMore Park in Rosemount.

For more information, including future meeting times, visit regents.umn.edu.

Categories
Uncategorized

In college I was falsely accused of sexual harassment. Men like me deserve due process.

Categories
Uncategorized

University of Denver Chancellor Memo Regarding Title IX Compliance

OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
June 10, 2020

Dear DU Community,

As you may be aware, the U.S. Department of Education has issued final regulations that put into place new legally binding requirements that will impact the way DU and all universities that receive federal funding manage and report cases of sexual assault. I am writing to assure you that these changes will in no way compromise our commitment to creating an environment in which all members of the DU community feel safe reporting their experiences and remain confident that their cases will be heard thoroughly, fairly, and with respect.

Through the wecanDUbetter campaign, we heard painful stories about how survivors feel that DU has let them down in the past. Those stories united our campus, and I made a public commitment that DU would respond swiftly and proactively to all future incidents of gender-based violence and sexual assault.

As promised, I am writing today to provide an update to the statement and detailed action plan to combat sexual harassment and assault that I shared on March 5. You can find an update to that action plan here.

Because the new rules are complex, and require DU to implement some new processes by August 14, we want to keep the community fully informed. Toward that end, I hope you will join me and a panel of experts and interested parties on June 16 at 3:30 pm MT for Ask the Experts about Title IX: A Dedicated Town Hall. The Zoom link is here. Our panelists will be:

  • Jeremy Enlow, interim executive director of equal opportunity and Title IX coordinator, Office of Equal Opportunity & Title IX;
  • Molly Hooker, interim deputy Title IX coordinator, Office of Equal Opportunity & Title IX;
  • Michael J. LaFarr, interim associate vice chancellor and executive director of the Health and Counseling Center, Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence;
  • Kristine McCaslin, director, student rights and responsibilities, Campus Life & Inclusive Excellence;
  • Josh Richards, vice chair, of the Higher Education Practice at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP;
  • Beth Robischon, associate general counsel, Office of General Counsel;
  • Kayla Rodriguez, coordinator, CAPE Advocacy Services, Health and Counseling Services;
  • Jack Thomas, doctoral student in the Graduate School of Professional Psychology and member of the Healthy Masculinity Working Group; and
  • Grace Wankelman, undergraduate student, Undergraduate Student Government senator, and co-founder of the wecanDUbetter campaign.

You can find important resources on DU’s Title IX website, including links to the Title IX Final Rule Overview, the Title IX Final Rule as published in the Federal Register on May 19 and anonymously share concerns, questions or ideas for the new Title IX process at DU. We plan to address your questions and concerns on June 16 and at other future programs. Also, we are seeking volunteers to be part of a Title IX policy/procedure advisory committee to provide feedback as we develop our new processes. Nominations can be emailed to titleix@du.edu. We welcome feedback and invite participants to help us make our process as effective and supportive as possible.

Our progress in this important area must continue and I am dedicated to ensuring it does. Please join us on June 16 to share your questions, suggestions or responses to the new federal regulations. Our unequivocal goal remains to make DU a place where all members of our community feel safe, welcome, and supported.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Haefner
Chancellor