Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 155
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    17,028

    DeVos to overhaul ‘shameful’ Obama-era campus sexual-assault regulations

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-regulations/

    DeVos to overhaul ‘shameful’ Obama-era campus sexual-assault regulations

    Education Secretary says current rules fail both the accused and accuser
    Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced Thursday an initiative to overhaul the Obama administration’s campus sexual assault guidelines, accusing the “shameful” system of failing the accused and the accuser by creating “kangaroo courts.”

    Mrs. DeVossaid she would issue a public notice aimed at reforming the regulatory framework created by the department’s Office for Civil Rights in its 2011 Title IX guidance, which compels universities to take a harder line on campus sexual assault or face a federal civil rights investigation.

    “This unraveling of justice is shameful, it is wholly un-American, and it is anathema to the system of self-governance to which our founders pledged their lives over 240 years ago,” she said in a speech at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. “There must be a better way forward.”

    Mrs. DeVos said the Obama administration “weaponized the Office for Civil Rights to work against schools and against students,” producing a system in which “unelected and unaccountable political appointees” have ruled from their desks by sending letters to universities.

    “The era of ‘rule by letter’ is over,” she said. “Through intimidation and coercion, the failed system has clearly pushed schools to overreach.”

    At the same time, Mrs. DeVos stopped short of withdrawing the guidance, saying she wants to gather feedback before issuing updated regulations.

    Her comments had been highly anticipated by universities and critics who have accused her of trying to roll back protections for students victimized by sexual assault and harassment on campus.

    “Don’t be duped by today’s announcement. What seems merely procedural is a blunt attack on survivors of sexual assault. It will discourage schools from taking steps to comply with the law — just at the moment when they are finally working to get it right,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

    Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York Democrat, said the announcement “betrays our students, plain and simple.”

    I don’t want to see an innocent person punished any more than I want to see a guilty person let off the hook, but Secretary DeVos has shown that she does not take the rights of survivors seriously,” Ms. Gillibrand said in a statement.

    Hans Bader, senior attorney at the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute, applauded the move, saying Mrs. DeVos was “right to question the Obama administration’s demands on colleges.”

    “The Obama administration thumbed its nose at federal court rulings in how it defined constitutionally protected speech as sexual harassment,” Mr. Bader said. “And it pressured colleges to violate state law and discard traditional safeguards for wrongly accused people.”

    Others have argued that the Obama-era guidance has created a “witch hunt” atmosphere on campus in which students accused of sexual assault or harassment are assumed guilty and denied basic due process rights, such as being afforded representation or having access to all the evidence against them.

    The guidance also has come under fire for its provision requiring universities to use the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard in determining the guilt of the accused rather than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings.

    “The right to appeal may or may not be available to either party. And no one is permitted to talk about what went on behind closed doors,” said Mrs. DeVos. “It’s no wonder so many call these proceedings kangaroo courts.”

    Mrs. DeVos recounted emotional examples of students who were suspended or expelled despite flimsy evidence against them, leading at least one young man to attempt suicide after being kicked off campus three weeks before graduation without being told why.

    She also expressed sympathy for victims, pointing to a student who was told to prosecute her own case and declaring that “acts of sexual misconduct are reprehensible, disgusting and unacceptable.”

    “We know this much to be true: One rape is one too many. One assault is one too many. One aggressive act of harassment is one too many,” said Mrs. DeVos. “One person denied due process is one too many.”

    Families Advocating for Campus Equality said that at least 73 students filed lawsuits against their colleges as of June 2015 claiming they were found guilty of sexual assault by campus tribunals despite false accusations.

    Critics have argued that universities are often unequipped to act as judge and jury in cases of sexual assault.

    “This failed system has generated hundreds upon hundreds of cases in the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, mostly filed by students who reported sexual misconduct and believe their schools let them down,” Mrs. DeVos said. “It has also generated dozens upon dozens of lawsuits filed in courts across the land by students punished for sexual misconduct who also believe their schools let them down.”

    Mrs. DeVos said universities have been placed in impossible situations by being forced to use the lower “preponderance” standard instead of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required by the judicial system in criminal proceedings.

    “Unfortunately, school administrators tell me it has run amok. The Office for Civil Rights has ‘terrified’ schools, one said. Another said that no school feels comfortable calling the department for simple advice for fear of putting themselves on the radar and inviting an investigation,” the education secretary said.

    The stakes are high, both for the students involved as well as for universities, which risk losing federal funding if they run afoul of the department.

    “A system is not fair when the only students who can navigate it are those whose families can afford to buy good lawyers — or any lawyer at all,” she said. “No school or university should deprive any student of his or her ability to pursue their education because the school fears shaming by — or loss of funding from — Washington.”
    one should be innocent until proven guilty, not assumed guilty because someone else said so.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,512
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-regulations/

    one should be innocent until proven guilty, not assumed guilty because someone else said so.
    Innocent until proven guilty applies to our legal system. No one has been denied their rights under a court of law.

    A college can dismiss a student for an alleged crime in the same way a business can dismiss an employee for an alleged crime.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    68,536
    If there's anything shameful it's DeVos' distortion of the very thing she's overhauling.
    this my sig

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,404
    When will the government quit coddling everyone who has been sexually assaulted? When is enough enough!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    10,195
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-regulations/




    one should be innocent until proven guilty, not assumed guilty because someone else said so.
    You are confused about the way the legal system works here in the US. That's OK you're Canadian... why would you know? There is criminal law, where the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This tilts the balance of justice towards the accused.

    The burden of proof in many other cases (civil justice system and title 9 investigations) is "preponderance of the evidence," that means if it is more likely that the accused did it than didn't they are liable. So if 50.00000000001% of the evidence favors the victim the accused can face possible sanctions including expulsion. This balances the scales of justice equally between the accused and the accuser.

    But my question is for you... which one is it should we bop the accused on the head when they are arrested.. rough them up? Cause you trumpers seem to be for that? Or is it any accused should have the balance of justice tilted towards them as you are saying here? Cause again you seem to be having an argument with yourself. Can you make that thread so we can just read your arguments for and against the same thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,512
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    You are confused about the way the legal system works here in the US. That's OK you're Canadian... why would you know? There is criminal law, where the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This tilts the balance of justice towards the accused.

    The burden of proof in many other cases (civil justice system and title 9 investigations) is "preponderance of the evidence," that means if it is more likely that the accused did it than didn't they are liable. So if 50.00000000001% of the evidence favors the victim the accused can face possible sanctions including expulsion. This balances the scales of justice equally between the accused and the accuser.

    But my question is for you... which one is it should we bop the accused on the head when they are arrested.. rough them up? Cause you trumpers seem to be for that? Or is it any accused should have the balance of justice tilted towards them as you are saying here? Cause again you seem to be having an argument with yourself. Can you make that thread so we can just read your arguments for and against the same thing?
    It's very important to note they are innocent until proven guilty, but go ahead and rough them up!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,242
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Innocent until proven guilty applies to our legal system. No one has been denied their rights under a court of law.

    A college can dismiss a student for an alleged crime in the same way a business can dismiss an employee for an alleged crime.
    If you're an employee of the school, are these students employees of the school? Or are they spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have to pay for a service that is being denied on allegations that don't require due process of law.

    If a student gets dismissed over an allegation should they still be responsible for their student debt?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,512
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    If you're an employee of the school, are these students employees of the school? Or are they spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have to pay for a service that is being denied on allegations that don't require due process of law.

    If a student gets dismissed over an allegation should they still be responsible for their student debt?
    Well there's a lot of law to get into to answer those questions. I believe that colleges successfully argued a long time ago that students were not employees of the school which is how they get around paying student athletes wages.

    As for them paying for a service that is being denied I'd have to see each school's specific admission documents and contracts, but I'd imagine each admission contract includes provisions on the schools "conduct" policies and that violation of any of them can subject you to being dismissed from the college.

    At that point, I also imagine they'd be liable for any student debt for courses already taken.


    If your main complaint is that people can be dismissed based on allegations that don't require due process of law, I would ask your opinion of 'right to work' states, which essentially grant employers that exact ability.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,404
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    If you're an employee of the school, are these students employees of the school? Or are they spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have to pay for a service that is being denied on allegations that don't require due process of law.

    If a student gets dismissed over an allegation should they still be responsible for their student debt?
    If they are either not tried or found not guilty by a court or governing body, then absolutely.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    10,195
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban View Post
    If you're an employee of the school, are these students employees of the school? Or are they spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have to pay for a service that is being denied on allegations that don't require due process of law.

    If a student gets dismissed over an allegation should they still be responsible for their student debt?
    valade has it wrong. They aren't dismissed prior to a title 9 investigation... save cases where the school can be reasonably argue that they put other students at risk. The burden of proof in the investigation is preponderance of the evidence. And yes if you get expelled because of a title 9 investigations you are responsible for your debt.
    Last edited by flips333; 09-11-2017 at 01:55 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,512
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    valade has it wrong. They aren't dismissed prior to a title 9 investigation... save cases where the school can be reasonably argue that they put other students at risk. The burden of proof in the investigation is preponderance of the evidence. And yes if you get expelled because of a title 9 investigations you are responsible for your debt.
    Is a title 9 investigation a criminal investigation?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,404
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Is a title 9 investigation a criminal investigation?
    I am only guessing but I assume it is done by the university police as opposed to state or local police. But I really don't know.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    89,480
    Free reign to rape!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    70,824
    While all of this just reminds me that parents should make sure their kids understand their choices while in college, partying, hooking up, etc, and that there can be massive consequences if a bad decision is made, how many of you, were born because of what would now be a lawsuit if given the choice?

    I am all for protecting victims (can we please stop calling them all survivors?), but if a person goes to a party, gets messed up, has sex, wakes up, regrets it, and fires off accusations that end up getting another person in trouble who knowingly did nothing wrong, well that is just b.s., and the reason many don't like the push for more extreme measures many times.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    san josYAY
    Posts
    18,242
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well there's a lot of law to get into to answer those questions. I believe that colleges successfully argued a long time ago that students were not employees of the school which is how they get around paying student athletes wages.

    As for them paying for a service that is being denied I'd have to see each school's specific admission documents and contracts, but I'd imagine each admission contract includes provisions on the schools "conduct" policies and that violation of any of them can subject you to being dismissed from the college.

    At that point, I also imagine they'd be liable for any student debt for courses already taken.


    If your main complaint is that people can be dismissed based on allegations that don't require due process of law, I would ask your opinion of 'right to work' states, which essentially grant employers that exact ability.
    Once again, your talking about Employeers/Employees not customers/business. Furthermore, does this mean in states that don't have "right to work" laws, does that mean the student does need to have due process, be allowed to face their accuser, have a lawyer present. Because these are things the students don't get.

    And what's a code of conduct policy if not a contract of sorts.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •