This is distinctly shocking, Betsy DeVos is pushing through rules that will have actual justice, civil liberty, involved with the investigation of sexual allegations on campus. This wasn’t the point at all of all that work done so diligently over the decades. If actual evidence must be presented, if examination of it and witnesses is permissible, then how can political judgements be delivered? Won’t we have to start deciding things upon facts again?
On Friday, following months of anticipation, DeVos released her proposal for how cases of sexual assault and misconduct should be handled, noting that “every survivor of sexual violence must be taken seriously, and every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined.”
While a 60-day public comment period is now in effect before the plan can be finalized, advocates for sexual assault survivors say they’re worried that the guidelines would actually make campuses more dangerous, deter victims from coming forward and put them in traumatizing scenarios.
Quite so, who cares what happens to the accused as long as the accuser isn’t traumatised?
Victims’ rights groups say that the rules discourage students from reporting harassment and assault – and they make it easier for allegations to go ignored. But some higher education leaders see these as welcome updates. They believed that Obama-era guidelines were too broad.
Quite so. The moment the accusation is made then the accused has no rights. AmIright? Just lock them up rightaway.
On Friday, the Education Department released its heavily anticipated proposal that would revamp the way colleges deal with accusations of sexual misconduct on campus. Many of the details in the proposed regulation did not come as a surprise. Still, one feature of the rules in particular stood out: Colleges will be required to allow students accused of sexual assault to cross-examine their accuser at a live hearing.
And of course this is entirely reasonable. Given the “he said, she said” nature of many of these allegations having a back and forth of the saids seems entirely reasonable. Well, assuming that we’re trying to secure justice that is, rather than some power settlement. Which is how rather too many of these investigations seem to run now. No clarity on what the accusations actually are, no ability to question the accuser, often no right to legal representation either. Yet the punishments can be severe.
The thing being that we wouldn’t prosecute jaywalking on the legal standards colleges use today. Yet we use such abegnations in cases up to and including rape? Ludicrous, the new rules come not a moment too soon.