How Disgusting, Justice Coming To Campus Sex Trials Via Betsy DeVos

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.

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
18 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Samarkand TonyRhoda KlappPatBarksintheCountryTD Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Pardon my ignorance of the US system. but why does the due process applied to everybody else not apply on campus?

TD
Guest
TD

Colleges can kick someone out based on limited evidence but they can’t do much more than that. If there are actual criminal charges they would be entitled to due process, though we seem to be in an environment where many think that’s giving the person charged too much support.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

If there’s a criminal offence call the cops. The real ones, not campus police. If there isn’t enough to call the cops,..due process is no process.

TD
Guest
TD

And therein lies the controversy. There may not be enough evidence for the legal system to prosecute the matter, but the colleges want to throw them out anyways as an example. Now some form of due process is being forced on them to considerable screaming. Actually, I would generally think that a college could follow a lower standard to expel a student – cheating might not be a criminal offense but if they want to toss a student for cheating, assuming there was satisfactory proof, I’m ok with that. I’m also ok with the student countersuing the college and if… Read more »

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

I can hypothetically be absolutely certain someone has committed a serious crime, and that they’re going to get away with it. I am perfectly entitled to refuse to do business or socialise with them, despite being unable to prove my reasons to other people ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Yes. If you are absolutely certain. But what gave you that certainty in the absence of evidence other than competing claims?

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

I may have seen it with my own eyes, but not be a particularly credible witness, for example.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

I have no douby you can suggest relevant examples, but if you are campus police you hand it off to the real cops

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

I was talking more in principle.

To put it into a more practical setting, it’s saying ‘this guy’s an obvious cunt, it’s highly likely he’s done many bad things, I don’t want to do business with him’ – and a school is as entitled as anyone else to take that view. It reasonably requires a lower standard of evidence than, for example, jailing someone.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

I think such a school, in the US, would be liable to be litigated, in the ansence of some sort of evidence of breaking a pre-existng rule. Obama’s promotion of on-campus kangaroo courts was supposed to bypass this problem. The upshot being, in your example, you need a viable pretext.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

I don’t think you’ve quite followed my point. There is a wide gap between the standard of proof necessary for a criminal conviction and the standard of proof necessary to decide you don’t want to do business with a scumbag. So it’s not a kangaroo court, it’s a proceeding in which sufficient insinuation is considered probably justified. I’d point out that this is actually a very old common law principle working here: if you’re sufficiently cunty that no-one will speak up in your defence, you can be convicted of all kinds of stuff on fairly flimsy grounds. Arguably that’s what… Read more »

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

You can have nothing to do with such a person, but to punish them you are going to need cause.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

But in this case we’re talking about shunning rather than punishment. Which is a social measure, and requires social standards of proof.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Shunning is perfectly acceptable in such a case. In college if enough students join in the accused’s position is untenable. I was more concerned with official action based on accusation alone. There has been a number of cases.

Samarkand Tony
Guest
Samarkand Tony

Lecturers and adminstrators can shun someone too.

BarksintheCountry
Guest
BarksintheCountry

Please see The Scarlet Letter for an answer.

Pat
Guest
Pat

If a college accepts someone’s money, and leads them to give up a lot of time on a promise of delivering something then they need solid evidence before welshing on the delivery.
If they support an allegation of any misconduct without good evidence they should be liable for treason.
They get away with this because few students can find a lawsuit

Pat
Guest
Pat

Given the stated number of rapes on US campuses they should be shut down for public safety.

BarksintheCountry
Guest
BarksintheCountry

After nunneries US campuses are likely the safest places on earth.

Pat
Guest
Pat

You may well be right, but that is not what we are being told. If the rape epidemic is as serious as described then urgent serious action is needed. If it’s not then that needs to be properly acknowledged.

TD
Guest
TD

Lynch mobs tend to believe that the deterrent effect of a couple of hangings is worth hanging a few innocent people.