Betsy DeVos and Title IX

[Tanasi]

Several years ago a friend of my youngest brother was expelled from the local university for something he was accused of across town that had absolutely nothing to do with the university or anyone associated with it beyond himself. Ultimately the DA dropped charges as they really couldn't prove their charges. The university refused to allow him back on campus or allow him to finish his degree in any other way. He tried to appeal and when he showed for his hearing they had him arrested for trespassing and he couldn't be represented by anyone else. He hired an attorney that really hates the university and he got the expulsion reversed and a truck load of money mostly because of not following their own rules and denying his rights under those rules.
All that being typed I believe the absolutely did what he was accused as he's not even smart enough to be a moron.
The local uni seems quick to dismiss male students and especially so if they're athletes but female students are given the benefit of the doubt and if an athlete swept under the rug. All three of my daughters and my wife graduated from said uni and they've commented on the one sided-ness of the uni's "justice" system.

[s_stabeler]

In the context of this thread, the implication is that laws greatly encourage colleges to adopt policies like this, since if they let an accused rapist continue college after acquittal, they are subject to loss of funding by Title IX.

Now, I understand perhaps temporarily suspending a student while the investigation/trial is ongoing, but if Title IX strongly recommends anything above that, then this is where the problem lies, and is what is being discussed in the OP.

I don't disagree- I was arguing mjr's claim that it isn't acceptable for a uni to rule on a sexual assault case rather than leaving it to the courts. I actually happen to agree that an accusation shouldn't be an automatic expulsion if unproven, and Title IX does need reform by the sounds of things (in that Title IX sounds like it treats the accusation alone as sufficient grounds for expulsion. If the uni actually investigates and- i a fair hearing- deems the kid should be expelled, that's the end of it.)

And Canarr, that actually supports my argument, surprisingly enough. The issue wasn't the uni's ability to expel the student, but that they didn't follow their own procedures properly.(Basically, the kid won because the hearing was a kangaroo court- he could not have proven that he was innocent. That's unacceptable regardless.)

[Canarr]

And Canarr, that actually supports my argument, surprisingly enough. The issue wasn't the uni's ability to expel the student, but that they didn't follow their own procedures properly.(Basically, the kid won because the hearing was a kangaroo court- he could not have proven that he was innocent. That's unacceptable regardless.)

Honestly: any hearing in front of a tribunal by people without any judicial training is a kangaroo court. What qualifications do the average college and faculty members have that would enable them to fairly and justly judge this?

And while I'll grant that there are certain similarities between the Title IX tribunals and an employer's options of terminating employees for breaking company regulations, there is one important distinction: clear rules. Generally, a company will have clear employee regulations, and there are decades of legal precedents behind them.

Sex is rarely that clear-cut. Sex is messy, and emotional, and difficult to describe and regulate, especially once alcohol is involved. Memories get fuzzy over time, what was said or done may be in dispute. And then you have a bunch of amateurs who are supposed to decide who is right and who is wrong? With the strong implication that, unless they find a certain number of students guilty of wrongdoing ("One in Five!"), they're not doing their job right?

Do you really think that is a recipe for a fair trial?

[s_stabeler]

Judicial training is just training on what the law is. Plus, juries- which would be used in cases of sexual assault- don't get judicial training. There's no reason why the people who comprise these panels can't be trained on what the college's rules are.

Again, the issue isn't with the colleges expelling the students- it's that the process isn't fair. Fix the process, don't throw it out.

[Canarr]

Judicial training is just training on what the law is. Plus, juries- which would be used in cases of sexual assault- don't get judicial training. There's no reason why the people who comprise these panels can't be trained on what the college's rules are.

Again, the issue isn't with the colleges expelling the students- it's that the process isn't fair. Fix the process, don't throw it out.

This here is an open letter to DeVos from several organizations and people "who have spent years actually working to prevent and address sexual assault in schools" about the announced discontinuation of the Title IX Guidance.

They claim that:
Secretary DeVos continues to show callous disregard for the thousands of students who are subject to sexual violence and abuse every year. Instead, she is very clear that her main if not sole concern is the tiny number1 of students wrongfully found responsible for rape, without any evidence that this is a wholesale problem or extends beyond the few one-sided anecdotes she provides. And while she claims that the rights of the accused have not been fairly protected, the Guidance requires that campus policies and procedures be “adequate, reliable, impartial, and prompt and include the opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and other evidence.”

They speak of sexual assault, of rapists and survivors of rape; they claim that not giving the accuser the right to appeal the college's decision would be "leaving survivors with no recourse on appeal". They are saying that students' "lives are at stake" if colleges are no longer able to judge other students for committing sexual assault. However, they aren't saying a damn thing about what role law enforcement is supposed to play here.

So... tell me again how these are not supposed to be criminal proceedings?

[s_stabeler]

Because if it was criminal proceedings, then you would be subject to criminal penalties, not educational ones. Also, the FULL criminal rules of procedure would be applicable, when clearly they aren't.

I don't disagree that the guidelines parallel those for criminal cases (ironically, the replacement is actually closer to the rules for a criminal trial) HOWEVER, it is emphatically not a criminal trial.

AGAIN, I do not believe the current system is perfect. However, needing to involve law enforcement in the process for expelling a student- separate from any criminal trial- is utterly ridiculous.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

As long as they have some sort of expulsion/degree forfeiture clause for lying or falsifying to the tribunal (or whatever we end up calling it), nah you probably don't need law enforcement. That said, law enforcement IS the neutral party designated by the government for these sorts of things.

Any fact finding that happens in the course of a college investigation really can't be assumed to be neutral in the same way because any investigation is going to be sourced from witnesses free from the legal punishments of dicking cops around taken by college investigators that may have organizational priorities in mind. Having mandatory expulsion and methods of redress would be crucial to prevent any sort of kangaroo courts.

Personally, I sort of understand and support victims rights advocates on this issue because it's true, most private organizations DON'T have to abide by criminal conviction.

In reality, I don't support those systems at all and firmly believe it leads to moral hazard in organizations by allowing them to offload risk to keep themselves safe in what is often an overly liberal manner. That effectively IS presumption of guilt. I just wouldn't make any sort of case rape is somehow a higher burden of proof than pot smoking.

[s_stabeler]

I don't disagree the system needs reform- I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to say that the college can't act independently of a criminal case.Somewhere upthread I actually said I would support the accused being allowed to appeal the expulsion if they were aquitted during any criminal trial. (basically, if there is new evidence available, they SHOULD consider if the new evidence makes a difference.)

[Canarr]

Because if it was criminal proceedings, then you would be subject to criminal penalties, not educational ones. Also, the FULL criminal rules of procedure would be applicable, when clearly they aren't.

I don't disagree that the guidelines parallel those for criminal cases (ironically, the replacement is actually closer to the rules for a criminal trial) HOWEVER, it is emphatically not a criminal trial.

AGAIN, I do not believe the current system is perfect. However, needing to involve law enforcement in the process for expelling a student- separate from any criminal trial- is utterly ridiculous.

I understand that the college tribunals are not actually criminal proceedings. My points is that DeVos' critics are treating them as if they were - actually implying that victims/survivors of rape need these proceedings for their safety, as if they had no official legal recourse through law enforcement.

That is my objection: if someone is the victim of a violent crime such as rape, then that is the matter of police and courts. Colleges, or other private institutions, should have no say in that. Sure, they can have their own rules for minor infractions - you'll probably be expelled for plagiarism, but you're unlikely to face criminal charges for it - but criminal acts should be sanctioned by the criminal justice system, and no one else.

[jackfaire]

That is my objection: if someone is the victim of a violent crime such as rape, then that is the matter of police and courts. Colleges, or other private institutions, should have no say in that.

O.J. Simpson. It's pretty much accepted he killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I don't know anyone that thinks he's innocent. All of the evidence points at him. Yet he was acquitted of he crime.

Even in cases where there is no question that the rape happened rapists still get off frequently because of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty of rape.

A college or university has a responsibility to create a safe environment for their students and a known rapist should not be allowed at school. If a person is cleared of the crime on the basis that it never happened absolutely reinstate the student.

However if the jury acknowledges that the perpetrator totally did the crime but is innocent for any variation of "they were asking for it" then it's the school's responsibility to protect the student body.

One student's education should not be considered more important than hundreds of other students' safety.

[Canarr]

Even in cases where there is no question that the rape happened rapists still get off frequently because of reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not he's guilty of rape.

A college or university has a responsibility to create a safe environment for their students and a known rapist should not be allowed at school. If a person is cleared of the crime on the basis that it never happened absolutely reinstate the student.

However if the jury acknowledges that the perpetrator totally did the crime but is innocent for any variation of "they were asking for it" then it's the school's responsibility to protect the student body.

One student's education should not be considered more important than hundreds of other students' safety.

So... it's the school's responsibility to enact punishment on a student that the legal system set free? A student that counts as innocent until proven guilty, which - if the prosecution apparently couldn't - means he counts as innocent, period?

Can you tell me where, exactly, US State or Federal law makes such a provision for colleges? I mean, you put in place an intricate system of checks and balances, rights and procedures, and then in the end you just wave your hand and say, "But, you know, if you don't like the result of our legal system, just do whatever."?

You say that a college can't allow a "known rapist" at school. But under rule of law, only a duly appointed court has the right to determine whether or not someone is a "known rapist". If they cannot prove that they are, then they are not.

This isn't about one student's education. This is about any student's right to not be arbitrarily punished and branded a rapist, without due process.

And, besides: can you name any one case in the US over the last decade or so, where that scenario you paint actually happened? Where rape charges where brought, a trial held, the accused was considered guilty as OJ, but was acquitted because she was "asking for it", then he got to return to his college? In none of the Title IX cases I read about was that an issue; actually, I can't recall any cases where charges were actually filed with the police.

[jackfaire]

An innocent verdict doesn't mean they didn't the crime. Juries will acknowledge that Person A took an action all of the time. They will then find innocent for reasons ranging from it was just a dumb mistake to why ruin a kids life. I am talking about a case of a prosecutor proving their case but having a jury that won't prosecute rape.

If the school has proof they shouldn't have to give the student a pass because a jury said innocent.

[Canarr]

An innocent verdict doesn't mean they didn't the crime. Juries will acknowledge that Person A took an action all of the time. They will then find innocent for reasons ranging from it was just a dumb mistake to why ruin a kids life. I am talking about a case of a prosecutor proving their case but having a jury that won't prosecute rape.

Seriously: can you provide a few examples to back up your claim? If that really happens "all the time", then it shouldn't be too difficult to pull a few cases off Google that support your thesis, right?

Because the only case I can recall recently that almost fits your scenario is the Brock Turner rape - where the guy was convicted but given a ridiculously low sentence. And considering the media uproar that (rightly) followed that verdict, I have my doubts that there are dozens or hundreds of similar cases out there that somehow escaped public outrage.

If the school has proof they shouldn't have to give the student a pass because a jury said innocent.

Okay, what kind of proof do you expect a school to have, that would be sufficient to make it clear that the accused is a "known rapist", but that somehow still didn't sway a jury into convicting him? When the vast majority of rape charges in fact aren't cases of stranger rape in a dark park, but instances where both parties acknowledge that sex happened, only they differ in the question of whether or not it was consensual. In such cases, generally speaking, there really isn't any proof. There is no physical evidence, there likely aren't any witnesses, so what is left?

One person says, the other person raped me. The other person says, no, we did it consensually(?). This isn't a matter of proof, it's a matter of principle: should the school really punish one student exclusively on the say-so of another?

[TheHuckster]

An innocent verdict doesn't mean they didn't the crime. Juries will acknowledge that Person A took an action all of the time. They will then find innocent for reasons ranging from it was just a dumb mistake to why ruin a kids life. I am talking about a case of a prosecutor proving their case but having a jury that won't prosecute rape.

That's the issue that we should be fixing. If we fix it so rape is dealt with as seriously as it should in the justice system, and schools rely more on the ability of that system to find someone guilty, then it will have a far better effect on the entire problem of rape in general.

[Canarr]

That's the issue that we should be fixing. If we fix it so rape is dealt with as seriously as it should in the justice system, and schools rely more on the ability of that system to find someone guilty, then it will have a far better effect on the entire problem of rape in general.

That is a good point, yes. When faced with the issue that law enforcement is not dealing with a crime to the satisfaction of the citizens, the reaction should be to reform this particular process in law enforcement; not to have someone else mete out the punishment instead.

Unfortunately, the very personal nature of this particular crime often makes convicting perpetrators difficult.

EDIT: and now there's a bill proposing to make the former Title IX regulations into law.

The point is still the same: forcing colleges to use the "preponderance of evidence" standard, instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard used in criminal trials. DeVos' interim solution, by the way, allows colleges to decide themselves which standard to use. California Rep. Jackie Speier, who introduced the bill, argues thus:

Speier on Thursday defended the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which is used in civil trials. "Isn’t this a civil right? To be able to go to school and not be subjected to violence," she said.

Personally, I find DeVos' position makes more sense: "One rape is one too many, one assault is one too many," DeVos said. "One person denied due process is one too many. This conversation may be uncomfortable, but we must have it. It is our moral obligation to get this right."