I believe this is on topic due to recent changes in how sexual assault victims are handled at BYU under Title IX.

"Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell Jr. will head an education reform task force under U.S. President Donald Trump and is keen to cut university regulations, including rules on dealing with campus sexual assault, the school he heads said....Falwell is president of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, which bills itself as the world's biggest Christian university. A school spokesman, Len Stevens, said on Wednesday it was not clear yet when the task force would start its work.

Stevens said Falwell was interested in eliminating numerous regulations the U.S. Department of Education has placed on colleges and universities, adding that many college presidents felt the same, regardless of their political orientation.
'It's an autonomy issue for universities to be able to not be micromanaged by the Department of Education,' Stevens said in an email.

Falwell also wants to cut federal rules on investigating and reporting sexual assault under Title IX, the federal law that bars sexual discrimination in education, according to Stevens.
The Liberty University head believes on-campus sexual assault investigations are best left to police and prosecutors, Stevens said."

Unfortunately, as we saw with BYU, leaving sexual assault to the police and prosecutors may not be enough. At BYU, girls have been vilified and expelled for even minor honor code violations that lead them to being victims of sexual assault. The recent changes at BYU have been a positive and necessary thing for female students, and now those changes are in danger of being eviscerated.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15G5F4



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 10:33AM by summer.

Falwell shouldn't be in charge of anything.
Ever.

"'It's an autonomy issue for universities to be able to not be micromanaged by the Department of Education,' Stevens said in an email."

Hey, Fallwell: you know why the DoE made regulations to 'micro-manage' universities? Because asshats like you denigrated women and violated laws and ignored civil rights. So since you clearly showed that you (and others) are incapable of treating women fairly, honestly, legally, and empathetically -- you get 'micro-managed.' It's not an autonomy issue. It's a "you have proven you're an idiot" issue.

At its core, this is a due process issue and one I imagine you would be in favor of if not for the "Falwell" name attached to it.

See my post below: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1988361,1988650#msg-1988650

I disagree that it's a "due process" issue at all.
And I wouldn't agree with it no matter who was "championing" it.
Or how many "Harvard professors" signed a petition.

At its core, this is about denying women equal rights and equal treatment under the law. The bias has been strongly in favor of excusing without consequences those who do so. That bias has been equalized, but idiots like Falwell want to reimpose their patriarchy. It's disgusting, and even more so when championed by religious nuts.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At its core, this is about denying women equal
> rights and equal treatment under the law. The
> bias has been strongly in favor of excusing
> without consequences those who do so.

Can you explain to me again how we advance "equal rights and equal treatment under the law" by denying someone accused of a crime the right to counsel, to show evidence, or occasionally even offer a defense?

And do you suggest that this sort of "equal treatment under the law" should be applied, well, equally to all individuals accused of a crime, or just men accused of sexual assault?

I'd suggest we ask Thomas Klocke for his views on this, but we can't. He killed himself after he was denied the right to mount any defense against allegations from a fellow student who claimed he sexually harassed him. It was a textbook case of "he said-he said," but Klocke was denied a hearing. And no investigation was performed before discipline was meted out.

http://watchdog.org/292821/male-accused-student-commits-suicide-school-railroading/

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you explain to me again how we advance "equal
> rights and equal treatment under the law" by
> denying someone accused of a crime the right to
> counsel, to show evidence, or occasionally even
> offer a defense?

At a court of law, the accused have all of those rights. Schools aren't courts of law. So...nice straw man.

> And do you suggest that this sort of "equal
> treatment under the law" should be applied, well,
> equally to all individuals accused of a crime, or
> just men accused of sexual assault?

Again, schools aren't courts of law.
For a long time -- essentially as long as most US universities have been in existence -- if a woman was raped, she was treated as a criminal, the accused rapist was given the benefit of the doubt, and there were no consequences from the school for the rapists. That's no longer the case. In the few instances where schools make mistakes, the accused have legal recourse. Your characterization of the situation isn't at all honest.

It makes me wonder why you're so gung-ho to continue to deny women "equal rights," but get so worked up about the men who rape them not being treated "fairly?"
What's up with that?

> I'd suggest we ask Thomas Klocke for his views on
> this, but we can't. He killed himself after he was
> denied the right to mount any defense against
> allegations from a fellow student who claimed he
> sexually harassed him.

Very sad.

What about the hundreds of women in just the prior 10 years who killed themselves after their sexual abusers/rapists on campus had no consequences of any kind, while they were "slut-shamed?"
Oh, wait, they're women, so I guess they don't matter to you.

> It was a textbook case of
> "he said-he said," but Klocke was denied a
> hearing. And no investigation was performed before
> discipline was meted out.

Yes, but it wasn't a legal trial, so there is no "right to counsel" or "right" to present any defense.

Isn't it interesting that you (and that website) seem to be ASSUMING he was being "railroaded?" And that the accuser was lying?

Have you considered that maybe he killed himself, sad as that is, because he got caught and had to face the consquences? Hmm?

The most interesting part, though, is that the boy's father is claiming the school *didn't hold a Title IX hearing.* And the Title IX hearings are what Falwell is trying to gut. So if the boy's father's accusations are true, this example shows how important Title IX hearings are -- it undermines Falwell.
Did you think that through?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 08:13PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, schools aren't courts of law.

So your insistence of "equal protection under the law" applies to some law other than our actual law? College law, eh? That wonderland where equal protection means some accusations need no evidence to support them.

Sheesh.


> For a long time -- essentially as long as most US
> universities have been in existence -- if a woman
> was raped, she was treated as a criminal, the
> accused rapist was given the benefit of the doubt,
> and there were no consequences from the school for
> the rapists. That's no longer the case. In the
> few instances where schools make mistakes, the
> accused have legal recourse. Your
> characterization of the situation isn't at all
> honest.
>


Lower the standard for finding guilt, so that fully 50% of all those who are found guilty under this system will have their case overturned (IF they can get enough money together to hire a lawyer to fight it). Those who cannot afford a lawyer, sorry, dude. Can you name any other area of justice where you'd accept a 50% rate of overturning convictions without screaming that the system is abusive?




> It makes me wonder why you're so gung-ho to
> continue to deny women "equal rights," but get so
> worked up about the men who rape them not being
> treated "fairly?"
> What's up with that?

Stop being an idiot. Seeking due process protections is not a denial of anyone's rights. You want to see some real abuse of women? Create a system where fully 50% of the penalized men have their cases overturned when they seek judicial redress. Exactly what good are you doing for women by creating a system that seems to get these accusations wrong fully half of the time? That should terrify any woman who is assaulted. What if they don't believe me?

This is why it's important to maintain investigatory and judicial standards for these cases. Women will be more likely abused when bad men realize they can point to the fact that half of all accusations are ultimately found to be invalid. You don't reform a system by creating a standard for guilt that is so low it cannot stand up to scrutiny. You harm women by cheapening the actual horror of sexual crimes.

>
> > I'd suggest we ask Thomas Klocke for his views
> on
> > this, but we can't. He killed himself after he
> was
> > denied the right to mount any defense against
> > allegations from a fellow student who claimed
> he
> > sexually harassed him.
>
> Very sad.
>
> What about the hundreds of women in just the prior
> 10 years who killed themselves after their sexual
> abusers/rapists on campus had no consequences of
> any kind, while they were "slut-shamed?"
> Oh, wait, they're women, so I guess they don't
> matter to you.

So, when you cannot come up with a reasoned response, you just toss out some offensive accusation. Seeking actual Constitutional rights for all involved is somehow harmful to women? I'm surprised your head doesn't explode with your hypocrisy.

Is it really outrageous to you to suggest it's a good thing that sexual assault should be handled with all the rigor and investigative skills possible most major metropolitan police forces? This is somehow a sign that I don't believe in equal rights for women? You honestly appear to have lost the ability to engage this topic reasonably and with sufficient intellect to offer a meaningful response.

>
> Isn't it interesting that you (and that website)
> seem to be ASSUMING he was being "railroaded?"
> And that the accuser was lying?
>

Well, I'm open to alternative descriptions for a system that accuses a person of an infraction or crime and metes out punishment without ever allowing that person to stage a defense or respond in any way. "Railroaded" seems appropriate to me. What term would you use?


> Have you considered that maybe he killed himself,
> sad as that is, because he got caught and had to
> face the consquences? Hmm?

That's certainly possible. But we'll never know since he was never allowed to offer a defense and was denied any hearing.


>
> The most interesting part, though, is that the
> boy's father is claiming the school *didn't hold a
> Title IX hearing.* And the Title IX hearings are
> what Falwell is trying to gut. So if the boy's
> father's accusations are true, this example shows
> how important Title IX hearings are -- it
> undermines Falwell.
> Did you think that through?

Well, though they're meaningless to you, those Harvard professors were citing this reform, actually. Title IX as it is presently applied does not require that those accused of crimes be allowed to defend themselves. Though you seem upset at the prospect of allowing the accused to defend themselves, dozens of judges and scores of law professors cite this as a huge weakness to the Title IX process. This is why so many Title IX lawsuits are resulting in forcing schools to overturn their findings.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/new-report-slams-title-ix-hearings-as-unfair-to-the-accused/

Not going to bother with a reasoned reply, since it'll just fall on deaf ears.

OMG. Liberty "University" should not get to sit with the grownups when they are talking about education at all. Ever.

The issue, as I see, it is that rape and assault are civil crimes to be investigate by duly authorized civil police in their jurisdiction. No First Amendment "Prohibition" clause is violated when the police investigate rape, or other civil offenses, in their jurisdiction.

The problem is in that demanding an honor code and prosecuting students for "moral failures" can impede lawful actions and investigations.

I don't know about Liberty's policies and procedures, but BYU is notorious for violating students' rights to privacy, due process, and legal protocols because it feels any sexual activity is a moral crime. And, moral crimes need the church's judgment to be rectified.

No thinking man or woman would ever want to victimize a victim--except at BYU. Mr. DeVos's Boner.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2017 08:36PM by BYU Boner.

Liberty's (I refuse to call it a "university") code of conduct (officially called the COM, or "code of morality") is similar to BYU's, other than Liberty kids can drink coffee.

It considers any "sexual misconduct" a violation of the code, and reason for expulsion and denial of credits. They don't spell out explicitly what "sexual misconduct" is, but in another place it mentions that any sexual activity by an unmarried person qualifies. And yes, that includes being raped.

It also considers "Impeding or obstructing a LUCOM* investigatory, administrative or judicial proceeding," or "Failure to comply with the directives of a LUCOM* official" to be expulsion-worthy crimes.

*LUCOM = Liberty University Code Of Morality, and the snarky busybodies who are the code's "enforcers" and "observers."

Thanks, Hie! Liberty's Code of Morality sure sounds like BYU's Honor Code.

what were you expecting ?

yeah.the same ole song and dance that the big bad evil govt of the usa needs to stay out of things EXCEPT WHEN THESE FOLKS NEED AND WANT IT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 10:15AM by presleynfactsrock.

So Jerry Falwell wants guys to get away with rape. Is that what I'm reading? Because that's what the Honor Code is there for. To blackmail women into keeping quiet. Blackmailing women is a treasured religious freedom. It's so Brigham.

I am sure that, given the current POTUS run-ins with civil rights laws as a private citizen, that Mr. Fallwell Jr.'s views will feel right at home in the administration.

Title IX was expanded under the Obama administration, and it morphed into a force that served to deny due process and encourage academics to undertake investigatory tasks that they were seldom adequately prepared for. And there was an implied threat that if allegations did not result in punishment, they could lose federal funds. On many campuses it became a system of guilty until proven innocent, and did not allow the accused any right to question his or her accuser nor retain legal counsel. What could go wrong?

The suggested reforms are moving much of the actual investigation and punishment elements of campus behavior back to organizations that are actually formed for these purposes: Police and Justice departments. Both the accused and the victims should benefit from a working alliance between colleges and police. And it's essential that we remove any incentive for campuses to treat accusations as factual without giving the accused due process.

Those in favor of these reforms are hardly a collection of Trumpsters:

"In October 2014, twenty-eight professors at Harvard Law School—representing positions across the political spectrum—signed an open letter opposing Harvard University’s new procedures for handling complaints of sexual misconduct. The faculty members alleged that those new procedures, prompted by the Department of Education’s actions, “lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process” and “are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.”"
http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septoct-2015/what-went-wrong-with-title-ix/


About half of all the cases that were appealed to actual judicial action found the in favor of the accused students according to this article from the Washington Post:

"About one new due process lawsuit per week was filed last year against a college by a student who had been found guilty of sexual assault by a campus tribunal, despite what the lawsuits claim is strong evidence of innocence. This estimate comes from Samantha Harris, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). With the federal government, campus activists and many faculty members and administrators pressuring universities effectively to presume the guilt of accused students, that one-per-week rate has continued into 2017. The most recent lawsuit was filed last week by a former Purdue ROTC student.

Many of these lawsuits continue to work their way through state and federal courts. But there have been more than 50 decisions in lawsuits filed by accused students since the Obama administration mandated in April 2011 an array of procedures designed to produce more guilty findings. The accused student has prevailed in around half of these cases, although generally only in a preliminary motion, followed by a university settlement."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/01/campus-due-process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.c8a16d48d5e1


This article notes some of the growing list of successful lawsuits filed by some of those accused and punished under Title IX. Here's what one Boston judge wrote in response to a Brandeis case:

“Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process,” Saylor wrote. “And it is not enough simply to say that such changes are appropriate because victims of sexual assault have not always achieved justice in the past. Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/14/several-students-win-recent-lawsuits-against-colleges-punished-them-sexual-assault


Sexual assault is one of the most notoriously difficult crimes to prove. But that does not mean we should lower the bar for basic Constitutional rights we afford the accused. Even Vox.com, the far left news outlet noted this when they excoriated a recent presidential candidate from Vermont for suggesting rape allegations should be handled by police in conjunction with colleges:

"Colleges can use a lower standard of proof than criminal courts: A student can be found guilty if it's more likely than not that he committed the assault. He doesn't need to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's led to valid concern that campus courts can too easily rush to judgment, suspending and expelling innocent young men." [link not allowed]

If not for Title IX, BYU's rape culture and victim-blaming would have been allowed to continue unabated.

Tall Man, I think you would be shocked at the number of women who have been sexually assaulted or who have suffered unwanted sexual advances. Both my mother and I were assaulted with intent to rape. Fortunately, we both escaped. Both my mom and I were also subjected to unwanted sexual advances from a neighbor. I was a child at the time. The man was later convicted for sexually assaulting a minor. I only found out that my mother was assaulted as well by her reaction at a family dinner. My father and brother were shocked that a trusted neighbor was arrested. My mom and I both piped up, saying we were not shocked at all, and why. Some eyes were opened that day.

Somewhere among your extended female family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues there are probably a number of women who have suffered from unwanted advances or sexual assault. I don't know what we have to do to get men to understand this, but it is far more common than you might think. Sometimes women report it, sometimes not, for a multitude of reasons.

I don't know if Title IX is flawed in this regard. I do know that women sometimes need help that goes beyond the law. It is clear that the women of BYU needed help, and that the women of Liberty University need that help.

I have a daughter finishing up a Master's Degree and she has been on various campuses across the country for close to 6 years. I know for a fact that many women on campuses have concerns for their safety.

But we cannot abandon basic Constitutional rights in our desire to seek justice for abused women. When close to 50% of all cases that are appealed are overturned, there's also a systemic problem with the form of justice meted out on many campuses. And it only makes the problem worse. Women will increasingly have a hard time finding a consistent response to crimes against them if the system is so flawed that 50% of the accusations cannot survive judicial scrutiny.

This is why it makes sense for schools to team with local law enforcement on campus crimes. Let the accused face the professional scrutiny of a trained police force, and let's grant them the same basic rights of anyone accused of a crime. The major modification made under Obama was a requirement that schools conduct a separate investigation into allegations and take action. Schools have proven to be just awful at handling these things, since convictions were expected and if not achieved could threaten federal funding. Would you want to be accused in a system of justice that got a paycheck only if they found you guilty? I just don't understand why this would be controversial.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 06:35PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

The issue is a little more complex than you make it out to be. Title IX covers more than just criminal prosecutions.

So let's say, God forbid, that your daughter is sexually assaulted by a fellow student in her Masters program. The university's response is to turn it over to the local PD, who investigates, and turns the info over to the DA who then has to decide whether to prosecute. This process takes months. Meanwhile. your daughter has to attend required classes with her assailant in order to complete her degree. Should the University have some responsibility to your daughter to allow her to continue her education without being subject to the psychological trauma of having to see her assailant every day? Would you be fine with that situation?

Or... what if your daughter's program director started pressuring her to have sex and intimating that she might not successfully complete her program should she refuse. The police investigate and conclude that there is no crime committed. Does the University's obligation stop there? Or do they have the responsibility to intervene to protect your daughter's right to complete her degree without harrassment? Would you be okay with the situation if they said "we did our part and referred it to the police" and did nothing else to intervene?

You asked above about Thomas Klocke. His suicide was tragic, But what about the victims of sexual assault who have committed suicide? Are their deaths not just as tragic? What about the victims who are unable to continue their education because they cannot psychologically face their assailants every day on campus? Do they deserve some consideration?

The process of schools investigating and punishing these behaviors may well need to change, but simply turning it over to the criminal justice system is not likely going to improve things. And it doesn't address problems like that which existed at BYU where the University used to the Honor Code to punish the victims.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue is a little more complex than you make
> it out to be. Title IX covers more than just
> criminal prosecutions.
>
> So let's say, God forbid, that your daughter is
> sexually assaulted by a fellow student in her
> Masters program. The university's response is to
> turn it over to the local PD, who investigates,
> and turns the info over to the DA who then has to
> decide whether to prosecute. This process takes
> months. Meanwhile. your daughter has to attend
> required classes with her assailant in order to
> complete her degree. Should the University have
> some responsibility to your daughter to allow her
> to continue her education without being subject to
> the psychological trauma of having to see her
> assailant every day? Would you be fine with that
> situation?
>

These are clearly difficult issues with lots of pitfalls for everyone involved.

I guess I'd put the question back to you: Should we treat those accused of sexual assault as if they are guilty from the moment of the accusation? Let's move the crime off campus. If a woman claims she is assaulted by her neighbor, should he be required to move away while the crime is adjudicated, so she's not forced to see him every day? How about on the job? Should the man lose his job or be reassigned from the moment of the accusation before any finding of guilt to avoid further traumatizing the accuser? It seems these are the actions of a system where guilt is assumed until proven otherwise.


> Or... what if your daughter's program director
> started pressuring her to have sex and intimating
> that she might not successfully complete her
> program should she refuse. The police investigate
> and conclude that there is no crime committed.
> Does the University's obligation stop there? Or do
> they have the responsibility to intervene to
> protect your daughter's right to complete her
> degree without harrassment? Would you be okay with
> the situation if they said "we did our part and
> referred it to the police" and did nothing else to
> intervene?

Well, with your example, my daughter would document the interactions and create a paper trail. That's something she learned from my father when he would tell us all about opposition at his government job that threatened to see him fired due to false allegations. It's part of my family's culture, and we've survived several scrapes as a result.

But I'd again put this back to you: Are you saying that in some instances we should penalize somebody for an accusation for which there is no evidence to support? It's not unthinkable that a small number of accusations are being made without foundation. Should we just account for those victims of false accusations as collateral damage? It should concern all of us if we start creating categories of crimes or abuses that require no solid evidence in order to convict someone.

Do you really believe that if a fair and honest investigation was conducted by the police with no finding of any crime or infraction a university should still pursue some sort of discipline? That's not truly just, is it?


>
> You asked above about Thomas Klocke. His suicide
> was tragic, But what about the victims of sexual
> assault who have committed suicide? Are their
> deaths not just as tragic? What about the victims
> who are unable to continue their education because
> they cannot psychologically face their assailants
> every day on campus? Do they deserve some
> consideration?
>

You veer into hyperbole here. Any victim of a crime deserves consideration. I believe you're asking for more than that, though. Do they deserve a special form of justice that lowers the standard for finding of guilt?


> The process of schools investigating and
> punishing these behaviors may well need to change,
> but simply turning it over to the criminal justice
> system is not likely going to improve things. And
> it doesn't address problems like that which
> existed at BYU where the University used to the
> Honor Code to punish the victims.


Well the current system likely has far more abuse of the accused than we're aware. Not everyone can afford to hire an attorney to fight school discipline. But a staggering 50% of those that seek redress are having their school discipline overturned. I think if we had a police force anywhere in the country that had its convictions overturned half the time, we'd all assume some significant abuses of civil rights were rampant there. Why is this different from that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 08:19PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4045111-155/after-four-women-accused-a-utah

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3950950-155/utah-state-university-student-to-be

https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/doc.php/266596.pdf

Does a university owe a duty to other students to protect them from serial sexual predators? How many victims must there be before it acts?

Is it your contention that the best way to deal with cases where women failed to receive justice is to deprive others of due process and justice?

Is it possible we should work to make sure everyone is afforded full Constitutional rights and when a police force or government attorney fails to provide reasonable or adequate services, those individuals should be held accountable?

No, it is not my contention "that the best way to deal with cases where women failed to receive justice is to deprive others of due process and justice?" Nor did I ever say that.

Is it your contention that Universities owe their students nothing beyond what the criminal justice system provides? Is it acceptable that a sexual predator is allowed to remain on campus and victimize more people because the victims elected not to go to the police, or the police didn't seriously investigate, or the prosecutor elected not to file charges? Or should there be a mechanism in place for the university itself to investigate and take action to remove that person from campus?

As I pointed out, Title IX covers things beyond what criminal law covers. Should that behavior be tolerated because it isn't criminal? Or should there be a process to discipline the perpetrator to protect other students?

>Is it possible we should work to make sure everyone is afforded full Constitutional rights and when a police force or government attorney fails to provide reasonable or adequate services, those individuals should be held accountable?

Of course it is possible. I do not argue that Title IX investigations should not have due process procedures in place.
But that does not mean absolving universities from responsibility and just shifting that responsibility to the criminal justice system.

You seem to have a very black/white view of this. I would argue that it is much more complex than that.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it is not my contention "that the best way to
> deal with cases where women failed to receive
> justice is to deprive others of due process and
> justice?" Nor did I ever say that.
>
> Is it your contention that Universities owe their
> students nothing beyond what the criminal justice
> system provides? Is it acceptable that a sexual
> predator is allowed to remain on campus and
> victimize more people because the victims elected
> not to go to the police, or the police didn't
> seriously investigate, or the prosecutor elected
> not to file charges? Or should there be a
> mechanism in place for the university itself to
> investigate and take action to remove that person
> from campus?

I'm open to Universities performing investigations, but both the victim and the accused should be granted some help in the form of an advocate of some sort. Nobody is well served if the process does not seriously seek to understand the truth of the matter. Our adversarial system of justice has worked remarkably well for a long time, and it would serve universities well to handle these issues in a similar fashion if they choose to embark on actions beyond what local police choose to engage.

>
> As I pointed out, Title IX covers things beyond
> what criminal law covers. Should that behavior be
> tolerated because it isn't criminal? Or should
> there be a process to discipline the perpetrator
> to protect other students?
>

An accusation is not a finding of guilt. Of course someone who is found guilty of sexual harassment should be disciplined. But someone accused of such should be assumed innocent until found guilty.


>
> Of course it is possible. I do not argue that
> Title IX investigations should not have due
> process procedures in place.
> But that does not mean absolving universities from
> responsibility and just shifting that
> responsibility to the criminal justice system.
>
> You seem to have a very black/white view of this.
> I would argue that it is much more complex than
> that.

Well, I'm very black/white on the rights of victims and accused. When the current system denies due process in some instances, it does harm to everyone involved. The accused may or may not be guilty, and the victim may or may not have actually received justice. Making sure the accused has due process also provides surety to the charges. If someone defends themself against an accusation, but is still found guilty, it carries infinitely more weight than a finding of guilty based upon a flimsy process that afforded the accused fewer rights.

I will tend to agree with all of that, but we should remember is that this whole discussion started with an article that contains the following
"Falwell also wants to cut federal rules on investigating and reporting sexual assault under Title IX, the federal law that bars sexual discrimination in education, according to Stevens.

The Liberty University head believes on-campus sexual assault investigations are best left to police and prosecutors, Stevens said"

I would argue that it is not always enough to leave it to police and prosecutors.

>Well, with your example, my daughter would document the interactions and create a paper trail. That's something she learned from my father when he would tell us all about opposition at his government job that threatened to see him fired due to false allegations. It's part of my family's culture, and we've survived several scrapes as a result.But I'd again put this back to you: Are you saying that in some instances we should penalize somebody for an accusation for which there is no evidence to support? It's not unthinkable that a small number of accusations are being made without foundation. Should we just account for those victims of false accusations as collateral damage? It should concern all of us if we start creating categories of crimes or abuses that require no solid evidence in order to convict someone.

>Do you really believe that if a fair and honest investigation was conducted by the police with no finding of any crime or infraction a university should still pursue some sort of discipline? That's not truly just, is it?



And what if the University then did nothing? You seem to be arguing that if there is no criminal conviction that nothing should be done. In the situation mentioned, there is no crime to prosecute, so would the sexual harrassment be okay? In this case, I would indeed argue that the University should take some disciplinary action because even though the sexual harrassment described originally isn't a criminal offense, it still creates an atmosphere in the school that impedes the students right to an education.


>Well the current system likely has far more abuse of the accused than we're aware. Not everyone can afford to hire an attorney to fight school discipline. But a staggering 50% of those that seek redress are having their school discipline overturned. I think if we had a police force anywhere in the country that had its convictions overturned half the time, we'd all assume some significant abuses of civil rights were rampant there. Why is this different from that?

Your reply does not address the point, however. Yes, the Title IX process needs some changes, but is that really solved by relying only on the police? There are instances as noted above of the police not fully investigating cases. There is conduct covered by Title IX that isn't criminal. In the BYU case,there was a Utah County sheriffs deputy sending police files to the honor code office. There were suggestions in the Pepper Hamilton Baylor report that the police tried to cover up some cases. As a result, I would argue that Universities do need a process outside of the criminal justice system to address some of these issues.

As presently enacted, Title IX does not require those accused be allowed to defend themselves. There are cases where once an accusation was made, the wheels of campus justice rolled forward without ever hearing any input from the accused.

That is wrong and is one reason why this system must change. Courts hearing these cases are necessarily overturning them for this reason. How many actual cases of sexual assault or harassment are being overturned? In a scenario intended to provide better, more readily available justice to women, we're seeing the opposite. Because the system is found unconstitutional, it's likely many valid complaints are being overturned because the rights of the accused were violated. In these instances women may be subjected to the horror of the details all over again if a university seeks to pursue discipline while allowing the accused to stage a defense.

As with many idealistic actions, the unintended consequences often do as much or more damage than just following our accepted rules of evidence and justice would have.

And as I pointed out twice above, the system may well need to change, but that does not mean that it should rely only on the criminal justice system.

I agree with summer. Regardless of what transpires within the auspices of Title IX, the victims of any sexual assault at BYU will, no doubt, continue to be blamed. Any disciplinary action will undoubtedly be aimed at the female student for 'asking for it', either because of her manner of dress or her choice of milieu at the time of any alleged sexual assault or rape.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2017 09:48PM by cinda.