DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses | TheHill

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses

The Education Department is expected to finalize rules changing the process of how schools and universities handle sexual assault claims following the publication of the agency's initial proposal earlier this month. The Washington Post reported Monday that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to publish the finalized rules before the end of the year, though the time frame could fall back to next year.

A plan released earlier this month by the agency would allow accused students the right to cross-examine their accusers at a hearing, as well as narrowing what the agency described as “overly broad definitions” of sexual harassment.
================================================
I went to an all male college but Betsy has got me daydreaming about doing it all over again in a coed school.

JacksinPA said:

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses | TheHill

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses

The Education Department is expected to finalize rules changing the process of how schools and universities handle sexual assault claims following the publication of the agency's initial proposal earlier this month. The Washington Post reported Monday that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to publish the finalized rules before the end of the year, though the time frame could fall back to next year.

A plan released earlier this month by the agency would allow accused students the right to cross-examine their accusers at a hearing, as well as narrowing what the agency described as “overly broad definitions” of sexual harassment.
================================================
I went to an all male college but Betsy has got me daydreaming about doing it all over again in a coed school.

Click to expand...

Is there any particular reason why people facing discipline in cases without a shred of evidence don't take their universities to court?
If someone accused me of sexual assault without the slightest evidence, and my university decided to endorse those accusations, I would figure on my lawyer getting me 7-8 figures for harrasment, defamation of character, and emotional distress. Do universities have some kind of legal immunity?

JacksinPA said:

A plan released earlier this month by the agency would allow accused students the right to cross-examine their accusers at a hearing, as well as narrowing what the agency described as “overly broad definitions” of sexual harassment.
(...) I went to an all-male college but Betsy has got me daydreaming about doing it all over again in a coed school.

Click to expand...

Before we dwell on what divides us all, it might be worthwhile to summarize some of the things we share.

I think that issues related to sexual harassment and other types of sexual misconduct in both the workplace and institutions of high education were legitimate concerns that needed to be raised. Even if someone could raise equally legitimate concerns regarding the specifics of how the issues have been thus far handled, we can probably all agree on a key principle: forcing someone to partake in sexual acts is not acceptable, regardless of the circumstances. We might also agree that a good personal policy adopted by everyone willingly might go a long way toward limiting those problems. One example of such a policy is to always ask for permission whenever in doubt.

One of the other things I wanted to point out here is that different tasks have different purposes and usually require different choices. If someone confides to you that they have been a victim of some kind or another of sexual misconduct, your task is to receive the information and give this other person an opportunity to be heard. It's neither the time nor place to ask for evidence and witnesses. If you're not in a courtroom and you're not going to publicize the whole thing publicly, there is absolutely no harm in assuming the person is neither lying, nor mistaken. No one will know or pay any price whatsoever if you assumed wrong. On the other hand, if you assumed right, you did help someone out.

However, if the information becomes public and goes to a disciplinary committee or goes to trial, we're in a very different context. Here, if you're in part of that process and you assumed wrong, someone pays a very big price for something they never did. I don't think you can make a believable case that a human being would not lie about this if they stand to gain from it. Imagine a beautiful, young woman meets her older male professor in his office over a bad grade which might cost her a scholarship or even might lead to her flunking out of college, leaving her with the debt of a college education without the degree. Is there not a slight possibility that she could close the door of his office and blackmail her way to a better grade? If he refuses, she can effectively twist the story the other way around, saying that he closed the door, that he proposed to trade a better grade in exchange for sexual favors and destroy everything he has ever built. Who would side with a white highly educated male with authority over the poor, very likable and understandably attractive young woman? The story fits so precisely in the presumptions of so many activists and media outlets that even if he had her on tape admitting to a lie, he might never clear his name. Of course, we can also have the reverse: the young woman really did receive a very inappropriate offer for a sexual transaction, but the professor claims it's a lie.

This illustrates a profound problem: we lack information about interactions between people. Unless you have tapped a conversation, or filmed everything, what do you know about what really happened if you were not there? You have one party saying they have been wrong and another saying it's a lie. Both could be motivated to lie or exaggerate almost everything. Things aren't made simpler by the fact that interactions between people are complicated.

JacksinPA said:

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses | TheHill

DeVos expected to give more rights to those accused of sexual assault on college campuses

The Education Department is expected to finalize rules changing the process of how schools and universities handle sexual assault claims following the publication of the agency's initial proposal earlier this month. The Washington Post reported Monday that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to publish the finalized rules before the end of the year, though the time frame could fall back to next year.

A plan released earlier this month by the agency would allow accused students the right to cross-examine their accusers at a hearing, as well as narrowing what the agency described as “overly broad definitions” of sexual harassment.
================================================
I went to an all male college but Betsy has got me daydreaming about doing it all over again in a coed school.

Click to expand...

DeVos shouldn't be involved in education but this one I have mixed feeling. Critics do have a good point about giving the accused too much power.

HK.227 said:

If someone accused me of sexual assault without the slightest evidence, and my university decided to endorse those accusations, I would figure on my lawyer getting me 7-8 figures for harassment, defamation of character, and emotional distress. Do universities have some kind of legal immunity?

Click to expand...

How do you think this fight would go?

Most of the media would likely portray you in a bad light, moving forward with a possibly unstated presumption of guilt. Twitter mobs would be debating whether you are as evil as or worst than Hitler with at least some people calling for your murder without Twitter ever banning those users or forcing them to delete their messages. Just about every activist group in the world would see this as the political fight of the century. You would be the penultimate symbol of misogyny, the one reason why entire swaths of the population should unite and overlook their disagreements. Marches would be held, protests would happen and public places would be vandalized. Democrats would seize on the opportunity to score votes by calling you out and using every bit of influence they have to try and make your life miserable.

Of course, that won't happen to everyone who tries. Yet, it's not hard to see things degenerating very fast in a very unfavorable way in at least some cases. I'm not sure what a lawyer would advise you to do, but I suspect many people have this at the back of their minds. Some people might just take a hit and stay put for fear that things can be made much, much worse.

AProudLefty said:

DeVos shouldn't be involved in education but this one I have mixed feeling. Critics do have a good point about giving the accused too much power.

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the power the person making the accusation really has over the accused. Regardless of the decision of a disciplinary committee or of a trial, making an accusation public can completely destroy your life. Someone who never did anything peculiarly wrong and who worked hard to build a life for themselves can see their career end, their reputation demolished and their marriage and family life put in jeopardy. The lingering doubt over your moral character can mean that even if you win your case, you still lose everything you had. It's not a case where you can easily go back and erase the harm done if you find out later that the accusations were false.

Of course, putting a high bar on what constitutes a credible accusation does imply that some people who have been deeply wronged will simply refuse to cooperate to get the aggressor a punishment it deserves. It's not a consequence to be taken lightly for either the victim or the community. After all, people who misbehave will likely wrong other people down the road. It's not something anyone of us wants. Yet, this is not a case where you can get your cake and eat it too. You have to pick your poison, so to speak.


Personally, I think it's generally worse to risk punishing innocent people than to risk not punishing guilty people. Some kind of balance needs to be struck and my impression is that playing too fast and too loosely with what constitutes sexual misconduct and evidence thereof is just inviting people to manipulate others. I don't trust that people will not try to blackmail or get back at someone else this way. It just sounds all too human to me. That might give rise to very unfortunate precautionary reactions. One example Douglas Murray gave recently involved a survey of business managers. Apparently, a substantial proportion of males in positions of authority refuse to have one-on-one meetings with women and make it a rule to rent rooms on different floors than their female employees when they go on a business trip. Does that sound like a good thing? I'm sure there are students and professors in a similar situation right now, going out of their ways to not even give anyone a chance to lay false accusations at their feet.

There is a fair chance that I might be excessively prudent as I have not seen data on this kind of behavior. Yet, it would be worth investigating as one would guess that all interventions can have unintended consequences.

TheEconomist said:

How do you think this fight would go?

Most of the media would likely portray you in a bad light, moving forward with a possibly unstated presumption of guilt. Twitter mobs would be debating whether you are as evil as or worst than Hitler with at least some people calling for your murder without Twitter ever banning those users or forcing them to delete their messages. Just about every activist group in the world would see this as the political fight of the century. You would be the penultimate symbol of misogyny, the one reason why entire swaths of the population should unite and overlook their disagreements. Marches would be held, protests would happen and public places would be vandalized. Democrats would seize on the opportunity to score votes by calling you out and using every bit of influence they have to try and make your life miserable.

Of course, that won't happen to everyone who tries. Yet, it's not hard to see things degenerating very fast in a very unfavorable way in at least some cases. I'm not sure what a lawyer would advise you to do, but I suspect many people have this at the back of their minds. Some people might just take a hit and stay put for fear that things can be made much, much worse.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that if the choice was between having your life ruined and having your life ruined, but receiving official restitution, a payday, and revenge on your tormentors, I would go for the latter.

But fair enough. At age 20 I would probably have either flown into a rage and done something stupid, or sulked in a corner.

The OP is great news.

Many a young man's life has been ruined by false accusations of a vindictive young lady.

But as soon as the Democratic president takes over (probably in January, 2021), Ms. DeVos's rules will be rescinded.

Hopefully, one day the Congress will find enough fair-minded members of all parties to pass laws that protect male students. (I realize, of course, that such a possibility is remote.)

HK.227 said:

I'm pretty sure that if the choice was between having your life ruined and having your life ruined, but receiving official restitution, a payday, and revenge on your tormentors, I would go for the latter.

Click to expand...

Of course.

HK.227 said:

But fair enough. At age 20 I would probably have either flown into a rage and done something stupid or sulked in a corner.

Click to expand...

That is a fair point. We're dealing with kids, many of whom seem unable to deal with disagreements. Why would anyone who got attacked by the beast they probably fed suddenly become a hero and attempt the slay that monster?

TheParser said:

The OP is great news. Many a young man's life has been ruined by false accusations of a vindictive young lady. But as soon as the Democratic president takes over (probably in January 2021), Ms. DeVos's rules will be rescinded.

Click to expand...

I strongly doubt that Democrats will win the presidential election. Their party is divided over several issues, all of which have something to do with pandering to identity politics. They seem to be trying to appease Twitter mobs, as opposed to fighting Republicans over who's going to control the votes of moderates. Maybe they know something I don't, but it sounds like just an awfully stupid strategy. It's not like you can push Antifa to vote for Trump by going too close to the center, but you absolutely can push moderates to do just that by pushing too far left. Many candidates do not seem to get the not-so-subtle strategic hints Obama has been dropping for a year. God, some people on the left even had the gall to call him a conservative. In this deranged fantasy world, when Republicans spent 8 years opposing Obama and sometimes even attacking him personally, it was just a ploy to cover their intellectual affinity.


It's also the case on a more individual level that they don't have a second Barack Obama waiting to jump in at the last minute. Do you know how Donald Trump got elected? By being utterly obnoxious. The man paints himself as direct, somewhat verbally crass, yet with a generous dose of arrogance. Unlike most politicians, you cannot knock him off his moral pedestal because he never bothered climbing in the first place. There is no insult that has not been thrown in his face and it's not the 1 000 000th that will make a difference. Outside of the fairytale and rainbow gumdrops land where everyone is a committed leftist pitching softball questions to Democratic candidates, real contentious issues will be raised and the guy in front of them will be this huge pig that will make a point of rolling himself and everyone else with crap.

Do you imagine Sloppy Joe in front of that steam roller? I don't.