Biden administration preps new rules covering sexual misconduct at schools, colleges

annierosewood · 2022-03-16T03:13:42+00:00

Ok great. Believe victims. Cool cool cool. So what you're saying, Mr President, is that Tara Reade is telling the truth?

MRA_TitleIX · 2022-03-16T15:22:35+00:00

have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations.

Universities absolutely do this and regardless of political grand-standing of the executive branch, (real) courts have shown this is the case MANY times. In Doe v. Purdue University (No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019)), the court even allowed the financial pressure of the schools to find men guilty as supportive of what was otherwise only circumstantial evidence of discrimination. In that case they falsely told the committee that the accused confessed and prevented him from providing *any* witnesses. OCR is so far off the rails that they even released a guidance document that clearly stated they allow the preference of the included class as a justification for discrimination. Imagine if courts allowed the preference of white students to be used by schools to justify segregation.

The agency is so far off the path beaten down by case law in courts that they have upended Brown v. Board as a matter of policy. We can't possibly accept a prima-facie assessment that this agency can ever properly oversee these kangaroo courts. It is a massive overstep by the executive branch that these "courts" even exists. Their whole premise is built on the idea that the executive doesn't think real courts are capable of doing their job, and that should scare the shit out of everyone.

on the side of those accused rather than the victims

How is this statement not political suicide? Courts should favor the accused in all aspects, that is the point of assuming innocence until proven guilty. How far off the rails of justice have we gone that people even consider making this statement?

Take a look at legaldictionary's definition of a kangaroo court. Below is a list of rights that kangaroo courts commonly violate, I put the one's that these Title IX "courts" currently violate in bold.

The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty
The right to be involved in, and to control, one’s own defense
The right to hear a full and detailed statement of the charges filed against the accused
The right to omit evidence that is irrelevant or inadmissible
The right to cross-examine or summon witnesses
The right not to incriminate oneself
The right to be provided enough time and resources to prepare a proper defense to one’s charges
The right to introduce evidence that supports the acquittal of the accused
The right to appeal a conviction
The right to have a stenographic record created of any trial proceedings

Let's break down why these are being violated. The following numbers correspond to those above.

The school (aka the "court") has a liability interest in finding the accused guilty.
OCR says "If a party does not have an advisor present at the live hearing, the school must provide, without fee or charge to that party, an advisor of the school’s choice who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney to conduct cross examination on behalf of that party." So if you can't afford council, the school can appoint you some random non-attorney that they think will be favorable to their desired outcome. There doesn't appear to be any time considerations for when this happens. So the "advisor" might be appointed the day before for the defense while the accuser has had one from day one in order to tip the trial in the direction the school wants. Real courts typically select a public defender based on case type (is it in their area of law?), and court (is this where they work?), then choose randomly from the pool.
Due to lack of oversight or significant penalties schools will not provide detailed charges in an attempt to limit the defense. There is effectively no repercussions if the school does this. OCR doesn't enforce this.
According to [PDF WARNING] this paper, this point is violated in many ways. First, it violates the rights of the accuser. "Unlike the criminal rape shield, the Title IX rape shield eliminates protection for the sexual history of other victims of sexual misconduct by the respondent and even requires the school to disclose the complainant’s protected sexual history information to the respondent prior to the hearing." Regardless of if people agree with criminal rape shield laws, the school is out of line with what real courts have determined to be needed, which is a huge red flag. Also, "the normal approach in school hearings and administrative hearings is to focus on weight rather than admissibility" which limits everyone's ability to limit evidence that shouldn't be admissible. There is a reason real courts don't operate like this. The paper concludes "the new regulations’ evidentiary approach for resolving formal Title IX complaints does not offer fairness to the parties, and complainants should not assume that filing formal Title IX complaints serves their interests."
This is violated in a bunch of ways. Trump administration forced schools to only rely on statements subject to live cross examination, and required that cross examination be allowed. Courts ruled that a complete ban was unreasonable. OCR took it a step further and stated they won't enforce the cross-examination requirement regardless of it is live or not. While the criminal justice system does not require rape victims to undergo live cross-examination, OCR takes it a step further in that cross-examination (live or otherwise) it isn't required for anyone. Schools are allowed to choose to allow some or all cross-examinations. For "court" that has a conflict of interest, this is a dangerous.
Since this isn't a real court, perception is everything. Staying silent is seen as guilt. The statements made in the hearing are admissible in criminal court. Even if the accused did nothing wrong, attorneys will typically tell you to "shut the fuck up" but in school "courts" this hurts the case.
A criminal rape trial can last 8-12 months. A school's is usually within a semester. A FOIA request for documents from the school can take longer than that. See next point for more detail. Recalling (2), the school might not appoint you with an "advisor" in time to adequately prep for cross-examination. Additionally, schools will publish a list of procedures and rights as required by 34 CFR 106. However, if the school grants "rights" that aren't required, there is little-to-no enforcement for breaking them. This means they can choose when to apply some rights and to who. I had a discrimination complaint I filed dismissed because the school didn't violate rights that OCR specifically requires, the school only violated rights that they weren't required to give (but they did state them as rights). This allows asymmetric application of privileges depending on how the school wants to tip the case.
The school does not have subpoena powers to obtain evidence, for the obvious reason that it isn't a real court. Similarly, the legal rights of parties involved are significantly neutered in obtaining evidence since, again, this isn't a real court, and these are not real legal professionals.

To summarize, there are significant deviations from procedures real courts deem necessary. OCR is a political agency (it technically is) and chooses what to enforce and when. A state bar will disbar people for severe violations of procedure and misconduct. OCR does not do this. The rules, regs, and rights are only suggestions unless the school ruled in a way that the political body of OCR didn't want them to, then they become requirements. There is a reason we have branches of government, and this is a perverted overstep of the executive branch into the judicial which should have everyone terrified.

School "courts" can't be fixed, they are fundamentally broken by failing to separate the powers of the government. It isn't a new lesson. The executive is intent on getting the public to think any issue other than it's overstep into judge, jury, and executioner is the problem.

AirSailer · 2022-03-16T03:19:27+00:00

There needs to be a serious effort by the MRAs in the US to educate male students on the danger the system, and women, pose to them. Obviously neither society nor school admins nor the government will look out for them, somebody has to.

Angryasfk · 2022-03-16T15:55:10+00:00

I take it no one is surprised about this. Reappointing the Lhamon woman, especially given the rejection by the Republican members of the committee shows exactly where Biden and co stand on this.

OldEgalitarianMRA · 2022-03-16T16:21:41+00:00

The end of the article was to the point:

Cohn said he hopes that the new regulations will constitute modest changes.
“We’re happy to work with this administration if they’re really serious about having a policy that respects the rights of all students,” he said. “We hope they go that route instead of deciding to just play ping pong with Title IX policy.”

I think it will be ping pong and as MRA's we have to keep this issue alive. The protection to due process while male is too important. Generations will be taught that a woman's word without evidence can imprison a man and that is a dangerous lesson.

Fast-Mongoose-4989 · 2022-03-16T17:54:06+00:00

This will case a lot of problems.

Title	Biden administration preps new rules covering sexual misconduct at schools, colleges
Author	Heavy_Grand2526
Upvotes	52
Comments	16
Date	March 16, 2022 1:51 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tf6dka/biden_administration_preps_new_rules_covering/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/biden-administration-preps-new-rules-covering.1210494 https://theredarchive.com/post/1210494

Comments