Title IX sex-assault rules changes being proposed

Donate To GopherHole


Gophers_4life said:
Not sure why you're making this up? I highly doubt the EOAA has only existed since 2011.
Click to expand...

How it is implemented is by virtue of following the guidance of the "Dear Colleague" letter issued by each administration which gives guidelines with the unstated threat that failure to follow will result in fed funds being taken away. The current mess with Title IX absolutely resides with the guidance given by Obama's admin.
 

csom_1991 said:
How it is implemented is by virtue of following the guidance of the "Dear Colleague" letter issued by each administration which gives guidelines with the unstated threat that failure to follow will result in fed funds being taken away. The current mess with Title IX absolutely resides with the guidance given by Obama's admin.
Click to expand...

Very much doubt you're even close to being correct. Would need to see something substantiating this, not going to take your word for it.

Also, just because a U hearing doesn't hold the criminal (reasonable doubt) evidentiary standard, doesn't make it a kangaroo court. Not even close.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Very much doubt you're even close to being correct. Would need to see something substantiating this, not going to take your word for it.

Also, just because a U hearing doesn't hold the criminal (reasonable doubt) evidentiary standard, doesn't make it a kangaroo court. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Does the Washington Post work for you:

"On April 4, 2011, the same day that President Obama formally announced his reelection bid, his Education Department, with no advance notice, reinterpreted Title IX as giving the federal government authority to dictate the specific procedures that colleges must use to adjudicate student-on-student sexual assault allegations.

This “Dear Colleague” letter, issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), told all of the more than 7,000 colleges that receive federal money to use the lowest possible standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence, in sexual assault cases (though not in less serious matters such as cheating and noise violations). The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-letter/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.98fd171720ab
 


csom_1991 said:
Does the Washington Post work for you:

"On April 4, 2011, the same day that President Obama formally announced his reelection bid, his Education Department, with no advance notice, reinterpreted Title IX as giving the federal government authority to dictate the specific procedures that colleges must use to adjudicate student-on-student sexual assault allegations.

This “Dear Colleague” letter, issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), told all of the more than 7,000 colleges that receive federal money to use the lowest possible standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence, in sexual assault cases (though not in less serious matters such as cheating and noise violations). The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-letter/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.98fd171720ab
Click to expand...

Hat's off to you. You just crushed it. Apologies, and thanks. I was wrong!
 


Like I've said the whole time --- if it's just academic probation or something like that, then the preponderance standard is fine. Get it through the system quick, and be done with it.

For more serious consequences, like suspension, expulsion, and permanent markings on the transcript, I'm open to a discussion of upgrading the standard.
 


I still like this quote from her in 11/18 explaining why changes are needed. I can still picture @Cruze telling her the accused already have due process.....

"The proposed rule would require schools to apply basic due process protections for students, including a presumption of innocence throughout the grievance process; written notice of allegations and an equal opportunity to review all evidence collected; and the right to cross-examination, subject to 'rape shield' protections.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom