ACLU Sells Out

Last edited:
Bob001 said:
A university is a voluntary membership organization. Nobody is required to join, and nobody is entitled to join. It's not unreasonable for the university to establish and enforce minimum codes of conduct for membership, and "You can't assault other students anyplace, anytime" doesn't seem like a wildly unreasonable standard.
Click to expand...

First off, these rules only apply to universities that take federal funding. The fact that federal funds are involved is what gives taxpayers a say in what such schools do. Don't want any federal strings? Don't take federal money.

But in this case, schools are actually still free to do exactly that, if they so choose. The only change here is that the government isn't going to force universities to police student conduct outside of school. Because, again, why should they? Your response may suffice as a reason why they might choose to do so (which they still can), but it doesn't satisfy the question of why they must do so.
 
Bob001 said:
If you really think that's what's happening in colleges, you are woefully misinformed. If you decide to educate yourself, you might start here.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/1...suit-psychology.html?via=homepage_taps_bottom
Click to expand...

Umm... you realize that your link is about sexual harassment of students by professors, and not by fellow students, right? Tell me one change in these regulations that would have had any substantive impact on the events described in your links.
 
thaiboxerken said:
We have to protect college mens' right to rape women. [/Republican]
Click to expand...

excellent example of the pervasive guilty until proven innocent mentality that infects the leftists nowadays.

Oh dear, can you imagine giving the accused basic due process rights?
 
There was a false accusation against a guy in a college, therefore all accusations should be treated as false accusations. [/Republicans]
 
The rape culture needs protection, we'll use the presumption of innocence as justification to denigrate the victims of rape to do so......
 
How will rapers get to be Supreme Court Justices if we actually investigate accusations? DeVos knows that can't happen, so she's going to make it easy to denigrate rape victims.
 
thaiboxerken said:
How will rapers get to be Supreme Court Justices if we actually investigate accusations? DeVos knows that can't happen, so she's going to make it easy to denigrate rape victims.
Click to expand...

Let's be absolutely honest here - it has ALWAYS been easy to denigrate rape victims.

If it weren't there would not be the fear of reporting the offence, the ease with which defence counsel (and practically everyone else) go after the victim (what was she wearing, how much did she have to drink, had she ever had sexual relations outside of marriage, did she pay for the polygraph, etc.) and so very often look to exonerate the alleged offender (how will these accusations affect his ability to carry on for the swim team- he's an Olympic quality athlete, she must have wanted it or she wouldn't have led him on, maybe she liked it rough, etc.).

Sexual assault isn't treated like any other offence. No one would bat an eye if the name of an alleged fraudster was published, no one cares if a student gets into a fight at the local pub, yet everyone tends to be up in arms about protecting the alleged rapist from false allegations to the point where "beyond a reasonable doubt" becomes "beyond all doubt, even the accused's mother". And it's the only one where the victim of the offence is often put through a more stressful interrogation than the accused.
 
The ACLU is so left-leaning, who is surprised that they have a femi-nazi attitude too? "Pinko" in more ways than one. :D
 
Border Reiver said:
...And it's the only one where the victim of the offence is often put through a more stressful interrogation than the accused.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I agree. If a person is mugged, that person is asked about their well being, who the perpetrator was and how can justice be served.

If a woman is sexually assaulted or raped, she is asked what she was wearing, why did she put herself in that situation and if she is just having remorse for having sex. Women are often called sluts and whores when they report sexual misconduct.
 
Being involved in campus law enforcement, we get annual training on “Title IX” and it’s very complex and difficult to keep track of.
There are complex designations about what constitutes “on campus” and “off campus” that are very much open to interpretation.
Much of this does not concern law enforcement directly but rather the responsibility of various administrators who become aware of sexual assaults and similar crimes to actually report them.
This is, you may recall what got Joe Paterno in trouble....

Many of these cases do not get reported directly to law enforcement.... Students often preferring to go through various administrative offices and such. In truth, they are often very difficult cases to make.
I recall one from years ago where the young woman said....”He got me drunk and raped me.” The young man involved said “we got drunk together and had consensual sex.”

No witnesses, no evidence (he admitted sex....)
The prosecutor took the case “Under advisement”. (Prosecutor term for “find me some more evidence”)
For years, institutions (including the one I work for) have systematically under-reported such cases or handled them “administratively” or not at all.
The incidence of sex crimes associated with college life is quite high, and much of this was very carefully kept under wraps.
Title IX sought to address this situation by requiring official reporting and increasing the responsibility of administrators to do so.
Although this action by the current administration may be seen by some as a step towards “fairness”, I think one must deal with the many years of such cases being merely swept under the carpet, and the fact that victims often saw the futility of trying to report such crimes.
 
So the main complaint of the right wing nutbars is that the ACLU thinks standards used for criminal proceedings are not appropriate for these non-criminal proceedings. I guess that’s the type of idiocy you can expect from people who get their opinions fed to them by partisan op-eds.
 
lomiller said:
So the main complaint of the right wing nutbars is that the ACLU thinks standards used for criminal proceedings are not appropriate for these non-criminal proceedings. I guess that’s the type of idiocy you can expect from people who get their opinions fed to them by partisan op-eds.
Click to expand...

Yet more cluelessness.

No. The standards the Dept. of Ed. is now requiring are not criminal proceeding standards. But even civil proceedings still have standards. For example, the requirement to allow cross-examination is not peculiar to criminal cases, and it's simply stunning that the left objects to such basic due process.

It's rather telling that nobody complaining about this change actually talks about the specifics. It's all just unspecific doomsaying and attacks on alleged motives. I guess it's like that old saying: if the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.
 
There aren't very many organizations out there that should make you reassess your own views if you ever find yourself on the other side of an issue from them. The ACLU is one.
 
Bikewer said:
Although this action by the current administration may be seen by some as a step towards “fairness”
Click to expand...

It's not just seen as a step towards fairness, it is a step towards fairness.

Seriously, who actually thinks it's a good idea to not allow cross examination? Who thinks it's a good idea to not let the accused have representation? Who thinks it's a good idea to use a single investigator model?
 
lomiller said:
So the main complaint of the right wing nutbars is that the ACLU thinks standards used for criminal proceedings are not appropriate for these non-criminal proceedings. I guess that’s the type of idiocy you can expect from people who get their opinions fed to them by partisan op-eds.
Click to expand...

Isn't sexual assault a crime? Shouldn't the police handle these cases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom