ACLU Sells Out

[Ziggurat]

Isn't sexual assault a crime? Shouldn't the police handle these cases?

Yes and yes. But title IX also covers non-criminal sexual harassment. So the real problem with his argument is that an issue being non-criminal isn't an excuse to abandon all concepts of due process.

 

[Belz...]

Yes and yes. But title IX also covers non-criminal sexual harassment. So the real problem with his argument is that an issue being non-criminal isn't an excuse to abandon all concepts of due process.

Sounds reasonable. Who's the "he" in your post, though?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds reasonable. Who's the "he" in your post, though?

lomiller, since that's who you were quoting. I'm assuming gender, zhe can get mad at me if I guessed wrong.

 

[lomiller]

Yet more cluelessness.

These are not legal proceedings at all, so shelve what you’ve “learned” form your partisan hack op-eds and stop demanding that they should be treated as such.

 

[Belz...]

lomiller, since that's who you were quoting. I'm assuming gender, zhe can get mad at me if I guessed wrong.

That's what I thought but with all the discussions going on I wanted to make sure.

 

[lomiller]

Isn't sexual assault a crime? Shouldn't the police handle these cases?

Some of them should, but by definition these are cases not reported to the police and therefore not being investigated criminally. The rules are not intended to be a substitute for criminal changes and should not be treated as such.

When it receives a complain the university needs a fair system to:
a) Decide if it’s something they need to refer to the police
b) Resolve the resulting conflict between students whether criminal charges are placed or not.

 

[Belz...]

Some of them should, but by definition these are cases not reported to the police and therefore not being investigated criminally. The rules are not intended to be a substitute for criminal changes and should not be treated as such.

When it receives a complain the university needs a fair system to:
a) Decide if it’s something they need to refer to the police
b) Resolve the resulting conflict between students whether criminal charges are placed or not.

And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.

The issue is that I don't think it's a good idea to move this sort of thing down to a process with a less stringent standard until you get the result you want. Encourage people to report to the police, and let them handle these. If it's not a crime, then it's different, but some sort of due process should be respected anyway.

 

[lomiller]

And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.

Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.

 

[The Big Dog]

Notably, the changes to the Regs were driven in part by court opinions holding that the existing procedures were unconstitutional.

See for example this opinion https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/16-4693/16-4693-2017-09-25.html

“The Due Process Clause guarantees fundamental fairness to state university students facing long-term exclusion from the educational process. The Committee necessarily made a credibility determination and its failure to provide any form of confrontation of the accuser made the proceeding fundamentally unfair.”

It is a disgrace that the ACLU has totally abandoned promoting Constitutional safeguards designed to protect against governmental overreaching.

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.

Rule of So!

The opinion of the Sixth Circuit ain't an op-ed.

So grossly wrong and deliberately false

 

[Ziggurat]

Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.

Finally, you're actually talking about the rules. But you still can't get it right. Schools are still allowed to use the preponderance of evidence standard.

 

[Belz...]

Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.

Did you read my post before you replied to it? I didn't say the standard is a lynch mob.

 

[lomiller]

Finally, you're actually talking about the rules. But you still can't get it right. Schools are still allowed to use the preponderance of evidence standard.

You were the one bitching about this yesterday before you even found out what the ACLU’s position actually was. How in hell could there be any serious discussion reached before that, yet you right-wing wack-a-doodles were doing so anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

You were the one bitching about this yesterday before you even found out what the ACLU’s position actually was. How in hell could there be any serious discussion reached before that, yet you right-wing wack-a-doodles were doing so anyway.

The consistency of your errors is impressive. I was talking about the ACLU's actual position three days ago.

 

[lomiller]

Did you read my post before you replied to it? I didn't say the standard is a lynch mob.

I’m just responding to what you wrote.

And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.

The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively. The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.

 

[crescent]

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.

This is pretty well spot on.

There is potential to actively investigate accusations, and act appropriately. Apply criminal charges if needed, or use civil-court standards of evidence if criminal charges are not warranted. Report information, be transparent. Take accusations made by victims seriously, but allow the accused some manner of ability to defend themselves relevant to the legal action against them.

But somehow we never get there - there is a broad middle path that neither political party seems to want to walk on.

The "Dear Colleague" letter and the way its recommendations and requirements were implemented was problematic - Emily Yoffe hit that pretty well in a series of articles in Slate, starting with "The College Rape Overcorrection".

But now we have this new policy, which is also problematic in the other direction. The idea that harassment is not harassment unless it prevents the student from getting an education is far too high of a standard. Some very minor administrative actions (such as being moved to a different dormitory, or having ones' class schedule rearranged while still taking the same subjects) may not require the accused to know much about who or what they are accused of.

We have overcorrected in the other direction this time.

 

[Belz...]

I’m just responding to what you wrote.


The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively. The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.

You're clearly not responding to what I wrote. I didn't say that the standard is a lynch mob. Even if you don't read my post for context, I am clearly saying that the lynch mob is if you don't get the desired result from that standard. It's a bit ridiculous when it's literally what's written in my post.

The point, since I have to spell it out, is that going for a lesser standard because the correct standard doesn't always work is a recipe for abuse.

 

[lomiller]

I was talking about the ACLU's actual position three days ago.

Except you didn’t start posting there, you started before the ACLU's position was actually given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12505153&postcount=7

The posts you made subsequent to the actual ACLU statement are still nonsense

 

[Ziggurat]

The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively.

No, actually, it doesn't. The single investigator model, the inability to cross examine accusers, depriving defendants of counsel, all of these things prevent looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively.

The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.

This is a very peculiar argument. If someone is actually a rapist, what should happen to them? They should be put in jail. Jail is how you protect people from rapists. Since even college student rapists don't generally rape their victims in classrooms, merely keeping them out of classrooms falls so far short of protecting anyone from rape it's laughable. And of course, nothing schools can do protects non-students from the risk of a rapist. Jail, on the other hand, does that. For rape, the proper remedy must be the criminal justice system. Trying to rely on schools as a substitute for criminal justice is destined to fail, no matter what standards you want to use.

And once again, since you STILL haven't clued in yet, the new rules still allow schools to use the preponderance of evidence standard.

 

[The Big Dog]

We have reached the point where letting the accused know what they are accused of is an overcorrection.

Wow

 

[Ziggurat]

Except you didn’t start posting there, you started before the ACLU's position was actually given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12505153&postcount=7

The posts you made subsequent to the actual ACLU statement are still nonsense

And you fail again. Let's do a little reading comprehension exercise:

Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused, I think it should be pretty obvious the ACLU would oppose them.

Perhaps. But they don't.

What do you think the "they" in my post refers to? Grammatically, there's some ambiguity here, but in context it's not hard to figure out. Does it refer to the ACLU? No, that wouldn't make any sense. The only "don't" that would go along with that is the ACLU don't oppose the regulations. But the ACLU does oppose the new regulations, that was made clear in the opening post and no one has since suggested otherwise. So me saying that the ACLU doesn't oppose the regulations would be nonsensical in context, regardless of why the ACLU opposed them.

No, the "they" in my post refers to the regulations. What do they not do? They do not inappropriately favor the accused. Do I need to know anything about the ACLU's position in order to conclude that? No, I do not. I need only know about the regulations themselves.

You're still batting 1000.