Baylor is a prime example of what was happening at many Universities prior to the Obama Administration’s updates. Unless the campuses are forced to do something, they will be understaffed and underfunded and abuses can and will occur.
Simply rolling back the changes will be worse than keeping them, but there really should be a better middle ground. Will DeVos be able to get there?
I’m not confident, but I would like to see it.
I don’t think what was going on at Baylor was “normal” by any means though. In fact I believe the problem there was the admin knew about the problems but for athletic reasons ignored or hid the problem.
I think Baylor also had the basketball coach who slandered a murdered student because he suspected one of his other players was involved.
It was normal in that they didn’t have a process, or people to really do it, and those people were bypassed in order to keep it quiet, and the female students were put at significant risk because of it (which has happened at Universities all over the country, though Baylor is definitely an extreme case).
But state funded universities aren’t the same as business. They are much closer to the government, and as such, I think it is reasonable that they follow constitutional guarantee. Does expelling a student “deprive [a person] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” I think you can make a reasonable case but IANAL.
Emily Yoffee (aka Miss Prudence) has a very comprehensive series article about the topic in the Atlantic. It talks about many of the same case Sec. DeVoss mentioned. Part 2 is here.
Right, and state funded universities do have due process. But due process for universities is not the same as due process in a criminal trial. It’s more like due process when applying for a liquor license or a security clearance: there is a set of written policies, an administrator who applies them, and a supervisor who could potentially overrule the administrator.
Due process doesn’t mean that it’s easy to obtain a security clearance; the process could be tilted against success even for seemingly trivial reasons. Likewise, avoiding expulsion after an accusation of sexual assault could certainly be an uphill struggle and still be constitutional. Needless to say, you don’t have a right to a security clearance. Neither is there a right to a college education at State U.
Except we’re talking about crimes in a lot of cases.
You seem awful in favor of ruining someone’s life without evidence. Not sure what it’s like where you work, but most places don’t presume guilt out of the gate. They usually investigate and keep on eye on things at the very least.
And the “set of written policies” barely or doesn’t exist. That’s why Obama wrote the letter in the first place: to make universities actually try. Problem is they decided star chambers were the answer.
Also “due process” literally means fair treatment in the judicial system, so using it to refer to licences is flat out wrong on top of making the water muddier than it needs to be.
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Protecting-Due-Process-in/241137
And Fire is usually the best on these things.
Most institutions have one set of standards for adjudicating charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other charges.
Nearly three-quarters (73.6%) of America’s top 53 universities do not even guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Fewer than half of schools (47.2%) require that fact-finders—the institution’s version of judge and/or jury—be impartial.
Yes, but a criminal trial is not the only consequence of a crime. There are also civil repercussions, (e.g. the OJ Simpson civil lawsuit). Presumption of innocence only applies in the actual criminal trial. In civil suits as well as other actions (e.g. expulsion, firing) there is no such protection. Getting around those protections was the whole reason for the Simpson civil lawsuit.
Due process means you are entitled to an administrative hearing, but not necessarily a judicial trial.
An accusation by a witness is evidence. Even though it might not be sufficient to imprison someone, it is sufficient basis for other actions.
Getting expelled from college may seem “ruinous” to you, but it is no worse than getting fired, losing a security clearance, or any number of other events that we accept with similar standards of evidence. Often, the student can simply re-apply to a different school (the circumstances leading to expulsion are typically not on the transcript).
I also think it’s hypocritical that we want to protect students once there is evidence of a crime, yet when the same occurs to state workers we refuse to wait for even an administrative hearing and complain about “paid holidays” before they get fired.
Security clearance is a reasonable comparison. Doing a bit of googling, it appears that DOD publishes security clearance investigation results, has a clearly defined process and Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals (DOHA) Board which you can appeal to if you are denied a clearance or have one revoked.
Most universities have nothing resembling this, much less a clearly defined appeal’s process.
Even the Washington Post is weighing on Betsy side.
and liberal columnist.
This is hard to believe. Some minimal Googling found a defined appeal process for the first three universities that turned up, and they don’t look particularly exceptional. All three had a lengthy description of the entire disciplinary process.
And the WaPo article does not complain that the policies are obscure or not subject to appeal. It complains that the policies affect people for things that are out of their control, e.g. “even if the person accused had no way of knowing it was unwanted”. The obvious response: you should ask before doing anything potentially unwanted, and wait for an answer. By now, any student should know better.
Regardless, in the real world you can lose your security clearance solely because of the actions of your spouse. You can lose your job if a customer/client is angry with you even if it’s entirely their own fault. It’s simply a fact of life that you cannot control everything that happens to you, and sometimes you need to walk away or you will be shown the door.
From the “Everyone’s a little too oversensitive and quick to take offense” department.
Atlanta Braves offer hundreds of free tickets to Braves-Marlins games to Florida residents who are sheltering in Atlanta area, then get called out on social media for playing Scorpions “Rock You Like A Hurricane” between two innings.
I mean, first of all it’s a common stadium tune to begin with, but even if it was played as a good-natured dig towards the Marlins that’s part of sports at any high school, college or pro level, and no malice towards anyone in the stands was intended. Lighten up Francis!
Do you have that in writing? Did she drink a beer? Then it was probably rape. Did she want to at the time but change her mind later? Retroactive rape.
Basically you seem to come down to : “never have sex with anyone” as a valid defense. Which… sure whatever. Though someone could just accuse you anyway if they didn’t like you since you’re assumed guilty and evidence isn’t a factor.
Remember, all of this started because of a directive from the government. Now they’re just rescinding that directive more or less. You’re acting like it’s some noble thing to have your life ruined because someone decided it should happen. If you get fired for a something not your fault a lot of places you can actually take them to court or at the very least you get compensation via unemployment and the like.
But obviously we don’t see eye to eye on it. You don’t think randomly having you life ruined by someone with no recourse is a big deal, even though it wouldn’t happen anywhere else. So we’ll just move on.
Wtf, people are going to die or lose everything they have due to this hurricane. Good-natured?
“Never have sex with a coworker” is sometimes reasonable advice. “Never have sex with a co-student” would be reasonable under similar circumstances. I know, hard to fathom right? What’s the point of college if you can’t have sex with the people who you study with? But that’s precisely the root of the problem.
Sure, and someone could just falsely accuse you of pulling a gun on him and taking his wallet. That happens to students all the time, right? No, that’s ridiculous. Only women routinely file false charges, right?
It’s a noble thing to reduce sexual assaults on campus, which is a serious, documented problem.
I am less concerned about the problems you raise, which range from hypothetical to anecdotal.
You can take anyone to court. Even a university that expelled you. Doesn’t mean you will prevail.
I’m not sure we are from the same planet at this point.
You could and then they’d call the police and the police would investigate it. Like you know, all other crimes. But not these crimes.
Anyway, whatever, we aren’t remotely going to see eye to eye on it. The disconnect is too great, so take care.
You seem to think that for all other crimes, you need to be found guilty before you can be sanctioned by a university or employer. But that’s not true at all. If you’re accused of skimming cash from the register, you could be fired on the spot. Even if nobody calls the police.
So how does that work? How is it that women are constantly accusing people of nonexistent rapes, but not accusing people of other nonexistent crimes? Or is that the next great injustice?
Tangental:
Again, poor taste, probably, malicious, absolutely not. As the Braves stadium management explained in their apology, the song is part of the stadium music rotation on a regular basis, and I’d be inclined to take them at their word. Given that the Braves were already extending the small token of free tickets to displaced residents, I seriously doubt the intent was to insult or offend those same people.
Yeah, it’s just part of their normal stadium song rotation. I guarantee you not a single employee even thought to look over the setlist for possible offenders.
I think it was an accident really. Just saying if it wasn’t then it’s hardly good-natured. That’d be a pretty shitty thing to do.