Title IX sex-assault rules changes being proposed

Donate To GopherHole


It is interesting how this plays out politically in the sense that the original rules were actually quite vague outside of "you should address these things".

None of the original rules said anything about things about specifically how to handle cases, Universities just ran amock on their own with secret appeals, not notifying the accused, and so forth. That's on the schools 100%.

For some folks this was terrible government overreach and so forth.

The response? The feds now will provide even more rules...

Nobody likes government until they get to make the rules, then man they like government!
 

I distinctly heard a ruckus!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Based on the following New York Times article the new rules are going to change very little about the U's student code of conduct procedures for handling investigations, hearings, and appeals.


New U.S. Sexual Misconduct Rules Bolster Rights of Accused and Protect Colleges

The department’s proposal would preserve much of the law that protects against sex discrimination, called Title IX, which for the past two decades has extended beyond gender-specific discrimination to include sexual misconduct as a form of denying students access to an education. But for what appears to be the first time, the federal government would go beyond guidance and recommendations to codify how it defines sexual harassment in the nation’s schools and the steps institutions are legally required to take to address it.

The new regulations cement some of the most debated policy positions in the interim guidance, such as allowing schools to choose the evidentiary standard — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence — to apply in determining whether accused students are responsible for alleged misconduct. They also leave it to schools to decide whether to have an appeals process.

The proposed regulations do not define what constitutes a “hostile environment” for victims as previous guidance did, but does allow a school to remove an accused person from campus after conducting a safety and risk assessment.

Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html
 
Last edited:


Cruze said:
Based on this New York Times article the new rules are going to change very little about how the U handles sexual harassment and assault cases:


The department’s proposal would preserve much of the law that protects against sex discrimination, called Title IX, which for the past two decades has extended beyond gender-specific discrimination to include sexual misconduct as a form of denying students access to an education. But for what appears to be the first time, the federal government would go beyond guidance and recommendations to codify how it defines sexual harassment in the nation’s schools and the steps institutions are legally required to take to address it.

The new regulations cement some of the most debated policy positions in the interim guidance, such as allowing schools to choose the evidentiary standard — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence — to apply in determining whether accused students are responsible for alleged misconduct. They also leave it to schools to decide whether to have an appeals process.

The proposed regulations do not define what constitutes a “hostile environment” for victims as previous guidance did, but does allow a school to remove an accused person from campus after conducting a safety and risk assessment.

Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html
Click to expand...

This is a significant change. Most of the changes seems like common sense ways to promote a more fair process but this will certainly anger the “I just know” crowd. As always, the devil is in the details.

The regulations go to great lengths to require impartiality in investigations. They call on schools to conduct objective investigations and provide “prompt and equitable” resolutions. And, for the first time, the administration explicitly says that just as an institution’s treatment of a complainant could constitute sex discrimination, so would the treatment of the accused.

The regulations require that schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty.
 

If the penalty is just probation, perhaps for a first time or for a less serious allegation, I'm fine if the U (and other schools) want to go with the lowest evidentiary standard.

If we're talking expulsion or any serious penalty that might affect future employment options (things being marked on transcripts or official records), then I think ratcheting up the evidentiary standard makes sense.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The regulations require that schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty.
Click to expand...

They always do. It's the evidentary standard for proving guilt that is the issue.
 





Cruze said:
Based on the following New York Times article the new rules are going to change very little about the U's student code of conduct procedures for handling investigations, hearings, and appeals.


New U.S. Sexual Misconduct Rules Bolster Rights of Accused and Protect Colleges

The department’s proposal would preserve much of the law that protects against sex discrimination, called Title IX, which for the past two decades has extended beyond gender-specific discrimination to include sexual misconduct as a form of denying students access to an education. But for what appears to be the first time, the federal government would go beyond guidance and recommendations to codify how it defines sexual harassment in the nation’s schools and the steps institutions are legally required to take to address it.

The new regulations cement some of the most debated policy positions in the interim guidance, such as allowing schools to choose the evidentiary standard — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence — to apply in determining whether accused students are responsible for alleged misconduct. They also leave it to schools to decide whether to have an appeals process.

The proposed regulations do not define what constitutes a “hostile environment” for victims as previous guidance did, but does allow a school to remove an accused person from campus after conducting a safety and risk assessment.

Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html
Click to expand...

Remember when you were banned on another moniker for posting about this topic? You were posting under this moniker and UNN. Maybe you should stop before this moniker gets banned.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
This is a significant change. Most of the changes seems like common sense ways to promote a more fair process but this will certainly anger the “I just know” crowd. As always, the devil is in the details.

The regulations go to great lengths to require impartiality in investigations. They call on schools to conduct objective investigations and provide “prompt and equitable” resolutions. And, for the first time, the administration explicitly says that just as an institution’s treatment of a complainant could constitute sex discrimination, so would the treatment of the accused.

The regulations require that schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty.
Click to expand...

The new rules will only be a significant change for schools that are not already doing what the U does in handling student code of conduct cases including those involving sexual harassment and assault (probably all of the SEC schools). The available evidence indicates that the U's procedures are among the most stringent in the country for protecting the rights of accused students. The U already substantially complies with the new rules.

The only thing that might have to change significantly are the new cross examination requirements. The U's hearing procedures state only that the accused have the right to "be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being)."

One of the things that apparently is not changed by the new rules is the role of the EOAA. They will still be handling the investigations for sexual harassment and assault cases. They will not be going away.
 
Last edited:

Cruze said:
The new rules will only be a significant change for schools that are not already doing what the U does in handling student code of conduct cases including those involving sexual harassment and assault. (probably all of the SEC schools). The available evidence indicates that the U's procedures are among the most stringent in the country for protecting the rights of accused students. The U already substantially complies with the new rules.

The only thing that might have to change significantly are the new cross examination requirements. The U's hearing procedures state only that the accused have the right to "be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being)."

One of the things that apparently is not changed by the new rules is the role of the EOAA. They will still be handling the investigations for sexual harassment and assault cases. They will not be going away.
Click to expand...

How is this not a significant change to the overall process? I don't think most people want to see the EOAA go away. But many people just want the process to be more fair to all those involved.
 



Gophers_4life said:
Any time you want to actually think of a counter-argument, we'll be here. Until then, you couldn't think of one.
Click to expand...

I’m not responsible for educating you. You clearly are without a clue when it comes to this issue. Plenty of material out there.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I’m not responsible for educating you. You clearly are without a clue when it comes to this issue. Plenty of material out there.
Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise, you couldn’t think of a counter-argument and are just stammering as an excuse.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Until proven otherwise, you couldn’t think of a counter-argument and are just stammering as an excuse.
Click to expand...

How about this: why would there be impetus for the rules to change? Did this come out of left field? You can’t think of a single reason a less biased process may be in the best interests of all students?

Is this solely a political grandstanding moment?

Explain yourself. Many of us have been here awhile and have see how impartial the EOAA has been to the team.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
How about this: why would there be impetus for the rules to change? Did this come out of left field? You can’t think of a single reason a less biased process may be in the best interests of all students?

Is this solely a political grandstanding moment?

Explain yourself. Many of us have been here awhile and have see how impartial the EOAA has been to the team.
Click to expand...

Couple things:

i) of course it's a political stunt and virtue signalling to conservatives ... it's DeVos doing it. Same thing as Pruitt in the EPA.

ii) it's silly. How do you prove that the schools were NOT approaching the cases under the assumption that the accused was innocent?? Do you have texts, emails, recorded phone calls??

And when it's codified .... how do you prove the schools ARE doing it?


Of course they were and are doing that. People get mad at the outcomes, because they're using the wrong evidentiary standard (reasonable doubt).
 


Gophers_4life said:
Couple things:

i) of course it's a political stunt and virtue signalling to conservatives ... it's DeVos doing it. Same thing as Pruitt in the EPA.

ii) it's silly. How do you prove that the schools were NOT approaching the cases under the assumption that the accused was innocent?? Do you have texts, emails, recorded phone calls??

And when it's codified .... how do you prove the schools ARE doing it?


Of course they were and are doing that. People get mad at the outcomes, because they're using the wrong evidentiary standard (reasonable doubt).
Click to expand...

When it's codified, it's the law. So if an accused student feels they have not been granted the presumption of innocence, they have grounds for a law suit at which point both sides can present evidence and a court can determine based on the facts.

If it's NOT codified, when an accused student feels they have not been presumed innocent, the school has the defense of "So what? No law says we HAVE to presume innocence."

The changes being proposed are actually quite significant.

...and if you feel these changes are not significant, than what's the harm? Might as well put them in place, right?
 

I think the law would be silly. How can you possibly prove it?? You can’t bring a lawsuit with no evidence. It gets dismissed, and then you lose the fees you’ve paid your lawyer.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I think the law would be silly. How can you possibly prove it?? You can’t bring a lawsuit with no evidence. It gets dismissed, and then you lose the fees you’ve paid your lawyer.
Click to expand...

Why would you presume there wouldn't be evidence?

If a committee makes an offhand comment of "I think this guy did it" before a hearing starts you have proof, discover-able e-mails, granting more weight to accuser testimony than to accused testimony, etc.. You're being naive if you think this would never happen and there would never be evidence of it.

People hold tons of unsubstantiated preconceived notions and do tons of stupid things in the spirit of those notions all the time (just read the headlines on any given day).

Codifying it causes it to be illegal, rather than just unfair, tough luck, our process, our rules. As such, it will make those involved very careful when carrying out their procedural duties, which in such serious matters should absolutely be the case.

There's no reason to be opposed to these changes unless one absurdly believes that 100% of the people running these proceedings are 100% infallible 100% of the time.
 

tato2001 said:
As such, it will make those involved very careful when carrying out their procedural duties, which in such serious matters should absolutely be the case.
Click to expand...

Right ... right .... just like codifying that speeding is illegal prevents people from speeding.

All you're going to do is make people be extra careful NOT to send any emails, text messages, or say anything on a phone call, video, or even in person (you just never know who might be recording you, these days) from saying anything that could be even remotely misconstrued as having a bias against the presumed innocence of the alleged.
 

Such a silly disagreement.


We want exactly the same thing: more fairness, for everyone. The disagreement is how to get it. You seem to think that essentially writing a law that says "hey you! You better be fair! Or else!" is a good method. I think that's silly.

The reason people think the outcomes are unfair is because ... as I've said .... they don't understand that the criminal (or even the civil) evidentary standard doesn't necessarily apply in these hearings.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Such a silly disagreement.


We want exactly the same thing: more fairness, for everyone. The disagreement is how to get it. You seem to think that essentially writing a law that says "hey you! You better be fair! Or else!" is a good method. I think that's silly.

The reason people think the outcomes are unfair is because ... as I've said .... they don't understand that the criminal (or even the civil) evidentary standard doesn't necessarily apply in these hearings.
Click to expand...

Can you think of any reason civil and criminal trials might have evolved so many protections for the defendant over the last several centuries?

Why are you resisting a less biased system? These university adjudication systems are not dealing with easily proven/disproven plagiarism. They are de-evolution; a step backwards in time.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Right ... right .... just like codifying that speeding is illegal prevents people from speeding.

All you're going to do is make people be extra careful NOT to send any emails, text messages, or say anything on a phone call, video, or even in person (you just never know who might be recording you, these days) from saying anything that could be even remotely misconstrued as having a bias against the presumed innocence of the alleged.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you really arguing that speeding laws are silly because, hey, people speed anyway?

If so I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think if you run that argument around you’ll find you are in a very small minority.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Can you think of any reason civil and criminal trials might have evolved so many protections for the defendant over the last several centuries?
Click to expand...

Because there's more at stake than just receiving probation on your student status. As I already said, if the stakes go higher than that, I am open to the discussion of requiring schools' processes to use a higher evidentiary standard.

Pompous Elitist said:
Why are you resisting a less biased system?
Click to expand...

You haven't proven that they are biased. Not liking the outcome of a particular case doesn't prove bias.
 

tato2001 said:
Wait, are you really arguing that speeding laws are silly because, hey, people speed anyway?
Click to expand...

In general, no.

But as you already understand, just because it's not silly in general, doesn't mean there can't be specific instances where it would be silly. This is one of those.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Because there's more at stake than just receiving probation on your student status. As I already said, if the stakes go higher than that, I am open to the discussion of requiring schools' processes to use a higher evidentiary standard.



You haven't proven that they are biased. Not liking the outcome of a particular case doesn't prove bias.
Click to expand...

You’re clearly not being serious. Or, you’re just dense.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom