2/3/2025 - Trump Orders Schools to Ease Sex Assault Rules
2/3/2025 - Trump Orders Schools to Ease Sex Assault Rules
The new Title IX rules will provide more protections for those accused of sexual misconduct, and eliminate LGBT protections adopted under Biden.
You're viewing a single thread.
As a foreigner not living in the US, it is amazing to me how left-right brained people in the US are.
It also requires live hearings and cross-examinations, and allows lawyers to be present at those hearings.
So now, having due process before an accusation ruins a persons life is a bad thing, because it came from Trump.
Absolutely no discourse about the policy itself, just Trump policy = bad.
live... Cross examinations
Of minors in a court setting. What better way to intimidate children into not coming forward than the idea of being put into a spectacle to relive your horror.
Yeah, imagine putting a 13-year-old girl on the stand, in front of reporters, judges, lawyers, potentially their rapist, and definitely their parents, and having them go blow-by-blow with a lawyer who's already adversarial in nature and out to catch them in a lie, or confuse them, and likely has been doing this work for years.
No, this couldn't possibly be a good reason for kids to shut the fuck up when a teacher or another kid molests them. Being a kid is already hard enough, going through a sexual assault is hard, so let's pile a huge media spectacle (that will likely make it onto everyone at school's social media feeds) on top of all that trauma AND force them to relive it in front of everyone for the express purpose of the defense lawyer trying to catch you in a gotcha.
Not the structure of these things. Presuming as media has been reporting Trump has basically just tossed the Biden changes (which were largely a reinstatement of Obama-era rules and reverting the 2018 Trump changes, barring some of the ones that lawsuits were lost over) and rolled back to the 2018 version, the way it works is more like this:
- You have a specific person whose job is to function as a judge-analog for these hearings, and a specific person who functions as a prosecutor-analog. It's typically the Title IX coordinator and someone working under them. Under Trump rules, these are required to be different people while under Biden and Obama era rules your judge-analog and prosecutor-analog could be the same person.
- The accused is allowed to have a lawyer present under Trump rules, and must have a faculty assistant familiar with the process if they do not have a lawyer. Under Biden and Obama era rules it was acceptable for a school to bar the accused from having a lawyer present or any other representation.
- Yes, live hearings are required, but it's not what you're implying. Either party can request the hearing be done by teleconference if they don't want to be in the room for any reason. Normally it's only the accused, accuser, a lawyer or faculty assistant for the accused, prosecutor and judge analogs and possibly parents or corroborating witnesses if either party requests them present. There's no huge media spectacle like you're implying, it's normally a closed hearing.
- Yes, cross-examination is required, but it's also not what you are implying. The accused is not allowed to ask questions directly and any questions have to be approved by the judge-analog before they can be asked. The main difference between Biden/Obama and Trump guidelines here is that the questions are asked and answered on the spot, rather than questions regarding testimony by the accuser being submitted in writing and allowing them as long as they need to write the most effective possible answers they can think of. Testimony of the accused has always been live and subject to questioning with no real guardrails.
- Let's not forget that the standard for punishment in this case is at the strictest "clear and convincing" (more convincing than preponderance but less than beyond a reasonable doubt) and is often "preponderance of the evidence" (literally slightly more likely than not). The Obama/Biden guidelines were that the standard must be "preponderance".
- The accused is required to have timely access to what they are being accused of and what evidence will be brought, so that it is possible to formulate a defense.
- The accused is required to have access to the training materials used to teach faculty about these procedures and standards, so that the accused can know what to expect at all.
- Under Trump guidelines, you cannot punish the accused until after the a finding is arrived at. You can make changes as needed for the comfort of the accuser before any hearing, but nothing punitive (for example you can change the schedules of one or both so they don't share classes, change housing arrangements, etc but not for example suspend someone for having been accused without a hearing and finding happening).
Most of these are pretty basic fairness and due process things.
I don't think you realize what Title IX guidelines were like under Obama, some of the shit that was allowed or expected. Like the accused having no guidance or representation through the process and in some cases explicitly not being allowed to have a lawyer. Not being allowed to know what evidence was being brought against them or even necessarily exactly what they were accused of until the hearing or very shortly before. Having faculty trained using training materials (which the accused was not allowed to see) that explicitly say that women never ever lie but that men will say whatever they need to, in a system where the margin to be found liable is slightly more likely than not (note I said men and women here and not accused or accuser, because the materials in question were explicitly gendered once the guy accused in one case sued to be allowed to see them). There was a case where a guy accused a girl, and after being informed of the accusation responded by accusing him so his accusation was deemed retaliatory and shut down while hers was allowed to proceed.
Of minors in a court setting.
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges. I really don't want to think that minors raping minors is a common issue in the US. ...Somehow, I am afraid to check now.
What better way to intimidate children into not coming forward than the idea of being put into a spectacle to relive your horror.
I am not saying it is ideal, but it is not an unmoderated spectacle either. There generally are protections for underage witnesses and witnesses in general even in courts, which this is not. Between that and just assuming a person is guilty, it is the lesser evil to have them testify.
In addition, the fact prosecutors repeatedly refused to prosecute for false accusations when those came to light clearly shows this policy was never done in good fate. Life destroying consequences for the accused with next to no recourse but no consequences for the accuser when they are caught lying is just ridiculous.
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges
It is not.
Title IX rules for federally funded K-12 schools
You made me think for a moment it was only about K-12 since you left out the "and colleges" part.
Anyway, it is even shittier if they forced minors to face such serious accusations without a lawyer or other adequate representation.
Why are you here? You see people upset about Trump, and your first reaction is "these people are overreacting".
Then people explain to you why it's not an overreaction, and once you actually understand what's happening, you agree?
And yet you continue anyway?
I see you.
You see people upset about Trump, and your first reaction is "these people are overreacting".
When did I say that?
Did I fucking say you said it?
Are you able to read minds? If I didn't say it, why are you assuming that was my reaction.
This is the same kind of dumbass shit we saw defending him during the impeachment. "He didn't literally say the words quid pro quo so you can't claim that's what he was doing".
Smart people do not think this way. They don't need actions to have corresponding exposition to figure out what is going on
There’s no “hopefully” or benefit of the doubt for this guy. He has been proven to be a rapist in court.
Who? Trump? Are you literally incapable of forming two sentences without talking about him?
Your comment reminds me of cars with Lets Go Brandon bumper stickers. Which all started with "impeach, the president and her husband too" bumper stickers during the Clinton administration. That's when people got so delusional. They started putting the opposition on their vehicle and letting them occupy space in their head full time.
And I know that's where you were going with your comment. The problem is in this particular situation you look like the person who is unhinged. The entire purpose of this group is about Trump. Every Post in it will be about Trump. Anybody replying to a post is replying about something Trump did. Any comment someone is replying to will be about Trump. This is like the one place where literally everyone has Trump on their mind because that's the entire reason for existing. So you comment just doesn't work. If someone wasn't thinking about Trump while commenting in here that means they've gotten off topic.
My point is more along these lines: https://lemmy.world/comment/14877800
That people are bashing on a policy that is IMO good or at least not that bad because of who put it in place.
It's bad because of what it is, it's gross because of who pushed it. You look like a child rapist apologist bud.
Must be old, because I don't give a shit what I look like to stupid people.
It's pretty fucked up that an accusation on such a level wouldn't even cause you a moments reflection. You're arguing in bad faith, making ad hominem attacks, and really look like a fool. Maybe stop replying to every single comment, show this to a friend you disagree with sometimes, and get their opinion. I reckon you're too cowardly for any of that but it's worth showing the way.
ad hominem attacks
Oh no, watch out, he uses big words! Does that make you feel smart?
While judging arguments based on their speaker?
If that was your point you did a horrible job of making it because you didn't address their point at all. You talked about their mindset. That's a complete failure of communication.
Which would you rather have: more rapes, or more kids kicked out of school for false allegations?
If this is a hard question, then I hope you gain experiences that make it easier to decide. Learning is important.
Plus, the false allegation thing is kinda bunk. If it happens, then sue them for libel. Since there isn't a lot of that going on, I think it's less of an issue than, ya know, rape.
Anecdotally, I know four rape victims that didn't come forward. I know zero men who were falsely accused. I'm sure I'm not special in this regard.
Which would you rather have: more rapes, or more kids kicked out of school for false allegations?
It's a false dichotomy. There are other ways to prevent rape at schools without throwing away due process.
Plus, the false allegation thing is kinda bunk. If it happens, then sue them for libel. Since there isn't a lot of that going on, I think it's less of an issue than, ya know, rape.
Yes, because common students routinely have 10s of thousands of $ to pay for lawyers to probably not even get back the same amount.
Anecdotally, I know four rape victims that didn't come forward. I know zero men who were falsely accused. I'm sure I'm not special in this regard.
So you are saying throwing away due process did not even work to make them come forward in the first place, since this was repealed just now.
If there were other ways to prevent rape, they would be there already. So you're clearly wrong.
I agree we should provide free law services to people without money so they can get justice just like the rich people. Let's do that. And we can do that without endangering young girls.
There is no due process being thrown away. These people aren't going to jail. They're being kicked out of school. A school can kick out a child for literally anything that isn't a protected class. Rape allegations seems like a pretty good reason to kick someone out, especially compared to some other reasons people have been kicked out, like protesting.
If there were other ways to prevent rape, they would be there already. So you're clearly wrong.
Ah, my bad. I did not realize a good government healthcare is not possible because it is not already there.
Also a shame safer roads are impossible to build, otherwise they already would have. Or walkable cities. Mass transit.
Yeah, something good not already existing clearly means it is not possible. I will give up any attempt to improve anything at once. /s
There is no due process being thrown away. These people aren't going to jail.
Oh, my apologies. Did not know anything that does not put you in jail does not deserve due process. You must be so angry at Luigi and his fans since clearly rejecting insurance claims is also not putting you in jail and does not deserve any due process. It is just financial ruin, same as having student loans without a degree. Not an issue at all. /s
A school can kick out a child for literally anything that isn't a protected class.
Ah yes, the "things are already bad so we should make them worse" argument. Also, its not even really true.
Seriously, what the fuck are these arguments of yours? You can't possibly believe them yourself. Are you just trying to retroactively come up with arguments for a policy you just insist on believing because the guy who said it had (D) after their name? Just making up arguments for others, without actually using them to shape your own opinions?
Ok, so you agree there aren't things in place to prevent rape. Only that there could one day be. Great. Go do that. The lack of its current existence makes it irrelevant to the conversation. That's my point.
Due process is very very clearly a legal term. Private institutions aren't required to follow anything like it. You need to differentiate between what IS and what you wish were the case.
I don't care who made the rule. Fuck the Democrats. I care that women who are raped are being silenced. It's literally that simple.
Go do that.
Go elect me for office and I will. Until then, there is nothing I can do for you.
Due process is very very clearly a legal term. Private institutions aren't required to follow anything like it.
What the fuck do you think we are talking about this whole fucking time? Title IX mandates a process schools have to follow. Trumps changes bring it closer to what is considered a due process. The whole fucking conversation is about whether that is a good thing.
You need to differentiate between what IS and what you wish were the case.
It literally IS. You are the one seething that men are now actually granted reasonable due process protections.
I care that women who are raped are being silenced.
How the fuck are they being silenced? It literally requires the opposite, that they testify properly.
I honestly can't make you understand this.
Just because a law says you have to do something doesn't make it due process. Registering your car isn't due process. You don't get due process unless you're in court. This isn't that. There is no court. A "hearing" of school officials isn't due process. There's no sentencing. There's no lawyers. There's no guilty or not guilty. There's a bunch of school admins doing a dance and then picking if you get kicked out.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won't do it. This is also not hard to understand.
Again, I can hear it in your words and tone. You WANT this to be true. You want women to be brave enough to always stand up for themselves. You WANT a fair process with legal style standards to impose true justice based on facts. This isn't that. It doesn't get you closer to that. All it does it shut women up by making it harder for them to do the right thing.
Just because a law says you have to do something doesn't make it due process.
So your entire argument is that I am misusing a word, because I am using it in the context of how it is commonly understood vs the legal definition? Yeah, great argument.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won't do it. This is also not hard to understand.
I understand that. I don't understand why you believe it is significantly harder or more embarrassing to have one more person (lawyer) in the room and to answer their questions, in addition to already having to tell the story to strangers appointed by the school anyway. It's nearly insignificant difference compared to how much damage false allegations do.
PS: If you want to pointlessly focus on word lawyering.
Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Suppose, for example, state law gives students a right to a public education, but doesn't say anything about discipline. Before the state could take that right away from a student, by expelling her for misbehavior, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”
But I was never trying to talk about legal definition but the common sense right not to be punished by government law/regulation without reason.
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges
"Hopefully"? So you don't even know the details of this, and yet you came on here to berate people who understand it more than you and are against it?
Cool.
I did not look up the statistics for this specifically, because I never considered them relevant to this issue. If anything, minors would be even less able to defend themselves from accusations and need a lawyer.
Did you catch this part?
Trump’s order included language to justify his decision not to utilize the traditional and protracted process to make new rules. The letter stated, “the president’s interpretation of the law governs because he alone controls and supervises subordinate officers” in the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which enforces the rules.
Where's the "due process" on the absolutely not-subtle overreach of authority that created this rule?
There is none, fuck that shit. I am by no means saying Trump's process, motivation and personality are not shit. They are and he should be impeached for his blatant disregard for the law. I just don't agree with the hate the actual policy gets.
requires live hearings
Now someone that's LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
allows lawyers to be present
Doesn't say requires here. So the rich kids get their "full" representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
Now someone that's LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from live hearings.
Doesn't say requires here.
Hey, I would also prefer if it did. It's not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day. These changes happen to make it better than it was, though not perfect by any means.
So the rich kids get their "full" representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Most people can scrape enough money for a lawyer when their future depends on it and expensive lawyer, while giving rich kids an advantage, does not usually decide the outcome like they do in TV shows. Trials are about finding the truth.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
And here comes my original point. Being unable to discuss the policy on its merit rather than by who it was proposed by.
Trials are about finding the truth.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world.
My friend said it best when he brought up a point one day that “it’s scary to think that in court, it’s more about whoever can argue their case better that wins.” And I have to agree with him on that. (Not that it matters but he is a level-headed highly-educated doctor, not md but in biotech)
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
In that instance, getting by with an affordable lawyer would be better than none, but let’s not kid ourselves. Big corporations don’t shell out millions on attorneys to lose in court, so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you
Easy, I'll just remember the time that my director told me I was not allowed to discuss salary with coworkers. That is against federal law and workplace protections.
When I called the NLRB to report it, they basically said they could file the complaint and bring charges. They were honest but evasive regarding the chances of a complaint against a company this big going anywhere and as nice as they could be in telling me without telling me that whistleblower protections would not save my job.
And I'm not even in a marginalized group.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world
I don't disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
public court
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn't perfect but better than any of the alternative.
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
Yeah, liars should be punished. There is however irony in that statement considering the current president…
Again, what the fuck.
Me: US people are incapable about talking about the actual policy without just bringing up who proposed it.
You: BuT tHe CuRrEnt PrEsIdEnT.And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it. It's relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims' reputations when they speak up. These are his kind of people. He gets them. He protects them. Girls and others who have been raped? No, he just wants them to suffer in silence, shut up or be humiliated in public.
It’s relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up.
He's not proposing changes. He's rolling back the changes Biden made, which in turn mostly rolled back the 2018 changes made by Devos, most of which were either tied to basic notions of due process or were things people had won lawsuits over since the previous changes by the Obama admin.
You're playing semantics over what counts and doesn't count as change while the USA's Rapist in Chief allows lawyers to obstruct school exclusion meetings. Did you conveniently forget that he (unsuccessfully) tried to sue his own rape victim for libel? Yes, of course he believes that wealthy men should be allowed to use high powered lawyers to cover up their crimes against women.
I know right? We should definitely go back to the rules where if a woman accused a man he wouldn't necessary know who accused him or of exactly what, what evidence was brought against him, or what the procedures are and what training was given to faculty in how to follow those procedures, where part of that training in at least some cases includes that women never ever lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way (we found this out when a student sued over it), where the person essentially prosecuting it also gets to decide the result and if they believe it's even slightly more likely true than not then that man will be expelled. On the other hand, if a man accuses a woman all she has to do is accuse him in response and his claim will be dismissed as retaliation and hers will go forward.
***That *** sounds like the most fair possible system, doesn't it? Because that's what Obama created as Title IX policy, that Devos replaced in 2018, Biden essentially reinstated, and Trump reverted back to the Devos rules.
The short version is that the Obama/Biden rules are designed to punish any man accused who isn't able to conclusively prove he can't possibly have done it, while potentially being kept in the dark about what he's even supposed to be defending himself against until the last minute. The Devos rules are at least a reasonable attempt at enshrining something that resembles a fair due process and if you can't express your problems with it beyond "Orange Man Bad!" then there's not really anything to discuss.
Is it perfect? No. Is it a damn lot better than the previous policy? Yes.
And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it.
You are delusional. I criticize Trump myself in multiple comments on this thread.
It's relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims' reputations when they speak up.
It is absolutely irrelevant who proposes changes when debating whether those changes are good or bad. Even Hitler enacted some good laws. Does not make him less Horrible person or excuse other things he did. But my whole complaint is that so many people are now unable/unwilling to discuss the actual policy on it's own merit and you are proving me right.
Instead of forming your own opinion on the policy based on rational arguments, all you can do is "TrUmP bAd, PoLiCy MuSt Be BaD."
Which part of this are you on board with?
changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up.
Because all I see is opportunities for rich boys' lawyers the chance to disrupt a school exclusion meeting and turn it into a media circus debating the victim's sex life in detail, and if you think that isn't how that plays out, you haven't been paying attention.
Your point is entirely based on trashing other people's skepticism that the rapist president might not have young rape victims interests at heart, and I have to call out your gullability on that point. It's absolutely not irrelevant that Trump himself is a rapist, and repeatedly insisting that it is defies logic.
Because all I see is opportunities for rich boys' lawyers
Because you are willfully blind.
turn it into a media circus
Title IX hearings are not public, nor is anyone arguing they should be public. It's just a strawman argument you and people like you are making.
Your point is entirely based on trashing other people's skepticism that the rapist president might not have young rape victims interests at heart, and I have to call out your gullability on that point.
I am trashing peoples inability to actually think about and evaluate a policy for themselves. So yes, I trash people who have to resort to trashing Trump instead of being able to intelligently discuss a policy.
It's not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day.
I am not the gullible one here.
You are trying to pretend to some moral high ground with these comments, but what they boil down to is this:
"Everyone, please present to me fact based arguments that ignore the facts about the established goals and behavior about the person proposing these changes. THOSE facts are undesired."
Yes, I am pointing out it is idiotic to assume everything an evil person says or does is evil or wrong.
Hitler pushed for animal welfare. Are we supposed to assume that was wrong and start torturing dogs because Hitler wanted animal welfare?
The policy is either good or bad. Whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden or Lincoln makes no difference to that.
The fact I have to spell this out for you is extremely concerning.
I disagree with your assessment of the legislation in any case, but you haven't accepted similar arguments from anyone else, so I don't see why you'd accept them from me.
It's a shitty change that also comes from a shitty person.
We know trump serves only himself and his cronies. Ergo, any legislation from him is to serve himself or his cronies.
We know trump serves only himself and his cronies. Ergo, any legislation from him is to serve himself or his cronies.
So fighting climate change is shitty as long as a shitty young person decides it is in their interest to fight climate change?
No. Maybe the policy is shitty but it coming from Trump does not prove that.
The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence).
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let's say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn't be claiming that bringing that into the principal's office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.
Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.
So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.
It's just a school expulsion, not prison, and it's well documented that women don't go to trial because they know it will be them and their lives on trial, not the rapist, who will very very likely get off. Bringing all that into K12 is just bringing a set of scales that are tipped heavily in the rapist's favor and a horrific experience for the victim into a school expulsion.
Trump knows the effect this will have, and I expect you do too, but you're pretending not to. Admittedly Trump is clearly and publicly well practiced at using expensive lawyers to silence women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by him, and I can't say the same about you, but use your brain and stop defending the Rapist in Chief for watering down consequences for rapists in education.
Ah yes, the catastrophic effect having a person ask questions before they expel someone will have.
You know what, since you clearly don't care about expelling innocent people and there are many unreported rapist despite no lawyers being involved, let's just expel everyone. That way, we expel all the rapists. Problem solved.
Because there are clearly no issues with expelling innocent people in your head. It's not like the mere accusation would follow a person for the rest of their life. I am sure they will have no issue explaining to employers, that it was just an expulsion and they are innocent, that they should be given a job.
All that surely won't have worse consequences than a lawyer asking questions.
how few convictions there are proportionately
For every 100 reported to police, about 13 get sent to a prosecutor (the rest being dropped due to lack of evidence, strong contradictory evidence, inability to identify a culprit, that sort of thing) about 10 of which result in a charge and 7 in a conviction, prosecution and conviction rates not radically out of line with other crimes. Prosecutors only try cases they think have a good chance of being successful (meaning they don't think the evidence is good enough in about a quarter of cases sent to them), and the standard for criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt. That 13 is a bit lower than other crimes, but not radically so. Most stats you see implying it's much worse (like an order of magnitude worse) are essentially using a fudge factor for unreported rapes as though the criminal justice system can even hypothetically do anything about an unreported rape.
Considering that the standard for a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while the standard for a Title IX hearing is at strictest "clear and convincing" and is often "a preponderance of the evidence" (aka slightly more likely than not), the rate of being found liable in a Title IX hearing is much higher, though not as high as it was when some schools used training said that women never lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way, the accused didn't need to be told exactly what they were being accused of or what evidence they needed a defense for and an accuser's testimony could not be questioned.
EDIT: Just to point out how ridiculous accounting for "unreported" rapes is, if every time a rape was reported to law enforcement the accused was summarily executed without any process of any kind, just accusation->death, the "conviction rate" would still be at most ten percent.
Me: reporting, prosecution and conviction rates are disastrously low.
You: that's because they don't come forward much, cases aren't taken to court and men are found not guilty, therefore none of those men are guilty.
You need a higher standard of proof to put someone in jail, but this is just chucking them out of the same institution as their rape victim, and kids get chucked out of school for just punching someone, without lawyers being involved. Just move the guy on. That's all.
Your accusation->death line is hyperbole.
You need a higher standard of proof to put someone in jail, but this is just chucking them out of the same institution as their rape victim, and kids get chucked out of school for just punching someone, without lawyers being involved. Just move the guy on. That’s all.
So, you want to end someone's college career on someone else's word alone, unless they can provide absolute proof that person is lying (and if we're following Obama/Biden era rules they aren't required to be told what they're trying to prove beforehand) they should be expelled from college in a way that will make it much harder to get admitted to another one, right?
Sounds fair /s
I'd note that the Devos guidelines Trump brought back call for things to be done to make it easier for the alleged victim prior to any finding, so long as those actions aren't punitive - examples given back in 2018 were things like changing housing arrangements or switching classes for one or both as necessary to separate them. The key point being not punishing the accused before any finding and establishing a process that is as fair as could be managed for making that finding.
Your accusation->death line is hyperbole.
It is hyperbole, but it's hyperbole to demonstrate a point - when you talk about how abysmally low conviction rates are, even if we went as far in the other direction as possible and simply executed everyone accused on the spot, you'd still be able to complain that the conviction rate was painfully low at ten percent because the bullshit about including "unreported cases" in a way we don't treat any other crime makes a ten percent conviction rate the highest it can hypothetically be, when it's really not radically different than any other crime if measured by the same metrics.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them.
The original Title IX didn't say anything about accusations of sexual assault, at all. It literally just sad that federally funded educational programs could not discriminate with respect to sex. The interpretation that that included sports programs or similar extracurriculars came later, the interpretation that that requires a parallel court-like system for adjudicating sexual assault allegations by students under a looser standard than actual courts came even later.
Now someone that’s LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
How so, do you imagine that being LGBTQ+ makes you more likely to accuse fellow students or faculty of sexual assault? Thus singling them out because they have to recount their accusation to a closed hearing, in a way that can be subject to questioning by a representative for the person they accused, but only questions approved by the faculty member functioning as a judge analog?
Doesn’t say requires here. So the rich kids get their “full” representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Rich kid gets a lawyer, poor kid gets a faculty advisor trained in the process. Process is not a courtroom and thus much of criminal law experience doesn't apply.
I suppose it would have been better under the Biden/Obama guidelines where the accused doesn't need to know what exactly they've been accused of or by who, what evidence will be brought against them, what the process is supposed to look like or how faculty have been trained to follow it and any lawyer they might have can explicitly be kept out of the process?
Person who hasn't read material in detail accusing other of bias CHECK.
This thread has it all!
I'm pretty sure you're already allowed a lawyer. Repeating you can have a lawyer twice doesn't add anything, unless you can show their right to a lawyer was somehow being bypassed. Do we have cases of that?
Kinda. You only have a recognized right to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.
This right was bypassed by forcing schools to have separate hearing regarding being expelled where you not only did not have a right to a lawyer, but often not even the right to confront witnesses or examine evidence.
So the right to a fair trial was bypassed by creating a new tribunal that could not send you to prison (therefore not triggering constitutional protections), but still completely fuck up your life since now you are expelled from your school, unable to get into another one and still probably settled with student loans.
Was there a case where someone tried to bring in a lawyer to one of those hearings and was turned away? At that point though, I'd expect it to go straight to litigation, so I'd say were they turned away and immediately expelled. I'd almost expect the hearing to end and lawsuits to start.
I’m pretty sure you’re already allowed a lawyer. Repeating you can have a lawyer twice doesn’t add anything, unless you can show their right to a lawyer was somehow being bypassed. Do we have cases of that?
Yes. Under the "Dear Colleague" Obama-era guidance which later became official policy before Devos changed policy in 2018, Biden changed it mostly back to the Obama-era policy and Trump is now rolling it back to 2018.
Under the Obama-era policy (changed by Devos in 2018 and restored by Biden) schools were under no obligation to allow you to have a lawyer present. If you don't believe me, here are two law offices selling their services pointing this out, written during the Biden admin:
https://www.jasonenglishlaw.com/title-ix-lawsuit-guide
Some institutions will not allow the accused to have a lawyer present during the Title IX hearing, while others do permit this
https://www.binnall.com/title-ix-defense/what-to-expect-in-a-title-ix-proceeding/
As an initial matter, it is worth noting that schools differ significantly in terms of how they investigate Title IX sexual misconduct allegations. Not all schools provide students with their right to a hearing, for example, or even allow the parties to appeal the decision that their investigators ultimately reach.
Over the course of the investigation, you may not necessarily have access to a Title 9 attorney in the traditional sense. Simply put, the school may forbid each party from having an attorney directly represent them and speak on their behalf.
The short version is that the Obama-era and Biden-era policy is aimed at maximizing the number of men found liable without it being an obvious and utter farce while the Devos guidelines are about establishing a due process that makes an attempt to be fair.
not sure if agent provocateur, or just stupid 🤔🤔🤔
I mean, you make my point for me. No argument why a right to have a lawyer present and defending yourself when you are accused of a crime is a bad thing.
Just down votes and insults.
Idk if you are incapable of understanding that it is possible to agree with some of Trumps policies while understanding he is a racist fascist rapist or if you genuinely don't see that removing due process and just assuming an accused person is guilty is more Fascist than anything Trump did so far.