2/3/2025 - Trump Orders Schools to Ease Sex Assault Rules

Trump is a rapist.

Conservatives don't see rape as a crime.
- Sure they do, it just has to be done by someone not like them, or to them.
- Handmaid's Tale incoming.

Diddy made a contribution? Or is it for gaetz?

Don’t forget Trump was good friends with Epstein and the both of “liked them young”.

Of course it's horrible, but

It reduces the liability placed on schools in sexual misconduct cases. It also requires live hearings and cross-examinations, and allows lawyers to be present at those hearings.
The Biden administration extended sex discrimination protections under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump informed educational institutions that his administration would no longer enforce those protections.

The headline is clickbaitily (that's a word now) misleading.

Sure, let's have lawyers cross examine traumatized children. No way forcing them to go though that in a adversarial way could make the trauma worse or intimidate victims into silence.
- Read what I wrote. Of course it's horrible.
  The headline suggests that acts which are currently considered to be sexual assault are no longer going to be considered sexual assault. "Ease sex assault rules." Yes, the headline is "technically true," but it is purposely misleading.
  Same as this one from the same source. "Trump Admin Emails Air Traffic Controllers: Quit Your Jobs". Yes, technically true, and still horrible, but it's the same email that all federal employees got. The administration didn't specially pick out ATC.
  This is how propaganda works. Word things in such a way that they're true to a very careful reader, and whistle idly while most readers digest a misleading message.
  I'm not bOtH sIdEsing this. A lot more propaganda has been put out by the fascists, for longer, and to a greater degree of falsehood. That doesn't make messages that you want to hear immune from being propagandized. These examples are small potatoes by comparison, sure, but if you want to make accurate judgments and !resist@fedia.io fascists effectively, do so on the basis of actual facts, and point out propagandizing when you see it.

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.
- 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.
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.
- 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?
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.
- 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.
Person who hasn't read material in detail accusing other of bias CHECK.
This thread has it all!
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.

How do conservatives rationalise this?

Like they usually do: pick one thing that they like and ignore the rest.
They also do a version of the quote about law or fact being on your side, but with fairness or efficiency.
It is just some boys having a bit of fun.
(Speculation, but that was the rationale of the Judge in the Brock Turner case)

I guess Trump is planning a visit.