ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags aclu , civil liberties , title IX

Reply
Old 20th November 2018, 11:17 AM   #161
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It is inexplicable that people think it is OK to "compromise" basic principles of due process
Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:20 AM   #162
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Many are! Are we restricting our conversation to public universities? In fact my list did not include universities of any kind - I only pointed out that society as a whole, at many, many levels, punishes people severely who nonetheless are found not guilty by the criminal justice system. And it is not always unfair - often society has a right to judge what is acceptable whether a crime or not.

If you do want to bring in public universities, it is somewhat complicated. They are not arms of the state or city criminal justice system. In fact they are not arms of the state/city in most ways: these governments partially fund them (typically poorly) and impose some rules, but most rules, regulations, and the actual running of the universities are through boards of regents and through university-adminstrators/faculty committees. The rules that employees and students operate under are an additional layer very distinct from those of the government. In this OP we are in fact discussing many issues that are not even crimes, but are violations of university rules, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. One obvious if off topic example, a student unable to maintain a certain GPA will be kicked out of a public university even though that is not a crime.
The contention that public universities are not state actors for the purposes of procedural due process is absolutely specious.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:21 AM   #163
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If it creates negative publicity that makes it harder for your employers to operate and make money, then they probably should have the right to fire you. I don’t think that’s what the ACLU is interested in here though.
I disagree. A job is a job. It doesn’t, nor should it, dictate how you live your life. Should a company have the right to fire a gay person if their being gay brought “negative publicity”?

Quote:
A better analogy may be a company that lax safety polices or has safety policies that it doesn’t really enforce so that unsafe practices become commonplace. If someone gets hurt because management allows the work environment to become unsafe should they be liable? In extreme cases maybe they could even face criminal charges, but certainly civil charges should apply.
Still a bad analogy. How does extending 1st world standards (preponderance of evidence doesn’t qualify) of due process rights to the accused in a university setting make things more unsafe than having those same standards in a criminal context?
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

Last edited by Tony; 20th November 2018 at 11:24 AM.
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:23 AM   #164
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.
I was quite obviously talking about right to confront witness and cross examination, and have cited specific case law supporting that analysis.

There is a deficiency, but I can assure you it ain't on my end.

here is another copy of the case

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...26&as_ylo=2017

I am here to help you understand it.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:23 AM   #165
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,811
deleted - sorry never mind.

Last edited by carlitos; 20th November 2018 at 11:24 AM. Reason: silly
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:34 AM   #166
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The student may be forced to withdraw from his classes and move out of his university housing. Id. His personal relationships might suffer. See id. And he could face difficulty obtaining educational and employment opportunities down the road, especially if he is expelled. Id.
IOW they may not be able to go to that school anymore. Of course a rape victim can face the same consequences if they are forced to choose between going to classes with their rapist or withdrawing form school.

This is why the school should not be predisposed to listen to one side or the other. The revers (and equally wrong) position to would be a zero tolerance rule that forced the accused to prove their innocence, but of course this isn't what the ACLU is arguing for.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:35 AM   #167
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,011
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Yes.



Not really. It’s actually simple. Want to take public money? Then you can’t act like a fascist. Do you have a problem with universities being unable to discriminate against minorities if they take public funding?
Assuming you read my just prior post you know that my points have nothing to do with discrimination against minorities, but were related to to the current discussion, which is how to achieve the maximum fairness to all in accusations of harassment. If anything I suggested that I have some qualms as to the current levels of protection for the accused, but that I would prefer to research it and understand it before before forming a real opinion.

I know that right wingers have latched on to the virtue shaming (IMHO) argument that minority students are more often accused of sexual harassment than "whites." Convenient (if true, which I am uncertain of) but I doubt this is really a sincere argument rather than a transparent attempt to out liberal liberals. If true, then the regulations need to be carefully examined for any built in biases that might have produced this result. Why would you think I would be opposed to this examination and correction? Or the ACLU would be unconcerned about this issue for that matter? The ACLU has a very long, continued, and distinguished history in advancing minority rights and protections.

Last edited by Giordano; 20th November 2018 at 11:44 AM. Reason: corrected mis-spelling
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:42 AM   #168
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Assuming you read my just prior post you know that my points have nothing to do with discrimination against minorities, but were related to to the current discussion, which is how to achieve the maximum fairness to all in accusations of harassment. If anything I suggested that I have some qualms as to the current levels of protection for the accused, but that I would prefer to research it and understand it bette before forming a real opinion.
You missed the point then.

Quote:
i know that right wingers have latched on to the virtue shaming (IMHO) argument that minority students are more often accused of sexual harassment than "whites." Convenient (if true, which I am uncertain of) but I doubt this is really a sincere argument rather than a transparent attempt to out liberal liberals.
I’m not a right winger so I don’t see how this is relevant.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:50 AM   #169
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
I disagree. A job is a job. It doesn’t, nor should it, dictate how you live your life.
Employers need to have avenues to fire unproductive employees. If you create negative PR that costs them more than the value of the work you do for them, you are unproductive by any reasonable definition. This is different than an employer simply not liking what you do in your spare time. This is something that legitimately costs them money.

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Still a bad analogy. How does extending 1st world standards (preponderance of evidence doesn’t qualify) of due process rights
What are you talking about? Preponderance of the evidence is far and away the most common standard for due process in the first world. It’s only in criminal proceedings where people can face the loss of basic freedoms that use higher standards.

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Should a company have the right to fire a gay person if their being gay brought “negative publicity”?
This is a tricky discussion that gets to the core of why specific equal rights legislation is often required. If you are going to tell a business they MUST hire someone who will cost them money overall it pretty much requires legislation to stand up in court.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:51 AM   #170
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,011
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
You missed the point then.



I’m not a right winger so I don’t see how this is relevant.
If you are not making the same argument (which you did not deny), I am mystified as to how my statements would lead you to conclude that I am in favor of discrimination against minorities (unless you are defining males as minorities). As a result of my own mystification, caused in no small part by your abbreviated and information limited posts, I find myself playing a guessing game as to what your own points are. It is not a game I enjoy or feel obligated to play.

Last edited by Giordano; 20th November 2018 at 11:52 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 11:54 AM   #171
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I was quite obviously talking about right to confront witness and cross examination,
Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:03 PM   #172
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Employers need to have avenues to fire unproductive employees. If you create negative PR that costs them more than the value of the work you do for them, you are unproductive by any reasonable definition. This is different than an employer simply not liking what you do in your spare time. This is something that legitimately costs them money.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.

Quote:
What are you talking about? Preponderance of the evidence is far and away the most common standard for due process in the first world.
Evidence? Even if your claim is true, the “1st world” is more retrograde than it should be and needs to progress beyond such backwards practices.

Quote:
This is a tricky discussion that gets to the core of why specific equal rights legislation is often required. If you are going to tell a business they MUST hire someone who will cost them money overall it pretty much requires legislation to stand up in court.
Translation: when it is something you agree with, businesses and private organizations shouldn’t have the rights to fire people they don’t want.

It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways. The better way is to stick to the principle that your employer should have no power to affect your private life negatively or punish an employee for living their life as they want.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:07 PM   #173
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.
Standard of proof is only one component of due process, the new rules address deficiencies in many other areas of due process, and they still permit schools to use that standard of proof.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:07 PM   #174
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
It is not a game I enjoy or feel obligated to play.
TIL basic ready comprehension is a game.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:11 PM   #175
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.
So? New rules don't say accused gets to cross-examine accuser. Fine to require a third party lawyer or other assistant to accused to do it instead while he's out of the room. So what's your objection?

More generally, read Emily Yoffe's series at The Atlantic if you want a fairly non-partisan (if anything she's more left-wing, used to be at Slate) view of the problems with the college investigation/inquisition system.

Just from memory of what I've read, there have been lawsuits and decisions reached over such matters as:

1. Third party complained, both adult participants in sex said it was consensual, but she was disbelieved and he was kicked out;

2. In front of witnesses (both male and female) in her room to which she'd invited a male, woman gave him blowjob, then he was kicked out after she complained because when she started performing oral sex he didn't stop her and confirm she consented to perform oral sex on him (which she'd started to do without getting explicit consent from him?);

3. Many instances of male complainants not being treated seriously compared to female complainants, especially if woman were first to complain.

Re the ACLU specifically, they used to be about protecting people including the accused, insisting on rights of free speech and due process for neo-nazis, KKK, terrorists, murderers, and yes, rapists. Regardless of whether they or the government at the time were left or right. If now they are saying, hey, wait, if you're accused of sexual assault the rights of the accuser far, far outweigh the rights of the accused, well that may be a coherent view that any number of organizations might support, though many would disagree. But it's not a stance the ACLU should have taken, over time they've morphed from anti-government to anti-right-wing/conservative/Republican. I mean, any number of justices including Gorsuch (recently agreeing with Sotomayor in dissent to denial of granting leave to appeal), Thomas, and the late Scalia, have on various issues been pro-civil liberties. And contrariwise, left-wing justices and politicians generally have been anti-civil liberties on a number of issues. But the ACLU's new stance seems to be, it's okay to be a progressive oppressor.
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:22 PM   #176
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.
I'll take "How do we know that you did not read the case I linked for 2000, Alex."
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:27 PM   #177
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.
What he stated was not hard to comprehend. Being "productive" means you're a net gain for the employer. You bring in more money than you cost that employer. What are you having issues getting?

If there is an employee that has been accused of sexual assault multiple times in public then it is ******* stupid as all hell to think for one moment that an employer should have to keep said employee on the payroll.

The same goes for the government and it's employees.

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Translation: My Strawman is: when it is something you agree with, businesses and private organizations shouldn’t have the rights to fire people they don’t want.
FTFY. Thank you for pointing out that you were making a strawman to begin with though, made it easy to highlight.

Being gay is a protected class. Being a ******* **** human being, and employee isn't a protected class. Unless you got some evidence of that you can present here.

Do you?

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways.
Since he doesn't want that, this is all a moot point.

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
The better way is to stick to the principle that your employer should have no power to affect your private life negatively or punish an employee for living their life as they want.
That's almost as stupid of a point as the first one you attempted to make.

Just like firing Nazi's. Being a **** human is not protected, even if you do it on your own time. Your employer is not required to employ you if you're being an ******* to others in society. You don't have a right to employment and there isn't any country that allows for that.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:35 PM   #178
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.
If anything you are the one trying to move the goalposts. My original response to you made it very clear that I was referring to cases where the thing you do costs your employer money. If you cost your employer more than the value your work brings them you are unproductive by definition.

Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Evidence? Even if your claim is true, the “1st world” is more retrograde than it should be and needs to progress beyond such backwards practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...f_the_evidence
Now, with that in mind consider the following scenario. A man rapes his classmate and when she reports it the subsequent investigation balance of the evidence supports her. Is it fair to send her right back into classes with him? If one of them should be removed from class which one do you think it should be? (Remember the weight of the evidence supports her accusation)
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways.
No, it’s tricky because someone will be harmed either way. You will either end up forcing s business owner to hire someone who will cost more than they produce or you will disadvantage someone for something that is not their fault.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:42 PM   #179
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,391
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
What he stated was not hard to comprehend. Being "productive" means you're a net gain for the employer. You bring in more money than you cost that employer.
Right and we aren’t talking about that. We were talking about people getting busted with weed.

Quote:
Thank you for pointing out that you were making a strawman to begin with though, made it easy to highlight.
Yes. You were making a straw man.

Quote:
Being gay is a protected class
That is a dodge.

Quote:
Being a ******* **** human being
It seems to have worked out for you.

Quote:
Since he doesn't want that, this is all a moot point.
That’s exactly what you nazis want.

Quote:
Just like firing Nazi's. Being a **** human is not protected, even if you do it on your own time. Your employer is not required to employ you if you're being an ******* to others in society. You don't have a right to employment and there isn't any country that allows for that.
Whatever you say. Keep defending the privedges of capital to lord over the lives of their employees. Pseudo-left nazis like you are why the right is winning.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:46 PM   #180
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
the new rules address deficiencies in many other areas of due process,
False. The fact that you want a process that is weighted in favor of one side doesn’t mean there “is no due process” under the existing rules. In fact they already addressed due process comprehensively. The new rules Trump’s administration is pushing, however, in many cases abrogate the responsibility to apply any process at all, so unlike the old rules, due process is compromised.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:55 PM   #181
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
False. The fact that you want a process that is weighted in favor of one side doesn’t mean there “is no due process” under the existing rules. In fact they already addressed due process comprehensively.
Given the numerous court cases which occurred under the Obama rules where courts have ruled that student rights to due process were systematically violated, the assertion that those rules comprehensively addressed due process is simply laughable. Are you seriously going to claim that denying the accused the right to have someone cross examine their accuser is appropriate due process?

Probably not. You're probably going to do what you always do: avoid actually talking about the rules.

Quote:
The new rules Trump’s administration is pushing, however, in many cases abrogate the responsibility to apply any process at all, so unlike the old rules, due process is compromised.
The situations in which schools do not have an obligation to do anything under these rules are situations in which the schools rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything. Schools are not supposed to be totalitarian bodies which control every aspect of students lives. They shouldn't be told to judge events outside of their purview. Reasonable limits to jurisdiction are not a compromise of due process. That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 20th November 2018 at 12:58 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:56 PM   #182
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post

Re the ACLU specifically, they used to be about protecting people including the accused, insisting on rights of free speech and due process for neo-nazis, KKK, terrorists, murderers, and yes, rapists. Regardless of whether they or the government at the time were left or right. If now they are saying, hey, wait, if you're accused of sexual assault the rights of the accuser far, far outweigh the rights of the accused, well that may be a coherent view that any number of organizations might support, though many would disagree. But it's not a stance the ACLU should have taken, over time they've morphed from anti-government to anti-right-wing/conservative/Republican. I mean, any number of justices including Gorsuch (recently agreeing with Sotomayor in dissent to denial of granting leave to appeal), Thomas, and the late Scalia, have on various issues been pro-civil liberties. And contrariwise, left-wing justices and politicians generally have been anti-civil liberties on a number of issues. But the ACLU's new stance seems to be, it's okay to be a progressive oppressor.
Have you read the ACLU position? They want a process that requires the university to investigate complaints and base their decision on the weight of the evidence. The new rules the Trump administration is proposing allows schools to ignore complaints and insist on using a standard of evidence weighted towards one side.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:56 PM   #183
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
False. The fact that you want a process that is weighted in favor of one side doesn’t mean there “is no due process” under the existing rules. In fact they already addressed due process comprehensively. The new rules Trump’s administration is pushing, however, in many cases abrogate the responsibility to apply any process at all, so unlike the old rules, due process is compromised.
Hmmm, we can believe this totally made up thing from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the issues, or listen to actual advocates for civil liberties in Education (and which I have linked before)

New proposed Title IX regulations feature essential safeguards for free speech and due process on campus
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 12:59 PM   #184
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights

The civil-liberties organization has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals that undermines its own principles.


"By contrast, the ACLU issued a public statement that constituted a stark, shortsighted betrayal of the organization’s historic mission: It vehemently opposed stronger due-process rights for the accused."

Good article.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:01 PM   #185
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The situations in which schools do not have an obligation to do anything under these rules are situations in which the schools rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything.
So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:04 PM   #186
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Right and we aren’t talking about that. We were talking about people getting busted with weed.



Yes. You were making a straw man.



That is a dodge.



It seems to have worked out for you.



That’s exactly what you nazis want.



Whatever you say. Keep defending the privedges of capital to lord over the lives of their employees. Pseudo-left nazis like you are why the right is winning.
I was going to get you a basket for all of that cherry picking, but I wasn't sure they'd all fit.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:08 PM   #187
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
and insist on using a standard of evidence weighted towards one side.
What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:10 PM   #188
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”
"Why are you telling me? If you have a crime to report, report it to the proper authorities."
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:16 PM   #189
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”
Yes. Same thing happens with criminal cases. If I tell you that I'm the victim of a crime, you are not generally obligated to report that to the police. Not everyone should be a mandated reporter. College students are not a special population in this regard.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:18 PM   #190
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?
The new rules allow schools to choose between preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence. The old rules required preponderance of evidence.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:20 PM   #191
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights

The civil-liberties organization has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals that undermines its own principles.


"By contrast, the ACLU issued a public statement that constituted a stark, shortsighted betrayal of the organization’s historic mission: It vehemently opposed stronger due-process rights for the accused."

Good article.
Nah, stupid and poorly written article the rests on purposeful misreading of statements and red-herrings.

For example, they read 'inappropriately favoring the accused' as 'it is inappropriate to favor the accused', which is either a very dishonest, or a very foolish reading.

Also, "The ACLU doesn’t object to any of those due-process protections when a person faces criminal charges. Indeed, it favors an even higher burden of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to find an individual guilty." is stupid or dishonest. That the ACLU opposes the guidelines doesn't mean they oppose all parts of it, or any part of it in every other situation. The fact that these school administrative investigations and findings are not in any way criminal proceedings makes it a especially moronic.

I can see why you like it.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:33 PM   #192
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Nah, stupid and poorly written article the rests on purposeful misreading of statements and red-herrings.

For example, they read 'inappropriately favoring the accused' as 'it is inappropriate to favor the accused', which is either a very dishonest, or a very foolish reading.

Also, "The ACLU doesn’t object to any of those due-process protections when a person faces criminal charges. Indeed, it favors an even higher burden of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to find an individual guilty." is stupid or dishonest. That the ACLU opposes the guidelines doesn't mean they oppose all parts of it, or any part of it in every other situation. The fact that these school administrative investigations and findings are not in any way criminal proceedings makes it a especially moronic.

I can see why you like it.
Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"

I think we can all see why you butchered the quote rather than, you know, quoted it.

Your other quote is equally insipid and ignores the actual language of the Sixth Circuit opinion I have quoted in this very thread, because of course you did.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:45 PM   #193
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,072
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"
....
Beyond this particular case, I'm sure we could all imagine circumstances where the accused is favored unfairly or inappropriately. Suppose we said that nothing a suspect tells police, before or after a Miranda warning, could ever be used against him? That sure would favor the accused, but maybe not appropriately. The ultimate intent of the judicial process is to discern the truth. The innocent should go free, and the guilty should be punished.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:50 PM   #194
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"

I think we can all see why you butchered the quote rather than, you know, quoted it.

Your other quote is equally insipid and ignores the actual language of the Sixth Circuit opinion I have quoted in this very thread, because of course you did.

What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote, but you'll pretend you don't understand that because of course you won't.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:54 PM   #195
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote, but you'll pretend you don't understand that because of course you won't.
"What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote."

ya see folks, our correspondent thought it would make a better point to let us all know what they really meant rather than what they actually wrote.

Sounds totally legit.

Thanks for paraphrasing and calling it a very foolish reading, because what you wrote is indeed a very foolish reading of what they actually wrote.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 01:54 PM   #196
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?
From the ACLU position:

Quote:
But the new regulation would allow schools to use a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, which favors the respondent by finding against complainants even where it is more likely than not that their account is accurate.
IOW if a student is being sexually harassed by a classmate and the evidence supports their report at “preponderance of the evidence” level but not at the “clear and convicting evidence” level the school can leave the situation as is and allow the harassment to continue, instead of say requiring him/her to attend a different class.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Why are you telling me? If you have a crime to report, report it to the proper authorities."
Again, not criminal proceedings so referencing “crime” is a red herring.

Under the new rules the school only needs to act on complaints filed to specific people. So, for example a student tells their professor or coach that someone had sexually assaulted them or is sexually harassing them, the school is not required to do anything about the complaint. If they ignore it altogether there are no repercussions to the school.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 02:00 PM   #197
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote."

ya see folks, our correspondent thought it would make a better point to let us all know what they really meant rather than what they actually wrote.

Sounds totally legit.

Thanks for paraphrasing and calling it a very foolish reading, because what you wrote is indeed a very foolish reading of what they actually wrote.

You did notice that what I wrote was what they said didn't you? No, I'm guessing you don't.

Tell me exactly what of my paraphrasing was wrong. What, exactly, is the difference? This should be entertaining.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 02:07 PM   #198
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
From the ACLU position:



IOW if a student is being sexually harassed by a classmate and the evidence supports their report at “preponderance of the evidence” level but not at the “clear and convicting evidence” level the school can leave the situation as is and allow the harassment to continue, instead of say requiring him/her to attend a different class.


Again, not criminal proceedings so referencing “crime” is a red herring.

Under the new rules the school only needs to act on complaints filed to specific people. So, for example a student tells their professor or coach that someone had sexually assaulted them or is sexually harassing them, the school is not required to do anything about the complaint. If they ignore it altogether there are no repercussions to the school.


the third major ACLU complain btw is as follows:

Quote:
schools would not have to investigate complaints about “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” that “limit[s]” but does not “deny,” a students’ ability to learn. Yet in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court limited this narrow definition of sexual harassment to “private suit[s] for money damages” brought by students against schools for ignoring complaints of sexual violence.
IOW under the new rules schools could ignore any complaint that didn't involve sexual violence where the school would be liable in civil court anyway.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 02:08 PM   #199
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You did notice that what I wrote was what they said didn't you? No, I'm guessing you don't.

Tell me exactly what of my paraphrasing was wrong. What, exactly, is the difference? This should be entertaining.
Well ordinarily one would expect that you, as the proponent of the paraphrase would (and should) explain how it was correct, but there is zero chance that will happen, which is fine, because obviously:

Actual quote:

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: 'It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.' Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"

Paraphrase:

"For example, they read 'inappropriately favoring the accused' as 'it is inappropriate to favor the accused', which is either a very dishonest, or a very foolish reading."

The reason your paraphrase sucks is because both the author and the ACLU were talking about the "process" which you inexplicably left out!

You left out the actual subject, c'mon man...
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2018, 02:14 PM   #200
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: 'It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.' Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"
What a stupid question. In non-criminal proceedings (like the ones covered by these rules) civil libertarians regularly support rules that give equal consideration to both sides.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.