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, 02:20 PM   #201
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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.
Example where one side is a State School and the other is someone accused of sexual assault??

I note that the Sixth Circuit found that the existing rules did not support that the School was giving equal consideration to the accused.
__________________
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, 02:23 PM   #202
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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...

Which doesn't change anything.

Not saying the word 'process' doesn't change their (the article's) reasoning, their reading, nor the meaning of the ACLU's words. It still means the author was taking it to mean that the ACLU was saying that it is inappropriate to favor the accused, which is not what the ACLU was saying regardless of the subjecting being 'the process'. Adding in 'the process' changes nothing from the reasoning, nor my criticism of it. It is still either a very stupid reading of what the ACLU said, or a very dishonest one.

I was right, that was entertaining. XD
__________________
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, 02:28 PM   #203
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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.
Yes, I have. You're parroting statements by them that are misleading. And even aside from that, the ACLU's mandate was civil liberties. Not victim rights. Victim rights matter in the big picture, but until recently -- and appropriately - that was never the ACLU mandate or focus.

For instance, if someone goes to person X at the university who says, okay you have to complain to official Y I can't launch an investigation myself - how is that ignoring the complaint?

I mean, if someone sees a university employee repairing a water fountain and says they want to make a sexual misconduct complaint, how is it wrong for that person to say, hey, I'm not qualified to deal with that, you need to speak to someone in that office down the hall? That's not ignoring the complaint. That's saying, you need to speak to a qualified university representative here, not just anyone who works for the university.
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, 02:35 PM   #204
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Which doesn't change anything.

Not saying the word 'process' doesn't change their (the article's) reasoning, their reading, nor the meaning of the ACLU's words. It still means the author was taking it to mean that the ACLU was saying that it is inappropriate to favor the accused, which is not what the ACLU was saying regardless of the subjecting being 'the process'. Adding in 'the process' changes nothing from the reasoning, nor my criticism of it. It is still either a very stupid reading of what the ACLU said, or a very dishonest one.

I was right, that was entertaining. XD
fantastic! I, the author and the ACLU are talking about the process, you are not, but are saying that your paraphrase was accurate!

that is absolutely beautiful!

You seem to fail to realize that the entire subject of the damn article and their criticism of the ACLU was about the process!

say folks lets take a gander at the headline again:

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.


ZOMG! They are talking about due process!

It entertains me that you are entertained by the fact that you utterly and completely missed the boat!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
__________________
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, 02:41 PM   #205
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
fantastic! I, the author and the ACLU are talking about the process, you are not, but are saying that your paraphrase was accurate!

that is absolutely beautiful!

You seem to fail to realize that the entire subject of the damn article and their criticism of the ACLU was about the process!

say folks lets take a gander at the headline again:

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.


ZOMG! They are talking about due process!

It entertains me that you are entertained by the fact that you utterly and completely missed the boat!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
Yes, I'm greatly entertained.

The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process. Your entire point there rests on you and the article making the exact same strawman/mistake that I was criticizing, while at the same time doing exactly what you accused me of doing, only to the ACLU rather than to the article.

Just perfect. Are you a Poe who is actually liberal? You damage your supposed side so much, I just have to know. It's great either way.
__________________
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, 02:47 PM   #206
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes, I'm greatly entertained.

The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process. Your entire point there rests on you and the article making the exact same strawman/mistake that I was criticizing, while at the same time doing exactly what you accused me of doing, only to the ACLU rather than to the article.

Just perfect. Are you a Poe who is actually liberal? You damage your supposed side so much, I just have to know. It's great either way.
falls out of chair... you literally just said that the ACLU was talking about the very subject THAT YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR PARAPHRASE!

That is utterly magical, it is like a dream state.

And yes, the actual smart article that I posted was criticizing the ACLU because it "has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections."

Post something magical again so I can be lifted up ....
__________________
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, 02:48 PM   #207
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process.
OK, the ACLU was not talking about due process. Which raises the question... why weren't they? Since due process protects civil liberties, and the ACLU is nominally in the business of protecting same, isn't that what they should be talking about?
__________________
"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, 03:34 PM   #208
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
ACLU seems unfamiliar with the post-2011 system

In 2017 KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor wrote, "Skidmore was the 53rd college or university to find itself on the losing end of a court decision in a lawsuit filed by an accused student in the past four years. This remarkable body of law — virtually ignored by the news media — is especially striking given the traditional reluctance of courts to second-guess college disciplinary actions...Amidst legal challenges, schools, including Brown and Swarthmore, adjusted their policies to make it harder for innocent students to win vindication, by scaling back the rights promised to accused students. Reflecting this mindset, the National Association of College and University Attorneys published a May 2016 research note urging colleges and universities to “promptly destroy” documents such as “emails … staff notes … notes of hearing participants during a disciplinary hearing, drafts of hearing outcome reports, and other such working papers,” all of which “might actually prove very useful to a plaintiff’s lawyer” in a subsequent lawsuit." link One might think that the ACLU would take an interest in protecting the respondents' right to see the evidence against them, in order to mount an appeal or to sue the school if necessary, but apparently not.

Taylor and Johnson coauthored a book on how colleges and universities adjudicate sexual misconduct. Very recently they also coauthored an Op-Ed piece at the Wall Street Journal, but it is behind a paywall. Rather than familiarize itself with the objections raised by these and other authors, the ACLU tweeted, "The proposed rule would make schools less safe for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, when there is already alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assaults and harassment that go unreported." The claim of alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assault is extremely dubious at best. For example, Taylor and Johnson note that the rate declined between 1994 and 2010 (2011 was the year that the Dear Colleague letter changed the rules).
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 20th November 2018 at 03:35 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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, 04:00 PM   #209
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
OK, the ACLU was not talking about due process. Which raises the question... why weren't they? Since due process protects civil liberties, and the ACLU is nominally in the business of protecting same, isn't that what they should be talking about?
No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.
__________________
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, 04:02 PM   #210
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
falls out of chair... you literally just said that the ACLU was talking about the very subject THAT YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR PARAPHRASE!

That is utterly magical, it is like a dream state.

And yes, the actual smart article that I posted was criticizing the ACLU because it "has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections."

Post something magical again so I can be lifted up ....
It certainly is magical that you believe pretending to have utterly no reading comprehension is a winning argument. You should practice law.
__________________
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, 04:04 PM   #211
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.
Given that these new rules address some rather egregious holes in the due process requirements for title IX complaints, I find it rather strange that the topic isn't worth addressing for the ACLU.
__________________
"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, 04:06 PM   #212
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.
First, they should be talking about due process every time a change in the law impacts due process.

Second, they are talking about due process, as has been pointed out relentlessly in this thread with a multitude of citations to actual sources, the ACLU IS talking about due process and they are against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals which undermines the ACLU's own principles.
__________________
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, 04:14 PM   #213
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Given that these new rules address some rather egregious holes in the due process requirements for title IX complaints, I find it rather strange that the topic isn't worth addressing for the ACLU.
It is not strange that every single statement does not address due process directly. Why on earth would you find that strange?

And just because something says it is doing something such as 'addressing' holes in due process requirements in absolutely no way requires someone who advocates for strong due process protections to agree with the specific manner that it does so, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to agree with parts that don't do that.

Disagreeing over if any given change does or does not strengthen due process protections for all or any of the process is different from arguing that they are against due process.

To give an extreme example; If we all agreed that the leaking pipes need addressed, my objecting to a plan to seal them from the inside with lead would in no way mean I am against fixing the leaking pipes.

In this specific case it doesn't even mean that the ACLU objects to every single part of this plan in isolation.
__________________
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

Last edited by tyr_13; 20th November 2018 at 04:17 PM.
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, 04:16 PM   #214
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
First, they should be talking about due process every time a change in the law impacts due process.

Second, they are talking about due process, as has been pointed out relentlessly in this thread with a multitude of citations to actual sources, the ACLU IS talking about due process and they are against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals which undermines the ACLU's own principles.

Yes, they do talk about due process, both specifically in places and in general, but they were not specifically talking about opposing it in that quote.
__________________
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, 04:30 PM   #215
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Today, the california supreme Court let stand a lower court opinion upholding a set of "core principles' that include the exact sort of procedural protections that are set forth in the new guidelines and which the ACLU has chosen to take a stand against:

Summary and opinion available here.

https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/statu...07238937538561

Viva due process!
__________________
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, 06:20 PM   #216
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,362
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It is not strange that every single statement does not address due process directly. Why on earth would you find that strange?
Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.
__________________
"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, 06:41 PM   #217
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.
there are, of course but they dropped the word "due" in order to avoid appearing like complete jackasses.

To sum up:

"We strongly oppose it."

-The ACLU
__________________
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, 06:54 PM   #218
Shadowdweller
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 689
Fun fact: The average settlement of a sex abuse tort - which already uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - far exceeds the cost of a college education or anything else a university is capable of doing.

Go cry about it.

Last edited by Shadowdweller; 20th November 2018 at 06:55 PM.
Shadowdweller 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, 07:06 PM   #219
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.
Yes. You even 'reacted' to it the first time it was posted. It does, as a matter of fact, agree with at least two of the changes.

You're free to disagree with their reasoning, but pretending they haven't said anything about it is just factually incorrect.

Great well-poisoning attempt though. Very 'subtle'.

Originally Posted by Shadowdweller View Post
Fun fact: The average settlement of a sex abuse tort - which already uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - far exceeds the cost of a college education or anything else a university is capable of doing.

Go cry about it.
The ACLU makes the very argument that all other sexual harassment proceedings, besides criminal ones of course, use 'preponderance of the evidence'.
__________________
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 21st November 2018, 06:57 AM   #220
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
You're parroting statements by them
If you want to discuss the ACLU’s position, you need to look at the ACLU’s actual position not what some wack-a-doodle right wing web site “says” that ACLU’s position is.
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
And even aside from that, the ACLU's mandate was civil liberties. Not victim rights.
Since the ACLU’s isn’t addressing victims rights this isn’t relevant.
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
For instance, if someone goes to person X at the university who says, okay you have to complain to official Y I can't launch an investigation myself - how is that ignoring the complaint?
You are confused. The current rules, the ones the ACLU supports, don’t call for Professors, coaches, etc to “launch an investigation” they require university staff to listen and forward the information to appropriate school officials.
__________________
"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 21st November 2018, 07:09 AM   #221
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
OK, the ACLU was not talking about due process. Which raises the question... why weren't they? Since due process protects civil liberties, and the ACLU is nominally in the business of protecting same, isn't that what they should be talking about?
The ACLU does talk about due process in cases where due process is threatened. There is no due process issue here.
__________________
"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 21st November 2018, 07:27 AM   #222
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.
Since the new rules don’t improve due process such a statement would be more than a little odd.
__________________
"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 21st November 2018, 08:18 AM   #223
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Actual legal experts and Civil rights organization repeatedly declare that ACLU has abandoned protecting civil rights by their opposition to basic and legally required due process protections.

On the other hand, we have a person on the internet declaring, ahem "There is no due process issue here."

Well i for one am convinced.

Off to tell the Cali Supreme Court, the cali Appellate court, the Sixth Circuit and FIRE that there:

"There is no due process issue here."
__________________
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 21st November 2018, 08:37 AM   #224
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
But its not a criminal trial!

Is something we have heard in this thread. Allow me to present an rebuttal:

Quote:
Even though this should be obvious to any modestly competent lawyer, the desperately insipid have still latched onto this mantra to justify their opposition to basic due process, such as cross-examination of the accuser. And non-lawyers, who could figure this out if they so desired, have seized upon it riding the coattails of woke lawyers. It’s wrong, stupid and must come to a painful, brutal end.

It’s correct that Title IX tribunals aren’t a criminal trial, although that is a reflection of the fact that criminal conduct is being adjudicated on campus by people incompetent to handle such issues and with consequences that are hugely punitive, even if they don’t involve prison. Individual lives are ruined. Families are ruined. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition, or student debt, are forfeited. Futures are crushed. A lifetime of effort and sacrifice lost.

No, it’s not a criminal trial, but it should be. No one should suffer the harsh punishment of Title IX adjudication at the hands of “trauma-informed” humanities profs and admins. That they’ve manufactured at the behest of a bureaucrat a subconstitutional system to harshly punish males without a real criminal trial for real criminal accusations is wrong. Yet, that part doesn’t seem to bother anyone else too much.
But it’s the social justice lawyers, who provide cover for this mantra, that allows this absurd mantra to be perpetuated. “But it’s not a criminal trial” is the cry of the liar or idiot, or perhaps both, but it is a false and nonsensical claim. The minimal rights proposed by the new regulations come nowhere near the rights afforded criminal defendants.

As the article points out, these minor changes that the ACLU opposes are the bare minimum due process protections.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st November 2018 at 08:50 AM.
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 21st November 2018, 10:11 AM   #225
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If you want to discuss the ACLU’s position, you need to look at the ACLU’s actual position not what some wack-a-doodle right wing web site “says” that ACLU’s position is.

Since the ACLU’s isn’t addressing victims rights this isn’t relevant.

You are confused. The current rules, the ones the ACLU supports, don’t call for Professors, coaches, etc to “launch an investigation” they require university staff to listen and forward the information to appropriate school officials.
(emphasis added)

I told you, I did read the ACLU statement. As well as criticisms of it from The Atlantic, a criminal defence lawyer's blog, etc. Most criticism I've read has been from the centre or left. Maybe you're referring to a different ACLU statement?

If under the new rules, the professor, coach, etc., tells the complainant that the complainant needs to speak to the appropriate school official, how in the world is that ignoring the complaint?

If you dislike or disagree with it fine, but the ACLU saying that it's ignoring the complaint is ridiculous.

In the child abuse context it is much more important to report allegations even if the victim doesn't want to. But if a competent adult doesn't want to make a formal complaint and start an investigation, shouldn't that be their right? Or contrariwise, if one believes that it is too important to allow victims to decide, well then, doesn't that mean that even if someone doesn't want the police involved they should be even if they don't want it? You can't have it both ways, either it's too important to allow people whether or not to proceed, or you have to give them the choice.

One of the examples I referred to (that Emily Yoffe at The Atlantic and others have discussed) is that of a third party who complained and caused an investigation to be launched, and a student expelled, despite the woman he had sex with insisting it had been consensual (and credibly, not diminished capacity or threats or violence or anything like that).
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 21st November 2018, 11:18 AM   #226
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,898
At this point you have to wonder if the ACLU would support the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 21st November 2018, 12:18 PM   #227
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post

I told you, I did read the ACLU statement.
And apparently decided they were lying based on what someone said in an op-ed.

If you have some actual evidence the ACLU is lying when it says the new rule only requires the school to take action if the complaint is addressed to specific high ranking staff then by all means present it, but don’t just wave your hands around and insist it must be so because that’s what someone said it on the internet.
__________________
"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 21st November 2018, 03:11 PM   #228
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
career capital punishment

From the ACLU blog: "The customary standard of proof for civil proceedings, where both sides have something to lose and there is no reason to favor one side over the other, requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is more than 50 percent." link

Many, including the ACLU, have argued in favor of the preponderance standard, and the 2011 Dear Colleague letter mandated it. Although this is the standard that is used in most civil proceedings, civil proceedings have subpoenas, discovery, and cross-examination. There are many examples of lack of discovery in the post-2011 Title IX proceedings, and the 2011 Dear Colleague letter strongly discouraged cross-examination. IMO one should not design a new system as if one were a customer in a cafeteria, where one picks one attribute of the civil or criminal justice system (the standard of proof) and exports it to colleges and universities while ignoring everything else.

This brings me to another problem with the position taken by ACLU. They discuss the question of the right standard of proof, but this is not the only, or even IMO the worst problem in the present system. The ACLU does not address these deficiencies, such as the lack of the right to cross-examine witnesses. Yet observers (including some right-leaning centrists and some left-leaning centrists) have been pointing these problems out for years. There are now over one hundred successful lawsuits brought by those found "responsible" in Title IX proceedings. Perhaps the ACLU has some lawyers who could study these decisions...

Do both sides really have "something to lose?" The accuser is not penalized if the accused is found non responsible. However as one anonymous college president was quoted (in The Economist) these proceedings have the power to impose "career capital punishment."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides 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 21st November 2018, 03:52 PM   #229
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
From the ACLU blog: "The customary standard of proof for civil proceedings, where both sides have something to lose and there is no reason to favor one side over the other, requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is more than 50 percent." link

Many, including the ACLU, have argued in favor of the preponderance standard, and the 2011 Dear Colleague letter mandated it. Although this is the standard that is used in most civil proceedings, civil proceedings have subpoenas, discovery, and cross-examination. There are many examples of lack of discovery in the post-2011 Title IX proceedings, and the 2011 Dear Colleague letter strongly discouraged cross-examination. IMO one should not design a new system as if one were a customer in a cafeteria, where one picks one attribute of the civil or criminal justice system (the standard of proof) and exports it to colleges and universities while ignoring everything else.

This brings me to another problem with the position taken by ACLU. They discuss the question of the right standard of proof, but this is not the only, or even IMO the worst problem in the present system. The ACLU does not address these deficiencies, such as the lack of the right to cross-examine witnesses. Yet observers (including some right-leaning centrists and some left-leaning centrists) have been pointing these problems out for years. There are now over one hundred successful lawsuits brought by those found "responsible" in Title IX proceedings. Perhaps the ACLU has some lawyers who could study these decisions...

Do both sides really have "something to lose?" The accuser is not penalized if the accused is found non responsible. However as one anonymous college president was quoted (in The Economist) these proceedings have the power to impose "career capital punishment."

Thank you for a thoughtful analysis that doesn't rest on straw men of the ACLU's statements.

It's easy to miss, but there are parts of the changes that the ACLU lumps in with the good parts of the old guidelines, indicating that they at the very least don't object to them (and I'd argue it indicates they agree with them based on placement).

I don't think the ACLU statement means the only thing they are concerned with here is which standard of evidence to use.

I've had many criticisms in the past of the old guidelines, but more often with the implementation. In many of the cases where I had at first attributed poor process with the guidelines, it turned out it was a problem of implementation. Now granted at one level that's still an issue with the guidelines not being optimized in ways that remove those points of failure, but it's impossible to dictate all of it to schools.

Thus it's useful to separate out what are problems with the guidelines, which are from implementation, and which are societal. I've never thought much of the argument that because the accusation is looked at harshly by society (both to the person making the accusation and person being accused) that the process needs to be different from every other accusation. Colleges and Universities, and some organizations or other programs, have the problem of acting in some limited ways 'in loco parentis' (or in more extreme ways with some organizations). However, the level of harm that should be considered when determining the standards of evidence to use should be those actually within the power of the organization to administer, not what other people might conclude and do because of the organization's findings.

I am at a loss at how to ensure that colleges and universities take these issues more seriously, but there are so many factors driving the minimum be done to investigate and such that I don't know exactly where to start.

I've held back from talking about my view of these changes to focus on some of the truly silly accusations directed at the ACLU, but I do think that in a couple of ways the new guidelines are improvements, but I also share many of the ACLU criticisms. Specifically not requiring investigation if reported to the 'wrong' employee. I would expect US college and university employees to be held to at least the standard of Wal-Mart employees.
__________________
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 22nd November 2018, 08:14 AM   #230
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post

This brings me to another problem with the position taken by ACLU. They discuss the question of the right standard of proof, but this is not the only, or even IMO the worst problem in the present system. The ACLU does not address these deficiencies, such as the lack of the right to cross-examine witnesses.

While this isn’t a criminal proceeding it isn’t a civil proceeding either, it’s an administrative proceeding. It’s not held before a judge that can enforce contempt of court charges against someone who misbehaves, it’s typically not argued out by lawyers and often involves people that are considered too emotionally immature to drink.

While direct cross examination is the norm in criminal and civil cases presented to a judges, there can be many reasons why it’s unsuitable for administrative processes and many examples of administrative procedures that don’t include it. There are other things the school has interest in as well, but one of their primary concerns is conflict resolution. Allowing emotional 18-year-old kids to attack each other in the form of cross examination is likely to escalate the conflict rather than resolve it.

The due process requirement under US law is not “cross examination” it’s that the proceeding be fair, and fairness is context sensitive. In this context it should mean that the school has a duty to be fair to both sides. This would need to include a mechanism to get to the bottom of both stories, but that doesn’t need to include direct cross examination, which as I outlined above undermines one of the main things the school is trying to achieve.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
There are now over one hundred successful lawsuits brought by those found "responsible" in Title IX proceedings.

As already noted above, this the ACLU does acknowledge room for improvement, and even acknowledges that some of the new rules are improvements. It’s arguing that overall these rules make things less fair because the negatives far outweigh the positives, and mostly the rules appear to be aimed at absolving universities of responsibility rather than getting better, more fair handling of these cases.
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Do both sides really have "something to lose?" The accuser is not penalized if the accused is found non responsible. However as one anonymous college president was quoted (in The Economist) these proceedings have the power to impose "career capital punishment."
This is false on both counts. If the school decides against them the accuser could be subject to further harassment and may be forced to continue attending classes with people who sexually assaulted them. This is arguably more than the accused stands to lose.

The contention that this is “career capital punishment” is also false. Other than forwarding the case to the police for a criminal investigation the most serious thing the school can do is expel. Going to a specific university is not a right, nor does expulsion necessarily prevent going to another school or continuing on to that career though other means.

The victim may also face this very situation themselves, because finding against someone who was actually sexually assaulted or is being sexually harassed may now have no other recourse but to change schools or give up on their preferred path to their desired career.
__________________
"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 22nd November 2018, 08:25 AM   #231
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post

I've had many criticisms in the past of the old guidelines, but more often with the implementation. In many of the cases where I had at first attributed poor process with the guidelines, it turned out it was a problem of implementation. Now granted at one level that's still an issue with the guidelines not being optimized in ways that remove those points of failure, but it's impossible to dictate all of it to schools.
Perhaps not the only issue, but some schools seem to have taken a zero tolerance approach or an approach that says the accused must prove their innocence. Nothing in in the ACLU statement suggests they support this, and in fact it runs directly counter to the preponderance of the evidence standard the ACLU is supporting.

The overall picture is that the ACUL supports a process that doesn’t give either side preference over the other, so presumably new rules that required schools to give preference to the accuser would similarly be criticized.
__________________
"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 22nd November 2018, 09:42 AM   #232
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
While this isn’t a criminal proceeding it isn’t a civil proceeding either, it’s an administrative proceeding.
Oy vey.... Please read something, anything for once??
__________________
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 22nd November 2018, 11:12 AM   #233
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oy vey.... Please read something, anything for once??
I read your entire post and responded to it.
__________________
"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 22nd November 2018, 11:51 AM   #234
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
Some problems with the present system

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
{1}While this isn’t a criminal proceeding it isn’t a civil proceeding either, it’s an administrative proceeding. It’s not held before a judge that can enforce contempt of court charges against someone who misbehaves, it’s typically not argued out by lawyers and often involves people that are considered too emotionally immature to drink.

{2} While direct cross examination is the norm in criminal and civil cases presented to a judges, there can be many reasons why it’s unsuitable for administrative processes and many examples of administrative procedures that don’t include it. There are other things the school has interest in as well, but one of their primary concerns is conflict resolution. Allowing emotional 18-year-old kids to attack each other in the form of cross examination is likely to escalate the conflict rather than resolve it.

{3}The due process requirement under US law is not “cross examination” it’s that the proceeding be fair, and fairness is context sensitive. In this context it should mean that the school has a duty to be fair to both sides. This would need to include a mechanism to get to the bottom of both stories, but that doesn’t need to include direct cross examination, which as I outlined above undermines one of the main things the school is trying to achieve.




As already noted above, this the ACLU does acknowledge room for improvement, and even acknowledges that some of the new rules are improvements. It’s arguing that overall these rules make things less fair because the negatives far outweigh the positives, and mostly the rules appear to be aimed at absolving universities of responsibility rather than getting better, more fair handling of these cases.


This is false on both counts. {4}If the school decides against them the accuser could be subject to further harassment and may be forced to continue attending classes with people who sexually assaulted them. This is arguably more than the accused stands to lose.

{5}The contention that this is “career capital punishment” is also false. Other than forwarding the case to the police for a criminal investigation the most serious thing the school can do is expel. Going to a specific university is not a right, nor does expulsion necessarily prevent going to another school or continuing on to that career though other means.

The victim may also face this very situation themselves, because finding against someone who was actually sexually assaulted or is being sexually harassed may now have no other recourse but to change schools or give up on their preferred path to their desired career.
{numbering mine}
1. If I understand the recent court decisions concerning Title IX proceedings correctly, there is still some sort of due process needed. Or putting it another way, the nature of the proceeding does not obliterate the need for any kind of due process.

2. There is a very simple solution to this, namely to let the cross-examination be done by a lawyer. Yet some schools have expressly forbidden the active participation of lawyers in these proceedings. One might think that the ACLU could find the time to mention this. One might also ponder how fair it is to the accused (who as you pointed out may not be of legal age to drink) to defend himself or herself when the accusations are being presented by adults holding professional positions.

3. Cross examination is universally regarded as being among the best inventions to obtain the truth in adversarial proceedings. Moreover, some schools have shown themselves to be indifferent (even hostile) to exculpatory information that they did not turn up but should have. I would cite the Amherst case as being especially egregious in this regard. There was also a case at Brown involving text messages not sought by the investigator (Johnson and Taylor, p. 256). Given these examples, there is no reason to believe that all such investigations are fairly and competently investigated. The ACLU paid lip service to a 2001 DOE guidance, but failed to address in a direct way the shortcomings of the post-2011 system.

Under the present system, there are instances in which third parties initiated the investigation, against the statements of the two parties who were sexually involved. IIRC this problem has been mentioned upthread.

4. Even prior to the hearing, some schools separate the accused and accuser, sometimes in ways that harm the accused (See Johnson and Taylor's book). If after the hearing the accused is found not responsible, then it means that the preponderance of evidence is that they did not commit the offense. I see no harm in offering counseling to the accuser, nor do I see harm in rearranging class schedules in ways that are not unreasonable.

5. There are several reasons why an expulsion might become career capital punishment. One is that a student's educational needs might not be met as well or at all at a different school. This is easier to seen with respect to students in graduate or professional school. Two is that a student's career opportunities have been known to be derailed by these proceedings. The circumstances of the Mumphery case are unusual, but other students have lost internships (IIRC this happened with respect to a case at Brandeis University). One student faced deportation to Syria (Johnson and Taylor, p. 94). Three is that if other schools find out about why the student was expelled, then they are unlikely to admit that student. In some instances how a school found out is unclear. There have been moves to mandate marking student transcripts with a finding of "responsibility," which is highly likely to prevent these students from attending any college. Thomas Klocke committed suicide after he was found responsible by proceedings that may have been beset by some of the problems I have touched upon (the fairness of the proceedings is disputed). Johnson and Taylor document some of the emotional and other harms done to individuals found responsible.

I would like to return to the preponderance of the evidence standard one more time. John Villasenor wrote a paper, the principle of which is pertinent to this discussion. "The quantitative results presented herein show that an innocent defendant faces a dramatically increased risk of conviction when tried under the preponderance of the evidence standard as opposed to under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard." The ACLU did not address the problem that more innocent people will be found guilty when the standard is preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to clear and convincing evidence.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 22nd November 2018 at 11:57 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 22nd November 2018, 01:40 PM   #235
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
And apparently decided they were lying based on what someone said in an op-ed.

If you have some actual evidence the ACLU is lying when it says the new rule only requires the school to take action if the complaint is addressed to specific high ranking staff then by all means present it, but don’t just wave your hands around and insist it must be so because that’s what someone said it on the internet.
No, I decided they were wrong and misleading (I don't say lying because that connotes intent etc.):

"...Require investigation only of complaints brought to specified officials, allowing schools to ignore complaints made to lower-level school employees whom those who experience sexual harassment or assault may know and trust."

I don't see that as ignoring. Hence my multiple examples and questions to which you haven't responded, instead repeatedly spouting off about how I and anyone else who disagrees with you is echoing right-wing op-eds. As if someone isn't allowed to disagree with you or the ACLU from a civil liberties position having nothing to do with left-right per se.

Again, if someone goes to the guy repairing a water fountain with a complaint, how is that choosing to "ignore complaints" if the response is that they tell the person, you need to speak to someone in that office over there instead of me?

And, even if you do think such a person should themselves start the process, every employee must act, well, how does that work with the idea that someone might discuss harassment with someone they know, and not want it to become a formal complaint? You deny the victim that right, you force them to keep silent if they don't want things escalated. Whereas saying, if you want a formal complaint or might want one, go to that office there, is preserving the choice of the person to become a complainant or not.
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 22nd November 2018, 02:20 PM   #236
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,415
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
{numbering mine}
1. If I understand the recent court decisions concerning Title IX proceedings correctly, there is still some sort of due process needed. Or putting it another way, the nature of the proceeding does not obliterate the need for any kind of due process.
The ACLU isn’t opposing due process they are endorsing a specific process where both sides receive equal consideration and treatment. Again the legal requirement for due process is that the proceeding be fair, the ACLU isn’t opposing a fair process they are saying that some of the new rules are unfair because they favor the accused and/or allow the school to ignore complaints.
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
{numbering mine}
There is a very simple solution to this, namely to let the cross-examination be done by a lawyer.
So you are saying that when someone is sexually assaulted it’s appropriate that they be required to hire a lawyer in order to even have their complaint looked at?
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Cross examination is universally regarded as being among the best inventions to obtain the truth in adversarial proceedings.
Like any tool it’s useful in some cases not so useful in others.
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
{
Moreover, some schools have shown themselves to be indifferent (even hostile) to exculpatory information that they did not turn up but should have
This already runs counter to how the ACLU is suggesting things work
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
There are several reasons why an expulsion might become career capital punishment.

None of these are fundamental rights, and the victim potentially faces all the same issues and more.
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post

I would like to return to the preponderance of the evidence standard one more time. John Villasenor wrote a paper, the principle of which is pertinent to this discussion. "The quantitative results presented herein show that an innocent defendant faces a dramatically increased risk of conviction when tried under the preponderance of the evidence standard as opposed to under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard." The ACLU did not address the problem that more innocent people will be found guilty when the standard is preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to clear and convincing evidence.

This isn’t a state vs individual situation where protecting the accused from a false conviction is paramount. It’s attempting to resolve harm to one individual vs harm to another and potential harm to many more. A wrong decision either way is a problem. In such cases what’s most important is getting the best decision possible, and that occurs under the preponderance of evidence standard.
__________________
"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 24th November 2018, 05:45 AM   #237
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
lack of discovery under the present system

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post

{a}So you are saying that when someone is sexually assaulted it’s appropriate that they be required to hire a lawyer in order to even have their complaint looked at?


{b}Like any tool it’s useful in some cases not so useful in others.


{c}This already runs counter to how the ACLU is suggesting things work


{a} I am not sure what you mean. I was referring specifically to cross-examination at the proceedings, not in the investigatory phase. See (vii) at this link.
{b} Do you think that it is useful in Title IX sexual misconduct proceedings?
{c} What the ACLU said was, "It also ensures both parties equal rights to appeal and access to evidence." Their words would carry more weight if they admitted that the present system has been an abject failure by this standard.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides 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 24th November 2018, 08:40 PM   #238
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
{a} I am not sure what you mean. I was referring specifically to cross-examination at the proceedings, not in the investigatory phase. See (vii) at this link.
{b} Do you think that it is useful in Title IX sexual misconduct proceedings?
{c} What the ACLU said was, "It also ensures both parties equal rights to appeal and access to evidence." Their words would carry more weight if they admitted that the present system has been an abject failure by this standard.
The suggestion that any given statement by the ACLU that is not exhaustive on the topic discredits them somehow seems like a silly standard.

Does your posts here not mentioning the improvements of the current system over the old (as in, the 'current' system requires actually addressing accusations and not just, you know, ignoring them or expelling the accuser and sweeping it under the rug) mean your words should carry less weight? Do they have to use the words 'abject failure'? What if they considered those failures a flaw, even a massive one, but one of implementation?

I'm trying to be generous here, because your words appear to be arguing, 'yes the ACLU technically made a completely valid point but I don't still want to criticize them for 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 25th November 2018, 10:20 AM   #239
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,227
things said and unsaid

tyr_13,

"The new rule preserves some important protections for respondents from the Department of Education’s 2001 guidance, such as a guarantee of an impartial investigator and the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. It also ensures both parties equal rights to appeal and access to evidence."

The ACLU should know much more than the average person about procedural rights, and they have plenty of lawyers who are capable of understanding the issues surrounding Title IX proceedings, including a number of successful lawsuits. Given these circumstances, whether or not it is fair to hold them accountable for what they did not say is something about which reasonable people may differ.

There is also what they did say. Let me deal with the issue of access to evidence first. I searched the 2001 document to which the ACLU linked, and I found nothing that indicated a right to the access of evidence turned up in the investigation, only to the right to present evidence and call witnesses (one of the bulleted points on page 20). Under these circumstances one is prompted to ask whether the ACLU is only interested in a relative standard (in which access to the evidence is equal between the accuser and the respondent). In other words perhaps a school that gave neither one any access to the evidence would be sufficient in the ACLU's eyes, because it was equal. What the ACLU should have done is to state how much access each party should have (I favor the principle of open access). Upon rereading the statement from the ACLU, I am now uncertain as to the meaning of "it" in the final sentence above. Perhaps the antecedent was the new rules, not (as I first thought) the 2001 letter.

With respect to the best standard of proof (preponderance vs. clear and convincing), the ACLU ignored the problem of lack of subpoena power among other problems in these proceedings. It ignored the greater number of false findings of responsibility. And it ignored that some civil proceedings do use the clear and convincing standard. In short, they made an assertion but did not address counterarguments.

The ACLU also wrote, "Require investigation only of complaints brought to specified officials, allowing schools to ignore complaints made to lower-level school employees whom those who experience sexual harassment or assault may know and trust." What that means in practice is that if I have a student who comes to me to discuss an incident involving sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, I cannot offer them an opportunity to discuss it in confidence; I must report it.

As an aside, the 2001 guidance document makes me question whether or not the pre-2011 system was as bad as you imply.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides 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 27th November 2018, 03:42 PM   #240
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,819
Quote:
Fairness was not a characteristic of campus sexual-assault cases under the Obama administration rules, which promoted biases and procedures that favoured accusers and led to hundreds of lawsuits by students who were found guilty after being afforded no reasonable opportunities to defend themselves. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) notes, since the Obama rules were promulgated in 2011, ‘approximately 117 federal courts, as well as a number of state courts, have raised concerns about the lack of meaningful procedural protections in campus adjudications’. Opinions criticising the absence of fair procedures ‘were authored by respected judges nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents alike and confirmed by Republican and Democratic Senate majorities’.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/1...t-due-process/

Progressives sell out.
__________________
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
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 11:56 AM.
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.