Monthly Archives: January 2019

, , /

GREAT NEWS. TulaneU Will Stop Financially Discriminating Against Male Students

In a rare federal win for male students, Tulane University has made an agreement with the federal government to stop discriminating against men by offering female-only scholarships and financial aid. OCR launched an investigation into Tulane University in August amid concerns that six of the school’s scholarships violated Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination. The complaint was filed by Margaret Valois, a Virginia Title IX attorney. Four months later, Valois got unprecedented news. Tulane University quietly entered into a resolution agreement with the OCR, which dictates that Tulane is now undertaking steps to ensure that financial assistance is fairly distributed. “I am optimistic that Tulane, and other schools as well, will recognize the need for change across the board in their academic programs, and that this agreement can serve as a road map to that change,” said Valois.

While Valois is sympathetic to Title IX’s original goal of ensuring equity for women, Valois also argues that in many ways, men are not only underrepresented on college campuses, but also discriminated against in Title IX trials that violate due process. Men account for just 41% of Tulane’s student population and are less likely to graduate, so providing scholarships to the sex that is currently excelling in higher education is suspicious. “Tulane’s implementation of Title IX provides greater educational opportunities for female students than for male students. When opportunities and benefits are offered to one group because of their sex… it is patently unfair,” said Valois.

For decades, we’ve been focused on ensuring that women had opportunities to pursue their educations, and those efforts succeeded, resulting in student bodies now being around 60 percent female…the tables have turned, and this case acknowledges that reverse-discrimination exists against men in academia.” Margaret Valois.

pjmedia By T. Airaksinen dailywire By A. Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , /

CHANGES to Title IX Rules Will Restore Balance to Every College Student of Every Sex

Women have nothing to fear from the Title IX proposed changes by DeVos’s Dept. of Education. On the contrary, it is a fair process and they stand to gain a lot. The changes to Title IX enforcement are completely common sense, restoring some semblance of justice to the kangaroo court “trials” that have been taking place across America’s campuses for the last several years. Let’s start with a fact that all corners of the political spectrum should be able to face: the old process was not working. The country got a hard look at the campus Title IX environment during the hearings for now-Justice Kavanaugh, and most Americans didn’t like what they saw. Americans recognized that the emotion-soaked melee that has replaced traditional principles of justice is antithetical to the pursuit of truth, and what they saw on display comes directly from the model of university Title IX investigations. Almost 60 percent of men and women no longer think a man accused of sexual misconduct has the presumption of innocence. DeVos’ changes roll back some of the madness and place appropriate boundaries on how allegations of sexual assault at universities can be investigated. For example, the proposed rule reintroduces cross-examination — “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth” — back into the process. Despite fake news from some, this does not mean that accusers will be cross-examined by their alleged assaulters; in fact, the two never even have to be in the same room. Other key changes include banning the increasingly popular but grossly unfair single-investigator model where a single fact finder both examines the facts and renders a decision. The new rule also properly limits the jurisdiction of Title IX to campus and school events, recognizing the reality that while they don’t always act like it, college students are adults for whom universities cannot always be responsible.

thehill.com By Inez Stepman   COMMENT on TIX New Rules Here

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
A Father’s Story: How the Lack of Due Process can Impact a Young Man’s Life

, , /

A Father’s Story: How the Lack of Due Process can Impact a Young Man’s Life

This story was written by the parent of a wrongly accused student. The names have been changed to protect their identities…Michael grew up in a NJ middle-class family. Although his parents separated when he was very young, both parents spent considerable time together as a family, with Michael and his older sister, Christina, attending as many of their school and sports functions as possible. Michael was smart and athletic, although he was also a somewhat shy child that looked up to his older sister. Both kids were raised to be polite, well behaved and respectful. Starting when letter grades could be earned in school, Michael got all “A’s” every marking period all the way to eighth grade, when he got his first B, in Health.  All of his teachers spoke very highly of him and how well-mannered and polite he was. This good behavior and scholastic performance continued into high school, allowing him to graduate in the top 10% of his class. He dated a few girls but didn’t have a steady girlfriend until his senior year….

titleixforall.

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
CA Appellate Court Overturns Title IX Finding Against Former USC Tight End Bryce Dixon

, , , /

CA Appellate Court Overturns Title IX Finding Against Former USC Tight End Bryce Dixon

Almost four years after USC expelled tight end Bryce Dixon because a Title IX investigation found he engaged in nonconsensual sex with a student athletic trainer, the decision was overturned by an appellate court that found the school’s process to be “fundamentally flawed.” The three-justice panel in California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote in an opinion published recently that USC “failed to provide a fair hearing” to Dixon. “In [Dixon’s] case, he was accused of sexual misconduct for which he faced serious disciplinary sanctions, and the credibility of witnesses was central to the adjudication of the allegations against him,” the 52-page opinion said. “In those circumstances, he was entitled to a procedure in which he could cross-examine witnesses, directly or indirectly, at a hearing at which the witnesses appeared in person or by other means before a neutral adjudicator with the power to make finding of credibility and facts. Because USC failed to provide such a procedure, the adjudication findings that he committed sexual misconduct … cannot stand.” The appellate court’s opinion, which examined the differing versions of the October 2014 encounter in graphic detail, faulted USC for giving one person, Dr. Kegan Allee, “the overlapping and inconsistent roles of investigator, prosecutor, factfinder, and sentencer” in the matter.

latimes  By Nathan Fenno

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD! JUDGE ORDERS SouthernMiss President to ‘Immediately’ Reinstate Male. He Never X-Examined Accuser.

, , /

GOOD! JUDGE ORDERS SouthernMiss President to ‘Immediately’ Reinstate Male. He Never X-Examined Accuser.

“Only in rare instances is the issuance of this type of injunction proper … In its discretion, based on the totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court finds this is one of those rare instances.”A federal judge took the unusual step of banning a university from suspending a  student accused of sexual assault, based on the fact that he’d lose his athletic scholarship – and ability to pay for college – in the process. By preventing John Doe from cross-examining his accuser at a “live proceeding,” the University of Southern Mississippi likely violated Doe’s procedural due process rights, U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett wrote in a memorandum opinion and order. Not only was Doe not allowed to be present during anyone else’s interview, but he wasn’t allowed to submit questions for others. He was only allowed to see and comment on a “summary” of the interviews…His background makes clear he comes from a humble family. Doe is the youngest of 18 children “from the same mother” and can’t graduate if he loses his athletic scholarship, which is paying for college, Doe’s attorney said. The judge ordered President Rodney Bennett to “immediately” reinstate Doe in good standing and let him attend both courses and scholarship-required activities on campus, including practices and games. Starrett didn’t find Doe a threat based on Roe’s two-year wait to report the incident and her confirmation that Doe didn’t pose a threat to her “in any way.”

thecollegefix By Greg Piper

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
FIGHTING COLLEGE Kangaroo Courts. #HeToo. Accused Fight Back in Court and Often Win

, , /

FIGHTING COLLEGE Kangaroo Courts. #HeToo. Accused Fight Back in Court and Often Win

John Doe and Jane Roe met, danced and drank. Then went to John’s room, and had sex. Two days later, Jane filed a sexual misconduct charge against John, saying she was too drunk to consent. John disagreed. After several months of investigation, the University of Michigan found for Jane. John was forced to withdraw from the university, just 13.5 credits shy of graduating.  But then John took a step that is becoming more common among students who believe they have been harmed by tough policies aimed at combating campus sexual assault. He hired a lawyer and took the university to court, maintaining his innocence and charging the school had denied him even the rudiments of due process, specifically the right to question or cross-examine his accuser.  And in the preliminary legal skirmishing that has taken place so far, a federal appeals court thunderously rejected the university’s motion to dismiss John’s lawsuit.

“When it comes to due process, the ‘opportunity to be heard’ is the constitutional minimum,” Judge Amul Thapar wrote in a majority decision. “If a student is accused of misconduct, the university must hold some sort of hearing before imposing a sentence as serious as expulsion or suspension, and … that hearing must include an opportunity for cross-examination.”

realclearinvestigations By Richard Berstein

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DUE PROCESS WIN. CA Court of Appeal Publishes Significant Decision. John Doe v. Claremont McKenna

, , , /

DUE PROCESS WIN. CA Court of Appeal Publishes Significant Decision. John Doe v. Claremont McKenna

Recently, a California Court of Appeal published a significant decision, John Doe v. Claremont McKenna College, addressing student discipline arising from an allegation of sexual assault. The ruling is notable because the judges cited a precedent from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is not binding on California state courts, that concerned a public university, unlike CMC. In its analysis, the Court examined recent court decisions addressing an educational institution’s obligations to provide students due process in disciplinary matters, including two California Cases, Doe v. Regents of University of California and Doe v. University of Southern California. The Court also analyzed a recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal analyzing whether an accused’s due process rights were violated in a sexual misconduct case. In that case, the Sixth Circuit found that under due process principles, accused students must have the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses in the most serious of cases. The ruling by Justice Helen Bendix, joined by her two colleagues, (all three justices are women) said CMC had violated the “core principles” required in a case where an accused student faces a “severe penalty” on the basis of a credibility determination. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and instructed the trial court to review John’s request to review the College’s decision.

calpublicagencyblog By Stein-Manes thecollegefix By Thatcher

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
PLANNED Parenthood Pushes Debunked ‘1 in 5’ Stat to Crush Trump Campus Sex Assault Policy

, /

PLANNED Parenthood Pushes Debunked ‘1 in 5’ Stat to Crush Trump Campus Sex Assault Policy

Planned Parenthood is dusting off an already debunked statistic to urge opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed campus sex misconduct rule that emphasizes both the seriousness of sexual assault and due process for those accused of misconduct. However, the “1 in 5” statistic – spread widely by the Obama administration through its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – is “wildly at odds with the official crime statistics,” said American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and former philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers, in a fact-check video:  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the actual rate of sexual assault on college campuses is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or .03 in 5. The rate of rape and sexual assault for non-students is actually 1.2 times higher than for students – 7.6 per 1,000. “Where did the CDC find more than a million and nearly 14 million victims of sexual violence that professional criminologists somehow overlooked?” Sommers asked in the video. “It found them by using a poorly constructed telephone survey with a low response rate and a non-representative sample of respondents. No one interviewed was asked if they had been raped or sexually assaulted.”Armed with the false “1 in 5” statistic however, the Obama administration threatened to cut funding to colleges and universities who did not implement its policy… In November, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced the proposed new rule and opened it to public comment. “Throughout this process, my focus was, is, and always will be on ensuring that every student can learn in a safe and nurturing environment,” DeVos said. In her announcement of the new rule, DeVos cited cases of students, nearly all male, who were either expelled or punished in some other manner after being accused of misconduct actions which were never proven. “Instead of working with schools,” DeVos said, “the prior administration weaponized the Office for Civil Rights.”

breitbart By Dr. Susan Berry

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2 3 4