Monthly Archives: February 2019

, , /

TITLE IX Witness Intimidation, it’s a Thing. Witnesses who Defend the Accused are Indeed Punished

Witness intimidation in criminal cases usually calls to mind organized-crime bosses trying to conceal their guilt. In campus Title IX proceedings, however, a different kind of mob exacts a social and professional price from witnesses who defend the accused. Ask Tanaya Devi, a Harvard doctoral candidate in economics. Her mentor, African American 41 year old, Roland Fryer, founded Harvard’s EdLabs, which describes itself as “an education research and development laboratory devoted to closing the racial achievement gap.” Last year two unnamed women who once worked there filed Title IX complaints accusing Mr. Fryer of verbal sexual harassment. Ms. Devi worked at EdLabs. She says in an interview that she was close friends with one of the accusers, that she witnessed many of the disputed interactions—and that Mr. Fryer did nothing wrong. Ms. Devi publicly defended Mr. Fryer. Since then, she says she’s struggled to find research collaborators and has lost nearly every female friend at Harvard. There was this culture of guilty until proven innocent and, if you’re defending him, guilt by association.”..Another example comes from Matthew Sahm’s lawsuit against Ohio’s Miami University, which expelled him after another student accused him of sexual assault. A sorority sister of the accuser, wrote in an affidavit that she told the Title IX investigator, Susan Tobergte, that eyewitnesses might have exculpatory testimony. “I left feeling very uncomfortable, especially after Susan had suggested I google statistics about sexual assault to find that less than 2% of sexual assault cases were wrongful convictions,” – “I felt that she [Susan] was biased towards one side of the case.” It was “hard to bring information to a table when you are unsure if it will affect your status or relationships in a sorority.” One other witness, also described social pressures not to defend Mr. Sahm. “I have been extremely disturbed by the accusations [against Mr. Sahm] and the literal abandonment of the truth,- this has been really hard to write…I think that if one’s constructed truth begins to hurt another’s character, future, or dignity, that is it is only fair that ‘predisposed alliances’ be let go with the opportunity for reality to surface.”

Read the WSJ pdf article: Title IX’s Witness Intimidation or click article link here wsj.com/articles By Jillian Kay Melchior

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
WILL Presumption of Innocence Be The Next To Fall?

, , /

WILL Presumption of Innocence Be The Next To Fall?

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, led a multistate coalition of 19 Attorneys General in submitting a formal, legal comment letter to Secretary Betsy DeVos and the DoED, ‘calling on federal officials to withdraw a proposed rule that would undermine the anti-discrimination protections of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and weaken protections against sexual harassment and violence for students.  The proposed rule would impose new requirements on schools and students that would be a significant departure from the fundamental purpose of Title IX and the Education Department’s longstanding Title IX guidance, and leave campuses less safe.’  That the new rules would be a “significant departure” was pretty much the point. The thrust of their arguments coming from AGs isn’t merely childish, but disconcerting. The AGs are arguing that due process is an evil that should be eliminated on campus because it makes woman “unsafe.” They are arguing against the value of due process, fundamental fairness for the accused male student. There is also an argument rarely seen, and never by an attorney general. -There should be no presumption of innocence.-  They are arguing that an accused male student shouldn’t be presumed innocent of rape before the burden of proof, whatever that might be, is sustained. Just as due process has been vilified in this process to assure the men lose, the presumption of innocence is now the target of the AGs’ rhetoric.

simplejustice.us By Scott H. Greenfield

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
REPORT: 48 Colleges in 21 States Show Over Half of Accused Students Found Not Responsible

, , , /

REPORT: 48 Colleges in 21 States Show Over Half of Accused Students Found Not Responsible

An analysis of annual reports from 48 colleges in 21 states reveals that 52.7% of campus sexual assault adjudications resulted in a finding of “not responsible” for the accused student. The analysis includes only reports that specifically identify the outcomes for adjudications involving allegations of sexual assault. This finding is similar to a 2017 NCHERM report titled “Due Process and the Sex Police” that stated, “annual summaries show that they are finding no violation of policy 60% of the time in their total case decisions.” Most institutions review sexual misconduct cases based on the preponderance of evidence standard. In practice, this standard is essentially a measure of credibility of the statements of the accuser and the accused. The fact that a larger percentage of students was found not responsible demonstrates that most allegations investigated by colleges are determined to be unfounded. To see the outcomes of campus adjudications of sexual assault claims at 48 colleges click here:   Below is a sample of seven colleges.

COLLEGE     2017Enroll     PERIOD   RESPONSIBLE    NOT RESPONSIBLE

Amherst          1,849                2014                      5                          3

Brown             9,781                 2016-17                0                          3

Dartmouth      6,409                2016-17                4                          4

Hamilton         1,883                2016-17                4                          3

Occidental       1,969                2015-16                2                          0

Stanford          17,184              2016-17                3                          5

Yale                  12,458              2017-18                2                          4

A big thank you to SAVE: Stop Abusive & Violent Environments

 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUST HOW Easy Should It Be to Destroy a Young Man’s Life?

, , , /

JUST HOW Easy Should It Be to Destroy a Young Man’s Life?

Yesterday, the New York Times published a student activist’s op-ed with a rather provocative title: “When College Rapists Graduate.” Now, when you read those words, what do you think? I initially thought the story must be about a prison education program. Instead, the piece was written by a law student and feminist activist, Alyssa Leader,  who laments the outcome of a campus sexual-assault adjudication, and condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to introduce a greater degree of due-process protections to the campus tribunals that hear sexual misconduct cases. Leader claims she was sex assaulted. She filed a complaint against him with the university (Harvard), which, after applying the most lenient burden of proof and a degree of due process that would never be acceptable in any criminal or civil court, found him not responsible. She then sued Harvard. A judge dismissed the case. It’s against this backdrop that Leader now complains that her alleged assaulter “got a coveted job, where he’ll only have more power as time goes on.” The message is crystal clear — not only should colleges adjudicate sexual-assault claims under the most lenient possible standards, they should act as a firewall against the future careers of young men in the crosshairs. But how easy should it be to destroy a young man’s life? According to campus activists like Leader, the answer is: very easy. When Leader condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to bring basic due process to campus, here’s what she’s condemning:

  • The right to cross-examine witnesses;
  • The right to a live hearing;
  • The right to see the evidence against you;
  • An end to “investigator-only” adjudication, in which one person investigates and adjudicates the claims against a student;
  • A definition of sexual harassment that’s consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence; and
  • A definition of sexual assault consistent with statutory law.

Let’s make this very clear: When campus activists argue against the Trump administration’s due-process guidelines, they are arguing for the power of campus administrators to punish (mainly) young men for alleged acts on or off campus without cross-examination, without seeing available evidence, without a live hearing, and under definitions of the alleged offenses far broader than those that apply under relevant law. For centuries, basic due process has been rightly viewed as indispensable to any decent system of justice. We need an adjudication to determine whether a person is indeed a “survivor.” “Believe women” is a slogan. It cannot form the foundation of a system of justice. Let’s remember, Title IX is a government statute. Title IX adjudications are a government requirement. And before the government can mandate punitive action against any citizen, at the very least it owes that citizen a fair process.

On campus, the Trump administration isn’t departing from norms and values. It’s restoring them to their rightful place in American law.

nationalreview.com By David French

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
RULING: Indiana U. Accused Male Denied Injunction

, , , /

RULING: Indiana U. Accused Male Denied Injunction

A male student accused of sexual misconduct was denied a preliminary injunction to prevent Indiana University Bloomington from suspending him as a sanction from what he called a “fundamentally unfair disciplinary process.” Filing under the pseudonym of “John Doe,” the student was suspended for four years from Indiana University after an investigation by the school concluded he had engaged in nonconsensual sexual activity.  The case involves an unusual set of facts — while Doe and the female student were having sexual intercourse, someone entered the room and took a picture. The photo was later posted on social media, which led to a separate investigation by the IU Office of Student Conduct. Doe sued IU, asserting, among other claims, Title IX violations and breach of contract. In his motion for preliminary injunction, Doe argued IU’s investigation, disciplinary hearing and decision were biased against him because he is male. Doe argued as part of the investigation, IU did not develop leads or evidence on its own and the investigators arbitrarily determined the relevance of certain witness statements and did not resolve inconsistencies. Also, he asserted IU selectively enforced its policy of not allowing evidence of sexual history when the university did not interview his past sexual partners about his practice of obtaining consent, but did allow evidence that the female student was a virgin at the time of the incident. The case is one of at least 10 filed by students against at least six state universities that claim disciplinary cases concerning allegations of sexual misconduct violated students’ rights.

theindianalawyer.com By Marilyn Odendahl

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
TITLE IX Complaint Filed Against Harvard Alleging Discrimination Against Men

, , , /

TITLE IX Complaint Filed Against Harvard Alleging Discrimination Against Men

A Ph.D. student and two former lawyers filed a Title IX complaint with the United States Department of Education, alleging Harvard had created “a hostile environment against men.”  The complaint — which, if opened for investigation, would join three ongoing probes into Harvard’s Title IX compliance — was filed with the Office for Civil Rights, according to its authors. The complainants contend that, by maintaining ties with the American Psychological Association, Harvard is endorsing the APA’s new guidelines on the potential harm of “traditional masculinity,” and therefore discriminating against men. “When we read the recently published guidelines, it was clear to us that the ‘guidelines’ represent a pervasive set of ideological distortions among psychologists,” wrote one of the complainants, “We believe those ideological distortions result from misandry and hostility towards men and boys.” The complaint suggests that the APA revise its guidelines or that Harvard eliminate its relationship with the APA.

thecrimson.com By S.C. Chu and I. M. Lewis

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