Monthly Archives: July 2020

DOUBLE JEOPARDY: SAVE Calls on College Admin. to Assure Due Process Protections For Black Students In Title IX Proceedings

, , /

DOUBLE JEOPARDY: SAVE Calls on College Admin. to Assure Due Process Protections For Black Students In Title IX Proceedings

SAVE recently released a study that shows black male students face a type of “double jeopardy” by virtue of being male and black. Analyses show although black male students are far outnumbered on college campuses, they are four times more likely than white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX proceedings, and at one university OCR investigated for racial discrimination, black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violence reported to the university yet they comprised only 4.2% of the student population.

In 2015, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley raised an alarm to the U.S. Senate HELP committee that, “the rate of complaints and sanctions against male students of color is unreasonably high.” She advised school administrators to, “not only to secure sex equality but also to be on the lookout for racial bias and racially disproportionate impact and for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity – not only against complainants but also against the accused.”

Her powerful words were ignored. Over the past 5 years numerous black males have been caught up in campus Title IX proceedings. Their lawsuits often claim a lack of due process in the procedures.

The new Title IX regulation offers necessary due process protections that black students need. By complying with the regulation, college administrators will protect the rights of all students and address the serious problem that black men are accused and punished at unreasonably high rates. At a time when activists on college campuses are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, college administrators should assure they are doing everything they can to help their black students.

saveservices.org-Press Release

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
REPUBLICAN Attorneys General Argue Trump’s Title IX Rules Follow The Law Better Than Obama’s

, , , /

REPUBLICAN Attorneys General Argue Trump’s Title IX Rules Follow The Law Better Than Obama’s

Responding to a lawsuit by several state Democratic attorneys general, nearly as many of their Republican counterparts are coming to the defense of the Department of Education’s new Title IX rules. Fourteen top law enforcement officials, from Alaska to Florida, argued that the final regulation on sexual misconduct creates “reasonable standards for fighting gender discrimination in education,” while also providing a safeguard for free speech and due process. “The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct,” says their friend-of-the-court brief. “A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus.”

Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, who chronicles Title IX litigation, noted their brief “represents the highest-profile *political* support that the movement for campus due process has received,” he tweeted, calling it “a ringing indictment of unfair procedures” used by some of their own state universities.

The public support for the new Title IX rules come on the heels of monthslong opposition and litigation attempts from Democrats, who still favor the Obama-era rules on sexual misconduct proceedings. The ACLU sued to block implementation of the regulation saying it created a “second-class standard for reports of sexual harassment and assault.” The Republicans disputed that. The regulation promotes the “anti-discrimination purposes of Title IX without infringing on the free exchange of ideas,” they argued:

And as such, it rejects the notion that public universities can punish students for speech—no matter how offensive, disparaging, or unpopular it may be—unless it has been established that the speech prevents another student from participating in or enjoying the benefits of a recipient’s education program.

The due process rights of both accuser and accused are protected under the final regulation by mitigating against “arbitrary decision making,” the officials assert. Prior regulations and guidance contained “constitutional and statutory deficiencies,” such as authorizing “single investigator” models that deprive accused students of “impartial decision makers.” They tolerated efforts to inhibit live hearings and cross-examination, “even when witness credibility was at issue,” and “effectively eliminated” presumption of innocence.

Courts identified “numerous safeguards vital to fair process and the context in which a student accused of sexual harassment is entitled to receive them” following the Obama administration’s 2011 guidance on sexual misconduct proceedings, which the new regulation supersedes. “Plaintiffs and the academic institutions they claim to represent could have heeded the text and spirit of these rulings at any time,” the brief continues: “Instead, schools, colleges, and universities across the country divested students of due process and waited for the courts to intervene.”

“Numerous courts have recognized the constitutional deficiencies of such procedures,” the brief continued. The new rules step in “where academic institutions have failed,” knowing full well “for years that many of their disciplinary policies fall short of constitutional minimums.” Universities have instead waited for students “to force the issue through litigation,” the Republican AGs say.

thecollegefix.com-Christian Lubke

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
UNDERSTANDING The Lawsuits Against New IX Regulations

, , /

UNDERSTANDING The Lawsuits Against New IX Regulations

Four lawsuits have been filed against new Department of Education regulations for how colleges must respond to sexual misconduct on campus. The lawsuits question the merits of the regulations and seek to block their implementation. Although the regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education completely overhaul current policies and procedures for handling sexual misconduct complaints, the significance of those changes has been largely overshadowed by the coronavirus. The American Council on Education and more than 24 other higher education associations have asked the Education Department for more time to restructure campus policies and procedures. The associations have also asked a federal court to halt the implementation of the changes.

Supporters of the new requirements argue that students will be harmed if the new regulations are not implemented by August.

Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said, “Going into yet another school year without these protections in place is not acceptable.” FIRE and other civil liberties groups are planning legal action to ensure the new regulations are implemented by the deadline. READ FULL Article: insidehighered.com-Greta Anderson

A coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.

The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.” READ FULL Articles: Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students Due Process Rights- Red State AGs Are Fighting Back

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
PURDUE’S ‘Sorority Goal’ Girls Have Sex, Then Accuse. Two White Girls Accuse Three Black Males. One Just Settled.

, , /

PURDUE’S ‘Sorority Goal’ Girls Have Sex, Then Accuse. Two White Girls Accuse Three Black Males. One Just Settled.

One aspect that is often overlooked in matters of campus sexual assault is the prevalence of white women accusing black men. As America battles with allegations of systemic racism, somehow these campus cases are ignored, even though the men involved receive almost no due process to defend themselves. A recent example of this comes from Purdue University, which recently settled with a black football player who had been accused of sexual assault and denied an opportunity to defend himself. 

John Doe filed a lawsuit against Purdue in early 2019, two years after he was expelled from the university after an adjudication process that he says didn’t even follow the school’s outlined policies. Further, John argued racial and gender bias played a role in his expulsion. John’s lawsuit alleges that  Jane sat on one of the football player’s laps stated her intent for a threesome. Jane, according to John’s lawsuit, made this statement in front of five students who were present. Later, after the sexual assault allegations were made, all remaining witnesses stated that Jane made such a comment and Jane did not deny it, according to John’s lawsuit.

…John was told that Jane wanted to have sex with him. John entered the bedroom to find Jane and Rachel sitting on the bed. Jane, according to the lawsuit, “immediately” approached John and said, “come here,” before pulling down his shorts and underwear. She began performing oral sex on John. During this time, another girl, Rachel and one of John’s friends engaged in sexual activity. The two women, according to the lawsuit, made comments that they were enjoying themselves and that “this is the best thing we’ve ever done.” After John ejaculated from the oral sex, he says, Jane took off her pants and underwear and told him to have sex with her. John wrote in his lawsuit that he “had become uneasy and did not wish to further engage in any sexual contact” with either of the women, so he left the room to clean himself and return to the main room to watch television. After he left, he alleges, the two women had sexual intercourse with his friend. John’s other friend eventually entered the bedroom to engage in some kind of sexual activity with the women. John says he did not return to the bedroom.At some point, everyone returned to the main room and talked about the events of that evening, with the women allegedly claiming it was  a “sorority goal” and again saying it was “the best thing we have ever done.” At that time, John alleges, neither woman expressed any concern about the group sex.

The next day, however, on October 14, 2016, both women contacted the West Lafayette Police Department to claim they had been sexually assaulted. Jane told a detective that she was not intoxicated and was capable of giving consent. She also stated she consented to sex with men at the house but said she did not consent to all of the sexual contact. Jane even stated to police that she had talked about having group sex and voluntarily engaged in it. She did not elaborate on which sexual contact to which she did not consent. Rachel’s statement to the police was similar. John was contacted by the detective to give a statement. He explained what happened and the detective said the women gave similar statements. The detective presented the information he had to the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor’s office, which declined to charge any of the men involved.

Four days later, however, on October 18, 2016, John received a letter from Purdue’s dean of students informing him he had been accused of sexually assaulting Jane. John was informed that he would be immediately suspended from Purdue. On October 26, John met with the dean of students to appeal his suspension, which was granted. On November 4, John attended a meeting with two investigators for the school who, according to John’s lawsuit, “had no relevant experience in investigating allegations of this nature nor had they received adequate training on the due process rights of the accused.”…It wasn’t until February 8, 2017, that John was told a hearing would be held the following week. John was also told he could not present any evidence at the hearing. On February 28, 2017, John was found responsible for sexual assault. He was told the dean of students found Jane “more credible,” but did not explain why. John says that he was not allowed to present any evidence that would undermine Jane’s credibility. John was expelled but appealed. His appeal could not contain new evidence and had to rely only on the evidence presented in the school’s investigative report, which was so heavily redacted “as to render the document nearly illegible.”  John was also not allowed to review transcripts of interviews or anything else that informed the report.

John was expelled, removed from the football team, and lost his scholarship. John couldn’t join another football team because Purdue refused to release him. So, John sued, and on July 17, 2020, Purdue filed a notice of settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The details of the settlement are not public, but students in similar situations have received monetary payments that range from a few thousand dollars to nearly one million dollars. 

dailywire.com-Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
RED PILL Cassie Jaye Writes, My Dear Friend Marc Angelucci, Was Murdered.

, , /

RED PILL Cassie Jaye Writes, My Dear Friend Marc Angelucci, Was Murdered.

From Cassie Jaye, One of my dearest friends and the most brilliant and good-hearted person to dedicate his life to justice for men and boys, Marc Angelucci, was murdered yesterday in front of his home in California.

I first met Marc in 2013. He was one of the first people I interviewed for The Red Pill. He had an undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley, a law degree from UCLA Law and when he saw one of his closest friends being physically abused by his wife and then denied access to resources because he was a man, Marc began investigating. He never initially planned on being a “men’s rights attorney” (as I labeled him in my film), but his big heart wouldn’t let him turn his back on good, innocent people needing legal counsel. The more he worked on these cases, the more he learned how unjust the system was. 

The more I got to know him, the more I realized he was truly an angel on Earth who only had goodness in his heart, was always honorable in the work he did, and he was really the one person that could truly enact legal change on state and federal levels on behalf of men and boys. He won so many cases that few would be willing to touch and fewer would be willing to do pro bono, but he did it because it was the right thing to do. 

I honestly don’t know anyone else like him and that scares me. Who will carry on his legacy? His death is tragic, it wasn’t his time, he was in the prime of his life. He’s been working on so many important legal cases lately and I’m sure he had even bigger work on the horizon. I don’t know who could do this to him – and to us, because we have lost a real life hero.     

From the National Coalition for Men, Marc Etienne Angelucci, Vice-President and Board Member of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) and longtime President and Founder of the Los Angeles Chapter of NCFM, was tragically murdered early just before four p.m. on July 11, 2020, in front of his home.

Marc compiled a truly legendary set of legal achievements, including recently winning an equal protection case against the Selective Service Administration overturning male-only draft registration. In 2008 Marc won a landmark appellate case against the State of California (Woods v. Horton) which held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from state funding for victim services. Marc also helped draft and enact legislation to stop paternity fraud, served on the California DCSS Paternity Committee, served on the Training Committee of the L.A. County Domestic Violence Council, and testified before the California Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees. In a remarkable tribute to Marc’s skill at building bridges and remedying discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which some might think would be opposed to much of his work, invited him to be an Honoree on their Wall of Tolerance.

Marc was extremely well-spoken and a skilled publicist for men’s issues, appearing on the Phil Donahue show, on Dr. Phil, and in countless other television, radio, and newspaper outlets. Marc published op-ed opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times and numerous other press outlets, tirelessly speaking out for a fairer, kinder world.

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
TITLE IX Reforms Will Restore Due Process for Victims And The Accused

, , /

TITLE IX Reforms Will Restore Due Process for Victims And The Accused

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has released new Title IX regulations that radically change how gender sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes are resolved on college campuses. This is a good thing. I am a liberal Democrat, feminist and advocate for Title IX and women’s issues, but the way these disputes have been adjudicated on college campuses using Obama-era administrative guidance has been catastrophic. Those guidelines, encompassed in a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, are vague, imprecise, constitutionally and legally dubious and patently unfair toward the accused, contributing to investigation outcomes that are unreliable and too often erroneous. There have been more than 600 court cases filed by accused students challenging unfavorable Title IX rulings, with the majority of the judicial decisions supporting the plaintiffs and scores of additional cases settled favorably prior to judgement.

I am a former faculty member at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who personally experienced Obama-era Title IX compliance guidelines. During my ordeal, I was not allowed to know the allegations against me, the names of the complainant or her witnesses, have my own witnesses, present evidence on my behalf or defend myself in any way—and I was gagged throughout. Free speech, due process and truth-finding were out the window, and the preordained outcome was unfavorable. I was to learn a year later that the accusations against me were fabrications. The DeVos regulations will eliminate such injustices.

The DeVos rule affords a meticulous and comprehensive framework for Title IX enforcement that promotes free speech and due process and restores fairness, equitability and credibility to these quasi-judicial campus proceedings.

newsweek.com

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
BLUE State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back.

, , , /

BLUE State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back.

In June a group of 18 Blue State attorneys general filed a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to try and block new regulations that would provide much needed due process to college students accused of sexual assault.

In July a coalition of Red State attorneys general filed a brief defending the new regulations.  The attorneys general from 14 other states (Amici States) filed an amicus brief to defend the regulations. The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.” In their brief, the AGs make three arguments in defense of the new regulations.

First, the Amici States argue that the new regulations “set forth reasonable standards for combating gender discrimination in educational programs while safeguarding free speech and due process.” In support of this assertion, the Amici States emphasize that the new regulations track United States Supreme Court precedent set forth in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education and follow the direction of the numerous courts that have repeatedly struck down unconstitutionally overbroad anti-harassment policies.

The Amici States’ second argument asserts, “Plaintiffs’ conscious failure to comply with Title IX and the constitutional norms—not the Final Rule—caused their alleged injuries.” In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs claim that the regulations will cause them irreparable harm, especially if they go into effect as scheduled on August 14. The Plaintiffs are, in essence, arguing that the deadline is too short.  The Amici States, however, powerfully point out that most of the protections provided in the regulations are “already required by the Constitution and recognized by the courts.” Indeed, there have been hundreds of lawsuits challenging the fundamental fairness of campus Title IX proceedings and courts in many of the Plaintiffs’ jurisdictions have questioned the sufficiency of the protections afforded by campus policies.

The final argument advanced by the Amici States is that “[s]tudents will suffer severe and irreparable harm from an injunction delaying the Final Rule.” Yet every day that the new regulations are not yet in effect is a day that institutions across the country will continue to irreparably harm students by denying them these basic procedural protections. The brief explains why the new regulations are so urgently needed and why issuing the injunction the Plaintiffs are requesting would be so harmful: The absence of meaningful safeguards in current disciplinary schemes means that academic institutions can and have imposed life-altering consequences on students without ever giving them a real opportunity to defend themselves.

Finally, the opening of the Amici States’ brief eloquently argues the merits of the new regulations’ approach. The brief persuasively articulates the appropriateness of the new regulation’s balance—an approach that doesn’t champion the rights of one side over the other, but instead provides a framework where sexual misconduct can be effectively addressed within constitutional boundaries. thefire.org-Joe Cohn  dailywire.com-Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD NEWS. Judge Dismisses Suit Stemming From 2005 Dartmouth Encounter

, , /

GOOD NEWS. Judge Dismisses Suit Stemming From 2005 Dartmouth Encounter

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former Dartmouth College student stemming from a drunken encounter 15 years ago she has asserted turned into a sexual assault. The other party in the case, who was a Tuck School of Business student at the time, says they had consensual sex and has filed a countersuit.

In the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York, Monica Morrison asked the court for a ruling that would protect her from future defamation claims if she ever spoke publicly about the May 2005 incident, saying the ability to speak about it constitutes a First Amendment right. Morrison, who was a 19-year-old sophomore at the time, said she was drunk during the encounter and that Robert Langrick, was a 29-year-old Tuck student. The pair met at a Dartmouth fraternity party, and Langrick contends that he too had been drinking and that they had consensual intercourse that night in a group house belonging to an undergraduate society where Morrison was living at the time.

Hanover police investigated the incident and never charged Langrick with any sex crime. Langrick argued in a motion this spring that Morrison’s lawsuit sought “hypothetical advisory opinions” that the judge could not issue. In the order filed July 9, Judge Carol Bagley Amon sided with Langrick, saying that the court does not have “subject jurisdiction” to rule on hypothetical situations. She dismissed the claims with prejudice, meaning Morrison cannot file them again. Langrick’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, said that “these claims were meritless from the outset and brought solely in an attempt to garner publicity.” vnews.com-A.Merriman

For Background Read: Complicated Lawsuit. If You Drink, & Have Consent Sex, A MeToo Activist Could Ruin You 14 Years Later Claiming Regret Rape.

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DUE PROCESS For Title IX In The #MeToo Era

, , /

DUE PROCESS For Title IX In The #MeToo Era

The issue of due process came roaring back to the forefront of national discourse recently. The nation contemplated the sexual assault allegations made against Presidential candidate Joe Biden by Tara Reade and the resulting hypocritical response by Democratic politicians.  Hypocritical because when then Judge Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misdeeds, Democratic leaders were quick to adjudge him guilty as accused. Indeed, Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono stated “men should just shut up …women like [Kavanaugh accuser] Dr. Ford need to be believed.”…“This process is sending the worst possible message to girls and boys everywhere,” Gillibrand said. “It’s telling American women that your voice doesn’t matter. It’s telling survivors everywhere that your experiences don’t count. Senator Gillibrand also lambasted the Republican defense of Kavanaugh.

When confronted with similar allegations against Presidential candidate Biden, Gillibrand stated – “I stand by Vice President Biden. He has devoted his life to supporting women and he has vehemently denied this allegation.” Has Senator Gillibrand had an epiphany and suddenly realized the importance of due process when evaluating sexual assault allegations? Sadly, no. Senator Gillibrand simply chooses to apply one standard for her friends and one standard for her enemies.  

Senator Gillibrand and Presidential candidate Biden’s hypocrisy is exemplified by their continued opposition to Secretary of Education Betsy Devos’ attempts to make Title IX disciplinary hearings fairer and equitable.  Indeed, Biden championed the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter to universities that eviscerated due process in Title IX hearings. Judges have been skeptical about the legality of Biden’s standard for investigating sexual assault allegations, which has come to be emblematic of the “Believe All Women” mantra of the #metoo movement. 

Repeatedly, courts have found the Biden Title IX standards fundamentally unfair. Indeed, one federal judge described Brandeis University’s disciplinary process as being “closer to Salem 1692 than Boston 2015.” The judge further stated:

“Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning… If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”

Even more hypocritical is that Biden and Gillibrand demand that Biden himself be afforded the benefit of the doubt in light of the allegations against him, but simultaneously oppose Secretary Devos’ common sense Title IX revisions – including requiring that investigators be impartial and allowing the cross-examination of a complaining witness’s credibility.  

Thankfully, despite Biden and Gillibrand’s hypocritical opposition, Secretary Devos announced the implementation of the revised Title IX regulations. More than a year after issuing a draft rule, the department released final regulations on how colleges and universities must treat students involved in disciplinary procedures under Title IX, the federal law that bans sex discrimination—and has been interpreted to include sexual misconduct—in federally funded education programs. Institutions will finally have to guarantee due process for students caught up in campus kangaroo courts.

smerconish.com-David Struwe 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT: Purdue Files Settlement Notice In Federal Suit Over Sex Assault Case

, , /

SETTLEMENT: Purdue Files Settlement Notice In Federal Suit Over Sex Assault Case

Purdue has reached a settlement with a former student-athlete more than a year after he first filed a discrimination lawsuit against the University. Former football player Brandon Roberts was expelled in 2017 when he was [falsely] accused of sex assault, by a white female student. Court documents state that the allegations and his subsequent expulsion “dealt a serious blow” to Roberts’ hope to play professional football.

The Tippecanoe County prosecutor’s office did not press charges against Roberts. Roberts appealed Purdue’s internal investigation, as he was not provided with police recordings of relevant interviews or a full copy of the investigative report.

Roberts later filed a discrimination lawsuit, alleging that he was denied due process and discriminated against because he’s a black man accused of sexual assault by a white woman. The lawsuit alleges that the University’s investigation was “preordained” by Roberts’ race.

Roberts’ counsel has no objection to Purdue’s filing.

purdueexponent.org

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2 3