CURRENT News

RULING: Male Files to Pause TIX Investigation. But Federal Judge Says Princeton can Proceed

, , /

RULING: Male Files to Pause TIX Investigation. But Federal Judge Says Princeton can Proceed

A student’s attempt to delay a Title IX investigation into his alleged sexual misconduct was rejected recently by a federal judge. The student had asked for a preliminary injunction at the end of November 2018, arguing that Princeton should pause the investigation until the Department of Education finalized rule changes to Title IX.  Federal judge Michael A. Shipp decided that the student’s claims had not met the bar required to stop the investigation in an opinion dated January 9. According to Shipp, the proposed changes to Title IX regulation “are merely proposals and do not have the force of law,” and the plaintiff failed to prove that the present applications of the University’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR) violates his due process rights.

Current Title IX policy requires the “preponderance of evidence standard” in sexual misconduct cases, which “requires a determination of guilt if the incident was more likely than not to have occurred.” The proposed rules, however, would allow institutions to choose between the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual misconduct cases. They may only impose the preponderance standard if the violations do not involve sexual harassment, but carry the same disciplinary consequences, and if that same standard is also applied to complaints against employees and faculty.

The plaintiff believed that if the University proceeded in its investigations before these proposed rules take effect, then he would be “be irreparably harmed.” Because of this, Doe requested a preliminary injunction to pause the Title IX investigation… But Judge Shepp wrote “Plaintiff failed to establish that he will suffer an immediate irreparable injury in the absence of the requested relief.”..There is some good news though,  Shipp denied a motion by Princeton to dismiss all of the lawsuit, and three counts are still eligible to proceed.

dailyprincetonian By Z. Shevin universitypressclub By E. Sterenfeld

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
YALE EXPELS Innocent Male. He’s Appealing. ‘It’s Not he Said-she Said. It’s she Said vs. What the Evidence Says.’-Khan

, , , /

YALE EXPELS Innocent Male. He’s Appealing. ‘It’s Not he Said-she Said. It’s she Said vs. What the Evidence Says.’-Khan

Saifullah Khan, the Yale student expelled for alleged sexual misconduct despite having been cleared by a criminal court, has appealed his expulsion to the university.  Last March, Khan, was found not guilty by a New Haven, Conn. court on four counts of raping a fellow student on Halloween 2015. Yet on Jan. 2, Yale expelled the 25-year-old from its campus following its own investigation into the alleged sexual assault. The two outcomes highlight the drastically different standards used by criminal courts and universities in determining guilt in sexual assault cases, and gives further ammunition to those arguing university-led sexual assault processes often violate the due process rights of the accused. During the two-week criminal trial, the six-person jury only deliberated for three hours before clearing Khan of all charges of sexual misconduct. At the time, juror Diane Urbano told The New York Times that there was “sufficient doubt on every charge,” therefore, “we came to the verdict we did.”

Under Yale process, Khan’s attorney was unable to cross-examine his accuser, so the committee was unable to hear many of the inconsistencies in her story that Khan’s lawyer had unearthed during the criminal trial. During the Yale hearing, Khan was only allowed to bring a “counselor” who was unable to speak or provide legal advice during the proceedings. The hearing was not recorded, so there was no permanent record of what was said, and the accuser was not present at the trial.  “This isn’t ‘he-said-she-said,’” Khan said “It’s ‘she-said versus what the evidence says.”

Last fall, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos* issued a proposed Title IX regulation for university sexual misconduct proceedings. The proposal, which is currently working its way through the rulemaking process, would apply basic due process protections for students, including “a presumption of innocence throughout the grievance process; written notice of allegations and an equal opportunity to review all evidence collected; and the right to cross- examination, subject to ‘rape shield’ protections.”

thecollegefix  By Christian Schneider

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , /

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
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
«< 48 49 50 51 52 >»