CURRENT News

KANGAROO COURT @Yale Expels Innocent Male

, , /

KANGAROO COURT @Yale Expels Innocent Male

It did not take a New Haven jury long in March of 2017 to acquit Saifullah Khan of the raping a classmate at Yale University one Halloween night. His accuser took the stand, told her story to the jury, was cross-examined and spent the better part of three days on the witness stand. “Not guilty,” the jury said. In interviews with the press thereafter, jurors made it sound as though this was not a close case. Khan’s accuser wasn’t credible. Period. That didn’t stop Yale from expelling Mr. Khan over the incident. Yale notified Mr. Khan in a brief letter emailed this afternoon (January 2, 2019) that the university sides with his accuser. Just how did this happen?

Mr. Khan was afforded due process at his criminal trial, but deprived a meaningful right to defend himself at the university’s tribunal. I tried both the criminal case and was a silent witness to the university fact-finding process. There’s no doubt in my mind that the process Yale used to engage in its fact-finding was fatally flawed. Mr. Khan was deprived of the right to counsel at Yale’s hearing. He could bring an adviser, but the adviser could not speak. I winced as I listed to panel members ask compound questions, assume facts not in evidence, and engage in the sort of fact-finding blunders lawyers and judges are trained to avoid. No lawyer, no cross-examination, no right to confront his accuser, no right even to make sure his accuser returned to make her case in person, no right to make a record of the proceedings. Yale’s fact-finders behaved as though the pursuit of justice were the prerogative of a secret society.

You’ll have to take my word for this, of course. When Mr. Khan asked for permission to make a recording of the hearing, his request was denied. No record was taken of the proceedings. The secret proceeding lacked transparency, and, therefore accountability. It was painful watching accomplished scholars engage in star-chamber secrecy. They knew not what they were doing. Mr. Khan is now expelled and will have to fight his way back into Yale by way of the courts in lengthier proceedings.

pattisblog By Norm Pattis

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
USC REINSTATES Armaan Premjee on the Heels of Court of Appeal Defeat

, , /

USC REINSTATES Armaan Premjee on the Heels of Court of Appeal Defeat

USC has retracted its decision to expel Armaan Premjee following a case hearing with the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Dec. 18. According to court documents, Premjee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. This would appeal for a reevaluation of USC’s “biased” Title IX investigation into the sexual assault charges made against him after an incident involving another student in April 2017. But due to recent California court rulings requiring new investigative procedures, Judge Elizabeth White granted USC’s request to halt legal proceedings on Premjee’s appeal at the hearing. The University decided to reinstate Premjee and reopen the investigation of the case to ensure fair and lawful adjudication under new regulations.

Those “recent California court rulings” referred to are almost certainly the Court of Appeals ruling against USC in another case a mere seven days prior in which the Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision, granted John Doe’s writ of administrative mandate and – as in the other Doe v. USC case – awarded attorney’s costs.

titleixforall  By J. Taylor dailytrojan By E. Toh

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
CHANGES to Universities’ Sexual Assault Tribunals May Be Here to Stay

, , /

CHANGES to Universities’ Sexual Assault Tribunals May Be Here to Stay

On November 29, the 60-day public comment period opened for Title IX regulations proposed by U.S. Depart. of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Three features distinguish DeVos’s proposed regulations from the Title IX initiatives of her Obama-era predecessors. 1st. The proposed rule would redefine the relationship between the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the nation’s universities, in ways that give schools more flexibility to implement Title IX. The regulations would adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment found in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. 2nd. The proposed regulations would no longer require schools to adjudicate some off-campus claims. However, the published proposal notes that courts have deemed fraternities as covered under Title IX, suggesting that universities would need to adjudicate incidents that occur even at off-campus fraternities. 3rd. The proposed regulations would reduce the number of employees whose knowledge of a sexual misconduct allegation would require the university to initiate an investigation.

In theory, these are substantial changes—in practice, however, they are likely to have scant effect.  If the definitional items in the proposed rules will not likely change much in institutions’ decisions about whether to adjudicate sexual assault allegations, the proposed rule would dramatically alter how colleges adjudicate.

DeVos opting for new Title IX regulation rather than TIX guidance has two major advantages. First, in recent years, progressive activists and Democratic legislators have championed an approach to Title IX that encourages more reporting of campus sexual assault allegations at the expense of fairer investigative and adjudicative procedures. It seems certain that the next Democratic administration will hope to restore Obama-era Title IX principles. A Title IX guidance document issued by DeVos would lack lasting force; however Title IX regulations, will be more difficult to overturn. Second, and perhaps more important, Title IX regulations likely would require adherence, albeit very reluctantly, from universities.

theregreview  By KC Johnson

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: Penn State Kicks Acc’d Male Out. Male Denied a TitleIX Testimonial Hearing.

, , /

LAWSUIT: Penn State Kicks Acc’d Male Out. Male Denied a TitleIX Testimonial Hearing.

Without holding a TitleIX testimonial hearing, Penn State University suspended a male student after a female accused him of sexual assault…Penn State further altered its policy so that neither the accused student nor the accuser appears at a hearing, which precludes either party from confronting and cross-examining witnesses. Instead, cases are assigned to an investigator who evaluates the claims, interviews the accused and accuser, and then prepares a report for a committee. The ‘committee’ (sounds Gestapo right?- SOS words) decides if the allegations are founded or unfounded. The committee gives each party the opportunity to respond to findings in the report. John Doe’s attorney, Andrew Shubin, contends that is not sufficient to protect the accused student’s rights.  “These are usually ‘he said, she said’ cases where credibility is incredibly important,” Shubin said. “The only way to test credibility in the legal system is cross-examination.” Shubin noted the new policy impacts only sexual abuse investigations. Students accused of any other type of offense are still provided a hearing at which they can confront their accuser. “The stakes are arguably much higher when it comes to sexual misconduct, yet the rights given in sexual misconducts case is far less,” Shubin said. The lawsuit asks a judge to declare his client’s right to due process was violated and award him monetary damages. It also seeks an order directing the university to vacate its finding that the allegation was founded, remove the disciplinary action from his file and to reinstate him.

citizensvoice By Terrie Morgan-Besecker

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT. University of Cincinnati Pays Falsely Accused Male $47K After Suspending Him Based On No Evidence, Just an Accusation

, , /

SETTLEMENT. University of Cincinnati Pays Falsely Accused Male $47K After Suspending Him Based On No Evidence, Just an Accusation

A landmark due process case that led to an appeals court ruling that students need to be able to cross-examine their accusers and witnesses against them has come to an end, with the University of Cincinnati (UC) and the accused student reaching a settlement. This appears to be the first time UC has ever settled with an accused student. The case arises from an incident involving John Doe and Jane Roe, that occurred on September 6, 2015. The two UC students met on the dating app Tinder and sent messages back-and-forth before meeting in person. After the two had sex, they continued to spend time together in John’s room. Jane told him she didn’t want their encounter to be a “one-night stand.” John, however, did not call her again and couldn’t contact her through Tinder anymore. A month later, Jane accused John of sexual assault. When John was interviewed about the incident, he said everything was consensual. Interview notes for him contain editorial comments from the interviewer. Such comments did not appear in any notes about Jane’s interviews. Jane didn’t attend the campus hearing regarding her claims against John.  John said in his lawsuit that if he had been able to question Jane, he would have been able to pick out inconsistencies in her statements and show that she received generous accommodations from the school — changes to homework deadlines, grades, class schedules, test schedules, and even receiving job opportunities — which created an incentive for her to claim she was a victim.  Without being able to question any of the allegations against him, John was found “responsible” by UC and suspended. He appealed and lost, so he sued the school. What makes this case so important is that it reached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which created a precedent-setting ruling stating that cross-examination is important, especially when the case boils down to a he said/she said where credibility is at stake. The ruling has been cited multiple times since. Josh Engel, one of John’s attorneys said,  “We are glad the case has been resolved so my client can get his degree and move on with his career.”

dailywire  By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
USA TODAY Allows False Sex Assault Statistic To Go Unchallenged. Also-Males Should Avoid Biased XavierU

, , , /

USA TODAY Allows False Sex Assault Statistic To Go Unchallenged. Also-Males Should Avoid Biased XavierU

No matter how many times the claim that an exorbitant number of college women will be sexually assaulted during their time as an undergraduate is debunked, it still gets presented as if it were a fact of life. In August 2018, USA Today attempted to explain the issue of campus sexual assault in a series of videos, but right off the bat, the media outlet is making a bad faith argument. USA Today teased the series by comparing rates of breast cancer to false and misleading statistics about campus sexual assault.  USA Today presented Xavier University Title IX officer Kate Lawson, who brought up the so-misleading-it-should-be-called-fake statistic in the first part of the series. “About 1-in-4 to 1-in-5 women will experience rape or attempted rape during college,” Lawson says. This is flat out false. Even the studies where she gets the scary “1-in-4” or “1-in-5” numbers don’t say this. In those incredibly misleading studies, the high numbers are achieved by claiming that many women will be sexually assaulted (which includes rape but does not necessarily mean rape) or experience attempted sexual assault (which, again, includes attempted rape but does not mean attempted rape). Yet here is an Xavier administrator vastly inflating the issue. It seems to be a theme at that university, as the school’s president, Father Michael Graham, stated that campus sexual assault is “an epidemic” that is “pervasive” and “in the culture,” as if it is a fact. All notions of this alleged epidemic come from those unreliable and faulty statistics.

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
HOW DOES It Feel To Be Wrongfully Accused?

, , /

HOW DOES It Feel To Be Wrongfully Accused?

There was only one career path that sparked any enthusiasm in me during my school years. I was destined to become a lawyer. At 17, my law degree commenced. Immediately, I found myself endowed with the principles that had garnered my interest. Lecture after lecture, further reinforced the notion that truth and justice were inextricably linked, and that the innocent were being protected. Seldom had I felt happier and more intellectually nourished than when I departed from a classroom. Crucially, the lectures, had neglected to inform me of one thing. That in six months time I would find myself being bundled into the back of a police car, knees driven into my body and tears streaming down my face. My crime, daring to be the last one at the scene of a vicious assault.

Naturally, the police, given the evidence they had, (i) myself being the one to call them in the first place, (ii) the one to care for the victim, (iii) the only one that had not yet scarpered, decided that the appropriate course of action was to have me detained and then later charged. Despite all of this, I retained faith in our justice system and a belief that all was not lost…But then faculty turned their back on me. Classmates no longer spoke to me. Why? Because I had chosen to speak openly about my innocence. God forbid the hot air spouted in lectures was forced to make its way back down to earth. God forbid that the buzzwords such as “truth”, “justice”, “dignity” and “presumption of innocence” scribed into every textbook needed to actually prise themselves from the paper and apply themselves to a real-life scenario.

Welcome to the disorientation that reflects the reality of being wrongfully accused. Imagine waking up one morning to the realization that you have a trial in one hours’ time, for a crime that you did not commit. During the trial, a jury will listen to the narrative of the prosecution, that implies your guilt. The defence, in turn, will proclaim your innocence. When all parties have been heard, it will be solely up to the jury to decide your fate. As the trial commences, you find yourself looking over to your friends for support. Then, it dawns on you. Your friends are nowhere to be seen. Luckily, your family and those who have stood by you are present. They attempt to convey strength, faith and optimism. But, you see behind this façade. Deep down, they are broken. For, their life, as well as yours, has been put on hold. You all face the prospect of a life that may never return to how it was. Ultimately, it boils down to the jury. You glance over to them in the hope that it is a fellow human being that they have in their sights. Inside, you scream, “I’m innocent!” But, then you realize, it is not a fellow human being that they have in their sights at all. They want someone to pay for these crimes and you’re the prime candidate. If you’re lucky (and I mean extremely lucky), you might just hear the words, “not guilty, you are free to leave”. If indeed, you find yourself in the “lucky” category, will your rightful status as an innocent human being be returned to you? No. The truth is, your innocence no longer belongs to you. The second that you are wrongfully accused of a crime, your innocence is taken from you, along with your humanity. 

As you push through the doors of the courthouse, you find yourself greeted with the murmurings of “suspect walks free”, implying that you have somehow managed to elude a deserved punishment. Your chosen career path is now nothing but a distant memory, a fallacy. Much like your ‘presumption of innocence’.  The reality is that the truth, innocence and justice do not matter. Sadly, we live in a society where it is virtually impossible to be successful in any large-scale institution without possessing an astute ability to dehumanise people. We can be extremely compassionate in some aspects of our lives while being simultaneously wicked, cruel and neglectful in others. Without humanity, there can never be a functioning justice system. 

medium.com By Liam Baxter

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ACTIVISTS Democrats & Media Keep Smearing DeVos Over New TitleIX Rules That Give Students More Options For Seeking Justice

, , /

ACTIVISTS Democrats & Media Keep Smearing DeVos Over New TitleIX Rules That Give Students More Options For Seeking Justice

With an eye toward restoring a measure of fairness to adjudicating campus sexual misconduct, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced new standards for such procedures recently. Some in the media seemed determined to misrepresent these changes, and are uncritically parroting claims from victims’ advocacy groups who think any attempt to reform Title IX—the federal statute that forbids sex discrimination—is an attack on sexual assault survivors. The worst example is an article from Abbey Crain, whose article at Alabama.com makes several significant errors. “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ proposed changes for how schools handle Title IX cases would allow students accused of sexual assault to cross-examine their victim,” writes Crain. This is simply untrue. The new rules specify that an accused student’s lawyer or support person must conduct the cross-examination. Crain then turns the article over to Madeline Anscombe, a victims’ rights activist who claims the changes would “limit ways students who are sexually assaulted could seek justice.” The new rules give students more options for seeking justice. They permit accusers who do not wish to undergo the full-court treatment to seek informal resolution, mediation, restorative justice, or any other option that satisfies both parties. A piece in The Atlantic also leaves readers with a false impression of the DeVos rules. “Betsy DeVos’s Sexual-Assault Rules Would Let the Accused Cross-Examine Accusers,” the headline reads. Again, that’s not really true: Representatives for the accused will question the accusers, and vice versa. The Atlantic, it should be noted, has done some great work on the myriad problems with Title IX enforcement. The magazine ran Emily Yoffe’s terrific three-part series on the subject, and staff writer Conor Friedersdorf has penned an excellent defense of DeVos’ new rules. He also took the American Civil Liberties Union to task for coming out against the reforms—and, essentially, against due process. Prominent Democrats have also condemned DeVos: Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused her and the Trump administration at large of perpetuating “the most anti-woman, anti-student and anti-equality agenda in recent memory.” No amount of hyperbole is too over-the-top for DeVos’s critics…Perhaps the Title IX activist community wants everyone accused of sexual misconduct to be subjected to life-ruining sanction, but I get the sense that some victims are not actually keen on such an outcome. They may want the accused to acknowledge wrongdoing, learn about consent, set things right, and pledge to behave better. Such a course of action won’t always fit the circumstances, of course, but the option is there.

reason.com By Robby Soave new-title-ix-rules-provide-protections-for-the-accused-but-they-do-even-more-for-survivors

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ALASKA PACIFIC SETTLES. Male Denied Disability Accommodation, a Hearing, Never saw Evidence.

, , /

ALASKA PACIFIC SETTLES. Male Denied Disability Accommodation, a Hearing, Never saw Evidence.

I know of one lawsuit that was filed against Alaska PacificU. The one where a female accused an autistic male and the male ‘was denied disability accommodation, not allowed to present his evidence of innocence, and denied access to evidence gathered by Alaska Pacific. Then the male was denied a hearing, and Alaska Pacific decided he was guilty of sexual misconduct, abusive sexual contact and dating violence.’.. Can you just imagine being found guilty of sexual misconduct/dating violence without a hearing? Without telling your side? Without a chance to present evidence of innocence? Now imagine being autistic.  The injustices on a variety of levels are extreme… He was expelled. Then he sued and claimed: ‘This injustice was the direct result of Alaska Pacific’s failure to (1) conduct an adequate investigation; (2) provide Plaintiff with due process as defined by Alaska Pacific’s own policies and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; (3) make reasonable modifications in Alaska Pacific’s policies, practices, or procedures regarding Plaintiff’s diagnosed and documented disability, namely autism, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and due to (4) Alaska Pacific’s excessive and unbalanced focus on the concerns and interests of the female complainant and the convenience of the University to the total exclusion of the rights and interests of the male Plaintiff. at Alaska Pacific University.’

Although I haven’t heard from John Doe or AlaskaPacificU, I am thinking that the above case mentioned is the case that is now settled.-Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD NEWS: Devos May Ban Secretive Title IX Re-Education Training Camps

, , , /

GOOD NEWS: Devos May Ban Secretive Title IX Re-Education Training Camps

The Department of Education is considering a proposal to ban efforts to train, educate, or otherwise unilaterally seek to affect or otherwise influence decision makers in campus sexual assault hearings, especially when done in secret. For example, Title IX deciders of guilt or innocence are being told that complaints of sexual assault by females are almost never false and are generally completely accurate -ie: “believe women.” And that major inconsistencies in the reports and testimony of females should never be taken as casting doubt on their stories, and emails and other communications sent after the event, in which the female says she enjoyed the date and wishes to continue the romantic/or sexual relationship, in no way undermines the claim that her complaint about a sexual act was committed against her will. “Such statements, which the deciders are supposed to accept and use to help them make their decisions regarding key issues such as the credibility of the witness and her story, are clearly very prejudicial, especially in situations in which the credibility of the complainant is key, and the standard of proof required for a finding of ‘responsible’ is a mere ‘preponderance of evidence.'” Since a practice of telling decision makers that complainants almost never lie favors typically-female complainants over typically-male respondents, such a practice also violates – in addition to Due Process and fundamental fairness – the underlying statute, Title IX, which requires equal treatment of both genders at colleges and universities, argues John Banzhaf.  “Reports in many major media outlets, as well as statements in judicial opinions, indicate that persons involving in determining whether or not a respondent is responsible for a reported sexual assault are prepared, trained, and educated/indoctrinated beforehand, and told to accept and believe things which are clearly harmful and prejudicial to the interests of one party, and quite controversial, as they often go directly to issues such as assessing credibility.” Many judicial opinions have now made it very clear that the requirements of Due Process apply to campus proceedings which involve allegations of sexual assault, and where the result could be the suspension or even expulsion of the accused student. Prof. Banzhaf  suggests that one-sided “educational” briefings are totally incompatible with Due Process…For these reasons the Department is considering banning any such efforts to train, educate, or otherwise unilaterally seek to affect or influence decision makers in campus sexual assault hearings, especially when done in secret without the knowledge of attorneys for accused students.

valuewalk.com By John Banzhaf  Click here to comment on Devo’s new TIX proposal and tell her to ban bias/covert TIX training sessions

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 50 51 52 53 54 >»