DUE Process Rights

Articles relating to due process rights for our College boys

SUING YOU ALL. Accused & Expelled ASU Grad Student is Suing State for $4.1M

, , /

SUING YOU ALL. Accused & Expelled ASU Grad Student is Suing State for $4.1M

An expelled graduate student at Arizona State University who was accused by student Brooke Lewis in 2017 of sexual assault, is demanding $4.1 million from the state, claiming the school damaged his reputation by expelling him after media attention. The complaint by Matthew Green, filed in Arizona U.S. District Court in December 2018, names as defendants the Arizona Board of Regents, ASU’s Dean of Students office, and various ASU officials. Mr. Green is seeking damages, claiming that ASU’s “unlawful and unfair conduct” violated his educational and civil rights, his right to due process and equal protection, breach of contract, gross negligence, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Green “remains short of the credits needed for graduation – which has been delayed over 18 months – and his reputation and economic interests have been forever tarnished for the university’s actions.” “The alleged assault had already been investigated by police and the facts did not support a finding that any such assault had occurred, and no charges were brought against Plaintiff.” Mr. Green’s lawyer, Dana Hogle, told the Board of Regents in June they would settle for $4.1 million, according to a notice of claim obtained by Phoenix New Times after Green filed the federal complaint.

phoenixnewtimes By Ray Stern

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
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
SPOTLIGHT On Due Process. 73% of Top 53 Schools DO NOT Guarantee Presumption of Innocence. MIT, Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Pepperdine, Rice, RPI, Vanderbilt = F

, , , /

SPOTLIGHT On Due Process. 73% of Top 53 Schools DO NOT Guarantee Presumption of Innocence. MIT, Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Pepperdine, Rice, RPI, Vanderbilt = F

Colleges and universities across the country are failing to afford their students due process and fundamental fairness in their disciplinary proceedings. In 2017, for the first time, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) rated the top 53 universities in the country based on 10 fundamental elements of due process. Our findings were troubling. This year, 2018, we assessed the same institutions. Like last year, the findings are dire:

  • Nearly three quarters (73.6%) of America’s top 53 universities do not guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  • Only slightly more than half of schools (52.8%) require that fact-finders—the institution’s version of judge and/or jury—be impartial.
  • Fewer than one third of institutions (30.2%) guarantee a meaningful hearing, where each party may see and hear the evidence being presented to fact-finders by the opposing party.
  • 47 out of the 53 universities studied receive a D or F grade from FIRE for at least one disciplinary policy, meaning that they fully provide no more than 4 of the 10 elements of a fair procedure that FIRE rated.
  • Most institutions have one set of standards for adjudicating charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic charges. 86.8% of rated universities receive a D or F for protecting the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct.
  • Of the 104 policies rated at the 53 schools in the report, not a single policy receives an A grade.

thefire.org Executive Summary

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
INSIDER’S VIEW: CSU Board of Trustees’ Litigation Report Shows Impact of Due Process Lawsuits

, , , /

INSIDER’S VIEW: CSU Board of Trustees’ Litigation Report Shows Impact of Due Process Lawsuits

Like numerous schools, California State University posts their Board of Trustees meeting records online. After reading the report, I’ve concluded that CSU is on a mission to get sued by male students at least once every 3-year cycle from each of their 23 campuses for due process/Title IX violations. I’m being a bit hyperbolic, of course, but if litigation trends continue it may not be unrealistic.

Litigation against the CSU system has nearly doubled in the last six years, jumping from ~60 lawsuits to 106. Looking at the graph, we observe that this trend started at the same time the Obama-era Department of Education released its April 4, 2011 “Dear Colleague” guidance letter, which severely infringed upon the due process rights of accused students.

As of 2017, the CSU system enrolled nearly 500,000 students across its 23 campuses, making it the largest four-year university system in the country. It was inevitable that they would be sued, as in our litigious age it’s more a question of when, not if larger institutions are sued. But CSU is also located in a state whose politics are not known for its empathy for men as a group, which increases its likelihood of being sued in this manner considerably. Their Litigation Report provides us with some useful graphs. Let’s unpack the report…

titleixforall  By Jonathan Taylor

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
REPORT: As Changes to Title IX Enforcement Loom, America’s top Universities Overwhelmingly Fail to Guarantee Fair Hearings

, , , , /

REPORT: As Changes to Title IX Enforcement Loom, America’s top Universities Overwhelmingly Fail to Guarantee Fair Hearings

  • 3 in 4 top universities do not guarantee presumption of innocence in campus proceedings.
  • 9 in 10 top universities do not guarantee meaningful cross-examination in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
  • None of the surveyed institutions guarantee all the due process protections required under the new, proposed Title IX regulations.
  • Polling shows students overwhelmingly want due process protections, but universities fail to deliver.

    READ THE REPORT: SPOTLIGHT ON DUE PROCESS 2018 | AUDIO CLIPS FOR MEDIA USE

    “Students accused of serious campus offenses routinely face life-altering punishment without a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves,” said FIRE’s Susan Kruth, lead author of the report. “Universities need to provide basic procedural protections that help ensure accurate outcomes, and right now they overwhelmingly do not.”

    FIRE examined policies at the top 53 universities in the country to see how many of 10 fundamental procedural safeguards they guarantee students, including the presumption of innocence, the right to impartial fact-finders, and the right to appeal. Of the 53 universities studied, 47 receive a D or F grade, meaning that they guarantee no more than 4 of the 10 elements rated.

    Most institutions maintain one set of policies for charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic misconduct, such as theft or physical assault. Notably, of the 15 institutions that received an F rating for their sexual misconduct policies, 11 have been sued by accused students over the lack of fair procedure.

    thefire.org

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
BETSY DEVOS Is Making The Right Choice On Sexual Assault Rules

, , , /

BETSY DEVOS Is Making The Right Choice On Sexual Assault Rules

President Trump’s Department of Education, under the standard of Secretary Betsy DeVos, is in the long-anticipated process of changing the procedures for what colleges can, should and must do regarding sexual assault allegations. Forbes contributor Michael T. Nietzel has a good summary of the proposed changes but, most generally, the DeVos proposals shift the definitions and processes in favor of the accused…Mostly missing from the conversation and understanding of the DeVos changes, is that – good or bad, necessary or provocative – a shift in how colleges deal with sexual assault is inevitable. And not just any shift. One way or another, the rules are going to move in the direction of those accused of sexual assault because courts have already begun to move the needle in that direction, in some cases even surpassing the proposed DeVos modifications. The courts are already forcing schools to re-examine and change the rules for these cases, just with a higher legal and reputational costs and with far less public awareness and input. In that light, DeVos had a simple decision to make. She could do nothing and allow the courts to revise the rules using a patchwork of rulings in various jurisdictions over several more years. Or she could write new rules applicable to all schools with some form of public input,

forbes.com By Derek Newton

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Finds That USC Denied Accused Student A Fair Hearing

, , , , /

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Finds That USC Denied Accused Student A Fair Hearing

This is a great win for John Doe!

The California Court of Appeal issued an opinion today finding that the University of Southern California (“USC”) failed to provide a fair hearing in a Title IX sexual misconduct investigation and final decision by USC’s Vice President for Student Affairs Dr. Ainsley Carry in November 2014.  The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court judge, Hon. Joanne B. O’Donnell, to set aside her February 2016 decision denying the accused USC student’s writ of mandate and also awarded John Doe his costs on appeal.  READ Appellate Judges Opinion Doe v USC

In May 2014, USC suspended John Doe from the university and evicted him from campus housing the same day without any hearing.  Over the next several months the alleged sexual misconduct was investigated first by Marilou Mirkovich, an attorney hired by USC, and later by USC Title IX investigator Dr. Kegan Allee, who served as the investigator and also the adjudicator under USC’s administrative policy.  (In December 2013, attorney Marilou Mirkovich was engaged by Occidental College to serve as an adjudicator in another Title IX case that is also pending at the Court of Appeal, Doe v. Occidental College, B284707. ) Dr. Kegan Allee ultimately found by a preponderance of the evidence that John Doe knew or should have known Jane Roe was too drunk to consent to sexual activity.  John Doe appealed Dr. Allee’s decision to USC’s anonymous Student Behavior Appeals Panel, however, the USC Appeals Panel agreed with Dr. Allee and recommended his immediate expulsion.  On November 12, 2014 Dr. Ainsley Carry informed John Doe that he had approved the Appeals Panel decision, which became final.

In November 2014, John Doe challenged USC’s Title IX action to the California Superior Court in a writ of mandate and sought an order to stay his expulsion from USC so that he could continue his undergraduate education elsewhere, if not at USC.  On November 19, 2014, Superior Court Judge Joanne B. O’Donnell denied John Doe’s request for a stay of the administrative expulsion decision, stating that John Doe failed to show “that the notation of expulsion on his transcript will cause him irreparable harm between now and the hearing on his petition.”  Over a year later on February 29, 2016, Judge O’Donnell denied John Doe’s writ petition, which the Court of Appeal has now remanded and ordered the trial court to grant.  Due to his expulsion from USC, which John Doe was required to disclose to possible transfer schools, John Doe has been unable to gain admittance to another four-year institution to continue his education. Now that the findings and sanctions from the unfair USC Title IX process have been reversed, John Doe should be able to continue his education.

Today’s decision builds on recent California Appellate rulings that help define the scope of fairness and due process protections that colleges and universities must provide to accused students in sexual misconduct proceedings.  Mark Hathaway also assisted the accused students at the campus proceedings or trial court in the following published cases:  John Doe v. Regents (“UC Santa Barbara”) (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 44, John Doe v. Claremont McKenna College (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1055, and John Doe v. Regents (“UC San Diego”) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055.

SOS sends a Big Huge Congratulations to John Doe, his family, and to Doe’s attorney’s Mark Hathaway and Jenna Parker. It is due to the perseverance and strength of the few John Doe’s who can mentally and financially endure the college’s persecutions, that these court-ordered due process wins are finally being afforded to Title IX falsey accused students.  And of course, a big thank you to the attorneys who are the legal minds in this endeavor..fighting against the goliath college’s counsel who come with endowment funds.

-Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
IT IS TIME PEOPLE. If You Care, You Will Act. Make Your Title IX Comments Count.

, , , , /

IT IS TIME PEOPLE. If You Care, You Will Act. Make Your Title IX Comments Count.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. The Department of Education’s recently proposed regulations require schools to address sexual harassment while ensuring due process for the accused.

TAKE A QUICK LOOK at the Proposal (you don’t have to read all of it unless you want to, but get a sense of what the proposed regulations say)

READ the Department of Education’s Summary

SUBMIT Your Comments Before January 30, 2019

FIRST: Start by identifying what you are commenting on by using the official Federal Register designation as follows: Docket No. ED-2018-OCR-0064,  Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

SECOND: Introduce yourself by explaining why you are interested in the regulation. Highlight any experience that may distinguish your comments from others. Explain on whose behalf you are commenting: your own, another person or organization, or if you are endorsing or joining with another commenter.

THIRD: Identify the issues on which you are commenting. List your recommendations upfront. If you are commenting on a particular section, state this clearly & write the section number from the official Federal Register proposal. Focus on 3-5 issues that are relevant to your experience.

FOURTH: Lay out the arguments that support your recommendations. Share any personal experiences or examples of a school’s unfair processes or policies towards your accused son/daughter or someone you know about. Your personal experiences and examples are critical to illustrating why the status quo is unacceptable.

LAST: End by saying thank you for the opportunity to submit comments along with your name, title (if any), date & contact info. Comments also may be submitted anonymously.

GOV. Tips for Comments  A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.

SUBMIT comments here: www.regulations.gov You can submit your comments in the comment box or upload a Microsoft Word document. (NOTE: if you feel you must use PDF format, the comment rules require you to convert the PDF document to “print-to-PDF” format since that allows the Department of Education to electronically search and copy certain portions of your submissions.)

Now go do it!!   The young men and women who have been falsely accused or subjected to other unfair policies and procedures thank you, as do the other millions who are in college today.  -Alice

A BIG Thank you to FACE, SAVE, FIRE, and  NCFMCarolinas.

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
WHY DID SANDRA Vasquez, Pitzer’s Dean & TIX Agent, Destroy an Innocent Low Income Minority Male at USCB?

, , , , /

WHY DID SANDRA Vasquez, Pitzer’s Dean & TIX Agent, Destroy an Innocent Low Income Minority Male at USCB?

In a UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) Title IX case handled by current Pitzer College Dean of Students Sandra Vasquez, 629 days into his illegal suspension, the former UCSB student charged with relationship violence by the Title IX office of the University has been cleared of all charges in an unanimous decision by a panel of UCSB administrators. The low-income, minority student in question, initially suspended on August 30, 2016, three weeks before the start of his freshman year, had been accused of either harming his former high school girlfriend or threatening her with serious injury. Almost two years later, it was determined that neither had actually taken place. A previous Independent article highlighted newly-hired Vasquez’s role in concealing material evidence in the case when she was a director of judicial affairs at UCSB despite assuring that she had disclosed to him all of the information upon UCSB would rely in determining whether to lift his suspension. The student’s San Diego-based attorney, Bob Ottilie, previously told the Independent that “[w]hile the specifics of the Department of Education investigation are confidential, I can confirm that Ms. Vasquez’s conduct is a component.” A court ruling affirmed that Vasquez and her colleagues did not provide the accused student with all information at his initial hearing.  Nonetheless, Pitzer released a statement expressing their “full support” for Vasquez, and expressed disappointment with the Independent’s “reckless and inaccurate reporting.” In light of the student in question being exonerated by UCSB’s administrative panel—the student had previously been only exonerated by the Santa Barbara Superior Court—Pitzer could not provide an updated comment, but stated that it reaffirmed Vasquez’s statement in defense of her actions: “I have never concealed material evidence in any case, nor would I do anything that flies in the face of the professional and personal ethics that define me.” Ms. Vasquez stated. However, the UCSB panel found that “had the University considered available evidence at the inception of the case (2016), John Doe’s  suspension and charges probably would not have occurred.” (emphasis original)

In a March 2017 ruling, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle concluded that UCSB had predetermined the student’s guilt. Most importantly, Judge Anderle criticized Vasquez and other UCSB officials for violating the student’s due process rights when withholding evidence at the time of the student’s initial hearing: “The backbone of our legal system requires all evidence to be presented in the Courtroom where it can be tested; it can be questioned…Evidence acquired otherwise is an abrogation of our legal system.”

The alleged actions had taken place on August 13, 2016, in San Diego, California, before the plaintiff was to attend UCSB. His then-girlfriend, who had illegally hacked his social media accounts, began to film the argument that ensued when the plaintiff discovered this. When he found that he was being filmed, the plaintiff tried to take her phone. His girlfriend claimed the plaintiff had hit her; he denied this. The plaintiff also claimed that his then-girlfriend had repeatedly threatened to make the video recording public if he had any interactions with other women at UCSB. After he returned from a week-long orientation program for incoming UCSB freshmen, the student’s girlfriend accused him of flirting with another woman. Shortly thereafter, she posted a doctored version of the video in which he appeared to be hitting her just as the footage cut out. Aside from Dean of Students, Vasquez is also a Title IX coordinator at Pitzer, tasked with “ensuring prompt and equitable resolution of complaints.”…SOS will pray for the Pitzer men.

claremontindependent By (Courageous) Liam MaDonald  Pitzer Dean Concealed Evidence

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 14 15 16 17 18 >»