CURRENT Title IX Regulations Deny Accused Students Fundamental Rights
Until a few months ago, Oberlin, was bound by the 2011 Obama-era “Dear Colleague” letter. The letter recommended that to combat sexual misconduct, schools use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard – which states that the accusation is viable if the evidence is anywhere over 50 percent provable. The standard also enables accusers to appeal decisions and encourages schools to allow accusers to forgo cross-examination. In some cases, accusers can even forgo their own attendance at proceedings. Good intentions led to bad outcomes, however. The letter also created a system that a California Appeals Court Justice called a “kangaroo court,” and what a federal district court judge appointed by President Clinton called “a practice of railroading accused students.” Further, the interpretation was also made without a public announcement or a comment-and-response period, during which schools could offer feedback. The Obama administration’s sudden and drastic changes even prompted legal scholars of all political affiliations to wonder if such a system is actually constitutional in the United States. Not only did the interpretation mandate that schools adopt overly broad definitions of harassment, but the Department of Education had seemingly taken White-Out to the Bill of Rights. What scares me is that Oberlin’s current policies are similar, if not identical, to those at schools with these “kangaroo courts.” Oberlin’s Title IX regulations should be devised with the primary goal of finding the truth, not of finding the accused guilty.
oberlinreview.org By Duncan Reid
