JUST HOW Easy Should It Be to Destroy a Young Man’s Life?
Yesterday, the New York Times published a student activist’s op-ed with a rather provocative title: “When College Rapists Graduate.” Now, when you read those words, what do you think? I initially thought the story must be about a prison education program. Instead, the piece was written by a law student and feminist activist, Alyssa Leader, who laments the outcome of a campus sexual-assault adjudication, and condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to introduce a greater degree of due-process protections to the campus tribunals that hear sexual misconduct cases. Leader claims she was sex assaulted. She filed a complaint against him with the university (Harvard), which, after applying the most lenient burden of proof and a degree of due process that would never be acceptable in any criminal or civil court, found him not responsible. She then sued Harvard. A judge dismissed the case. It’s against this backdrop that Leader now complains that her alleged assaulter “got a coveted job, where he’ll only have more power as time goes on.” The message is crystal clear — not only should colleges adjudicate sexual-assault claims under the most lenient possible standards, they should act as a firewall against the future careers of young men in the crosshairs. But how easy should it be to destroy a young man’s life? According to campus activists like Leader, the answer is: very easy. When Leader condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to bring basic due process to campus, here’s what she’s condemning:
- The right to cross-examine witnesses;
- The right to a live hearing;
- The right to see the evidence against you;
- An end to “investigator-only” adjudication, in which one person investigates and adjudicates the claims against a student;
- A definition of sexual harassment that’s consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence; and
- A definition of sexual assault consistent with statutory law.
Let’s make this very clear: When campus activists argue against the Trump administration’s due-process guidelines, they are arguing for the power of campus administrators to punish (mainly) young men for alleged acts on or off campus without cross-examination, without seeing available evidence, without a live hearing, and under definitions of the alleged offenses far broader than those that apply under relevant law. For centuries, basic due process has been rightly viewed as indispensable to any decent system of justice. We need an adjudication to determine whether a person is indeed a “survivor.” “Believe women” is a slogan. It cannot form the foundation of a system of justice. Let’s remember, Title IX is a government statute. Title IX adjudications are a government requirement. And before the government can mandate punitive action against any citizen, at the very least it owes that citizen a fair process.
On campus, the Trump administration isn’t departing from norms and values. It’s restoring them to their rightful place in American law.
nationalreview.com By David French
