Under the new policy, schools will likely investigate far fewer complaints, and the Department of Education will hold fewer schools accountable for ensuring campuses are free of sexual harassment and assault.
Possibly. You’re hypothesizing.
All allegations of sexual harassment should be investigated.
First, you have to get everyone to agree on what “harrassment” is. Catcalls? Commenting on a student’s appearance? The problem here is that there are plenty of interpersonal behaviors which people are both welcome and rejected depending on circumstances. You want “bad behavior” to be defined as something that is actually, well, BAD; you don’t want to be kicking out students because they aren’t good at reading social cues.
Schools could adopt a standard of proof that favors the respondent.
Could, but highly unlikely.
The preponderance of the evidence standard applies in all other sexual harassment proceedings and should apply here as well. Previous Department of Education guidance adopted that standard of proof. But the new regulation would allow schools to use a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, which favors the respondent by finding against complainants even where it is more likely than not that their account is accurate.
Seems to me that if “preponderance of evidence” was actually working as a standard for the campus hearings, the universities would be winning the majority of the lawsuits brought against them because of the old Rule, not losing most of the lawsuits as they are.
Under the new rule, colleges and universities would only be obligated to take action if students make formal complaints to designated high-level school officials. If students reported their assaults to resident advisors, teaching assistants, coaches, or other school employees whom they know and trust, schools would not be obligated to intervene.
The vast majority of schools, if not all, will retain the prior standard, especially in light of Penn State.
The ACLU has a long history of fighting for the rights of students…
Yes, that used to be true of the ACLU. However, you’re now more of a liberal agitprop organization, so your history really doesn’t matter.
All students are entitled to fair disciplinary processes, but fair process should not be used as a fig leaf to roll back students’ right to learn in an environment that takes sexual harassment and assault seriously.
To my above point: you’re now elevating “right to learn” (not found in the Constitution) above “due process”. Bad, bad ACLU.
In one study, nearly a quarter of undergraduate women reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact. These risks are even greater for women and girls of color, and they are less likely to report. Transgender students, LGB students, and students with disabilities also face disparate rates of harassment and assault.
You don’t need to convince anyone that there’s a problem; you need to convince us that due process should be abandoned to solve it. Fail.
The proposed rule comes after a long line of actions taken by the Trump administration to attempt to roll back civil rights for some of the most vulnerable students.
The history of the Trump Administration is not germane to the specific discussion on student sexual harrassment and due process.
If you’re concerned about the Trump administration rolling back protections for students submitting complaints of sexual violence, it’s time to speak out.
Agreed. In a nation where the presumption of innocence and due process is fundamental to our culture and society, and one where we’ve philosophically determined that it’s better to let a perp walk unpunished than risk punishing the innocent, the new rules are more in keeping with our legal, cultural, and social traditions.