Perrine has him dead to rights here. That Biden could take this stance, at the very moment he is getting his reputation dragged through the mud by an extremely dubious accusation, is just…:smack:
If my support for Biden this fall helps bring about a return of the Obama-era rules next year, it will be a most unfortunate side effect indeed; and if Trump wins, this will be the one silver lining I can think of.
Considering that colleges and universities have spent a lot of money when sued by men who were accused and disciplined without due process, I’d think schools would prefer an evidence-based system.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Lawsuits-From-Students-Accused/240905
Yeah, I’ve been reading others saying universities are not eager to go back for just this reason. So hopefully if/when Biden wins, they will make some cosmetic changes so they can say they didn’t leave these regulations in place, but won’t actually go back to the Obama policy.
I, for one, am shocked to see the OP agreeing once again with the Trump administration.
Yeah, isn’t he a Democrat? Weird.
“Once again”? Cite, please.
While we’re all waiting (most likely in vain) for those cites, some evidence that being an independent thinker who does not toe the party line on every point does not make me anything remotely resembling a Trump supporter:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=873888
Speaking of those fascist rallies, this was my prediction for what he’ll do in the transition period and on Jan. 20, 2021 if and when he loses in November:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=877271
If you read these posts for comprehension, you recognize that this is not just pro forma opposition to Trump. Which means you should well understand why I’m offended by the suggestion that I support Trump or his clown carnival, other than in the occasional “broken clock” moment like this. What this is more about is that Biden could be on the right side of this one (“I don’t agree with all the details of this policy change, but it is clear the old policy did require some adjustments”), and he is instead doubling down, much to my chagrin. :smack:
The OP doth protest too much, methinks.
Right! It’s such a clever, deep-cover play, for me to repeatedly blast Trump and other Republicans in absolutely scathing terms, all so I can very occasionally make mild murmurs of support for something they do 2% of the time. Ingenious! :rolleyes: (Still waiting for that cite on “once again”: 2% of the time might even be too generous.)
ETA: Not to mention that in the OP, my whole frustration with Biden is that he’s taking this stance despite my believing the allegations against him are “extremely dubious”, on which point I have been 100% consistent from the beginning.
I had hoped this would sink, because it’s a bad OP.
You provided no actual argument for what’s wrong with the Obama-Biden rules. You seem to just assume that everyone will disagree with them, which makes no sense given the stated views on this board. You also posted in IMHO when you know this is a very divisive topic, as if you wanted to avoid debate.
As far as I can tell, the rules enacted are just that sexual assault accusations are taken seriously and properly investigated, while DeVos’s rules just seem to be “let’s go back to when people would get away with sexual assault.” So, without further argument, you just appear to be saying that you think that rape is less important than the rare false accusation (which you have admitted are rarer than actual rapes).
And, unfortunately, that fits very well with your previous posts on this subject. And it is not remotely the only thing you’ve argued that agrees with Trump–you seem to side with him on most social justice issues.
There’s no actual argument in the OP, nor in his link.
It would be a shame to turn back the clock to the Obama-era days of no crippling economic meltdown and lack of dangerously mismanaged pandemics.
“My God…! Tan Suits!? In government…? Are you Mad…?” /s
“My God…! Tan Suits!? In government…? Are you Mad…?” /s
Does anyone happen to have an actual summary or concise explanation of what the guidelines - both the Obama era ones, and DeVos’s newer ones - actually say? I’ve seen a half dozen opinion pieces on this, and they’re pretty vague about the actual details, so it’s hard to form a solid opinion that’s reasonably rooted in facts.
*"Under the new regulations, after a student reports an assault or a harassment incident covered by Title IX, the school must tell the students involved and their parents in writing about the allegations and the evidence that is gathered. The school must also give the accused person at least 10 days to respond. If the school decides to punish a student for a sexual assault allegation, it must tell the victim in writing, something many schools had previously resisted doing.
Schools will have to keep written records of actions taken in response to sexual misconduct reports for at least seven years under the regulations.
In another change, the person who investigates a sexual assault case under Title IX cannot be the same person who decides whether the accused student is responsible — which means schools may need to hire or train additional staff…
The final Title IX regulations removed some of the most controversial measures at the K-12 level and will not require live hearings in student discipline cases for sexual assault (this was part of the previous DeVos proposal)…
The regulations also clarify when K-12 schools are required to investigate students’ claims. Schools must investigate whenever any district employee — from teachers and guidance counselors to bus drivers — learns of a sexual assault or harassment incident, whether a student, a parent or a bystander reports it. Schools will be required to investigate cases that happen on campus or as part of school activities like field trips, athletic events or conferences…
The regulations also require schools to use a narrower definition of sexual harassment than is used in employment sex discrimination laws. Sexual harassment under the new Title IX regulations is unwelcome conduct that “a reasonable person” would consider “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access” to an education.
The Education Department told NBC News that it decided to use a narrower definition partly to allow for speech protected by the First Amendment. Victims rights advocates criticized the definition, which they said would require students to endure more harassment before schools could take action."*
Still a mess in my opinion, requiring relatively untrained staff subject to political/alumni pressures to conduct investigations and make decisions which are far better left to law enforcement professionals and the courts. Mandate referral of all such complaints to agencies accustomed to investigative work and provide the funds needed to ramp up staff to handle them.
very good to entertain you in this time of quarantine 123movies
And so. The mask slips off.
Having actually adjudicated a sexual misconduct case between students at a college, I can say with certainty that Betsy DeVos - as usual – is full of shit.
The accused had the same treatment he would have had anywhere else. He was allowed to have a lawyer and we read carefully the statements made by both sides carefully. In some ways, it was better for justice than a jury trial, since we could make notes and review the statements side by side.
Ultimately, we disbelieved the charge and recommended no action was taken.
The whole exercise by DeVos is to intimidate women to keep them from reporting.
Most of that sounds…good. I mean, the part of it that sounds potentially bad is using a narrower definition for sexual harassment, but I’d have to see what it’s been narrowed from before saying I think that narrowing is definitely bad, although on the face of it it’s probable that it is.
I like almost every one of those other requirements, especially requiring people to be informed in writing about all the details, and I mostly think it’s a good idea for the person making the decision as to whether something actionable happened to be different from the person conducting the investigation. Better to have the investigator present all the evidence to another party rather than be directly influenced by the involved parties.