Poll for shits and giggles. Here's the serious bit:
I'm doing a bit of research into due process at colleges and universities.
Let me give all of you some context. In 2011, at the behest of the Obama administration, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published what is now commonly referred to as the "Dear Colleague" letter. The "Dear Colleague" letter required private and public academic institutions in the U.S. to institute a plethora of policies to combat "sexual assault".
The two policies that are of most interest to us included:
1. Administrative hearings should use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard to determine if a student is guilty of sexual assault. This means we need to only be 50.1% certain that someone is guilty in order to declare him guilty. This is a lower evidentiary bar than the "clear and convincing" standard previously used, and far lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" typically used in criminal law trials.
2. The alleged perpetrator is not allowed to directly or indirectly cross-examine the alleged victim, in order to prevent "intimidation and trauma".
Failure to abide by the OCR's new rules could result in the denial of federal funds to the offending institution -- research grants, government-backed student loans, et cetera. This effectively scared the daylights out of university administrators across the country.
We know based on incidents like the Duke lacrosse rape case and Rolling Stone's retracted University of Virginia story that this is fueled by an unfounded, SJW-backed hysteria that foids are regularly victimized on campuses. Nevertheless, universities created sprawling bureaucracies simply to cater to the whims of every delusional, attention-seeking femoid.
Administrative proceedings may not have the force of a criminal conviction, but being publicly accused and expelled from a university for sexual assault is a career- and life-changing consequence. Now, untrained university administrators can effectively declare someone "guilty" by nothing more than the vague hunch that "he looks pretty guilty to me". This is effectively the "presumption of guilt" for ugly men, and they don't even have the right to question their accuser.
OCR's rules resulted in the expulsions of hundreds of innocent students (many of them people of color), and in turn, hundreds of lawsuits filed by students whose due process rights were violated. Here's one court opinion written by a currycel judge (Amul Thapar) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I've attached the full opinion below, but here is a third-party summary of the opinion:
Basically, the based Sixth Circuit shits on the University of Michigan for denying the male student the due process that he deserves. It was an immensely satisfying read.
What does everyone think?
I'm doing a bit of research into due process at colleges and universities.
Let me give all of you some context. In 2011, at the behest of the Obama administration, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published what is now commonly referred to as the "Dear Colleague" letter. The "Dear Colleague" letter required private and public academic institutions in the U.S. to institute a plethora of policies to combat "sexual assault".
The two policies that are of most interest to us included:
1. Administrative hearings should use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard to determine if a student is guilty of sexual assault. This means we need to only be 50.1% certain that someone is guilty in order to declare him guilty. This is a lower evidentiary bar than the "clear and convincing" standard previously used, and far lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" typically used in criminal law trials.
2. The alleged perpetrator is not allowed to directly or indirectly cross-examine the alleged victim, in order to prevent "intimidation and trauma".
Failure to abide by the OCR's new rules could result in the denial of federal funds to the offending institution -- research grants, government-backed student loans, et cetera. This effectively scared the daylights out of university administrators across the country.
We know based on incidents like the Duke lacrosse rape case and Rolling Stone's retracted University of Virginia story that this is fueled by an unfounded, SJW-backed hysteria that foids are regularly victimized on campuses. Nevertheless, universities created sprawling bureaucracies simply to cater to the whims of every delusional, attention-seeking femoid.
Administrative proceedings may not have the force of a criminal conviction, but being publicly accused and expelled from a university for sexual assault is a career- and life-changing consequence. Now, untrained university administrators can effectively declare someone "guilty" by nothing more than the vague hunch that "he looks pretty guilty to me". This is effectively the "presumption of guilt" for ugly men, and they don't even have the right to question their accuser.
OCR's rules resulted in the expulsions of hundreds of innocent students (many of them people of color), and in turn, hundreds of lawsuits filed by students whose due process rights were violated. Here's one court opinion written by a currycel judge (Amul Thapar) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I've attached the full opinion below, but here is a third-party summary of the opinion:
Basically, the based Sixth Circuit shits on the University of Michigan for denying the male student the due process that he deserves. It was an immensely satisfying read.
What does everyone think?
