So you’re otherwise OK with the DeVos process, so long as no one has an actual lawyer present?
The reason there’s an option for a lawyer present for the accused is specifically so they can have someone who both understands what the process is supposed to look like and also is specifically there to support their defense and enforce their rights and can be trusted that that is their top priority. You could do this with a faculty advisor (and under the DeVos rules you are assigned one if you don’t have a lawyer), but since such an advisor would be trained and supplied by the school you’d have to be very careful to avoid allowing the school to appoint someone insufficiently trained, incompetent, or actually opposed to you having a thorough and vigorous defense in order to avoid biasing the process.
But lawyers aside, there are a bunch of questions and details that have been challenged (with varying degrees of success) under the “Dear Colleague” rules. For example:
Should the accused be told what they are being accused of before the hearing? If yes, how long before?
Should they have access to the evidence being brought against them before the hearing, in order to prepare a defense? If yes, how long before?
Should the school be allowed to engage in punitive action against the accused before any decision is made?
Should the accused have access to documentation regarding what the process is supposed to look like and what rights they have, and does this include materials to train faculty regarding the process?
Should testimony from the accuser be delivered at the hearing, or should they be allowed to provide a written statement? If the latter, how much time should they be allowed to go over and refine that statement before submission?
Should testimony from the accuser be subject to questioning? If yes, should they be required to answer those questions on the spot, or should they be allowed some amount of time to draft a response that allows them to produce the strongest possible response (aka be able to do things like consider how any answer might contradict their previous statement/other evidence)? If the latter, how much time?
5 and 6, but for the accused?
Should either party be able to bring in third party witnesses, and what are the edges and limits of that?
How should contradictions or outright lies by the accuser be considered? For example, the training materials Ole Miss used for its faculty said to treat any lies or contradictions by the accuser as a side effect of trauma and not as indication of anything else. This means any lies the accuser is caught in are considered not to effect her credibility at all, while any inconsistency in the story of the accused is evidence against the accused.
When should Title IX even apply? For example, imagine a scenario where an incident between two students is alleged not on school property, not during school hours, and not during an event ran, authorized or promoted by the school. The only connection between the incident and the school is that both of those involved are students - does Title IX apply?
What should be necessary to start an investigation? Should the alleged victim have to report it? To who? Should a teacher hearing a rumor about it in passing from a third party in the hallway be sufficient to mandate investigation? Where are the edges of this?
If someone makes an accusation, does that free the accuser from being held responsible for other disciplinary infractions? Essentially is making a Title IX accusation a get-out-of-consequeces-free card for other rulebreaking? If yes, for how long and for what?
Hell, at a more basic level should the process even be fair to the accused at all? Do they really need any rights or ability to defend themselves?Why not just punish in response to any accusation?
A male student accuses a female student of sexually assaulting him. In response to hearing the accusation, she accuses him of sexually assaulting her in turn. How do you resolve this?
Between the hundreds of lawsuits challenging Title IX procedures since the “Dear Colleague” letter and the differences between that policy and the DeVos policy all of those have come up.
That’s not very many words to answer what you think policy should actually look like.
I suspect (but cannot prove) it’s because your ideal version of policy would look something like “if any woman accuses a man, he’s pulled in and questioned and if he can’t prove he didn’t do it beyond even the tiniest doubt on the spot he’s expelled.” With the gendering there being explicit, because I suspect you only even think about scenarios where it’s a girl/woman accusing a boy/man.
You refuse to engage with the question of what the policy should look like except to describe any time the topic of the accused defending themselves is mentioned as some variation of “letting rich men get away with it”. I’m not sure what other conclusion I’m supposed to arrive at?
You yourself throughout the thread has always described the accuser as a girl and the accused as a man, you describe any mention of the accused mounting a defense as letting rich men get away with it and refuse to say anything about what policy should look like other than that the accused should not be allowed to have a lawyer.
That’s yet another mischaracterisation. I absolutely didn’t object to people defending themselves, it’s letting expensive lawyers into a school discipline hearing (to giving rape victims a horrendous, harrowing experience where they’re more on trial than the perpetrator and the rich rapists get away with it) that I object to, as you know perfectly well because I’ve said it so many times.
If you want to debate with me, why not discuss what I said instead of reinterpreting it to your exaggerated false version every time?
If you knew anything about it at all, you would know that rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the vast majority of rape victims are female. I never tried to assert that it was exclusive, that was all you, as usual, and to be honest I’m surprised that someone like you spending so long defending trump’s policy is objecting to the occasional (and it was occasional, and mostly when I was comparing the rich male rapists to the rich male rapist in chief, Donald J Trump) use of a non gender-neutral pronoun. But then consistency and fair mindedness has never been a characteristic of people who defend misogynists like Trump and their policies.
As I’ve said all along lawyers into school is all about making reporting rapid more harrowing for the victims and easier for the wealthy rapists to get away with it. That’s how trump sees it, that’s why he supports it, and if I’m to believe you, apparently he’s more perceptive and intelligent than you on this topic.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.
No lawyers. School management. Done.
So you’re otherwise OK with the DeVos process, so long as no one has an actual lawyer present?
The reason there’s an option for a lawyer present for the accused is specifically so they can have someone who both understands what the process is supposed to look like and also is specifically there to support their defense and enforce their rights and can be trusted that that is their top priority. You could do this with a faculty advisor (and under the DeVos rules you are assigned one if you don’t have a lawyer), but since such an advisor would be trained and supplied by the school you’d have to be very careful to avoid allowing the school to appoint someone insufficiently trained, incompetent, or actually opposed to you having a thorough and vigorous defense in order to avoid biasing the process.
But lawyers aside, there are a bunch of questions and details that have been challenged (with varying degrees of success) under the “Dear Colleague” rules. For example:
Between the hundreds of lawsuits challenging Title IX procedures since the “Dear Colleague” letter and the differences between that policy and the DeVos policy all of those have come up.
That’s an awful lot of words for you want rich perpetrators to be able to get away with rape without even getting expelled from school.
That’s not very many words to answer what you think policy should actually look like.
I suspect (but cannot prove) it’s because your ideal version of policy would look something like “if any woman accuses a man, he’s pulled in and questioned and if he can’t prove he didn’t do it beyond even the tiniest doubt on the spot he’s expelled.” With the gendering there being explicit, because I suspect you only even think about scenarios where it’s a girl/woman accusing a boy/man.
I don’t think I’ve seen a clearer case of amyone making a straw man argument tham this right here. Wow.
You refuse to engage with the question of what the policy should look like except to describe any time the topic of the accused defending themselves is mentioned as some variation of “letting rich men get away with it”. I’m not sure what other conclusion I’m supposed to arrive at?
You yourself throughout the thread has always described the accuser as a girl and the accused as a man, you describe any mention of the accused mounting a defense as letting rich men get away with it and refuse to say anything about what policy should look like other than that the accused should not be allowed to have a lawyer.
That’s yet another mischaracterisation. I absolutely didn’t object to people defending themselves, it’s letting expensive lawyers into a school discipline hearing (to giving rape victims a horrendous, harrowing experience where they’re more on trial than the perpetrator and the rich rapists get away with it) that I object to, as you know perfectly well because I’ve said it so many times.
If you want to debate with me, why not discuss what I said instead of reinterpreting it to your exaggerated false version every time?
If you knew anything about it at all, you would know that rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the vast majority of rape victims are female. I never tried to assert that it was exclusive, that was all you, as usual, and to be honest I’m surprised that someone like you spending so long defending trump’s policy is objecting to the occasional (and it was occasional, and mostly when I was comparing the rich male rapists to the rich male rapist in chief, Donald J Trump) use of a non gender-neutral pronoun. But then consistency and fair mindedness has never been a characteristic of people who defend misogynists like Trump and their policies.
As I’ve said all along lawyers into school is all about making reporting rapid more harrowing for the victims and easier for the wealthy rapists to get away with it. That’s how trump sees it, that’s why he supports it, and if I’m to believe you, apparently he’s more perceptive and intelligent than you on this topic.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn’t be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
You can’t help yourself but invent things I didn’t say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I’d said.
What I said was that you’d have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it’s a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they’ll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.