ACLU Sells Out

[lomiller]

It is inexplicable that people think it is OK to "compromise" basic principles of due process

Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.

 

[The Big Dog]

Many are! Are we restricting our conversation to public universities? In fact my list did not include universities of any kind - I only pointed out that society as a whole, at many, many levels, punishes people severely who nonetheless are found not guilty by the criminal justice system. And it is not always unfair - often society has a right to judge what is acceptable whether a crime or not.

If you do want to bring in public universities, it is somewhat complicated. They are not arms of the state or city criminal justice system. In fact they are not arms of the state/city in most ways: these governments partially fund them (typically poorly) and impose some rules, but most rules, regulations, and the actual running of the universities are through boards of regents and through university-adminstrators/faculty committees. The rules that employees and students operate under are an additional layer very distinct from those of the government. In this OP we are in fact discussing many issues that are not even crimes, but are violations of university rules, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. One obvious if off topic example, a student unable to maintain a certain GPA will be kicked out of a public university even though that is not a crime.

The contention that public universities are not state actors for the purposes of procedural due process is absolutely specious.

 

[Tony]

If it creates negative publicity that makes it harder for your employers to operate and make money, then they probably should have the right to fire you. I don’t think that’s what the ACLU is interested in here though.

I disagree. A job is a job. It doesn’t, nor should it, dictate how you live your life. Should a company have the right to fire a gay person if their being gay brought “negative publicity”?

A better analogy may be a company that lax safety polices or has safety policies that it doesn’t really enforce so that unsafe practices become commonplace. If someone gets hurt because management allows the work environment to become unsafe should they be liable? In extreme cases maybe they could even face criminal charges, but certainly civil charges should apply.

Still a bad analogy. How does extending 1st world standards (preponderance of evidence doesn’t qualify) of due process rights to the accused in a university setting make things more unsafe than having those same standards in a criminal context?

 

[The Big Dog]

Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.

I was quite obviously talking about right to confront witness and cross examination, and have cited specific case law supporting that analysis.

There is a deficiency, but I can assure you it ain't on my end.

here is another copy of the case

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...m+michigan&hl=en&as_sdt=4,111,126&as_ylo=2017

I am here to help you understand it.

 

[carlitos]

deleted - sorry never mind.

 

[lomiller]

The student may be forced to withdraw from his classes and move out of his university housing. Id. His personal relationships might suffer. See id. And he could face difficulty obtaining educational and employment opportunities down the road, especially if he is expelled. Id.

IOW they may not be able to go to that school anymore. Of course a rape victim can face the same consequences if they are forced to choose between going to classes with their rapist or withdrawing form school.

This is why the school should not be predisposed to listen to one side or the other. The revers (and equally wrong) position to would be a zero tolerance rule that forced the accused to prove their innocence, but of course this isn't what the ACLU is arguing for.

 

[Giordano]

Yes.



Not really. It’s actually simple. Want to take public money? Then you can’t act like a fascist. Do you have a problem with universities being unable to discriminate against minorities if they take public funding?

Assuming you read my just prior post you know that my points have nothing to do with discrimination against minorities, but were related to to the current discussion, which is how to achieve the maximum fairness to all in accusations of harassment. If anything I suggested that I have some qualms as to the current levels of protection for the accused, but that I would prefer to research it and understand it before before forming a real opinion.

I know that right wingers have latched on to the virtue shaming (IMHO) argument that minority students are more often accused of sexual harassment than "whites." Convenient (if true, which I am uncertain of) but I doubt this is really a sincere argument rather than a transparent attempt to out liberal liberals. If true, then the regulations need to be carefully examined for any built in biases that might have produced this result. Why would you think I would be opposed to this examination and correction? Or the ACLU would be unconcerned about this issue for that matter? The ACLU has a very long, continued, and distinguished history in advancing minority rights and protections.

 

[Tony]

Assuming you read my just prior post you know that my points have nothing to do with discrimination against minorities, but were related to to the current discussion, which is how to achieve the maximum fairness to all in accusations of harassment. If anything I suggested that I have some qualms as to the current levels of protection for the accused, but that I would prefer to research it and understand it bette before forming a real opinion.

You missed the point then.

i know that right wingers have latched on to the virtue shaming (IMHO) argument that minority students are more often accused of sexual harassment than "whites." Convenient (if true, which I am uncertain of) but I doubt this is really a sincere argument rather than a transparent attempt to out liberal liberals.

I’m not a right winger so I don’t see how this is relevant.

 

[lomiller]

I disagree. A job is a job. It doesn’t, nor should it, dictate how you live your life.

Employers need to have avenues to fire unproductive employees. If you create negative PR that costs them more than the value of the work you do for them, you are unproductive by any reasonable definition. This is different than an employer simply not liking what you do in your spare time. This is something that legitimately costs them money.

Still a bad analogy. How does extending 1st world standards (preponderance of evidence doesn’t qualify) of due process rights

What are you talking about? Preponderance of the evidence is far and away the most common standard for due process in the first world. It’s only in criminal proceedings where people can face the loss of basic freedoms that use higher standards.

Should a company have the right to fire a gay person if their being gay brought “negative publicity”?

This is a tricky discussion that gets to the core of why specific equal rights legislation is often required. If you are going to tell a business they MUST hire someone who will cost them money overall it pretty much requires legislation to stand up in court.

 

[Giordano]

You missed the point then.



I’m not a right winger so I don’t see how this is relevant.

If you are not making the same argument (which you did not deny), I am mystified as to how my statements would lead you to conclude that I am in favor of discrimination against minorities (unless you are defining males as minorities). As a result of my own mystification, caused in no small part by your abbreviated and information limited posts, I find myself playing a guessing game as to what your own points are. It is not a game I enjoy or feel obligated to play.

 

[lomiller]

I was quite obviously talking about right to confront witness and cross examination,

Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.

 

[Tony]

Employers need to have avenues to fire unproductive employees. If you create negative PR that costs them more than the value of the work you do for them, you are unproductive by any reasonable definition. This is different than an employer simply not liking what you do in your spare time. This is something that legitimately costs them money.

Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.

What are you talking about? Preponderance of the evidence is far and away the most common standard for due process in the first world.

Evidence? Even if your claim is true, the “1st world” is more retrograde than it should be and needs to progress beyond such backwards practices.

This is a tricky discussion that gets to the core of why specific equal rights legislation is often required. If you are going to tell a business they MUST hire someone who will cost them money overall it pretty much requires legislation to stand up in court.

Translation: when it is something you agree with, businesses and private organizations shouldn’t have the rights to fire people they don’t want.

It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways. The better way is to stick to the principle that your employer should have no power to affect your private life negatively or punish an employee for living their life as they want.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since “preponderance of the evidence” IS due process, I suggest your inability to understand the explanations you are given is a deficiency on your end.

Standard of proof is only one component of due process, the new rules address deficiencies in many other areas of due process, and they still permit schools to use that standard of proof.

 

[Tony]

It is not a game I enjoy or feel obligated to play.

TIL basic ready comprehension is a game.

 

[epeeist]

Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.

So? New rules don't say accused gets to cross-examine accuser. Fine to require a third party lawyer or other assistant to accused to do it instead while he's out of the room. So what's your objection?

More generally, read Emily Yoffe's series at The Atlantic if you want a fairly non-partisan (if anything she's more left-wing, used to be at Slate) view of the problems with the college investigation/inquisition system.

Just from memory of what I've read, there have been lawsuits and decisions reached over such matters as:

1. Third party complained, both adult participants in sex said it was consensual, but she was disbelieved and he was kicked out;

2. In front of witnesses (both male and female) in her room to which she'd invited a male, woman gave him blowjob, then he was kicked out after she complained because when she started performing oral sex he didn't stop her and confirm she consented to perform oral sex on him (which she'd started to do without getting explicit consent from him?);

3. Many instances of male complainants not being treated seriously compared to female complainants, especially if woman were first to complain.

Re the ACLU specifically, they used to be about protecting people including the accused, insisting on rights of free speech and due process for neo-nazis, KKK, terrorists, murderers, and yes, rapists. Regardless of whether they or the government at the time were left or right. If now they are saying, hey, wait, if you're accused of sexual assault the rights of the accuser far, far outweigh the rights of the accused, well that may be a coherent view that any number of organizations might support, though many would disagree. But it's not a stance the ACLU should have taken, over time they've morphed from anti-government to anti-right-wing/conservative/Republican. I mean, any number of justices including Gorsuch (recently agreeing with Sotomayor in dissent to denial of granting leave to appeal), Thomas, and the late Scalia, have on various issues been pro-civil liberties. And contrariwise, left-wing justices and politicians generally have been anti-civil liberties on a number of issues. But the ACLU's new stance seems to be, it's okay to be a progressive oppressor.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again you are confusing due process with the requirements of a criminal trial. A process that does not allow the parties to interrogate each other directly are still appropriate in many other situations.

I'll take "How do we know that you did not read the case I linked for 2000, Alex."

 

[plague311]

Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.

What he stated was not hard to comprehend. Being "productive" means you're a net gain for the employer. You bring in more money than you cost that employer. What are you having issues getting?

If there is an employee that has been accused of sexual assault multiple times in public then it is ******* stupid as all hell to think for one moment that an employer should have to keep said employee on the payroll.

The same goes for the government and it's employees.

Translation: My Strawman is: when it is something you agree with, businesses and private organizations shouldn’t have the rights to fire people they don’t want.

FTFY. Thank you for pointing out that you were making a strawman to begin with though, made it easy to highlight.

Being gay is a protected class. Being a ******* **** human being, and employee isn't a protected class. Unless you got some evidence of that you can present here.

Do you?

It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways.

Since he doesn't want that, this is all a moot point.

The better way is to stick to the principle that your employer should have no power to affect your private life negatively or punish an employee for living their life as they want.

That's almost as stupid of a point as the first one you attempted to make.

Just like firing Nazi's. Being a **** human is not protected, even if you do it on your own time. Your employer is not required to employ you if you're being an ******* to others in society. You don't have a right to employment and there isn't any country that allows for that.

 

[lomiller]

Now you’re moving the goalposts. We aren’t talking about “unproductive” employees.

If anything you are the one trying to move the goalposts. My original response to you made it very clear that I was referring to cases where the thing you do costs your employer money. If you cost your employer more than the value your work brings them you are unproductive by definition.

Evidence? Even if your claim is true, the “1st world” is more retrograde than it should be and needs to progress beyond such backwards practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence
Now, with that in mind consider the following scenario. A man rapes his classmate and when she reports it the subsequent investigation balance of the evidence supports her. Is it fair to send her right back into classes with him? If one of them should be removed from class which one do you think it should be? (Remember the weight of the evidence supports her accusation)

It’s only “tricky” because you want it both ways.

No, it’s tricky because someone will be harmed either way. You will either end up forcing s business owner to hire someone who will cost more than they produce or you will disadvantage someone for something that is not their fault.

 

[Tony]

What he stated was not hard to comprehend. Being "productive" means you're a net gain for the employer. You bring in more money than you cost that employer.

Right and we aren’t talking about that. We were talking about people getting busted with weed.

Thank you for pointing out that you were making a strawman to begin with though, made it easy to highlight.

Yes. You were making a straw man.

Being gay is a protected class

That is a dodge.

Being a ******* **** human being

It seems to have worked out for you.

Since he doesn't want that, this is all a moot point.

That’s exactly what you nazis want.

Just like firing Nazi's. Being a **** human is not protected, even if you do it on your own time. Your employer is not required to employ you if you're being an ******* to others in society. You don't have a right to employment and there isn't any country that allows for that.

Whatever you say. Keep defending the privedges of capital to lord over the lives of their employees. Pseudo-left nazis like you are why the right is winning.

 

[lomiller]

the new rules address deficiencies in many other areas of due process,

False. The fact that you want a process that is weighted in favor of one side doesn’t mean there “is no due process” under the existing rules. In fact they already addressed due process comprehensively. The new rules Trump’s administration is pushing, however, in many cases abrogate the responsibility to apply any process at all, so unlike the old rules, due process is compromised.