ACLU Sells Out

[The Big Dog]

What a stupid question. In non-criminal proceedings (like the ones covered by these rules) civil libertarians regularly support rules that give equal consideration to both sides.

Example where one side is a State School and the other is someone accused of sexual assault??

I note that the Sixth Circuit found that the existing rules did not support that the School was giving equal consideration to the accused.

 

[tyr_13]

Well ordinarily one would expect that you, as the proponent of the paraphrase would (and should) explain how it was correct, but there is zero chance that will happen, which is fine, because obviously:

Actual quote:

"One line in particular was shocking to civil libertarians: 'It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.' Since when does the ACLU believe a process that favors the accused is inappropriate or unfair?"

Paraphrase:

"For example, they read 'inappropriately favoring the accused' as 'it is inappropriate to favor the accused', which is either a very dishonest, or a very foolish reading."

The reason your paraphrase sucks is because both the author and the ACLU were talking about the "process" which you inexplicably left out!

You left out the actual subject, c'mon man...

Which doesn't change anything.

Not saying the word 'process' doesn't change their (the article's) reasoning, their reading, nor the meaning of the ACLU's words. It still means the author was taking it to mean that the ACLU was saying that it is inappropriate to favor the accused, which is not what the ACLU was saying regardless of the subjecting being 'the process'. Adding in 'the process' changes nothing from the reasoning, nor my criticism of it. It is still either a very stupid reading of what the ACLU said, or a very dishonest one.

I was right, that was entertaining. XD

 

[epeeist]

Have you read the ACLU position? They want a process that requires the university to investigate complaints and base their decision on the weight of the evidence. The new rules the Trump administration is proposing allows schools to ignore complaints and insist on using a standard of evidence weighted towards one side.

Yes, I have. You're parroting statements by them that are misleading. And even aside from that, the ACLU's mandate was civil liberties. Not victim rights. Victim rights matter in the big picture, but until recently -- and appropriately - that was never the ACLU mandate or focus.

For instance, if someone goes to person X at the university who says, okay you have to complain to official Y I can't launch an investigation myself - how is that ignoring the complaint?

I mean, if someone sees a university employee repairing a water fountain and says they want to make a sexual misconduct complaint, how is it wrong for that person to say, hey, I'm not qualified to deal with that, you need to speak to someone in that office down the hall? That's not ignoring the complaint. That's saying, you need to speak to a qualified university representative here, not just anyone who works for the university.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which doesn't change anything.

Not saying the word 'process' doesn't change their (the article's) reasoning, their reading, nor the meaning of the ACLU's words. It still means the author was taking it to mean that the ACLU was saying that it is inappropriate to favor the accused, which is not what the ACLU was saying regardless of the subjecting being 'the process'. Adding in 'the process' changes nothing from the reasoning, nor my criticism of it. It is still either a very stupid reading of what the ACLU said, or a very dishonest one.

I was right, that was entertaining. XD

fantastic! I, the author and the ACLU are talking about the process, you are not, but are saying that your paraphrase was accurate!

that is absolutely beautiful!

You seem to fail to realize that the entire subject of the damn article and their criticism of the ACLU was about the process!

say folks lets take a gander at the headline again:

The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights

The civil-liberties organization has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals that undermines its own principles.

ZOMG! They are talking about due process!

It entertains me that you are entertained by the fact that you utterly and completely missed the boat!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

 

[tyr_13]

fantastic! I, the author and the ACLU are talking about the process, you are not, but are saying that your paraphrase was accurate!

that is absolutely beautiful!

You seem to fail to realize that the entire subject of the damn article and their criticism of the ACLU was about the process!

say folks lets take a gander at the headline again:

The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights

The civil-liberties organization has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals that undermines its own principles.

ZOMG! They are talking about due process!

It entertains me that you are entertained by the fact that you utterly and completely missed the boat!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Yes, I'm greatly entertained.

The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process. Your entire point there rests on you and the article making the exact same strawman/mistake that I was criticizing, while at the same time doing exactly what you accused me of doing, only to the ACLU rather than to the article.

Just perfect. Are you a Poe who is actually liberal? You damage your supposed side so much, I just have to know. It's great either way.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I'm greatly entertained.

The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process. Your entire point there rests on you and the article making the exact same strawman/mistake that I was criticizing, while at the same time doing exactly what you accused me of doing, only to the ACLU rather than to the article.

Just perfect. Are you a Poe who is actually liberal? You damage your supposed side so much, I just have to know. It's great either way.

falls out of chair... you literally just said that the ACLU was talking about the very subject THAT YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR PARAPHRASE!

That is utterly magical, it is like a dream state.

And yes, the actual smart article that I posted was criticizing the ACLU because it "has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections."

Post something magical again so I can be lifted up ....

 

[Ziggurat]

The ACLU was not talking about 'due process', they were talking about the proposed process.

OK, the ACLU was not talking about due process. Which raises the question... why weren't they? Since due process protects civil liberties, and the ACLU is nominally in the business of protecting same, isn't that what they should be talking about?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ACLU seems unfamiliar with the post-2011 system

In 2017 KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor wrote, "Skidmore was the 53rd college or university to find itself on the losing end of a court decision in a lawsuit filed by an accused student in the past four years. This remarkable body of law — virtually ignored by the news media — is especially striking given the traditional reluctance of courts to second-guess college disciplinary actions...Amidst legal challenges, schools, including Brown and Swarthmore, adjusted their policies to make it harder for innocent students to win vindication, by scaling back the rights promised to accused students. Reflecting this mindset, the National Association of College and University Attorneys published a May 2016 research note urging colleges and universities to “promptly destroy” documents such as “emails … staff notes … notes of hearing participants during a disciplinary hearing, drafts of hearing outcome reports, and other such working papers,” all of which “might actually prove very useful to a plaintiff’s lawyer” in a subsequent lawsuit." link One might think that the ACLU would take an interest in protecting the respondents' right to see the evidence against them, in order to mount an appeal or to sue the school if necessary, but apparently not.

Taylor and Johnson coauthored a book on how colleges and universities adjudicate sexual misconduct. Very recently they also coauthored an Op-Ed piece at the Wall Street Journal, but it is behind a paywall. Rather than familiarize itself with the objections raised by these and other authors, the ACLU tweeted, "The proposed rule would make schools less safe for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, when there is already alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assaults and harassment that go unreported." The claim of alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assault is extremely dubious at best. For example, Taylor and Johnson note that the rate declined between 1994 and 2010 (2011 was the year that the Dear Colleague letter changed the rules).

 

[tyr_13]

OK, the ACLU was not talking about due process. Which raises the question... why weren't they? Since due process protects civil liberties, and the ACLU is nominally in the business of protecting same, isn't that what they should be talking about?

No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.

 

[tyr_13]

falls out of chair... you literally just said that the ACLU was talking about the very subject THAT YOU LEFT OUT OF YOUR PARAPHRASE!

That is utterly magical, it is like a dream state.

And yes, the actual smart article that I posted was criticizing the ACLU because it "has taken a stand against stronger due-process protections."

Post something magical again so I can be lifted up ....

It certainly is magical that you believe pretending to have utterly no reading comprehension is a winning argument. You should practice law.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.

Given that these new rules address some rather egregious holes in the due process requirements for title IX complaints, I find it rather strange that the topic isn't worth addressing for the ACLU.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, they should not always be talking about due process in every statement. Rights and civil liberties are not just about due process.

It is not the 'American Due Process Union'.

First, they should be talking about due process every time a change in the law impacts due process.

Second, they are talking about due process, as has been pointed out relentlessly in this thread with a multitude of citations to actual sources, the ACLU IS talking about due process and they are against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals which undermines the ACLU's own principles.

 

[tyr_13]

Given that these new rules address some rather egregious holes in the due process requirements for title IX complaints, I find it rather strange that the topic isn't worth addressing for the ACLU.

It is not strange that every single statement does not address due process directly. Why on earth would you find that strange?

And just because something says it is doing something such as 'addressing' holes in due process requirements in absolutely no way requires someone who advocates for strong due process protections to agree with the specific manner that it does so, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to agree with parts that don't do that.

Disagreeing over if any given change does or does not strengthen due process protections for all or any of the process is different from arguing that they are against due process.

To give an extreme example; If we all agreed that the leaking pipes need addressed, my objecting to a plan to seal them from the inside with lead would in no way mean I am against fixing the leaking pipes.

In this specific case it doesn't even mean that the ACLU objects to every single part of this plan in isolation.

 

[tyr_13]

First, they should be talking about due process every time a change in the law impacts due process.

Second, they are talking about due process, as has been pointed out relentlessly in this thread with a multitude of citations to actual sources, the ACLU IS talking about due process and they are against stronger due-process protections in campus tribunals which undermines the ACLU's own principles.

Yes, they do talk about due process, both specifically in places and in general, but they were not specifically talking about opposing it in that quote.

 

[The Big Dog]

Today, the california supreme Court let stand a lower court opinion upholding a set of "core principles' that include the exact sort of procedural protections that are set forth in the new guidelines and which the ACLU has chosen to take a stand against:

Summary and opinion available here.

https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1065007238937538561

Viva due process!

 

[Ziggurat]

It is not strange that every single statement does not address due process directly. Why on earth would you find that strange?

Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.

there are, of course but they dropped the word "due" in order to avoid appearing like complete jackasses.

To sum up:

"We strongly oppose it."

-The ACLU

 

[Shadowdweller]

Fun fact: The average settlement of a sex abuse tort - which already uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - far exceeds the cost of a college education or anything else a university is capable of doing.

Go cry about it.

 

[tyr_13]

Are there any statements from the ACLU addressing the due process improvements of the new rules? I don't think there are. That is indeed strange.

Well, not really, it's frankly to be expected. The ACLU isn't really a civil liberties organization anymore. It's mostly a fundraising organization. And when you're a fundraising organization, your primary mission is to please your donors.

Yes. You even 'reacted' to it the first time it was posted. It does, as a matter of fact, agree with at least two of the changes.

You're free to disagree with their reasoning, but pretending they haven't said anything about it is just factually incorrect.

Great well-poisoning attempt though. Very 'subtle'.

Fun fact: The average settlement of a sex abuse tort - which already uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - far exceeds the cost of a college education or anything else a university is capable of doing.

Go cry about it.

The ACLU makes the very argument that all other sexual harassment proceedings, besides criminal ones of course, use 'preponderance of the evidence'.

 

[lomiller]

You're parroting statements by them

If you want to discuss the ACLU’s position, you need to look at the ACLU’s actual position not what some wack-a-doodle right wing web site “says” that ACLU’s position is.

And even aside from that, the ACLU's mandate was civil liberties. Not victim rights.

Since the ACLU’s isn’t addressing victims rights this isn’t relevant.

For instance, if someone goes to person X at the university who says, okay you have to complain to official Y I can't launch an investigation myself - how is that ignoring the complaint?

You are confused. The current rules, the ones the ACLU supports, don’t call for Professors, coaches, etc to “launch an investigation” they require university staff to listen and forward the information to appropriate school officials.