ACLU Sells Out

[The Big Dog]

The Education Department has officially released new rules on how to enforce Title IX, the federal statute that forbids sex and gender-based discrimination in public schools. here is a primer on the new Regs from Washington Post to get you up to speed.

Shockingly, the ACLU raised an objection to the regs that is absolutely stunning:

"It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility under Title IX to respond promptly and fairly to complaints of sexual violence."

-ACLU Tweet

"inappropriately favoring the accused" is not something I think anyone would ever have conceived the ACLU as arguing, but there it is.

Here is an article collecting objections to the ACLU's outrageous position

Even on this front, though, the critics of Title IX reform seem to forget that the students who face sexual misconduct adjudication on campus are—as best we can tell—disproportionately men of color and immigrants. Who will speak for them, if not civil liberties organizations?

Really mind boggling....

 

[The Big Dog]

"apply basic due process protections for students, including a presumption of innocence throughout the grievance process; written notice of allegations and an equal opportunity to review all evidence collected; and the right to cross-examination"

The ACLU claims that these basic principles of due process "inappropriately" favor the accused.

Unbelievable.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Hierarchy of oppression. The accused may be minorities, but they're still male minorities and thus less entitled to legal protection.

 

[theprestige]

Fun fact: the new rules requires schools to apply the same standard of evidence and due process to complaints against students, that they apply to complaints against faculty and staff. Which seems totally reasonable.

 

[lomiller]

Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused, I think it should be pretty obvious the ACLU would oppose them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused, I think it should be pretty obvious the ACLU would oppose them.

ACLU declares basic rights that every accused should have "inappropriate" and thus opposes them, despite the obvious fact that they aren't inappropriate at all and contradict the ACLU's basic purpose.

dumb due process always "inappropriately" favoring the accused.

hoo boy....

 

[Ziggurat]

Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused, I think it should be pretty obvious the ACLU would oppose them.

Perhaps. But they don't.

 

[Bob001]

ACLU declares basic rights that every accused should have "inappropriate" and thus opposes them, despite the obvious fact that they aren't inappropriate at all and contradict the ACLU's basic purpose.

dumb due process always "inappropriately" favoring the accused.
....

The new rules reduce the college's obligation to even investigate complaints.

Under the new plan, colleges would have to investigate complaints only if the alleged incident occurred on campus or in other areas overseen by the school, and only if it was reported to certain officials. By contrast, current rules require colleges to investigate all student complaints, regardless of their location or how they came to the school’s attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e8-8449-1ff263609a31_story.html?noredirect=on

Yeah, it does "inappropriately" favor the accused if the college doesn't even have to take accusations seriously.

 

[lomiller]

ACLU declares basic rights that every accused should have "inappropriate" and thus opposes them, despite the obvious fact that they aren't inappropriate at all

This is different form what you posted and completely unsupported by any argument or evidence you have presented.

Perhaps. But they don't.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

 

[The Big Dog]

This is different form what you posted and completely unsupported by any argument or evidence you have presented.


Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

It is not different from what I have presented and I have presented links to the analysis.

Your entire contribution is to declare it "dumb."

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, it does "inappropriately" favor the accused if the college doesn't even have to take accusations seriously.

face palm.

That is not what your quote even remotely states. Did you read it?

They are obligated to investigate if the incident occurred on campus or another area overseen by the school and only if they are reported to certain campus officials with the authority to take action, they can do more but are not legally obligated to do so outside the scope of their supervision.

 

[lomiller]

It is not different from what I have presented

It’s completely different. This isn’t one word supporting your new contention that these are rights the accused should have.

and I have presented links to the analysis.

No, you presented a link to a right wing nutbars opinion. Opinions on the internet are not the same thing as “analysis” nor are they with wasting my time with especially when I have more than enough right wing nutbars with wack-a-doodle opinions to address right here.

 

[Bob001]

face palm.

That is not what your quote even remotely states.

Did you read it?

Did you? The proposed rules limit the college's obligation to investigate complaints as compared with existing rules.

Under the new plan, colleges would have to investigate complaints only if the alleged incident occurred on campus or in other areas overseen by the school, and only if it was reported to certain officials. By contrast, current rules require colleges to investigate all student complaints, regardless of their location or how they came to the school’s attention.

So events that would have to be investigated now would not have to be investigated under the new rules. The (alleged) misconduct would never be investigated. It sure sounds like an advantage for the accused if he never even gets accused.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Sure. The regulations themselves. I'm not sure what further evidence you think is necessary.

 

[The Big Dog]

It’s completely different. This isn’t one word supporting your new contention that these are rights the accused should have.

No, you presented a link to a right wing nutbars opinion. Opinions on the internet are not the same thing as “analysis” nor are they with wasting my time with especially when I have more than enough right wing nutbars with wack-a-doodle opinions to address right here.

the right of cross examination is not a right that the accused should have?

Popehat and others who are quoted are declared "right wing nut bars."

That is so amazingly stunningly wrong it should be absolutely clear that you literally have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

But please continue to pollute the thread with grossly unfounded and totally wrong opinions so that we may gaze in awe at some of the worst arguments ever made on this forum.

 

[Giordano]

A tweet!?! Intriguing but kind of detail free. Wouldn't it be more useful to wait a bit to learn exactly what the ACLU's actual, detailed position is on this issue and their rationale behind their views? I might agree or not with them at that time, but right now I am happy to wait to see what their specific opinions and arguments are. I have no doubt they will supply an expanded description of their specific position on this topic at some point soon, as they have done for the other issues of interest to them. I prefer to not judge them before I know what I am judging.

In my Google search on this topic I was reminded that many people can't help rising to the bait of the right wing manipulators and become (or pretend to become) outraged by these sort of headlines prior to obtaining any substantial facts. You would think that they would realize they were being played.

 

[The Big Dog]

A tweet!?! Intriguing but kind of detail free. Wouldn't it be more useful to wait a bit to learn exactly what the ACLU's actual, detailed position is on this issue and their rationale behind their views? I might agree or not with them at that time, but right now I am happy to wait to see what their specific opinions and arguments are. I have no doubt they will supply an expanded description of their specific position on this topic at some point soon, as they have done for the other issues of interest to them. I prefer to not judge them before I know what I am judging.

In my Google search on this topic I was reminded that many people can't help rising to the bait of the right wing manipulators and become (or pretend to become) outraged by these sort of headlines prior to obtaining any substantial facts. You would think that they would realize they were being played.

Are you asserting that a series of tweets from the ACLU's official twitter present are not sufficient for you to determine what their position is?

That is ridiculous, but by all means do not hesitate to regale us with their "actual, detailed position"

 

[Giordano]

Are you asserting that a series of tweets from the ACLU's official twitter present are not sufficient for you to determine what their position is?

That is ridiculous, but by all means do not hesitate to regale us with their "actual, detailed position"

Absolutely that is what I am asserting. You got it!

Except you did miss my point that I do not yet know their actual, detailed position. No one does. So I regret that I cannot "regale" you with it. Instead I only pointed out that it would be useful to wait and learn what their detailed position was before becoming either outraged or supportive. But I admit that not everyone feels that constraint.

 

[The Big Dog]

Absolutely that is what I am asserting. You got it!

Except you did miss my point that I do not yet know their actual, detailed position. No one does. So I regret that I cannot "regale" you with it. Instead I only pointed out that it would be useful to wait and learn what their detailed position was before becoming either outraged or supportive. But I admit that not everyone feels that constraint.

Well, you know their actual position, because they released a statement via twitter which is what they do nowadays.

But you want to wait to post more about it when you learn more details.

Cool, cool, oddly enough that didn't stop you from posting already, but I look forward to your regaling us with "details."

 

[Dr. Keith]

If my college student suffers sexual violence why in the hell would I want the university to investigate it under Title IX? I would want the police to investigate it under the criminal statutes of that jurisdiction. If the school also wants to hand out discipline, they should defer to the police investigation.