ACLU Sells Out

[Ziggurat]

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.

Given the numerous court cases which occurred under the Obama rules where courts have ruled that student rights to due process were systematically violated, the assertion that those rules comprehensively addressed due process is simply laughable. Are you seriously going to claim that denying the accused the right to have someone cross examine their accuser is appropriate due process?

Probably not. You're probably going to do what you always do: avoid actually talking about the rules.

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.

The situations in which schools do not have an obligation to do anything under these rules are situations in which the schools rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything. Schools are not supposed to be totalitarian bodies which control every aspect of students lives. They shouldn't be told to judge events outside of their purview. Reasonable limits to jurisdiction are not a compromise of due process. That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

 

[lomiller]

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.

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Hmmm, we can believe this totally made up thing from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the issues, or listen to actual advocates for civil liberties in Education (and which I have linked before)

New proposed Title IX regulations feature essential safeguards for free speech and due process on campus

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

"By contrast, the ACLU issued a public statement that constituted a stark, shortsighted betrayal of the organization’s historic mission: It vehemently opposed stronger due-process rights for the accused."

Good article.

 

[lomiller]

The situations in which schools do not have an obligation to do anything under these rules are situations in which the schools rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything.

So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”

 

[plague311]

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



Yes. You were making a straw man.



That is a dodge.



It seems to have worked out for you.



That’s exactly what you nazis want.



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.

I was going to get you a basket for all of that cherry picking, but I wasn't sure they'd all fit.

 

[theprestige]

and insist on using a standard of evidence weighted towards one side.

What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?

 

[theprestige]

So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”

"Why are you telling me? If you have a crime to report, report it to the proper authorities."

 

[Ziggurat]

So the fact a victim talked to staff member a about being assaulted instead of staff member b means the school “rightfully SHOULD NOT have any obligation to do anything”

Yes. Same thing happens with criminal cases. If I tell you that I'm the victim of a crime, you are not generally obligated to report that to the police. Not everyone should be a mandated reporter. College students are not a special population in this regard.

 

[Ziggurat]

What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?

The new rules allow schools to choose between preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence. The old rules required preponderance of evidence.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

"By contrast, the ACLU issued a public statement that constituted a stark, shortsighted betrayal of the organization’s historic mission: It vehemently opposed stronger due-process rights for the accused."

Good article.

Nah, stupid and poorly written article the rests on purposeful misreading of statements and red-herrings.

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.

Also, "The ACLU doesn’t object to any of those due-process protections when a person faces criminal charges. Indeed, it favors an even higher burden of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to find an individual guilty." is stupid or dishonest. That the ACLU opposes the guidelines doesn't mean they oppose all parts of it, or any part of it in every other situation. The fact that these school administrative investigations and findings are not in any way criminal proceedings makes it a especially moronic.

I can see why you like it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nah, stupid and poorly written article the rests on purposeful misreading of statements and red-herrings.

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.

Also, "The ACLU doesn’t object to any of those due-process protections when a person faces criminal charges. Indeed, it favors an even higher burden of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to find an individual guilty." is stupid or dishonest. That the ACLU opposes the guidelines doesn't mean they oppose all parts of it, or any part of it in every other situation. The fact that these school administrative investigations and findings are not in any way criminal proceedings makes it a especially moronic.

I can see why you like it.

Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"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?"

I think we can all see why you butchered the quote rather than, you know, quoted it.

Your other quote is equally insipid and ignores the actual language of the Sixth Circuit opinion I have quoted in this very thread, because of course you did.

 

[Bob001]

Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"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?"
....

Beyond this particular case, I'm sure we could all imagine circumstances where the accused is favored unfairly or inappropriately. Suppose we said that nothing a suspect tells police, before or after a Miranda warning, could ever be used against him? That sure would favor the accused, but maybe not appropriately. The ultimate intent of the judicial process is to discern the truth. The innocent should go free, and the guilty should be punished.

 

[tyr_13]

Oy vey...

Here is what they actually wrote, not your dog's breakfast paraphrase of it:

"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?"

I think we can all see why you butchered the quote rather than, you know, quoted it.

Your other quote is equally insipid and ignores the actual language of the Sixth Circuit opinion I have quoted in this very thread, because of course you did.

What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote, but you'll pretend you don't understand that because of course you won't.

 

[The Big Dog]

What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote, but you'll pretend you don't understand that because of course you won't.

"What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote."

ya see folks, our correspondent thought it would make a better point to let us all know what they really meant rather than what they actually wrote.

Sounds totally legit.

Thanks for paraphrasing and calling it a very foolish reading, because what you wrote is indeed a very foolish reading of what they actually wrote.

 

[lomiller]

What standard of evidence are the new rules insisting on?

From the ACLU position:

But the new regulation would allow schools to use a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, which favors the respondent by finding against complainants even where it is more likely than not that their account is accurate.

IOW if a student is being sexually harassed by a classmate and the evidence supports their report at “preponderance of the evidence” level but not at the “clear and convicting evidence” level the school can leave the situation as is and allow the harassment to continue, instead of say requiring him/her to attend a different class.

"Why are you telling me? If you have a crime to report, report it to the proper authorities."

Again, not criminal proceedings so referencing “crime” is a red herring.

Under the new rules the school only needs to act on complaints filed to specific people. So, for example a student tells their professor or coach that someone had sexually assaulted them or is sexually harassing them, the school is not required to do anything about the complaint. If they ignore it altogether there are no repercussions to the school.

 

[tyr_13]

"What they actually wrote means what I actually wrote."

ya see folks, our correspondent thought it would make a better point to let us all know what they really meant rather than what they actually wrote.

Sounds totally legit.

Thanks for paraphrasing and calling it a very foolish reading, because what you wrote is indeed a very foolish reading of what they actually wrote.

You did notice that what I wrote was what they said didn't you? No, I'm guessing you don't.

Tell me exactly what of my paraphrasing was wrong. What, exactly, is the difference? This should be entertaining.

 

[lomiller]

From the ACLU position:



IOW if a student is being sexually harassed by a classmate and the evidence supports their report at “preponderance of the evidence” level but not at the “clear and convicting evidence” level the school can leave the situation as is and allow the harassment to continue, instead of say requiring him/her to attend a different class.


Again, not criminal proceedings so referencing “crime” is a red herring.

Under the new rules the school only needs to act on complaints filed to specific people. So, for example a student tells their professor or coach that someone had sexually assaulted them or is sexually harassing them, the school is not required to do anything about the complaint. If they ignore it altogether there are no repercussions to the school.

the third major ACLU complain btw is as follows:

schools would not have to investigate complaints about “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” that “limit” but does not “deny,” a students’ ability to learn. Yet in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court limited this narrow definition of sexual harassment to “private suit for money damages” brought by students against schools for ignoring complaints of sexual violence.

IOW under the new rules schools could ignore any complaint that didn't involve sexual violence where the school would be liable in civil court anyway.

 

[The Big Dog]

You did notice that what I wrote was what they said didn't you? No, I'm guessing you don't.

Tell me exactly what of my paraphrasing was wrong. What, exactly, is the difference? This should be entertaining.

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...

 

[lomiller]

"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?"

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.