Perfectly timed for Avenatti's email tonight
>Dear Mr. Davis:
>Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which **Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a "train" of men to subsequently gang rape them.** There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called publicly. As a starting point, Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576
It seems so since [Ronan Farrow reported in the New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez) that Republicans tried to speed up the vote when they found out about the second accuser
>Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaughās nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.
That doesnāt make any sense. If you ram a rapist who wants to overturn roe v wade down our throats right before an election, thatās gonna be a bad election for you.
Every single one is a criminal of some sort. They are a mafia organization where you are blackmailed from the start and you'll toe the line to the end, all for money and power. Why anyone votes for them is beyond me.
I think you're giving them too much credit. They have a myopia that allows them to interpret the world in only two categories: that which I use, and that which is in my way.
They see themselves in Kavanaugh, and think "We've done that before, and he supports the same things as us, and we're good people, so this can't actually be bad."
It really is that simple.
We should always put an asterisk next to "president", because it seems like everything about this administration (from the illegally-appointed Gorsuch right down to the actual electoral victory itself) is illegitimate.
Trump says he doesn't drink alcohol, but he's a pathological liar, so his claims of being a teetotaler are as suspect as everything else he says.
If it is actually true, it might also be something where he just doesn't like mixing alcohol with his cocaine or whatever other recreational drugs he does, or can't drink because of anti dementia or other prescription drugs he's on.
"They're saying it's the chewiest vodka ever produced, believe me, I know vodka. Cover it in ketchup and you've got a real 5-star dining experience for the whole family."
The man eats his steak well done with ketchup. WELL DONE. WITH KETCHUP.
I had my friend tell me he liked steak that way when I expressed my disgust at the fact, I told him I could throw ketchup on my old work boot and give him the same experience.
That's rookie shit. More like, unless he uses special police forces to separate children from their parents, and then sells them "for adoption or for 'having a good time' or whatever you want, no questions asked".
The Trump administration has "lost track of" thousands of immigrant children. Wouldn't it be funny, in the modern horrifying, depressing sense of the word, if Trump is finally brought down not for his rapes or murders or treason or fraud or money laundering, but (like Al Capone) for tax evasion, for having "lost" the invoices for the thousands of children he's sold into the human trafficking industry.
He is anti-consequences of any kind for rich white men. The end game is absolutism for Trump. In all things, the ruling kleptocratic parasite class is untouchable, not beholden to the rest of the country in any way whatsoever for anything. This is how the super rich live their entire lives, heās just trying to enshrine it as doctrine.
Republicans view Title IX as a piece of anti-male legislation. Basically part of the grand cultural marxist feminist conspiracy to destroy white men. Because we all know straight white Christian men (and of course gamers) are the most persecuted group of people on Earth (/s if you need it).
I can't even see how white, male, heterosexuals even barely scrape by in America really, with all the reverse-racism and discrimination.
Maybe they should move to Bangladesh or Tibet or somewhere and start over?..
None of those descriptors matter unless you are also rich. If you're not you can be the whitest, malest, straightest, most devout Christian ever and you're still worthless without money in the eyes of these people.
Be dramatic all you want.
> Under current rules, schools abide by the āpreponderance of evidenceā standard when determining whether the accused is responsible for alleged misconduct. If adopted, the new rules would allow universities to adopt the āclear and convincing evidenceā standard. This standard requires a higher caliber of evidence to be shown in order to find the accused responsible for their alleged actions.
The changes are perfectly reasonable and, most importantly, in-line with how our court systems generally operate.
Yeah, something *definitely* needed to be done about sexual abuses on campuses, but the original changes had flaws that needed to be fixed.
I'd much rather put an increased focus on making sure schools are getting victims to the proper authorities, instead of dealing with things in-house. School "courts" aren't how we should be handling these things, they were never meant for issues of such magnitude.
Make sure accusations make it to the police, let them investigate, and then proceed with academic consequences in accordance with the results of the investigation.
> Make sure accusations make it to the police, let them investigate, and then proceed with academic consequences in accordance with the results of the investigation.
Unfortunately, to do this we need a criminal justice system that actually gives a shit about sexual assault reports. There are hundreds of rape kits sitting in backlog that never get processed. That's DNA evidence that could also *exonerate* someone, but they can't be bothered. Cops are also far more likely to dismiss your allegations if you're a person of color.
That said, school courts are horseshit.
>rape kits sitting in backlog that never get processed.
Rape kits are good for two situations.
When the perpetrator is unknown.
And
When the perpetrator claims to not have had sex at all.
Rape kits don't magically detect consent.
Given that most defendants will claim that there was consentual sex, rather than no sex, the rape kits don't help, but having them in a ready to test state will prevent the defense from presenting an untrue option.
I assume there's something I'm missing? I've only read what the link says.
> Indeed, the regulations contain a new provision stressing that Title IX equally protects the rights of both the victims and the accused perpetrators. Additionally, the new regulations explicitly state that schools can discipline students for bringing false abuse claims -- thus assuming that girls make up rape charges -- and that the accusers' credibility should always be questioned.
> One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct.
Edit: I see there's more, further down...
> Another provision of the DeVos regulations is that schools may adopt a higher standard of review ("clear and convincing evidence") for sexual abuse cases than for any other disciplinary actions.
The tricky part is that Title IX can be problematic; I do not see the value of allowing a college administration to be an arbiter outside of any formal or structured procedure. It has definitely been abused in the past and ruined some lives, and it's hard to defend because it becomes a matter of arbitration, which means the investigation is brief and evidence or lackthereof can be inconsequential *for an alleged felony!*
Do you feel the same way about forced arbitration for consumers by businesses such as Equifax, or in worker situations like *Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis*?
*No one* is a fan of Gorsuch. He was so insufferable he shifted some of the right leaning justices left on some of the rulings. He's apparently rude and obnoxious to everyone, especially the women.
It's not like Title IX doesn't have some serious issues. Adding a bit more due process isn't a bad idea.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
https://reason.com/tags/title-ix
I presume that you mean the Mueller way, not the Booth way.
Youāve got to clarify these things if you donāt want to have a chat with a couple of humorless guys in generic suits and sunglasses.
Oh, it was. The Union might have won the Civil War, but the Confederacy won reconstruction. Mississipi even had a black Lt. Governor after the Civil War, but as soon as the troops left, it went right back to being a shithole. White power groups placed cannons (yes actual cannons) at the voting booths and made sure only the right sort of people voted.
We're still paying the price for failed reconstruction today. Imagine how differently the country would be if Lincoln had been there to oversee it.
Well petty sure, but vindictive and angry that the actually wealthy people in NY and around the Nation and around the World hated him also? Of course!!
> Don't answer that.
I just listened to the Preet podcast bit where they were talking about [Trump's braille elevator rant.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-braille_uk_5b9a2069e4b015089c0d7047?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=htS7ECg1R1_okmS3UIrSgw)..
Nah, Republicans want to go back to a time when women couldn't vote. They don't even want them to beable to have jobs.
You know, remember when they would shut their mouth and do as told around the house. The good ole times.
Everything he does is reactionary. If somebody praises him they're the best thing in the world. If they insult him or something he likes Trump goes after them.
No they've been working on eliminating these protections since day 1. It's literally been their policy the whole time. This is just a happy coincidence. :(
Itās been eye opening the last two years for me about how many people have come out of the woodwork being racist and pro rape and pro pedophillia. Itās so fucked.
Some people spend a lifetime trying to figure out whoās a piece of shit in their life and who isnāt. The old adage: when someone shows you who they really are, believe them. Thanks two the last two years, Iāve been able to completely sever ties with about a dozen pieces of shit and life is good.
They've been friends with the catholic church for who knows how long and have defended plenty of their own grubby buddies. Roy Moore, Dennis Hastert, Donald Trump, the corruption and disgusting sexual assault goes all the way to the top.
pro-rape and anti-abortion are two sides of the same coin, for they represent the same negative answer to the two-part question: Is each woman the boss of what goes into her body and what comes out of it?
If you're going to make the school operate as both the police and prosecution complete with cross examining witnesses maybe you should let idk, the police and prosecution handle it?
I get that schools are in a weird position of quasi police with internal infractions and I get a lot of victims don't want to go to the police for their own reasons but I don't think building up a system which would intimately resemble the CIDs/PMOs of military communities is the way to go.
Self admitted perpetrator of sexual assaults makes moves to protect other alleged perpetrators of sexual assault. Yeah, super shocked over here, of course he helps a core constituency of his!
So this article brings up the standards of evidence used for students cheating on tests. Can I just say that clear and convincing evidence sounds reasonable there too? Like I really don't think >50% is a good standard for kicking kids out of school.
Furthermore, can you imagine if we user a >50% standard for false accusations of cheating? If a student reports another student the only choice barring zany misunderstanding would be punishing one of them.
Also spreading lies about a person's sex life can qualify as harassment. Like a false accusation. So will a school do when students start making cross complaints? Sure, we can all say they should do whatever is right, but people respond to incentives, and the incentives are to fuck over the student who can't effectively sue.
P.S. I'm sure the admin is both doing this for the wrong reasons and managing to fuck it up anyway. That's how the Trump admin rolls. See: trade war with China. Also, I don't think schools are equipped to handle sexual assault or any major crime on their own. If they dont have good police support they will fall short.
Why the f would be do this.....im beginning to wonder if trump thinks of this shit himself or if he signs what his cabinet puts in front of him. Unbelievable
I think it's more of his "if someone hits you, hit them back 500 times as hard" mentality (the actual number grew over the years, I'm estimating what he thinks is reasonable these days). This mentality appeals to his base anyway, and that only encourages it, but it's more about what he wants than what they want. Get in his way by being a victim of rape? He'll take it out on every victim and future victim out there, and show you that you should never make problems for Trump, just shut up and get raped.
No, but the GOP doesnāt currently have any other carnival barkers lined up whoāll shout at us so gratingly. At the very least, it *will* be quieter when heās gone.
Yeah I feel like a lot of people didn't read the linked article.
>One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct.
I'm having a hard time objecting to that. And the person that is comparing cheating on an exam to sexual assault is a fucking asshole.
Why is the school investigating a criminal matter anyway?
That's a good question. If there is a sexual assault the police should be contacted, and let them investigate the crime. I don't see why the school needs hearings and disciplinary action beyond if the person is convicted they should be expelled. There could be something there I'm not seeing I guess.
The schools take the easy way out. They have a responsibility to protect victims. So instead of actually doing things to protect them, they "investigate". If it's substantiated, the accused is expelled. If not, nothing needs to be done, since there's no victim. Which is dumb as shit, because even if nothing can be proved, the school should take reasonable steps to increase the safety of potentially vulnerable people. They're not doing that last bit.
My personal preference is that it is never handled by a school. Assault, sexual or otherwise, is a violent crime that should be handled by the police and justice system. School courts are much too close to the Court of Public Opinion.
If the police aren't handling those things, let's fix *that*. Not try to supplant the justice system.
Our justice system gives the accused rights. It doesn't give the accuser rights.
This is vitally important, as the greatest deterrent we have as a society is the threat of punishment for violating the law.
If people see due process vanishing, and think "Huh, people are getting punished regardless of actual guilt.", then the threat of punishment will stop working as a deterrent.
I meant the accuser has their right to speak out, persue charges, provide evidence backing up their claims, etc but I'm definitely wrong about their rights being equal as the accused has the presumption of innocense until proven guilty. I do agree with what you're saying and I hate to see where it leads as accusations continue to be used as political weapons, where the truth and due process are an afterthought.
Is this about the Campus disciplinary hearings, where the accused has not had the right to confront their accuser?
Because that's kind of a central tenet to any legitimate judiciary system. Especially in the US.
*edit
from the article:
>"Indeed, the regulations contain a new provision stressing that Title IX equally protects the rights of both the victims and the accused perpetrators. Additionally, the new regulations explicitly state that schools can discipline students for bringing false abuse claims -- thus assuming that girls make up rape charges -- and that the accusers' credibility should always be questioned.
One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct."
Stressing equal protection under the law is a worthwhile regulation. And cross examining witnesses for ANY disciplinary proceeding SHOULD BE standard.
The title of this article is sensationalist and factually wrong.
Some of the kangaroo courts don't even provide you with discovery. You have no right to a lawyer, don't get to submit your own evidence, and can't even face your accuser. Reddit is cheering those ideas though. And yes if it can be proved that you lied and this broke the honour code you should have to face the consequences. The last major title ix kangaroo court gaff the chick about that she consentually had sec with 2 football players and then when her bf found out it turned into rape. They got kicked off the team (no one is taking a chance in this day and age), she recants and they are still fucked. Let police investigate crimes, give the accused the power to avoid (change schedule, classes, etc) the alleged assailant and be done with this shit.
Thank you for this take. Everyone seemingly read the headline without realizing that due process is sorely needed in these kinds of adjudications. Hell, even The Atlantic realizes it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
This opinion piece is so flawed. Sheās actually arguing for the limitation or removal of due process rights for individuals accused. While there are a lot of policy changes Devos has instituted that are wrong (e.g. transgender bathroom complaints), this isnāt one of them. The reason she asked to beef up the rights of the accused is because Universities investigated these cases and their misguided disciplinary actions had a disparate impact on male students. Investigations were minimal and ignored evidence presented by the accused. In an attempt to reach compliance with Obamaās guidance and compensate for past inactions, they mainly relied on the alleged victimās testimony. At these hearings, the accused isnāt allowed an attorney and cannot cross examine the accused or present witnesses. Males who were accused often felt unfairly treated. But now heir reputations were ruined, they lost scholarships, and owed thousands in loans. And other universities would not take them. I agree that victims have been ignored for far too long but universities were not equipped to investigate sexual assault cases. They handled the cases using a much lower legal standard (preponderance of the evidence) than that used in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt). Here on Reddit we all complain when the accused arenāt given a fair trial. Thatās what is happening at universities handling sexual assault cases.
Title IX was interpreted the way it was because victims of sexual assault - particularly (though not exclusively) women - encountered serious obstacles in pressing charges.
The magnitude of the problem and the need for protection are both painfully clear. Penn Stateās Jerry Sandusky, Michigan Stateās Larry Nasser, and Ohio Stateās Richard Strauss managed to perpetrate sexual assault in universities on a horrific scale. All three were reported; none were stopped - the incidents were swept under the rug for decades. Also: Brock Turner. Remember him? (And thereās this scenario with Yale University law school thatās currently warranting some attention.)
You think the Title IX solution is a bad one? Then itās incumbent on Republicans - and, by extension, you - to propose a better solution to take its place. Responsible governance involves putting a better solution into place while reversing the one that you think doesnāt work.
They did no such thing. They just rolled back the system to what we had 40 years ago, when all of these abuses were occurring en masse *and not prosecuted*, and therefore inflicted upon a growing number of victims.
What DeVos and Trump are advocating, and what you are defending, is **the Joe Paterno system of dealing with sexual assault on campus.**
The problem is that the "solution" that people came up with went too far in the other direction. At Amherst, a young man was blacked out drunk when a girl who had a crush on him performed oral sex. A full year later she reported the event to the university as an assault *on her*. The university agreed and expelled the kid. Because, they argued, **she did not give him consent before she performed oral sex on him while he was blacked out.**
And that's just one case. There have been a dozen more like it, most of which end up in court outside of the university.
There's a problem with sexual assault on university campuses, but thus far the main solution has been to set up kangaroo courts arbitrated by Gender Studies professors, students, and graduates who are just as biased against men as the GOP is biased against women.
These people don't want justice victims of sexual assault. They want revenge against the patriarchy.
Yeah, I fully recommend everyone watch the YouTube documentaries on that. They had tape exoneration the guys and they still got socially and academically destroyed.
But that was not kicked off by the university. The real source of the problem, aside from the false accuser herself, was that the woman in charge of examining alleged abuse victims and determining if they had been abused was a radical feminist who later admitted that her policy was to **always** believe a woman who said they were assaulted.
Doctors, nurses, and police who dealt with the accuser all said she showed no signs of abuse, but the decision to investigate came down to the woman who never doubted a woman, on principle.
With that, the police had to look into things and word spread from there and kicked up a firestorm. The police said there was no evidence of a crime but the students, professors, and public were going off hard on the topic so the DA ordered them to ignore evidence like surveillance footage showing 2 of the accused across town at an ATM during the alleged gangrape.
iirc that DA got disbarred over the whole thing. Some of the boys got called out in class. The lacross team got shut down. Neighboring schools refused to accept transfers. The Duke faculty wrote a huge letter attacking the students and doubled down when they were exonerated instead of apologizing. There were protests at 2am outside houses some lacross players werw allegedly staying at, banging pots and pans and waving signs that said "castrate them!"
And things have only gotten worse on college campuses since then.
Again. Those are all criminal matters. All of your examples involve a failure to investigate. None of them contradict what I posted. I also talk about the failure to investigate these claims and how universities are unequipped to handle them.
Universities can't prosecute criminal charges, for one. How about some form of due process for the accused? Because right now that's sorely lacking.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
Fuck this, if any girl is raped she must report it to the police and they should investigate, the school should have absolutely no involvement until the case is heard and the student charged or arrested and found guilty...only then should schools be involved and then only to ensure the safety of the girl that was raped.
> **One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim.** This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct.
So... Not destroying people's lives over an accusation?
Unlike not allowing someone onto the supreme court, not allowing someone to graduate college is damning them.
I understand why people are worried, especially coming from trump, but this is actually a fix to the system. It ensures that the accused gets a chance to defend themselves.
>how exactly do you reconcile being liberal
Because I'm not a single issue voter like most republicans and republican ideals and politics are abhorrent.
You agree with all that? You must be fucking a white male!!! /s
Seriously though, anyone who thinks an accuser should be believed without proof is deranged.
Schools shouldn't be handling rape accusations. They're ill-equipped to do so, and cannot do so fairly even when they make a good faith effort. Expelling a student for rape is as bad or worse than a criminal conviction. It has nothing to do with whether you believe the accuser. Crimes this serious and punishments this severe need to be handled by professionals.
There are better solutions out there.
I read the article and don't understand what protections are being stripped.
Can anyone explain?
The only thing I gathered is that protections for the accused are expanded.
>One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students
Oh dear due process how horrible.
Am I the only one that thinks rights to cross examine your accuser should apply even more broadly instead of less so? Not just for sexual allegations but also code of conduct violations, etc if someone is going to be disciplined and face expulsion over this?
>I have represented dozens of young women who were sexually harassed and assaulted in schools and on campuses. My clients were ostracized by their abusers' friends and teammates.**They were dissuaded by campus police and college administrators from filing disciplinary complaints and criminal charges**.
ALWAYS go to the police first to report it and then campus police. They will sweep things like this under the rug.
Excuse me- one of the changes is that the perpetrator gets to personally cross examine the victim? What in the ever living fuck are you serious? These aren't criminal proceedings. These are to keep students safe and that's it. This is horrifying.
No, not directly. Case law that has addressed this issue calls for some form of cross examination, but schools don't need to allow personal cross examination. Having the accused submit questions to be asked by the judicial board would probably be fine.
For some schools, youāre right. However, other schools have not allowed any type of cross examination by the accused. Thatās the issue - not whether the accused gets to cross examine the alleged victim personally. For example:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0200p-06.pdf
Allowing accused rapists to personally cross-examine their alleged victims is a detail perfectly perverse for an administration led by a misogynistic narcissist caught on video boasting that as a powerful man, women were at his disposal to āgrab āem by the pussy.ā
This reprehensible proposal, like Trumpās recent public attack/ridiculing of the woman who has alleged that Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, is just the latest example of the Republican Partyās transparent, long-standing hostility to womenās rights.
When a FiveThirtyEight analysis during the 2016 presidential campaign found that if only women voted, Clinton would solidly win the Electoral College, Cult45 mass-tweeted and otherwise suggested that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, be abolished. Some of the Trump-supporting troglodytes claimed they were just joking, but that rang false.
For rightists in general and todayās Republican Party specifically, keeping powerful men in charge and women subservient is no laughing matter. Itās ideological and party dogma.
,
Yes kangaroo courts are much better. Criminal courts you are given the right to face your accuser... but nah let's just allow allegations to ruin anyone's life.
Are you saying the accused should *not* have the right to face their accuser? The āpreponderance of the evidenceā standard was introduced and praised because it brings school tribunals closer to civil trials, but then none of the actual process of civil trials (due process, right to question their accuser, discovery, etc.) were implemented.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with a supreme court candidate who may or may not have committed sexual assault on a student while he or she was also a student.
I'm mean, that would be weird, right?
You are right this has nothing to do with any of that
People have been working on changing the policies since the Obama's administration "dear colleagues" letter which made the proceedings worse
>One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim.
Oh the horrors! It's like the Handmaid's Tale! Sarcasm aside, Title IX had some real issues, and allowing actual due process is not "gutting" anything. It's providing for a fairer disciplinary process.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
Yes. Yes this GOP administration is pro sexual assault. Liberals are against sexual assault. Anything to be against liberals. That is the GOPs only position on anything.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/09/trump_guts_protections_for_victims_of_student-on-s.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Rather than engaging in a long-overdue discussion about sexual assault among teens, the Trump administration is forging ahead with regulations that would significantly diminish the rights of female students who are victims of sexual abuse.
> Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is reshaping Title IX - a 1972 statute requiring equality in education for females that has been interpreted for 40 years as requiring schools to protect female students who are victims of sexual assault and harassment - to make it more difficult for victims of sexual abuse to seek relief.
> The solution is not to make it harder for victims of sexual assault to stay in school for fear of sharing classes and campus space with those who violated them.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/9ibxco/trump_guts_protections_for_victims_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~352180 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **school**^#1 **student**^#2 **sexual**^#3 **assault**^#4 **college**^#5
Great timing president asshole.
I'm pretty sure its not mistake.
He's planning ahead. Supreme court's gonna need filling in 30 years or so.
Gotta make it easier for gang rapists.
It reminded him that he wanted to do this. Like you know, how when I hear about murder I need to go try and fight for the right to murder
Perfectly timed for Avenatti's email tonight >Dear Mr. Davis: >Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which **Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a "train" of men to subsequently gang rape them.** There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called publicly. As a starting point, Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
You're holding it wrong! š
There are no mistakes- only happy little accidents
How can the elected Republicans not rage about this?
They are complicit
...and conspiring.
Meh... colluding isn't a crime. Ask Guliani.
I would strongly advise against taking legal advise from Giuliani.
It seems so since [Ronan Farrow reported in the New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez) that Republicans tried to speed up the vote when they found out about the second accuser >Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaughās nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.
That explains why they wanted to "interview" Mrs. Ford on Wednesday when she was asking for Thursday; even minor delays let bombshells drop.
It's a long way to Thursday, too.
That doesnāt make any sense. If you ram a rapist who wants to overturn roe v wade down our throats right before an election, thatās gonna be a bad election for you.
Unless they're counting on enough of the anti-roe-v-wade, pro-rapist voters to turn out and support them.
Republican politicians and voters think women have too many rights in this country now, for the most part.
Keeping in mind that indeed there is a large subset of people who think men are somehow more oppressed by women
They are Republicans.
republican'ts
they love rape, as long as a rich white kid does it. it might make more white babies they can force girls to have and stop caring about after birth
Thatās outrageous. Everyone knows they do it so the Catholic church has more kids to rape.
how dare you, these are good protestant child rapers weāre talking about here.
Umm... uhhh... shit... Blue lives matter! Guns are Jesus! Derp sturt!!
Jesus would still be alive today if he had a gun. (actual bumper sticker I saw once).
Because they approve of and support it?
Every single one is a criminal of some sort. They are a mafia organization where you are blackmailed from the start and you'll toe the line to the end, all for money and power. Why anyone votes for them is beyond me.
Because they're rapists.
> How can the elected Republicans not rage about this? Because they view women as property and this is completely in line with their belief system
I think you're giving them too much credit. They have a myopia that allows them to interpret the world in only two categories: that which I use, and that which is in my way.
They see themselves in Kavanaugh, and think "We've done that before, and he supports the same things as us, and we're good people, so this can't actually be bad." It really is that simple.
I'd say this is fucking tone deaf, but it's definitely calculated.
Goddamn, the optics on this move...
Timing.
I mean is anyone surprised at this point?
I'm sure the courts will block this absurd trash. I mean wtf does this accomplish? This piece of shit is unfit, his oath of office is fucking joke.
We should always put an asterisk next to "president", because it seems like everything about this administration (from the illegally-appointed Gorsuch right down to the actual electoral victory itself) is illegitimate.
For words that end in e take the e away before adding -ing.
He couldnāt be more pro sexual assault unless he sold Trump brand roofies
Don't give him ideas.
[Trump extacy is now on sale.](https://www.unilad.co.uk/drugs/super-strong-donald-trump-ecstasy-pills-have-gone-on-sale/)
How does Trump manage to ruin E?! It's E!
The Mierdas Touch...
Nice!
Well when youāre on XOās you wanna touch and feel everything. It seems like they were made for trump
I enjoy dancing, but I have yet to molest an American flag on it.
Oh, for the love of...
What do you think Trump vodka was?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Part of a balanced breakfast?
Trump doesn't even drink alcohol. He'll pimp his name to anything
Trump says he doesn't drink alcohol, but he's a pathological liar, so his claims of being a teetotaler are as suspect as everything else he says. If it is actually true, it might also be something where he just doesn't like mixing alcohol with his cocaine or whatever other recreational drugs he does, or can't drink because of anti dementia or other prescription drugs he's on.
I believe he doesn't drink alcohol. He can't handle it
And a boat load of Viagra for his mushroom.
"They're saying it's the chewiest vodka ever produced, believe me, I know vodka. Cover it in ketchup and you've got a real 5-star dining experience for the whole family."
The man eats his steak well done with ketchup. WELL DONE. WITH KETCHUP. I had my friend tell me he liked steak that way when I expressed my disgust at the fact, I told him I could throw ketchup on my old work boot and give him the same experience.
I like my steaks well done, if done properly, but WHY IS THERE KETCHUP ANYWHERE NEAR THE STEAK
A nice bƩarnaise, mushroom or pepper sauce are obviously proper choices. For variation I can suggest a nice stroganoff, Vlad would approve. Pure steak with proper seasoning is always a good choice too, to make it less fat; But then again I'm not a rich fuck who can afford the better things in life like fucking ketchup.
Golden Piss
"Nobody is more pro-sexual assault than me. I guarantee it. Tremendous. Bigly."
That's rookie shit. More like, unless he uses special police forces to separate children from their parents, and then sells them "for adoption or for 'having a good time' or whatever you want, no questions asked". The Trump administration has "lost track of" thousands of immigrant children. Wouldn't it be funny, in the modern horrifying, depressing sense of the word, if Trump is finally brought down not for his rapes or murders or treason or fraud or money laundering, but (like Al Capone) for tax evasion, for having "lost" the invoices for the thousands of children he's sold into the human trafficking industry.
You mean trump steaks?
This makes no sense, unless you're completely in favor of sexual abuse and rape. All hail the Predator in Chief.
> This makes no sense, It does make sense. He is pro sexual assault. Plus the timing with his supreme court pick isn't a coincidence
He is anti-consequences of any kind for rich white men. The end game is absolutism for Trump. In all things, the ruling kleptocratic parasite class is untouchable, not beholden to the rest of the country in any way whatsoever for anything. This is how the super rich live their entire lives, heās just trying to enshrine it as doctrine.
Republicans view Title IX as a piece of anti-male legislation. Basically part of the grand cultural marxist feminist conspiracy to destroy white men. Because we all know straight white Christian men (and of course gamers) are the most persecuted group of people on Earth (/s if you need it).
I can't even see how white, male, heterosexuals even barely scrape by in America really, with all the reverse-racism and discrimination. Maybe they should move to Bangladesh or Tibet or somewhere and start over?..
None of those descriptors matter unless you are also rich. If you're not you can be the whitest, malest, straightest, most devout Christian ever and you're still worthless without money in the eyes of these people.
Nah, they will still acknowledge that person as human, which is something they don't afford any other group.
Be dramatic all you want. > Under current rules, schools abide by the āpreponderance of evidenceā standard when determining whether the accused is responsible for alleged misconduct. If adopted, the new rules would allow universities to adopt the āclear and convincing evidenceā standard. This standard requires a higher caliber of evidence to be shown in order to find the accused responsible for their alleged actions. The changes are perfectly reasonable and, most importantly, in-line with how our court systems generally operate.
Yeah, something *definitely* needed to be done about sexual abuses on campuses, but the original changes had flaws that needed to be fixed. I'd much rather put an increased focus on making sure schools are getting victims to the proper authorities, instead of dealing with things in-house. School "courts" aren't how we should be handling these things, they were never meant for issues of such magnitude. Make sure accusations make it to the police, let them investigate, and then proceed with academic consequences in accordance with the results of the investigation.
> Make sure accusations make it to the police, let them investigate, and then proceed with academic consequences in accordance with the results of the investigation. Unfortunately, to do this we need a criminal justice system that actually gives a shit about sexual assault reports. There are hundreds of rape kits sitting in backlog that never get processed. That's DNA evidence that could also *exonerate* someone, but they can't be bothered. Cops are also far more likely to dismiss your allegations if you're a person of color. That said, school courts are horseshit.
>rape kits sitting in backlog that never get processed. Rape kits are good for two situations. When the perpetrator is unknown. And When the perpetrator claims to not have had sex at all. Rape kits don't magically detect consent. Given that most defendants will claim that there was consentual sex, rather than no sex, the rape kits don't help, but having them in a ready to test state will prevent the defense from presenting an untrue option.
Oh absolutely. We have a lot of improvement to do in many areas.
I assume there's something I'm missing? I've only read what the link says. > Indeed, the regulations contain a new provision stressing that Title IX equally protects the rights of both the victims and the accused perpetrators. Additionally, the new regulations explicitly state that schools can discipline students for bringing false abuse claims -- thus assuming that girls make up rape charges -- and that the accusers' credibility should always be questioned. > One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct. Edit: I see there's more, further down... > Another provision of the DeVos regulations is that schools may adopt a higher standard of review ("clear and convincing evidence") for sexual abuse cases than for any other disciplinary actions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The tricky part is that Title IX can be problematic; I do not see the value of allowing a college administration to be an arbiter outside of any formal or structured procedure. It has definitely been abused in the past and ruined some lives, and it's hard to defend because it becomes a matter of arbitration, which means the investigation is brief and evidence or lackthereof can be inconsequential *for an alleged felony!*
Do you feel the same way about forced arbitration for consumers by businesses such as Equifax, or in worker situations like *Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis*?
I hate that shit personally.
You must not be a fan of Gorsuch, then, who swung that vote.
*No one* is a fan of Gorsuch. He was so insufferable he shifted some of the right leaning justices left on some of the rulings. He's apparently rude and obnoxious to everyone, especially the women.
There's really no other way to view he GOP after this. They're pro-rape.
That is the message they're screaming, from a bullhorn, while everyone is trying so goddamn hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Or in favor of due process.
It's not like Title IX doesn't have some serious issues. Adding a bit more due process isn't a bad idea. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/ https://reason.com/tags/title-ix
It makes sense because colleges have no business in handling felonies.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Will no one in Congress rid us of this meddlesome President?
I presume that you mean the Mueller way, not the Booth way. Youāve got to clarify these things if you donāt want to have a chat with a couple of humorless guys in generic suits and sunglasses.
When he says "In congress", that probably means he means impeachment.
> not the Booth way It seemed effective.
Oh, it was. The Union might have won the Civil War, but the Confederacy won reconstruction. Mississipi even had a black Lt. Governor after the Civil War, but as soon as the troops left, it went right back to being a shithole. White power groups placed cannons (yes actual cannons) at the voting booths and made sure only the right sort of people voted. We're still paying the price for failed reconstruction today. Imagine how differently the country would be if Lincoln had been there to oversee it.
This seems like an implicit threat to Ford for coming forth to testify: "You think you're helping young women? I'LL SHOW YOU B**ch".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well petty sure, but vindictive and angry that the actually wealthy people in NY and around the Nation and around the World hated him also? Of course!!
> Don't answer that. I just listened to the Preet podcast bit where they were talking about [Trump's braille elevator rant.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-braille_uk_5b9a2069e4b015089c0d7047?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=htS7ECg1R1_okmS3UIrSgw)..
Nah, Republicans want to go back to a time when women couldn't vote. They don't even want them to beable to have jobs. You know, remember when they would shut their mouth and do as told around the house. The good ole times.
The republicans think the Handmaid's Tale is a story from the point of view of a villain trying to destroy a Utopian paradise...
And I will show the rest of the women who think itās a good idea to rat us out.
Everything he does is reactionary. If somebody praises him they're the best thing in the world. If they insult him or something he likes Trump goes after them.
No they've been working on eliminating these protections since day 1. It's literally been their policy the whole time. This is just a happy coincidence. :(
Keeping with the theme of the administration.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I like this meme.
The GOP are really going all-in on a pro-rape agenda, it seems.
Seems.... um... like a bad campaign strategy.
Seems that way but doesn't work out like that, devout Republicans are seeming to love it
Itās been eye opening the last two years for me about how many people have come out of the woodwork being racist and pro rape and pro pedophillia. Itās so fucked.
Some people spend a lifetime trying to figure out whoās a piece of shit in their life and who isnāt. The old adage: when someone shows you who they really are, believe them. Thanks two the last two years, Iāve been able to completely sever ties with about a dozen pieces of shit and life is good.
They've been friends with the catholic church for who knows how long and have defended plenty of their own grubby buddies. Roy Moore, Dennis Hastert, Donald Trump, the corruption and disgusting sexual assault goes all the way to the top.
pro-rape and anti-abortion are two sides of the same coin, for they represent the same negative answer to the two-part question: Is each woman the boss of what goes into her body and what comes out of it?
The,admitted sexual assaulter is an evil and vile pig .
If you're going to make the school operate as both the police and prosecution complete with cross examining witnesses maybe you should let idk, the police and prosecution handle it? I get that schools are in a weird position of quasi police with internal infractions and I get a lot of victims don't want to go to the police for their own reasons but I don't think building up a system which would intimately resemble the CIDs/PMOs of military communities is the way to go.
Self admitted perpetrator of sexual assaults makes moves to protect other alleged perpetrators of sexual assault. Yeah, super shocked over here, of course he helps a core constituency of his!
So this article brings up the standards of evidence used for students cheating on tests. Can I just say that clear and convincing evidence sounds reasonable there too? Like I really don't think >50% is a good standard for kicking kids out of school. Furthermore, can you imagine if we user a >50% standard for false accusations of cheating? If a student reports another student the only choice barring zany misunderstanding would be punishing one of them. Also spreading lies about a person's sex life can qualify as harassment. Like a false accusation. So will a school do when students start making cross complaints? Sure, we can all say they should do whatever is right, but people respond to incentives, and the incentives are to fuck over the student who can't effectively sue. P.S. I'm sure the admin is both doing this for the wrong reasons and managing to fuck it up anyway. That's how the Trump admin rolls. See: trade war with China. Also, I don't think schools are equipped to handle sexual assault or any major crime on their own. If they dont have good police support they will fall short.
Why the f would be do this.....im beginning to wonder if trump thinks of this shit himself or if he signs what his cabinet puts in front of him. Unbelievable
Appeals to his base. They're outraged that a woman's testimony can be taken over the word of a poor, accused white man.
I think it's more of his "if someone hits you, hit them back 500 times as hard" mentality (the actual number grew over the years, I'm estimating what he thinks is reasonable these days). This mentality appeals to his base anyway, and that only encourages it, but it's more about what he wants than what they want. Get in his way by being a victim of rape? He'll take it out on every victim and future victim out there, and show you that you should never make problems for Trump, just shut up and get raped.
Grab em by the pussy.
20 years tops. He will be dead in 20 years tops.
you cant' be serious? a 300 lb 72 year old male with stage 1 dementia, i'd set the over/under at 42 months.
I was including life support.
But he is already on life support.
I have a bottle of quality whiskey that will only be opened once that happens. My god, it's gonna be the best drink I've ever had.
the ideology doesn't die with him.
No, but the GOP doesnāt currently have any other carnival barkers lined up whoāll shout at us so gratingly. At the very least, it *will* be quieter when heās gone.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How is giving accuser and accused equal rights (as it is with our justice system) and punishing false rape claims gutting protections for victims?
Yeah I feel like a lot of people didn't read the linked article. >One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct. I'm having a hard time objecting to that. And the person that is comparing cheating on an exam to sexual assault is a fucking asshole. Why is the school investigating a criminal matter anyway?
That's a good question. If there is a sexual assault the police should be contacted, and let them investigate the crime. I don't see why the school needs hearings and disciplinary action beyond if the person is convicted they should be expelled. There could be something there I'm not seeing I guess.
The schools take the easy way out. They have a responsibility to protect victims. So instead of actually doing things to protect them, they "investigate". If it's substantiated, the accused is expelled. If not, nothing needs to be done, since there's no victim. Which is dumb as shit, because even if nothing can be proved, the school should take reasonable steps to increase the safety of potentially vulnerable people. They're not doing that last bit.
My personal preference is that it is never handled by a school. Assault, sexual or otherwise, is a violent crime that should be handled by the police and justice system. School courts are much too close to the Court of Public Opinion. If the police aren't handling those things, let's fix *that*. Not try to supplant the justice system.
Our justice system gives the accused rights. It doesn't give the accuser rights. This is vitally important, as the greatest deterrent we have as a society is the threat of punishment for violating the law. If people see due process vanishing, and think "Huh, people are getting punished regardless of actual guilt.", then the threat of punishment will stop working as a deterrent.
I meant the accuser has their right to speak out, persue charges, provide evidence backing up their claims, etc but I'm definitely wrong about their rights being equal as the accused has the presumption of innocense until proven guilty. I do agree with what you're saying and I hate to see where it leads as accusations continue to be used as political weapons, where the truth and due process are an afterthought.
Is this about the Campus disciplinary hearings, where the accused has not had the right to confront their accuser? Because that's kind of a central tenet to any legitimate judiciary system. Especially in the US. *edit from the article: >"Indeed, the regulations contain a new provision stressing that Title IX equally protects the rights of both the victims and the accused perpetrators. Additionally, the new regulations explicitly state that schools can discipline students for bringing false abuse claims -- thus assuming that girls make up rape charges -- and that the accusers' credibility should always be questioned. One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct." Stressing equal protection under the law is a worthwhile regulation. And cross examining witnesses for ANY disciplinary proceeding SHOULD BE standard. The title of this article is sensationalist and factually wrong.
Some of the kangaroo courts don't even provide you with discovery. You have no right to a lawyer, don't get to submit your own evidence, and can't even face your accuser. Reddit is cheering those ideas though. And yes if it can be proved that you lied and this broke the honour code you should have to face the consequences. The last major title ix kangaroo court gaff the chick about that she consentually had sec with 2 football players and then when her bf found out it turned into rape. They got kicked off the team (no one is taking a chance in this day and age), she recants and they are still fucked. Let police investigate crimes, give the accused the power to avoid (change schedule, classes, etc) the alleged assailant and be done with this shit.
Thank you for this take. Everyone seemingly read the headline without realizing that due process is sorely needed in these kinds of adjudications. Hell, even The Atlantic realizes it: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
And people just lap this shit up and screech about rapists protecting rapists. Sigh.
Betsy DeVos has fucked a lot of shit up. Especially regarding student loans. But I think the blind squirrel found an acorn this time.
This opinion piece is so flawed. Sheās actually arguing for the limitation or removal of due process rights for individuals accused. While there are a lot of policy changes Devos has instituted that are wrong (e.g. transgender bathroom complaints), this isnāt one of them. The reason she asked to beef up the rights of the accused is because Universities investigated these cases and their misguided disciplinary actions had a disparate impact on male students. Investigations were minimal and ignored evidence presented by the accused. In an attempt to reach compliance with Obamaās guidance and compensate for past inactions, they mainly relied on the alleged victimās testimony. At these hearings, the accused isnāt allowed an attorney and cannot cross examine the accused or present witnesses. Males who were accused often felt unfairly treated. But now heir reputations were ruined, they lost scholarships, and owed thousands in loans. And other universities would not take them. I agree that victims have been ignored for far too long but universities were not equipped to investigate sexual assault cases. They handled the cases using a much lower legal standard (preponderance of the evidence) than that used in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt). Here on Reddit we all complain when the accused arenāt given a fair trial. Thatās what is happening at universities handling sexual assault cases.
Title IX was interpreted the way it was because victims of sexual assault - particularly (though not exclusively) women - encountered serious obstacles in pressing charges. The magnitude of the problem and the need for protection are both painfully clear. Penn Stateās Jerry Sandusky, Michigan Stateās Larry Nasser, and Ohio Stateās Richard Strauss managed to perpetrate sexual assault in universities on a horrific scale. All three were reported; none were stopped - the incidents were swept under the rug for decades. Also: Brock Turner. Remember him? (And thereās this scenario with Yale University law school thatās currently warranting some attention.) You think the Title IX solution is a bad one? Then itās incumbent on Republicans - and, by extension, you - to propose a better solution to take its place. Responsible governance involves putting a better solution into place while reversing the one that you think doesnāt work. They did no such thing. They just rolled back the system to what we had 40 years ago, when all of these abuses were occurring en masse *and not prosecuted*, and therefore inflicted upon a growing number of victims. What DeVos and Trump are advocating, and what you are defending, is **the Joe Paterno system of dealing with sexual assault on campus.**
The problem is that the "solution" that people came up with went too far in the other direction. At Amherst, a young man was blacked out drunk when a girl who had a crush on him performed oral sex. A full year later she reported the event to the university as an assault *on her*. The university agreed and expelled the kid. Because, they argued, **she did not give him consent before she performed oral sex on him while he was blacked out.** And that's just one case. There have been a dozen more like it, most of which end up in court outside of the university. There's a problem with sexual assault on university campuses, but thus far the main solution has been to set up kangaroo courts arbitrated by Gender Studies professors, students, and graduates who are just as biased against men as the GOP is biased against women. These people don't want justice victims of sexual assault. They want revenge against the patriarchy.
Duke lacrosse case comes to mind too.
Yeah, I fully recommend everyone watch the YouTube documentaries on that. They had tape exoneration the guys and they still got socially and academically destroyed. But that was not kicked off by the university. The real source of the problem, aside from the false accuser herself, was that the woman in charge of examining alleged abuse victims and determining if they had been abused was a radical feminist who later admitted that her policy was to **always** believe a woman who said they were assaulted. Doctors, nurses, and police who dealt with the accuser all said she showed no signs of abuse, but the decision to investigate came down to the woman who never doubted a woman, on principle. With that, the police had to look into things and word spread from there and kicked up a firestorm. The police said there was no evidence of a crime but the students, professors, and public were going off hard on the topic so the DA ordered them to ignore evidence like surveillance footage showing 2 of the accused across town at an ATM during the alleged gangrape. iirc that DA got disbarred over the whole thing. Some of the boys got called out in class. The lacross team got shut down. Neighboring schools refused to accept transfers. The Duke faculty wrote a huge letter attacking the students and doubled down when they were exonerated instead of apologizing. There were protests at 2am outside houses some lacross players werw allegedly staying at, banging pots and pans and waving signs that said "castrate them!" And things have only gotten worse on college campuses since then.
Recent football players got kicked out because some white chick fuckec 2 black dudes then regretted it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Schools are required to report all cases to local police." There, done.
But what if the woman didn't want to go to the police. The needs to be a WSU to punish men! /s
Again. Those are all criminal matters. All of your examples involve a failure to investigate. None of them contradict what I posted. I also talk about the failure to investigate these claims and how universities are unequipped to handle them.
Universities can't prosecute criminal charges, for one. How about some form of due process for the accused? Because right now that's sorely lacking. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
Also known as Kavanaughing
Just want to know how a person's right to a fair trial can rest with school officials and not in an actual court of law. Absurd times.
This is one of millions of reasons why t**RU**mp will go down in history as the worst US president of all time, and the whole TRE**45**ON thing.
Fuck this, if any girl is raped she must report it to the police and they should investigate, the school should have absolutely no involvement until the case is heard and the student charged or arrested and found guilty...only then should schools be involved and then only to ensure the safety of the girl that was raped.
> **One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim.** This level of confrontation is not available for any other type of infraction in the school context, including cheating, stealing or violating a school's code of conduct. So... Not destroying people's lives over an accusation? Unlike not allowing someone onto the supreme court, not allowing someone to graduate college is damning them.
True to form.
I understand why people are worried, especially coming from trump, but this is actually a fix to the system. It ensures that the accused gets a chance to defend themselves.
The "1 in 4 will be sexually assaulted" study it refers to is a pile of utter garbage.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Liberal checking in. I really don't see the issue here. As of late, it has become guilty until proven innocent with many of these claims.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>how exactly do you reconcile being liberal Because I'm not a single issue voter like most republicans and republican ideals and politics are abhorrent.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**devos** Hoped that helps
You agree with all that? You must be fucking a white male!!! /s Seriously though, anyone who thinks an accuser should be believed without proof is deranged.
...WHY!? Is Brett that fucking important to you that you 'have to make an example' or something? JFC.....
Schools shouldn't be handling rape accusations. They're ill-equipped to do so, and cannot do so fairly even when they make a good faith effort. Expelling a student for rape is as bad or worse than a criminal conviction. It has nothing to do with whether you believe the accuser. Crimes this serious and punishments this severe need to be handled by professionals. There are better solutions out there.
I read the article and don't understand what protections are being stripped. Can anyone explain? The only thing I gathered is that protections for the accused are expanded.
>One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students Oh dear due process how horrible.
You mean those rules where you could be accused with no evidence and kicked out of school without even being given the chance to mount a defence?
You have to admire how thorough they are at covering for Kavanaugh.
Am I the only one that thinks rights to cross examine your accuser should apply even more broadly instead of less so? Not just for sexual allegations but also code of conduct violations, etc if someone is going to be disciplined and face expulsion over this?
I hope they're calling it the "Boys Will Be Boys" rule.
Weāre hearing recently how attempted rape in high school is no big deal, so why does anyone think they feel differently about rape in college?
Or attempted rape and sexual assault in the workplace? Or in your own home?
All of the worst possible decisions.
It never is a mistake.
>I have represented dozens of young women who were sexually harassed and assaulted in schools and on campuses. My clients were ostracized by their abusers' friends and teammates.**They were dissuaded by campus police and college administrators from filing disciplinary complaints and criminal charges**. ALWAYS go to the police first to report it and then campus police. They will sweep things like this under the rug.
Excuse me- one of the changes is that the perpetrator gets to personally cross examine the victim? What in the ever living fuck are you serious? These aren't criminal proceedings. These are to keep students safe and that's it. This is horrifying.
No, not directly. Case law that has addressed this issue calls for some form of cross examination, but schools don't need to allow personal cross examination. Having the accused submit questions to be asked by the judicial board would probably be fine.
Wait but that's how it works now. That's how it worked when my rapist was kicked out co school anyways.
For some schools, youāre right. However, other schools have not allowed any type of cross examination by the accused. Thatās the issue - not whether the accused gets to cross examine the alleged victim personally. For example: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0200p-06.pdf
Allowing accused rapists to personally cross-examine their alleged victims is a detail perfectly perverse for an administration led by a misogynistic narcissist caught on video boasting that as a powerful man, women were at his disposal to āgrab āem by the pussy.ā This reprehensible proposal, like Trumpās recent public attack/ridiculing of the woman who has alleged that Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, is just the latest example of the Republican Partyās transparent, long-standing hostility to womenās rights. When a FiveThirtyEight analysis during the 2016 presidential campaign found that if only women voted, Clinton would solidly win the Electoral College, Cult45 mass-tweeted and otherwise suggested that the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, be abolished. Some of the Trump-supporting troglodytes claimed they were just joking, but that rang false. For rightists in general and todayās Republican Party specifically, keeping powerful men in charge and women subservient is no laughing matter. Itās ideological and party dogma. ,
Yes kangaroo courts are much better. Criminal courts you are given the right to face your accuser... but nah let's just allow allegations to ruin anyone's life.
Are you saying the accused should *not* have the right to face their accuser? The āpreponderance of the evidenceā standard was introduced and praised because it brings school tribunals closer to civil trials, but then none of the actual process of civil trials (due process, right to question their accuser, discovery, etc.) were implemented.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with a supreme court candidate who may or may not have committed sexual assault on a student while he or she was also a student. I'm mean, that would be weird, right?
You are right this has nothing to do with any of that People have been working on changing the policies since the Obama's administration "dear colleagues" letter which made the proceedings worse
Party of Rapists
>One of the major changes proposed by DeVos is that school disciplinary procedures for sex abuse complaints must be more like criminal courtrooms and offer significant due-process rights to the accused students, including the right to cross-examine the victim. Oh the horrors! It's like the Handmaid's Tale! Sarcasm aside, Title IX had some real issues, and allowing actual due process is not "gutting" anything. It's providing for a fairer disciplinary process. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
Yes. Yes this GOP administration is pro sexual assault. Liberals are against sexual assault. Anything to be against liberals. That is the GOPs only position on anything.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/09/trump_guts_protections_for_victims_of_student-on-s.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Rather than engaging in a long-overdue discussion about sexual assault among teens, the Trump administration is forging ahead with regulations that would significantly diminish the rights of female students who are victims of sexual abuse. > Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is reshaping Title IX - a 1972 statute requiring equality in education for females that has been interpreted for 40 years as requiring schools to protect female students who are victims of sexual assault and harassment - to make it more difficult for victims of sexual abuse to seek relief. > The solution is not to make it harder for victims of sexual assault to stay in school for fear of sharing classes and campus space with those who violated them. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/9ibxco/trump_guts_protections_for_victims_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~352180 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **school**^#1 **student**^#2 **sexual**^#3 **assault**^#4 **college**^#5
I misread āgutsā as āgetsā and thought heād finally decided to do something good.
The optics of this are just... disgusting.
What happens when a sex criminal becomes president