The president and his henchmen seem more interested in violating the Constitution than in justice or protecting anyone’s rights. The Imperial president could protect our rights by following the Constitution.
Winning points with women who want men who are sexual abusers to suffer the consequences, the Obama administration decided to deal with campus rapes and fake accounts of rape by abolishing the right to Due Process on our college campuses.
A former University School of Law student filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging the Department of Education’s unlawful mandate that colleges abandon due process and try sexual misconduct cases using the lowest possible standards of evidence.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is sponsoring the lawsuit.
The Department of Education’s “preponderance of the evidence” mandate was announced as a requirement by its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter (DCL).
It violates accused students’ due process rights and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“Following the law isn’t optional, and discontent with the 2011 ‘Dear Colleague’ letter is widespread and well-documented,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “Hardly a week goes by without new headlines pointing to the failure of the status quo on campus. OCR has acted as though decreasing due process rights will increase justice. In fact, the opposite is true. Real people’s lives are being irreparably harmed.”
The APA requires agencies like the Office of Civil Rights to notify the public of proposed rules and solicit feedback before imposing new obligations of regulated entities. They didn’t even do that – a minimal requirement.
In January 2016, the University of Virginia found that, due to alcohol consumption, a student was unable to give “effective consent” for a 2013 sexual encounter with plaintiff John Doe. Doe maintained that he received effective consent and that the other student did not show signs of intoxication at any time before, during, or after the encounter that night, much less signs of incapacitation.
The retired judge who served as the fact-finder called Doe’s a “very close” and “very difficult case” and repeatedly emphasized that she was required by OCR to use “the weakest standard of proof.” Prior to the 2011 DCL, UVA used the higher, “clear and convincing” standard of proof. The judge said the new, lower standard was the “[f]irst and foremost” factor in her finding.
The young man did graduate but the rape accusation is on his record.
“Campus sexual assault is a serious problem, but OCR doesn’t get to break the law in order to solve it,” said Justin Dillon of the Washington, D.C. law firm KaiserDillon PLLC. “It needs to do what federal law requires—tell the American people what it wants to accomplish, ask them for their feedback, and only then make a decision. Sure, that might take longer than OCR wants, but the Founders picked democracy because it was the fairest form of government, not because it was the most efficient. Democracy is hard work.”
Dillon and his colleague Chris Muha represent Doe in this suit.
UVA has been the scene of falsified rape cases played up by a dishonest media.
At Colorado State, a young man was accused of rape though the woman repeatedly said he hadn’t raped her.