Sex

Feds Punish Princeton For Liking Due Process Too Much

|

Princeton
PointsofNoReturn / Wikimedia Commons

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education wrapped up its investigation of Princeton University's sexual harassment and assault policies. The findings were unsurprising, though still striking: the government essentially accused the university of violating federal anti-discrimination law by extending too much due process to accused students.

Princeton had been one of the last hold-outs on the standard of proof in college rape trials. The university required adjudicators to obtain "clear and convincing" proof that a student was guilty of sexual assault before convicting him. That's too tough, said DOE. As part of its settlement, Princeton is required to lower its evidence standard to "a preponderance of the evidence," which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser.

Princeton's old policy was also criticized by DOE for allowing accused students to appeal decisions, but not accusers. Both this practice and the evidence standard were revised under Princeton's new, DOE-compliant policy.

Both of these are worrying changes for civil libertarians. Using a low burden of proof in college rape trials is very problematic, since adjudicators are poorly equipped to determine innocence or guilt in the first place. They just don't have the right training. That's part of the reason 28 Harvard University law professors have spoken out against their own campus's new, similarly unfair policy.

And while DOE claims that Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 requires colleges to use the preponderance of evidence standard, no court or Congress has ever weighed in on the matter. As Joe Cohn of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told InsideHigherEd:

While the Department of Education has the ability to determine what exactly violates Title IX and potentially pull federal funding from colleges who are in violation, preponderance of evidence has not been codified by Congress. The Campus SaVE act does not dictate what standard a college should use, only requiring that institutions disclose what that standard is. Joe Cohn, legislation and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that the department is "on shaky ground when they insist that preponderance of evidence is the only acceptable standard of proof under Title IX," because, legally, it is only the current administration's interpretation of the law.

"But it doesn't matter if their interpretation is off by an inch or a mile, because who is willing to be a test case on that," Cohn said. "With federal funding at stake, institutions are too afraid to engage and criticize a regulating body. This type of chilling atmosphere is not helpful to anyone. Nobody is willing to take a stand."

On the other side, Laura Dunn, executive director of victims' advocacy center SurvJustice, hilariously told InsideHigherEd that "ingrained male privilege" was the only reason for using a lower evidence standard. Thankfully, the federal government is beating that tendency out of colleges, she said:

"It's mostly at these elite schools that we see a real pushback," Dunn said. "To put it bluntly, I think it's arrogance and ingrained male privilege, but I think they're starting to get the message."

It's very discouraging to see support for robust due process written off as a symptom of male privilege. Of course, plenty of women are concerned that these new policies, far from chipping away at male privilege, unfairly punish men. (I interviewed one of them for my August article on criminalizing campus sex.)

As for Princeton's former policy of only allowing accused students to appeal decisions, while that may seem unfair at first glance, it actually makes sense. Hans Bader—a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and former Office for Civil Rights lawyer—pointed out to me that the American criminal justice system typically permits only defendants to appeal verdicts. This follows from the principle that accused persons should have every opportunity to prove they are innocent, but once they are found innocent, they can't be retried.

"The Education Department's claim that it violates Title IX to allow the accused but not the accuser to appeal is hard to reconcile with the fact that courts have never construed civil rights laws to ban that," Bader told Reason.

Unfortunately, no legal authority will ever have the chance to examine DOE's very due-process-unfriendly interpretation of the law, because colleges are either too afraid of standing up to the feds, or have an ever-weakening commitment to civil libertarian values. Or both.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

161 responses to “Feds Punish Princeton For Liking Due Process Too Much

  1. Sentence first, trial afterward.

    1. “Sentence first, trial afterward”

      Execution to follow.

    2. So, the fedgov can somehow force institutions to violate the Constitutional guarantees of due process based on some interpretation of legislation? How has this not been tested yet?

      1. Yes they can. It’s not even legislation, it’s bureaucratic edict. The answer is that Princeton is more than capable of rejecting the Dept of ed’s findings. However, they will never get a federally backed student loan ever again. Taxing and spending power of fedgov is sweeping.

      2. Apparently Obama’s DOE has pens and phones and is using them.

    3. How very Romulan of you.

      1. Cardassian.

      2. Alice in Wonderland.

  2. which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser

    If the adjudicators are only 49.9 percent convinced, the accuser gets in trouble for making a false accusation, right? Otherwise, that would be discrimination.

    1. Women don’t lie about rape. Only your ingrained male privilege would have you believe otherwise.

      1. Indeed! And the pseudonym “Playa” makes me 50.1% convinced that he’s a potential rapist. Send him to the re-education camps. (Since he’s only a “potential” rapist, I’ll mercifully let him live.)

        1. In all seriousness, I would expect a rape accusation would start out at about 50% likelihood just in a he said/she said scenario.

        2. Whatta ya mean, ‘potential’?

  3. Wow, these people are something else. I can’t wait for the lawsuits. The delicious tears will taste so sweet, when their precious title IX is used against them.

    1. You don’t have to. There is already a thriving cottage business in suing universities for this bullshit. With several good settlements already on the books.

    2. “you arrogant ass. you’ve killed us our pensions”

    3. Wait until an accuser is a male and the accused is female…

  4. Using a low burden of proof in college rape trials is very problematic

    Not once you realize ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS!

    1. “He has a dick, you can’t aquitt.

      1. ….

        *shakes head and slowly walks away*

  5. The appropriate repsonse from Princeton should have been “We’re changing our standard of proof – to ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'”. They have enough money in their endowment to fight the Feds to the supreme court.

    Cowards.

    1. Is it cowardice if the vast majority of their employees and administration agree with the basis?

    2. They better because if I was a law student at yale I would purposefully engage in drunk consensual sex and cry rape as a male just to turn the system on it’s head. Trust me this will happen.

      1. They control the process.

        “The committee determines that we have a less than 50% belief that you were raped. However, after interviewing the defendant, we believe that your actions were hostile to her name and future career. You are to be terminated from all classes and banned from campus immediately.”

        Seriously, there is no process to ensure a fair hearing. And if you have standing to sue at all, they can destroy your potential career.

        1. You assumed he meant consensual sex with another male.

      2. Nope, the Dept. of Education has blessed standards saying that if both parties are drunk, the male is the rapist. As here:

        Dean Sue Wasiolek explained: Even when both students consumed alcohol, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

        1. So, unequal treatment based on sex and a clear violation of Title IX.

        2. from the same article Brown’s policy on alcohol:

          A charged student’s use of any drug, including alcohol, judged to be related to an offense will be considered an exacerbating rather than a mitigating circumstance.”

          So if you and a lady friend share a couple of drinks and hook up, the drinks she had makes her incapable of being responsible for her actions. The drinks he had makes him not only responsible for his actions, but even more guilty.

          I guess they just wanted to be sure to really lampshade that double standard.

  6. I’m getting more and more glad I have a daughter.

    1. You mean you want her to be raped?

      1. I’m confident that the state constructs will protect her.

        1. STEVE SMITH LIKE THE CUT OF YOUR JIB…

          RAPE YOU LAST.

  7. I am struggling to see how this is possibly constitutional.

    1. Well you pay to go to college, so commerce clause.

      1. Actually, most don’t. The government pays via Pell Grants and such. And that’s the problem. By paying the piper, they get to call the tune.

        It will be hilarious when these “elite” institutions realize they can wholesale replace their student bodies with affluent students from China and elsewhere, who pay with cash in hand nonetheless. Having no need to accept Federal loans, they’ll have no need to follow the arbitrary pronouncements of lunatics.

        1. But they love, love, love being in bed with Big Brother, HM. Since all (and I mean all) Good Things flow from the State, becoming an entirely private institution would place them outside the realm of Good Things.

          Seriously, I’d be willing to bet that you could go to these universities, present them with a plan to become entirely independent of state funding that would not have any negative financial effects, point to the huge pile of federal regs this would get them out from under,

          and they’d turn you down.

          1. Seeing the beast from the inside everyday for more than a decade, I can confirm that’s the most likely outcome.

      2. US v. Morrison?

  8. Unfortunately, this insanity has recently hit ‘home’. The son of a friend of mine was kicked out of school on the flimsiest accusation of rape by a fellow student.

    These policies really hurt people, and someone needs to sue the DOE.

    1. We should all get together and found a college with the sole purpose of challenging the DoE on policies like this. I doubt it would be hard to get their attention.

      1. Just don’t accept federal student loans, and they have no power over you.

  9. Princeton had been one of the last hold-outs on the standard of proof in college rape trials. The university required adjudicators to obtain “clear and convincing” proof that a student was guilty of sexual assault before convicting him.

    The fact that this is a real thing is so hilariously sad, this would have been a fantastic SNL skit not even 5 years ago.

  10. “””violating federal anti-discrimination law”””

    So once again showing that federal anti-discrimination laws is all about making everyone equal even if they did not act the same

    1. Well, since this policy entails essentially a presumption of guilt based on gender and has an obvious disparate impact on males, it is therefore in violation of Title IX and Equal Protection.

  11. With federal funding at stake, institutions are too afraid to engage and criticize a regulating body.

    The US Gov.: Holding States and their constituents hostage since 1865.

  12. Using a low burden of proof in college rape trials is very problematic, since adjudicators are poorly equipped to determine innocence or guilt in the first place. They just don’t have the right training.

    What are you talking about? These people have PhD’s in Art History, how could they not be qualified? I have been assured by liberals that all credentials are fungible.

  13. It’s very discouraging to see support for robust due process written off as a symptom of male privilege.

    But it is! Due process is an invention of the Patriarchy to keep paranoid/mythomaniacal women subdued and oppressed!

  14. Can anyone explain to me how I should view any of this as different from McCarthyism or the Salem witch trials?

      1. Keep you peine to yourself, that’s how this all got started.

    1. Some combination of the words patriarchy, male gaze, and rape culture.

      1. Surely all of those had something to do with witch trials, at least.

        1. “It wasn’t my fault I cheated on you honey, she seduced me with her witch powers!”

    2. This is based on science.

    3. “Can anyone explain to me how I should view any of this as different from McCarthyism or the Salem witch trials?”

      The target.

      1. Do you weigh more than a duck?

    4. A better definition is vigilante.

  15. “To put it bluntly, I think it’s arrogance and ingrained male privilege, but I think they’re starting to get the message.”

    Due Process: It’s arrogant and sexist.

    1. This.
      I mean, Jesus.
      How do people say shit like that with a straight face?
      “Ingrained Male Priveledge?”
      If this was a sane world that comment would be laughed out of any room by everyone everywhere. But that’s just my male, WHITE*, heterosexual priveledge talking…

      *more of an olive, part Italian you see …

    2. How anyone can spend their days in a university environment, and claim that it has “ingrained male privilege”, is just, frankly, nuts.

      As in, such deep denial of the reality that they see first hand every day that you would have to be insane to believe it.

      1. Most of the women there still care what the men think about how they look. Therefore, the men have all the power!

  16. This type of chilling atmosphere is not helpful to anyone. Nobody is willing to take a stand.

    That’s the point.

    You wouldn’t want to force the government to waste their precious time and resources hashing things out in a courtoom, when extortion backed up by what amounts to a death threat works so well. Would you?

  17. There is a great lawsuit chasing opportunity of a dirty old man like myself. Just sign up for some an entry level women’s studies class, something something, get kicked out, cash settlement check… Rinse and repeat, especially if step 2 becomes a distraction.

  18. The solution to this is very simple: Start accusing deserving female college staff and students of inappropriate sexual activity at every opportunity. The next time a female professor looks at you wrong, go full-on with accusations of sexual harassment. The next time you bed a coed, look at her the next morning and ask her why she took advantage of your male-ness. Fight fire with fire.

    1. And report it to the school. Make the school apply the same standards to women or face Title IX lawsuits.

      1. Like that will ever happen.

    2. “The solution to this is very simple: Start accusing deserving female college staff and students of inappropriate sexual activity at every opportunity. …”

      They completely control the process. They’ll just dismiss the charges. Then if you continue to be a problem, someone will submit charges towards you.

      1. They’ll just dismiss the charges.

        Works just as well for the discrimination lawsuit. Discovery will turn up female complaints that are essentially identical that they did not dismiss.

        1. And it won’t make any difference.

          What part of “they control the process” do you not understand? Men have “privilege” therefore Title IX will only protect women.

      2. Also, you’ll be “that guy who’s never getting laid again”

  19. “ingrained male privilege” was the only reason for using a lower evidence standard

    So, how is that not illegal sex discrimination under Title IX? From the law:
    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

    1. Because Title IX was written for women. The fact that the text in the statute is ambiguous on that doesn’t matter.

      1. You know who else wrote something ambiguous?

        1. Garcia Marquez?

        2. Barak Obama?

    2. “basis of sex” means “basis of being female”

        1. IF the king declares it so, it shall be so.

    3. Lawyers have actually been bringing successful Title IX lawsuits against colleges based on this very principle.

      1. Link please.

        1. Here’s a couple that are ongoing.
          Too lazy to look up additional ones right now, but I seem to recall a couple being settled.

          1. Thanks RC, I knew there had been some successful suits.

          2. I’m glad to see that two cases are going forward. I hope the plaintiffs are successful.

            1. It seems that the universities typically settle rather than risk a trail.

  20. Of course, plenty of women are concerned that these new policies, far from chipping away at male privilege, unfairly punish men.

    I suspect that they’re more afraid to find out men stop dating college girls completely.

    1. I actually persued quite a few off-campus companions. But more for the reason that my female class mates were a bunch of privledged cunts who thought they had 14 karat labias

      1. Only 14? I expect at least 22.

        1. State University, I bet. Not one of your la-di-da Ivy League schools.

        2. It was a state school, but there was a little ivy growing on the walls

          1. UCLA?

  21. Laura Dunn, executive director of victims’ advocacy center SurvJustice

    It takes exploration of only one Google hit for Ms. Dunn to realize that she is a gibbering lunatic who, in an sane and justice world, would not be taken seriously as a collector of night soil, much less as the executive director of an organization.

    1. would not be taken seriously as a collector of night soil

      *stands to applaud loudly*

  22. I think it’s past time to start criticizing institutions which take federal funds. It always ends with shit like this.

  23. I personally know someone that’s fallen victim to this. He and a girl had too much to drink at a dorm party. The girl invited him to bang in her room. Upon disrobing, he puked in her bed and fell asleep. The girl then accused him of sexual assault because after he puked, she didn’t want to bang but he was now passed out in her pukey bed. The next day the girl decided that it wasn’t sexual assault after all, just very gross. But the idiot guy had already signed an “apology letter” to the “victim” and the local prosecutor decided to press charges even though the victim said she wasn’t actually a victim.

    1. He sexually assaulted her by not doing anything sexual with her?

      1. And it held up in court. Gross imposition, sexual assault and some other bullshit charge I can’t remember. All because after he passed out naked in her bed, she no longer wanted him there but because he was passed out, he remained. And by remaining, he was assaulting her or something. Now he is a sex offender and a convicted felon.

        1. Holy shit, he was convicted? How the fuck does that work? I never would have guessed that he was actually convicted from your initial post. What was the prosecution’s reasoning? Because he was still naked after she decided she didn’t want to bang after all?

          1. It sounds like he made the decision not to bang first.

            1. Not sure if passing out in a pile of puke counts as a decision.

              1. Being drunk is no reprieve from personal liability. At least, if you’re a man.

          2. What was the prosecution’s reasoning?

            He should have known better than to trust cops, but the university police told him it would all go away if he just signed an “apology letter” to the victim. He signed and the university took this as a confession and sent it over to the county prosecutor.

            Because he was still naked after she decided she didn’t want to bang after all?

            Yeah. He was charged with a statute usually applied to a flasher (imposition) and sexual assault because after he puked during foreplay he wanted to continue and then passed out when she said no.

            She didn’t even bother calling the cops until 2 days after this event and at the behest of her academic advisor (who was also her “women’s studies” professor). Then the day after she called the cops, she changed her mind about ruining his life but he had already signed a confession and the prosecutor didn’t need her testimony to proceed.

            1. Never ever sign anything… always, always have an attorney present.

              1. And in his case he really should have known better. He comes from a family of vehemently anti-police, anti-government, civil liberty conscious libertarians. He has been lectured to by his brothers about how to deal with police but when push came to shove and the cops were threatening him and making promises, he seems to have entirely forgotten his upbringing.

                His stupidity dealing with the cops shocked everyone that knows him.

                1. It’s not stupidity; it’s the hijacking of social conventions.

                  The cops pretend to be the perpetrator’s friends, hoping that the perpetrator will talk to them, because not talking to someone is rude.

                  So if you are innocent, and it’s all a big misunderstanding, you are trying to show you are a nice guy, and you are polite to the cops and you talk to them…. and when they make promises, you, again being polite, assume that they are honest ones, and you work with them.

                  My guess is that his instinct to be polite, which had helped him in *every* situation up to that point, is what did him in.

                  1. Not only that, but human beings are hardwired to obey people in a uniform. Cops know this, and they use it to trick people into doing and saying things that they probably wouldn’t do or say if the person asking was not in a uniform.

                  2. It’s not stupidity; it’s the hijacking of social conventions.

                    Well it certainly wasn’t ignorance. He did know better. The stupidity was thinking that the cops are there to do anything except lock him in a cage for any reason they can possibly find.

              2. He probably clicks through on his iTunes TOS updates too.

      2. Shit, I’ve been sexually assaulted a lot if that is how it works.

        1. Poor, poor Evan from Superbad.

          1. I have no idea what that means.

  24. The Bill of Rights was written by MEN.

    Enough said.

    1. No, this is much more interesting. There is still a likely new particle, whether or not it is the Higgs. Which is perhaps even more exciting than the Higgs if it means that the Standard Model needs some major revision.
      The leaving the solar system thing is kind of interesting too, because we still have a lot to learn about the outer reaches of the solar system and where it can be said to end. But it doesn’t really shake the foundations of any major theory as discovering new particles might do.

      1. A new force would be pretty cool. But “technicolor”? Physicists are getting silly in their naming of things.

        1. Technicolor theory came about in the early 70’s if I recall correctly. So I think the name is very appropriate.

          1. I thought technicolor took the silver out of the silverscreen in like the 50’s or early 60’s.

          2. I should have said that they got silly in the 70s, naming quarks and all that.

            1. “I should have said that they got silly in the 70s”

              You probably would have if you’d known before some guy told you.

      2. Fair enough. I was part serious and part sarc.

        But I am fascinated by these kinds of stories for two reasons other than the science. First, that scientists and science writers are developing a better ear for attracting public attention. Second, just how much science has moved into realms that it may never be able to definitively explain.

        1. Well, I am (as you can probably guess) very interested in this sort of thing. I’ve even learned how quantum mechanics actually works (in a pretty basic way, but damn is it a lot more interesting and wild than popular explanations can show you) in my spare time. The world of stuff that is actually relevant now gets boring.

          Popular science journalism is usually terrible. That’s most of the problem. Most of the “Voyager leaving the solar system” announcements are actually pretty interesting too if you look at what actually has happened.

          1. Modern science is also interesting from the engineering perspective. The fact that miniscule amounts of heat radiation can cause a measurable change in a spacecraft’s trajectory over decades is amazing.

    2. Pro Lib and I will have to come up with a rule about that as well.

        1. I think that if the particle can participate in a duel, that is sufficient to say that you have confirmed it exists.

    3. Ooh, Technicolor again. I wonder if it will pan out this time. I won’t hold my breath.

  25. I’m still wondering how there is such a thing as “college rape trials”.

    1. That’s what gets me too. How is the reaction to all of this not “why should colleges be having ‘trials’ at all about things that should be serious criminal matters?”?

      1. Because they are not really serious criminal matters that would stand a chance in court. It is merely a system to ensure that feminists get what they want, which is male scalps.

      2. Where are the college assault trials? Or the college murder trials?

        1. Reminds me of police who want laws written to make their jobs easier. Rape is more difficult to prove in court, since it often comes down to he said/she said. So better get rid of some of those pesky constitutional protections of the accused.

          1. It’s easy too, if you don’t threaten to imprison the accused. You get to ruin his life by robbing him of both an education AND the money he paid for that education, which is almost as good.

            1. Not to mention that your accusations will see your name and mugshot dragged through the front page of the newspapers. Though you’d be lucky if your eventual acquittal or ‘not guilty’ verdict would get an inch wide blurb on the back page.

              It’s not about justice.

  26. Cathy Young published this article in “The Federalist” – good stats regarding so-called campus sexual assualts.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/…..y-all-are/

  27. And wile DOE claims that Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972…

    About the last thing I would attribute to the DOE is wile.

  28. In a few years President Clinton and Democratic governors will be saying, “Following the preponderance standard which has ended the rape crisis on college campuses, I today will be signing an order to reform our criminal justice code to employ the ‘BELIEVE THE VICTIM’ standard in cases of rape and sexual assault determined by the attorneys general to be of a particularly heinous nature. Next week I will be meeting with the legislature to discuss providing prosecutors the much-needed ability to appeal if they fail to convict perpetrators of particularly egregious sexual crimes.”

    1. ‘Believe the accuser’ I think you meant.

  29. Why the fuck are colleges at all charged with the tasks of arresting suspects and adjudication of crimes? If they have internal policies, ok, but how the hell does The DOEd have any say in this?

    1. Oh, Title IX. Right.

  30. I have had the discussion of whether colleges should be handling criminal matters at all on many occasions. The response I get is “colleges are in a great position to teach men who don’t know better that what they’re doing is wrong. I don’t think they should be kicked out of school or sent to jail, but this is a teaching moment and colleges are in a unique position to do so.”

    I say: “Okay, but that’s not how it happens in practice. Colleges have no incentive to find the right answer and will prefer to expel rather than find the truth.” I then list out all the other reasons why this is wrong and why this person’s ideal of what it should be never jives with what happens in practice.

    But that never makes a dent because of good intentions or something. It’s very frustrating.

    1. And do these folks ever venture that girls might be in need of a “teaching moment” or that “colleges are in a great position to teach men who don’t know better that what they’re doing is wrong”?

      1. For these folks “teaching women” = “victim blaming.”

  31. tl;dr: Only date townies.

  32. Innocent until vaguely suspected of being guilty.

    It’s very discouraging to see support for robust due process written off as a symptom of male privilege.

    They have to have talking points of some sort. They can’t just admit to being fascists who are openly willing to harm innocent men for the sake of catching more bad guys. The chief goal here being to create a culture of fear and hesitation among college men analogous to the white-people fear of being called racist.

    1. The lightbulb just went off!

      This is all about the feministas inability to get a date.

      By deterring men from having any sexual encounters or even conversations with women, more and more women will be driven into each other’s arms. Some of those arms will belong to feministas.

    2. willing to harm innocent men for the sake of catching more bad guys

      “innocent men” is a null set. “men” = “bad guys”

  33. Are any of the people involved in this “prosecution” immune from civil suit like real prosecutors? I recall reading a story where a dean had recently lost such a decision and did not have qualified immunity, but I can’t find it.

    I’d start at the top and work down, suing everyone I could get served with papers.

  34. Couldn’t a student who has been expelled under one of these rulings have standing to challenge the policy and the DOJ’s interpretation of title IX in federal court? Especially if it is a public institution?

  35. Perhaps the new congress coming in Jan. 2015 can have a serious discussion with government officials about why they think they have power the constitution does not extend to them.

  36. Why are colleges even undertaking action on these matters? If there was a sexual assault or rape, the complainant needs to go to the POLICE and file a criminal COMPLAINT. Although these cases are difficult, the courts are far better equipped to deal with these important cases than college administrators or faculty. Also, someone needs to slap OCR/DOJ upside the head about this nonsense. There’s a Constitution–look into it.

  37. Why are colleges even undertaking action on these matters?

    Because the federal government is forcing them to.

    1. What we need to end this bukllshit permanently is a complete and utter collapse of all social organization worlwide, e.g. Showtime’s Jeremiah or S.M. Stirling’s Emberverse series.

  38. What is the difference between “50.1% convinced” and “51% convinced”?

    1. 0.9%. One is shorthand for any amount more than half, and one is a specific amount.

  39. It’s up to universities to push back and sue the government for violating their rights and forcing discrimination. There has been a plethora of lawsuits against these schools for violating due process, and more will come. The only way the schools can avoid this is by changing their policies back to something reasonable, but doing so would violate the DOE…. meaning the schools can ether keep getting sued by the men they abuse through their policy, or they can stand up against the DOE and be the ones doing the suing. What’s it going to be?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.