Rape

The Campus Rape Lawsuit That Could Destroy Title IX Has Finally Arrived

Former UVA law student was punished for sexual misconduct under an improperly low evidence standard.

|

UVA
Public Domain

A University of Virginia law student who was accused of sexual misconduct and banned from campus—years after the alleged incident—is suing the U.S. Education Department for giving UVA no choice but to rule against him.

His lawsuit is a direct challenge to the legality of the campus kangaroo courts the federal government claims are required under Title IX. Lawyers representing the student, John Doe, argue persuasively that he would have been found innocent of wrongdoing if not for the Obama administration's insistence that universities adjudicate sexual assault under the preponderance of evidence standard.

This makes Doe's lawsuit the strongest legal assault on Title IX to date. If successful, it could undo some of the damage wrought by OCR's crusade to remove elements of due process from campus rape trials.

"This lawsuit is targeting the cause, and not just the symptoms, of the complete lack of due process on campus," Justin Dillon, legal counsel for Doe and a partner at the firm KaiserDillon PLLC, told Reason.

To understand why this lawsuit is such a threat to the government, it's necessary to understand how OCR's Title IX guidance has evolved over the years. Prior to 2011, the office had never held that Title IX—a one-sentence statute forbidding sex discrimination in schools—required educational institutions to adopt the preponderance of evidence standard in sexual assault disputes. Recall that the preponderance of evidence standard only requires 51 percent certainty that misconduct took place. While it is used in civil cases, criminal cases require a much higher burden of proof: the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. (Campus sexual assault disputes, of course, are neither criminal nor civil cases—they aren't proper legal proceedings at all.)

It's important to note that the preponderance of evidence standard is the only aspect of civil court cases that OCR obligates universities to institute. In civil cases, for instance, plaintiffs and defendants are granted the critical right to cross-examine each other. Students have no such right in university misconduct hearings. In fact, OCR's guidance discourages cross-examination, and in several cases, OCR has explicitly forbidden universities from allowing cross-examination, according to the lawsuit.

Requiring a lower standard of proof—but failing to require, or explicitly excluding, rights that counterbalance this lower standard—was clearly a substantial shift for the government. But federal agencies aren't allowed to make up new rules out of nowhere: they are required under the Administrative Procedure Act to ask citizens to weigh in, subjecting the new rule to a public comment period.

Under different leadership during previous presidential administrations, OCR twice complied with the APA and published notice of proposed rules, allowing public comment. But OCR Assistant Secretary Russlynn Ali (predecessor of current OCR boss Catherine Lhamon) ignored this requirement in 2011 when she released the infamous Dear Colleague letter that informed universities of the absolute necessity of the preponderance of evidence standard.

The different standard affected the outcome of Doe's case. Prior to the Dear Colleague letter, UVA used a "clear and convincing standard," which isn't as strong as "beyond a reasonable doubt," but is still stronger than "a preponderance of the evidence." The university revised its policies in light of OCR's guidance.

Doe was accused of sexual misconduct on March 6, 2015. A female student, Jane Roe, claimed that had been too intoxicated to consent to sexual activity with Doe on August 23, 2013.

Her claim seems skeptical. For one thing, her complaint came a full year and a half after the alleged encounter—just two months before Doe's graduation from law school. For another thing, Doe says Roe didn't appear drunk at all, and she certainly wasn't incapacitated. Students who are merely intoxicated can still consent to sex, of course.

Doe's graduation was put on hold for a year. For reasons that aren't clear, the dispute was not adjudicated until January of 2016. During that time, Doe lost out on a job that was contingent upon his graduation.

A former Pennsylvania supreme court justice presided over Doe's hearings. She ultimately decided that the evidence slightly indicated Doe's guilt. According to the lawsuit, she specifically referenced the low evidence threshold as the reason for the finding of responsibility. If a higher standard had been in effect, the justice would have very likely come to a different determination, she said.

Doe was given four months of counselling and a lifetime ban from UVA property. He received his law degree in 2016.

The ordeal may not be over for him, however. UVA is one of the nearly two hundred universities under investigation by OCR for mishandling Title IX. If OCR determines during the course of its investigation that UVA erred in any of its sexual misconduct procedures, it could theoretically impose new and additional punishments. Such is the absurd, Orwellian power that OCR has claimed for itself.

Doe's lawyers contend that he would have been cleared of any wrongdoing if not for OCR's requirement that UVA use a preponderance of evidence standard—a requirement that the agency failed to institute via the process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.

"We're hoping that a judge will force OCR to follow the law and actually ask the American people, on all sides of this issue, what they think the law should be, instead of just imposing it on them," said Dillon. "That's what the law actually requires, and we're hopeful a judge will hold OCR to it."

OCR's Title IX crusade is responsible for countless deprivations of students' due process rights. It has also encouraged universities to censor students' free speech rights due to concerns about harassment. A win for Doe could serve as a meaningful rebuke to the notion that a lone federal agency has unchecked power to compel universities to mistreat its students.

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.

142 responses to “The Campus Rape Lawsuit That Could Destroy Title IX Has Finally Arrived

  1. “Her claim seems skeptical”

    Please fix.

    1. Is Nikki huddled in a corner somewhere taking thorazine and drooling?

    2. While he’s at it…probably best to spell out OCR the first time. I figured out he’s referring to the Dept of Ed’s Office of Civil Rights, but I’m really, really smart and the rest of you are idiots.

      1. Well-done, but you’re still a n00b here.

        1. Or maybe I’m the reincarnation of a former nut loving rodent who died in an unfortunate wood chipping accident?

          1. You are AAW’s former webmaster?

            1. That’s hurtful.

          2. Nut Lovin’ Rodent’s was the name of my high school band.

      2. Thank you…it was grating on me too. They let Lucy go for god’s sake and I never saw anything of hers that was this haphazard! Look, this is simple:

        1. write
        2. proofread
        3. submit to editor (or Sr. or Lead or Principle or GodkIng Editor) for style guidance and more proofreading
        4. publish

        I typically give all these guys plenty of slack but it seems to be getting worse around here. I realize it is a blog but FFS I send this shit to friends and family! I am trying to convince them to read more. I am not trying to convince them how poorly libertarians write articles.

        1. p.s. I still love ya Rico but c’mon…don’t be phonin’ in the content.

        2. And while I am on my horse…Just because you are Godking editor DOES NOT MEAN YOUR ARTICLE DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROOFREAD!

          looking at you Welch.

          (and I don’t want to hear any excuses about how the blog is different than the dead tree version)

          1. Gillespie is worse than Welch on that. My rubric for guessing who wrote the article without looking at the byline:

            Is there a paragraph somewhere clarifying how the author personally doesn’t endorse belief X, Y, or Z? Soave.

            Is the article in some way about sex? ENB.

            Is the article in some way about climate change? Bailey.

            Have I stopped reading the article halfway through? Dalmia.

            Are there at least five typos and at least two mentions of a “libertarian moment”? Gillespie.

            1. Does it consist entirely of Rhetorical Questions? Who but Judge N?

        3. And while I am on my horse…Just because you are Godking editor DOES NOT MEAN YOUR ARTICLE DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROOFREAD!

          looking at you Welch.

          (and I don’t want to hear any excuses about how the blog is different than the dead tree version)

          1. ***seethes in rage against squirrels***

            1. You insulted their Godking… what did you expect would happen?

              1. ok…well i came BACK to say 51% is not the proper representation of a simple majority. 50% plus is.

                ***flips bird to the Godking, Master of Squirrels, Lord Commander of the Commentariat Watch***

                1. somebodies panties are WAY TOO tight

                  1. …go on…

            2. The squirrels are just getting even with you for implying that someone other than them is the Godking.

              *Yes, I know it’s not actually a squirrel, but it’s the best I could find. Use your imaginations.

          2. Welch is guilty of some of the worst goddam writing this site sees. I mean, so I am, but posting here isn’t my job. I’m just an asshole.

        4. It’s a blog post. I’ll cut them some slack on editing on those.

      3. Actually, OCR stands for Office FOR Civil Rights, not Office OF Civil Rights. I know this because I used to work there, not because I am smarter than anyone else.

        As a comment below notes, this lawsuit doesn’t seek to “destroy Title IX,” but rather get it interpreted correctly, and make OCR comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

        I explain at the following links why OCR has not complied with its legal obligations, has misinterpreted Title IX, and why courts should not rubberstamp its demands on colleges:

        1.http://goo.gl/t4WJ97 (my primary explanation)
        2. http://goo.gl/SraERI (my rebuttal to a legalese argument)

        Note that the current President (Barack Obama) appointed most of the judges in the District of Columbia, where this case was filed, including the judge to whom this lawsuit was assigned (and this lawsuit challenges a policy adopted under his Administration). While some Obama appointees have been willing to rule against the administration in APA cases, others have been very indulgent and extremely deferential towards the Obama administration (I don’t know much about the record of this particular judge).

        Note also that even a challenge to illegal agency action won’t necessarily succeed in court, if the judge can find some jurisdictional way of making the case go away.

        1. Actually, OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition.

          Any other uses of the acronym are wrong. Although I will give Optical Character Reader a pass.

        2. Note also that even a challenge to illegal agency action won’t necessarily succeed in court, if the judge can find some jurisdictional way of making the case go away.

          Standing/ripeness/mootness problems can doom APA cases, which is why the facts here present the perfect case. Thanks to what I assume was a sympathetic and very clever former Penn Supreme Court judge, finding on the record that she would not have rules against Doe but for the OCR letter, the plaintiff can show direct causality between the OCR letter and the threat of on-going harm, i.e. additional punishment from OCR due to the UVA investigation, which the court is capable of redressing.

          Regardless of whether an Obama-appointed judge at the district court level rolls over in typically left-wing power-cock sucking fashion, from reading the compliant, OCR is going to run into a buzz saw in the DC Court of Appeals.

          The only downside is fucking OCR will probably just re-jam it through after actually following the APA procedures…its not like they will listen to public comments and congress sure as fuck won’t due anything about it (and would just get vetoed anyway). Shit – thinking about the unchecked power of the administrative state makes me want to vote for Trump – so an extra fuck you to OCR for that!

      4. You mean… it’s not Optical Character Recognition?

      5. probably best to spell out OCR the first time

        Yeah, what does text conversion software have to do with this?

        1. Well, forced text proselytization is becoming a major problem.

    3. Right. A claim is dubious. Only a person can be skeptical.

    4. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too.
      You can check it out here.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. “The Campus Rape Lawsuit That Could Destroy Title IX Has Finally Arrived”

    Courts have upheld far worse than this for fear of upsetting the apple cart.

    In fact, the courts’ batting average on deciding not to upset the apple cart is amazingly high.

    1. The chance of this challenge succeeding may be low, even though it logically has merit. It was filed in the District of Columbia, where President Obama packed the DC Circuit with pro-administration judges, and appointed most of the trial judges. And it is challenging an Obama administration policy.

      Moreover, it won’t “destroy Title IX.” Under Title IX, colleges have a duty to adjudicate these cases under the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). That is not going to change. All this challenge will do if it is successful will be to temporarily result in a slightly-less hostile environment for accused people. If the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge succeeds, all the Education Department needs to do (and will do, under the upcoming Clinton administration) is go through notice and comment before reimposing the preponderance mandate.

      The preponderance mandate violates the APA. But it doesn’t violate due process (the courts say you have painfully weak due process rights on campus), by itself. (OCR’s restrictions on cross-examination might occasionally violate due process, but a preponderance standard doesn’t). So it can just be reimposed after notice and comment even if this lawsuit is “successful.”

      And one can imagine a left-wing activist judge even upholding the challenged preponderance mandate, by claiming some exception to the general notice and comment requirement applies.

      1. Its OK to ruin someone’s life if it means that schools can keep getting fed money.

  3. With respect to Mr Soave, I’m skeptical his lawyers said , given proper hearing, he would have been ‘found innocent’

    Much more likely ‘found not guilty’

    Finders of fact/guilt eg juries generally do not find people ‘innocent’. They may think the guy innocent, but it’s not a question they are tasked to address

    In the Duke Lax case otoh, sans trial, the AG of the state (iirc) explicitly stated they were innocent

    But then, he/she was not a jury or judge

    1. Innocent until proven guilty.

      If not proven guilty, you are therefore innocent.

      QED.

      1. A cop knows people are guilty. The ones who aren’t found guilty are just the ones who got away with it.

        1. Part of the problem was that the police and actual legal system were never involved. If they had been, charges never would have been filed.

          1. Mistakes were made. Charges were filed.

      2. An expected response but incorrect

        I will say again – they don’t determine INNOCENCE

        it’s a presumption

        It is not a finding

        There is a difference

        Juries do not FIND people innocent

        Ask a defense attorney. Jurors have said ‘we thought he was probably guilty but the state did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt’

        He may or may not be innocent and he is PRESUMED innocent

        But juries (and I am asmittedlu assuming this about campus hearings unless shown otherwise) do not FIND people innocent

        It is not within their locus of discretion

        I see your objection all the time, but it’s a canard

        Th issue is what juries FIND (or in a bench trial – what a judge finds)

        You will never see a law journal say this – jury found the defendant innocent

        1. Fuck off, Dunphy.

          1. Fuck off, Dunphy Tulpa.

        2. And a jury that finds you guilty does not actually prove your guilt with absolute certainty. So what? It’s a distinction with no practical meaning, especially since you can’t be tried again once found “not guilty”.

          1. It’s a worthwhile distinction. The legal process does not make truth, and it’s dangerous to see it that way. It makes odds. The truth is what it is, regardless. But the courts aren’t there to tell you what it is; otherwise, innocent men found guilty would per force be guilty, because a court found him so.

        3. The record of campus hearings in the last decade or so is a bad one. They strongly tend to discard all the basic framework of ‘Due Process’, and they also tend to bitch up chain of custody of any physical evidence to the point that it is legally useless. In short the process commonly used tends to assume guilt, and to create a situation where if guilt exists, it can no longer be proven in a court of law, because the accused’s rights have been so thoroughly violated.

      3. If not proven guilty, you are therefore innocent.

        Whether you are in fact innocent or not has nothing to do with what a jury or the courts decide. If you didn’t commit the crime but are convicted, that doesn’t mean you aren’t innocent, and vice versa.

        Its an evidentiary presumption, putting the burden of proof on the government.

        The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P….._innocence

        Just because you got away with it, doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. Just because you got punished for it, doesn’t mean you did it.

        1. All the legal theory aside, Dunphy’s original statement was about what his lawyers may or may not have said. I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that his lawyers say he would have been found innocent. Lawyers are just as much public advocates for their clients (especially in cases that get media attention) as anything else. And it’s certainly more impactful to describe one’s client as innocent rather than not guilty. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if his lawyers used the word “innocent”. Why wouldn’t they?

      4. Innocent UNLESS proven guilty.

        Until proven supposes it just a matter of time.

    2. Yeah, everybody knows that. But it’s a common informal usage.

    3. Its not a criminal case. Colleges find people responsible or not responsible.

  4. John Doe is Haven Monahan, isn’t he?

    1. With a name like Haven, you’re pretty much doomed to rape people in order to get your jollies. The UVA finding seems valid.

  5. Clear and convincing is a good standard

    This is usually the standard that is required when cops are to be disciplined (including termination) based on allegation of criminal activity

    And yes, during arbitration , our union attorneys can cross examine

    Rules of evidence though are MUCH looser than civil or criminal trials

    It’s a ‘reasonable system’ and does a good job of balancing between employer and employee

    IMO, it should be the standard for campus rape ‘hearings’ although IMO these hearings should not happen in the first place

    Admins are not competent to perform these

    1. Don’t you have Negroes to beat or something?

      1. Stats btw, clearly show cops do not use force disproportionately against African Americans.

        For example, about 30% of those shot by police are black, whereas 40% of cops who are shot, are shot by blacks.

        Also shown that white cops are less likely to shoot black suspects than black cops.

        nice mythology.

        hth

        1. For example, about 30% of those shot by police are black, whereas 40% of cops who are shot, are shot by blacks.

          So, to use your clever retort:

          Blacks WIN

          Cops LOSE

      2. It’s not poor people he hates. Rather anyone who doesn’t have a badge.

        Because they are little people, and he gets pissed when the little people get uppity and say its wrong for cops to murder them.

        1. I said if you answer the door with a gun in your hand and the cops shoot you , you are a fucking moron and you have nobody to blame but yourself…

          cops found guilty?

          of course not.

          Cops WIN

          you LOSE

          hth
          smooches

          1. “Cops WIN you LOSE”

            So much for public service…

          2. Thank you dunphy!

            Some of the new readers are not familiar with what a cowardly little bitch you are. They probably thought my observation that you think it’s OK for cops to non cops was hyperbolic.

            But you just admitted that you think you and your bros should get to murder people and outed yourself as a cowardly little punk asss bitch.

            Your post did help. I’ll toss you an extra donut if I ever run into you.

            1. Tossing a donut at Dunphy is technically assaulting an officer, and he will have no choice but to shoot you, your dog, and several innocent bystanders.

              1. You’re right. I should treat Dunphy the way I treat rabid dogs. Steer clear of them, be prepared to defend myself agains their attacks, and never, ever feed them.

              2. Assaulted with diabetes.

          3. If the cops have no business being at the door how does that work?

            1. Invasion of privacy is a cop’s business, and business is good.

            2. Silly question. Cops always have business being at the door. Why, do you have something to hide?

          4. Wrong fucking door, asshole.

    2. Don’t forget, this is the poster who believes you deserve to get to get shot to death if you answer the door at 2 am with a perfectly legal gun in your hand.

      1. What if it’s in Connecticut and it’s an assault pistol, with flash suppressor, pistol grip, 30 round magazine and a bayonet?

      2. Dunphy (the real one)|7.16.12 @ 12:41PM|

        no, atfpapic, he was not innocent

        he drew a gun on the cops and paid the price

        fuck him

  6. Do you people not see the ‘just in case’ wisdom of Title IX?

    Libertarians are so uncaring it triggers me.

    1. We need new and better safe spaces for all.

      1. SELF-AUTOMATED MOBILE CUBICLES.

        Or.

        Portable bubble wrapping.

        1. Only if the mobile cubicles are properly regulated…

  7. Hope this kid stays strong and doesn’t cave to settlement offers. The only way this debacle gets fixed is if it runs the gauntlet and a decision comes out of it.

    1. The kid is apparently now a lawyer and seems to know exactly what he’s doing.

      1. The kid is apparently now a lawyer and seems to know exactly what he’s doing.

        Then he’s not a lawyer…

        1. Lawyers know what they’re doing when it’s their ass on the line.

  8. The best way to adjudicate these cases would be to have Nancy Grace as judge, jury and executioner.

    She seems to care about facts.

    1. From what I can see, she is the gold standard that school administrators at all levels look to. How else could one explain pop-tart guns and nerf “weapons” and “I think I was probably too buzzed to have consented – I mean, look at him… do you really think I would have banged him if I wasn’t drunk?” rape.

      1. But your honor, I woke up feeling like a slut.

        Clearly he should rot in prison so my friends won’t talk about me

        1. Clearly he should rot in prison so my friends won’t talk about me sympathize with me rather than ridicule me.

          Get out of jail, send someone else, pass go, collect $200.

          1. “During that time, Doe lost out on a job that was contingent upon his graduation.”

            motive: a good person (aka her friend) got that job instead of the smart ass arrogant privileged male jerk who never called her back

    2. timbo|6.22.16 @ 10:50AM|#

      The best way to adjudicate these cases would be to have Nancy Grace as judge, jury and executioner.

      She seems to care about facts.

      ^This X 100%

  9. I’m waiting until biological men that identify as women sue under title IX to be allowed to compete on women’s sports teams in NCAA

    lawyers be speculating , based on some of the latest court findings, that NCAA may be bound to admit them equal footing

    1. My idea would be to sue because nursing schools and programs are overwhelmingly female.

      1. See also teaching, and design, interior.

    2. You know this is already in the works. It will not be the end of Title IX however.

      It will give the entire city of Washington DC something to call panic over while they work on the next round of bailouts behind the scenes.

  10. getting tricked out of your panties is not assault.

    1. Especially when the guy didn’t even trick her.

      1. Feminists have been pushing for “rape by fraud” laws and bills have been introduced e.g.in New Jersey, where lying to get sex will be prosecuted as rape. The ‘theory’ is, since consent rested upon belief in a falsehood used by one party, that the consent is invalid,and thus it is sex w/o consent and is thus rape.

        Lying about income, career, etc. would trigger such prosecutions.

        Third wavers are insane.

        1. It’s not insane if a victim says it.

          Didn’t you know we are all victims?
          Goddam 1%.

          1. Goddamn the pusher man!!

        2. Lying about being on the pill wouldn’t protect a man from future paternity suits though.

        3. Look, everyone knows that no woman would ever sleep with a guy just because he drives a rented Porche, claims to be an ‘Investment Banker’ even though he lives with his mom, and rented some Armani from that place on the corner. None of those things ever enter her head when deciding to put out on a first date. What do you think she is, some kind of gold digging whore?

          Oh, wait, that’s exactly what they’re saying? Oh. Well, I guess they’re just admitting that women are incapable of critical thought and aren’t responsible for their own actions. In other words, we’re right back to where were started like a hundred years ago. I guess we should take away their right to vote then, lord knows what they would do with that ability! Probably elect a black guy or a witch, amiright?

        4. I welcome such laws. After all, as Chris Rock has proven beyond all doubt – everything about women is a lie, and since guys are usually picking up the tab for the date there are actual economic damages involved.

    2. All PIV is rape

    3. What if it’s the guy that’s wearing the panties?

      Asking for a friend.

      1. but how does he trick her into getting out of his panties. sex is way too complicated these days.

  11. “it’s necessary to understand how OCR’s Title IX guidance has evolved over the years.”

    It’s easy to understand. Guidance = making shit up

    1. +fytw

  12. Her claim seems skeptical

    Oy. I don’t think you are saying what you think you are saying.

    How about “There are reasons to be skeptical of her claim”? Or “Her claim seems dubious”?

    /end pedantry

    1. yeah…as stated above, I think we need to send out a full search party for Nicole. She is probably hunkered down with hostages somewhere.

      1. Holding the hostages, or as one of them? If the latter I suspect that she’ll lead a rebellion and take her captors prisoner.

        I miss you, Nikki.

        1. Obviously holding them. She hasn’t hear about the KMW promotion to dead tree Godqueen yet so there is hope she can talk her down.

    2. or she’s fuckin cucoo for coco puffs?

  13. You’d think the admin would know better than applying these rules and regulations to law schools. You basically just gave this guy an opportunity to interview with all the big defense firms.

  14. Defund, disband and jail the Office of Civil Rights.

    1. Yep, nothing like an Office of Civil Rights to violate your civil rights.

      Not even Orwell . . . .

    2. My long-standing proposal is to disband the Office for Civil Rights for un-American activities.

      1. Oh, they can go too. And the whole NHS.

      2. Seems like they have an OCR – Interior, Transportation, U.S. Agency for International Development, etc. Basically an department or agency in the federal government has an OCR.

    3. I’ll pony up for the pikes.

  15. Another third waver regressive left push is to place the burden on the accused to PROVE HE HAD CONSENT

    um… Short of PC Principal type consent forms – how exactly?

    And even those that don’t prove consent wasn’t withdrawn mid coitus

  16. There is a consent app

    Who didn’t see this coming

    http://we-consent.org/

    1. Nothing says foreplay like an iPhone app with 17 pages of consent forms.

    2. Apparently, you.

    3. And the victim can come back with “he forced me to sign”.

      1. Should have written victim as “victim”.

  17. Does a “preponderance of evidence” standard even make sense outside a jury trial? Jurors are (ideally) neutral arbiters from outside the system who should be able to assess a case impartially and render a manifestly fair verdict. University bureaucrats are anything but, and relying on their judgment alone as to what constitutes a preponderance seems misguided at best but more than likely totally corrupt.

  18. Oh, and this case is relying on the court to punt the issue back to Congress rather than acceding to executive convenience.

    Remember any other cases in which a high court simply folded to executive pressure rather than demanding Congress uphold its Constitutional obligations?

  19. A female student, Jane Roe, claimed that had been too intoxicated to consent to sexual activity with Doe on August 23, 2013.

    Who claimed that?

  20. What the feds want, the feds get. That sounds pessimistic, but it holds over the last decade in national and homeland security, business regulation, banking and finance, education, environment, telecommunications, trade, energy, and of course civil rights. Government is feeling its oats, everywhere. Legal procedures and constraints, by themselves, will not appreciably diminish its power.

    The only remedy is civil resistance, which takes a long time, but ultimately works. Civil resistance in this case would have schools willing to forego federal funds as they resist Title IX requirements, with students their families who support those efforts. Now you see the difficulty. Virtually no school wants to forego federal funds, but they could succeed if they stood together.

    1. That sounds pessimistic, but it holds over the last decade in national and homeland security, business regulation, banking and finance, education, environment, telecommunications, trade, energy, and of course civil rights. Government is feeling its oats, everywhere. Legal procedures and constraints, by themselves, will not appreciably diminish its power.

      Whaddya talkin’ about? Gays marry, pot is kinda-sorta more legal than ever, and the LP might get over 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. This is the motherfucking moment.

  21. A correct way to introduce an acronym is to give the name in full, then the acronym in parentheses and use the acronym thereafter, thus, “…it could undo some of the damage wrought by the Office of Civil Rights’ (OCR) crusade to remove elements of due process from campus rape trials.” One can be less formal but just dropping an acronym without the full name as an antecedent is poor communication.

    1. Yup!

      That lesson was something my father taught me in high school.

      How you can be a professional columnist and NOT know that is surprising and disappointing.

    2. The last copy of AP stylebook I bought was in…2010 I think? So I couldn’t say if it’s been updated since then. I definitely recall you’re supposed to write it out in full the first time, but I don’t really recall using parentheses around it at any point. As I say though, I’m going off a half-decade old version!

    3. OCR is not an acronym. It is an abbreviation — specifically an initialism. And not every abbreviation needs to be spelled out in full before use. Some are standardized and quite common: St., Ave., D.C., FBI, CIA, CEO, USA, etc. But OCR, even in the context of this story, might be a bit obscure… especially since there are many OCR’s out there, not just the one at the U.S. Dept. of Ed.

  22. She ultimately decided that the evidence slightly indicated Doe’s guilt.

    “Well, Mr. Doe, we have established that you have a penis. What else is there to consider? Guilty as charged!”

  23. We can only hope this kills Title IX and ESPN quits promoting women’s basketball and can stop pretending to act like we care about it.

  24. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.Reportmax90.com

  25. Some serious civil matters are decided by the clear and convincing evidence standard. Custody, for example. and also disbarment IIRC. Given the life-altering consequences of these decisions, I strongly favor this standard over preponderance of the evidence in Title IX actions.

  26. Re: “…her complaint came a full year and a half after the alleged encounter”

    If a male student has sex or just spends time alone with a female student, he has to worry throughout his college attendance that he may be accused and ruined for life.

    No wonder male enrollment is down drastically.

    Male students ought to wear a sign that says, “All females must stay 50 yards away from me.” They should go on strike and ignore female students until the latter demand a stop to the madness themselves.

    1. For you dissatisfied gents, there’s always Pulse clubs, now that the Republican court has stricken shutting them down from the GO-Pee platform. Just remember to pack heat. You never know when mystical fanaticism might raise its semi-automatic.

  27. RE: The Campus Rape Lawsuit That Could Destroy Title IX Has Finally Arrived
    Former UVA law student was punished for sexual misconduct under an improperly low evidence standard.

    Evidence?
    We don’t need no stinking evidence.
    We just need a rope to hang the accused.
    What next would the accused want?
    Due process?

  28. One cannot help but recall that the Republican, Prohibition, Tea and Constatoochun parties all wanted the government heavily involved in sexual prohibition legislation when it meant backing their superstitious prejudices. The LP went too far overboard back in the nineties, then overcompensated.
    Now a movie on Youtube–Even Lambs Have Teeth–is giving GO-Pee bigots a preview of what to expect when they lose again. I get a schadenfreude just thinking about it, and run my hand over my libertarian spoiler ballot.

  29. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  30. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  31. Jane Roe, sounds asian.

  32. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.