Title IX

Jerry Brown Vetoes Campus Sexual Assault Bill Because It Threatens Due Process

"Depriving any student of higher education opportunities should not be done lightly," says the California governor.

|

Jerry Brown
Geodakyan Artyom/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Today California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 169, which would have codified the Obama-era Education Department's guidance for how college campuses should deal with sexual misconduct.

What's more, he vetoed the bill on explicit due-process grounds. Accused students, guilty or not, "must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise," he wrote in a statement.

Brown's veto comes at a time when the new Education Department, led by Betsy DeVos, is revising the guidance. The Obama-era approach had prompted college officials to adopt investigatory procedures that imperiled free speech and due process. DeVos' department recently formally rescinded the most onerous of the dictates.

The California legislature tried to ensure that schools keep doing things the old way. But as Brown noted:

Thoughtful legal minds have increasingly questioned whether federal and state actions to prevent and redress sexual harassment and assault—well-intentioned as they are—have also unintentionally resulted in some colleges' failure to uphold due process for accused students. Depriving any student of higher education opportunities should not be done lightly, or out of fear of losing state or federal funding.

Given the strong state of our laws already, I am not prepared to codify additional requirements in reaction to a shifting federal landscape, when we haven't yet ascertained the full impact of what we recently enacted. We have no insight into how many formal investigations result in expulsion, what circumstances lead to expulsion, or whether there is disproportionate impact on race or ethnicity.

Brown isn't wrong to suggest that the softening of due process protections for accused students might have disproportionately affected students of color. As Emily Yoffe discussed in a thoroughly reported series for The Atlantic, there are good reasons to think minority students are much more likely to run afoul of the campus anti-rape bureaucracy.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Brown vetoed this bill and released such a strong statement reaffirming the importance of due process protections. It's a brave stance that makes him an outlier within the Democratic Party, whose leaders have been far more likely to condemn DeVos for trying to tamper with the system.

NEXT: California Opts to Officially Recognize Nonbinary Gender

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.

  1. Brown isn’t wrong to suggest that the softening of due process protections for accused students might have disproportionately affected students of color.

    Progressives are too busy saving them to care about destroying their lives.

    1. As long as it nets a couple of white guys, a dozen or so brown guys seems a reasonable sacrifice.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
        go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://Onlinereviewtech.com

    2. They suddenly realized their sexism hurt their racism.

  2. Blind skwerrils.

  3. And again, the frightening realization that Governor Moonbeam is the voice of reason in the California government.

    1. ^ So much this.

    2. No kidding.

      Didn’t he realize do something recently equally as rational?

      Of course, then he goes and introduces the HIV bill.

      Small, baby steps I suppose.

      1. It is, of course, a relative thing.

      2. Small baby steps are so much better than small baby hands.

    3. In the country of the blind men, the one eyed man is king!

    4. That may be why he’s been governor of California since Dr. Hook and the Medicine show were on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

      1. Sylvia’s mother says, ‘Sylvia’s busy
        Too busy to come to the phone’
        Sylvia’s mother says, ‘Sylvia’s tryin’
        To start a new life of her own’
        Sylvia’s mother says, ‘Sylvia’s happy
        So why don’t you leave her alone?’

    5. How f’d up was this turd?

  4. Everything about this was a breath of fresh air until Brown had to bring color into it. So if there was no disparate impact it would be OK to deprive students of due process?

    1. He didn’t say that. He just said we should be concerned about a disparate impact here. And he’s right! It seems likely there *is* a disparate impact.

      I’m hugely impressed by this. He’s the first Dem to break with the leftist-feminist consensus on Title IX issues.

      1. I’m hugely impressed by this. He’s the first Dem to break with the leftist-feminist consensus on Title IX issues.

        By this I assume you mean Democrat currently holding higher office?

      2. All the hand waving over a disparate impact seems ludicrous at face value. It’s the argument you make when you’re arguing with a lunatic, in that they only can see this one issue but all the other terrible reasons just don’t connect with them as personally.

        Sorry, but a colorblind society is going to mean some disparate impact. If you can’t live with that, then perhaps you need to examine your beliefs on why some races are better than others.

      3. Due process rights are due process right — no matter your color.

        The implication that denying due process is okay if the victims are white is spectacularly bigoted.

      4. Speaking of disparate impact, any studies on the proportion of males to females to ‘X’ that have their lives ruined by false accusations?

  5. I’m pleasantly surprised that Brown vetoed this bill and released such a strong statement reaffirming the importance of due process protections.

    Me, too, Robby. Too bad his “strong statement” didn’t suggest getting colleges out of the law-enforcement business.

  6. Californians of color come to the rescue of everybody’s rights. Yay!

  7. Blind statist squirrel finds nut.

    1. Why it’s almost as if he couldn’t possibly get credit for anything from you.

      1. Tony|10.16.17 @ 3:47PM|#
        “Why it’s almost as if he couldn’t possibly get credit for anything from you.”

        Very good reason for that; moonbeam only accidentally gets anything right.

        1. Or as team blue likes to say when they have to admit team red did something right.

          The broken clock is right twice a day.

        2. Not every state can be as well-managed and flush as Mississippi where your political kin run things.

          1. Well-managed? You’re an out of stater, so you’re excused for not knowing that California’s pension liabilities are ballooning out of control, and government services are being crowded out to pay gobs of money to people who don’t work for the state any more. Income confiscation has risen greatly these past 10 years and it’s still not enough!

            1. “You’re an out of stater, so you’re excused for not knowing that California’s pension liabilities are ballooning out of control, and government services are being crowded out to pay gobs of money to people who don’t work for the state any more. Income confiscation has risen greatly these past 10 years and it’s still not enough!”

              Nope. The imbecile known as Tony is not excused; he’d claim CA was wonderful even if he knew that.
              He’s not real smart.

      2. Of course. Because he’s otherwise a big government fool. Heck, the guy signed a law prohibiting pet stores from selling puppies from a breeder, thereby putting them out of business. How sane is that?

        1. “How sane is that?”

          About as sane as this:
          “The Ralph C. Dills Act
          Collective bargaining of terms and conditions of employment between the state and its employees was authorized by the Legislature in 1977 with enactment of the Ralph C. Dills Act (Sections 3512 through 3524 of the Government Code). The act grants state employees the right to belong to organizations that serve as their exclusive representatives in contractual negotiations over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The act requires the state and employee representatives to “meet and confer in good faith” and to endeavor to reach agreement on these matters. (Higher education employer-employee relations are governed by the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act and are discussed in a following section.) ”

          Wanna know why CA can’t afford to keep the dams safe and the roads in decent shape? Why, look no further than the vote-buying done by moonbeam in the ’70s!

  8. Wow, uh…good call Moonbeam.

  9. or out of fear of losing state or federal funding.

    That’s pretty brazen.

  10. Christ, what a surprise.

  11. So are there calls for Brown’s impeachment yet? He’s obviously deranged, advocating for more campus rape like that.

    1. Brown has enough cred with the left that this may actually get a lot of people rethinking this.

      1. When you put it like that, it’s almost like a high priest of liberalism has granted absolution to those who may want to question their dogma. “Gee, I never thought of it that way before [he said I could]!”

  12. I think he’s just signalling that he’s most certainly NOT in Weinstein’s pocket. Something I’m sure most Democratic politicians are now regretting putting themselves into.

  13. Brown is truly a stopped clock of politics, in that he is actually occasionally correct in ways that show me why he’s the perennial prodigal son of California.

  14. In a related story, the skies are dark with flying pigs.

  15. “might have disproportionately affected students of color.”

    Why not just make the roles apply to white men only?

    1. It’s time to outlaw white privilege.

      1. You can have mine, it certainly didn’t do me any good.

  16. Great to hear Gov Brown has listened to reason on the issue, instead to caving to the mob as politicians usually do. Big win for due process in CA today.

  17. Just thought I’d note the URL slug: “gov-jerry-brown-vetoes-campus-sexual-ass”

    1. Robby knows what he’s doing.

  18. Moonbeam gets one right? First time for everything, I guess.

    -jcr

    1. It’s far from the first time. Compared to many of the lunatics in California, Brown is downright sane.

      1. There’s a spectacularly low bar in that set.

  19. RE: Jerry Brown Vetoes Campus Sexual Assault Bill Because It Threatens Due Process
    “Depriving any student of higher education opportunities should not be done lightly,” says the California governor.

    Jerry Brown protecting due process?
    It must be an election year.

    1. He wouldn’t do this in an election year in Kommiefornia. The general election is the Dem primary.

    2. College educated workers make more money. Therefore pay more taxes. QED

  20. California, Uber Alles.

  21. Dems praising Moonbeam while simultaneously pillorying DeVos for the exact same thing in 3….2….1….

    1. Well, he is after all Jerry Brown and she is still Betsy DeVos. Which naturally means his intentions are good and she just wants to protect right wing rapists.

      There, that should clear that up for you.

  22. Good for Jerry, but this bill passed with more than 2/3 of the vote in both chambers of the state legislature. An override might be coming.

  23. My take on the disparate impact line is that it makes his veto more palatable to his supporters . See, he is not siding with white males against females. No , he is being a good SJW and protecting a victimized group ( black males).

    I applaud his decision regardless.

    1. True; if this was “just” for due process then his party could justify overriding it by saying that the interest of sexually battered women simply outweigh a legal consideration like due process, as it is a matter of “equity” that demands redress and is far more compelling than some arcane constitutional concern.

      But, if he does it in order to prevent a disproportionate effect and persons of color, well, that is an altogether different kettle of fish. Overriding it might be perceived as pillorying one protected group in order to protect another. I suspect they will just let it go with only a bit of yelling and screaming and allusions to hunting grounds.

  24. Me too…governor…me too.

  25. So… depriving people of due process and crippling their career opportunities is ok as long as it doesn’t have a racially disparate impact? If just whitey is screwed over, that would be ok?

    WTF?

    1. Welcome to the revolution.

  26. This is remarkable, sadly. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Don’t expect Leftists to stop. Due process impedes social justice.

    1. Yep-Brown will be accused of aiding the war on womyn-though I haven’t heard many progs complain yet about this or Harvey Weinstein-I guess having a D after your name lets you off the hook…

      1. Billy-Jeff sure thinks so – –

  27. A broken clock is right twice a day, and although we know he probably did this because he assessed his hierarchy of grievances chart and saw incompatibility (Brown’s mind: race, sexism, race…blue screen of death), it’s still the right call.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.