Reason Roundup

The ACLU Sues To Stop Rules That Strengthen Due Process

Plus: The House of Representatives goes virtual, Americans start moving around again, and more...


The ACLU vs. due process. If you were looking for more evidence that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been losing its principled approach to civil liberties, look no further: The group has filed suit to thwart Education Secretary Betsy DeVos's recently proposed reforms to bolster due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

"DeVos has discarded decades of [the Department of Education's] experience addressing sexual harassment and assault by promulgating regulatory provisions that sharply limit educational institutions' obligations to respond to reports of sexual harassment and assault," wrote the ACLU in its lawsuit. "If allowed to be implemented at educational institutions nationwide, these provisions will make the promise of equal educational opportunities irrespective of sex even more elusive. This is true for all students, including students of color, LGBTQ students, and students with and without disabilities, in grade school, high school, and higher education."

The lawsuit frequently asserts that marginalized students will suffer under the new rules, but it never acknowledges that students of color were disproportionately harmed by the old rules. White woman accuses black man of rape; black man is expelled was a distressingly common series of events under the old regime—one that might have invited sympathy from an older model of the ACLU, given the organization's historic concern that racism in the criminal justice system has led to disparately harsh outcomes for black people.

Not this time. To the extent the lawsuit addresses racism, it uses it as a cudgel to break apart DeVos's carefully considered revisions to some Obama-era rule changes. The lawsuit frequently notes—as if this is some trump card that should override the new protections—that there is now a different standard for allegations of sex-based discrimination than there is for race-based discrimination on campuses:

The newly issued Rule, however, includes several provisions that are contrary to both the language and spirit of Title IX [the federal statute that governs sexual misconduct in schools], and depart significantly not only from consistent past practice, but create a double standard, in which educational institutions have dramatically different obligations to respond to harassment based on sex, on the one hand, and race, national origin, and disability on the other. Despite issuing a 2,000 page "preamble," [the Department of Education] never adequately explains why it is treating sexual and racial/national origin/disability harassment differently, despite similar statutory prohibitions. This double standard will have a devastating effect on survivors of sexual harassment and assault and their educations.

It would be one thing if the ACLU's complaint was that due process protections for students accused of racial harassment are insufficient, given the stronger protections for those accused of gender-based harassment. But no: The organization wants the protections to be equally thin.

Indeed, the lawsuit takes aim at one of the most important aspects of the reforms: mandatory reporting. Under the new rules, universities do not have to initiate a formal Title IX investigation unless the alleged victim requests one. (In K–12, investigations are still mandatory.) A student who finds herself the victim of misconduct can now confide in a university employee—a supportive teacher or a coach—without worrying the matter will immediately escalate into formal and adversarial adjudication. Many victims do not want their assailants investigated, or to go through the steps that it would take have them sanctioned. They want to be heard, supported, and counseled. Several Title IX lawsuits have involved scenarios where the university conducted an investigation that was contrary to the victim's wishes.

"Sexual harassment and assault have no place in our schools," declared the ACLU in its press release. "Federal law imposes obligations on schools to make sure that's the case. Students shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to report abuse."

Under the new rules, the "hoop" is a Title IX official. Report misconduct to the official, and an investigation begins. For victims who wish to begin formal adjudication, this hardly seems like an unreasonable requirement.

This is damning with the faintest of praise, but it's a relief the ACLU is refrains from taking aim at DeVos's requirement that Title IX investigations involve hearings where attorneys or representatives for both parties can question each other. Still, the fact that the lawsuit exists at all is deeply troubling. This is an organization once known for refusing to betray its principles, no matter how unsympathetic the person whose rights are being violated. (One wonders what the new ACLU would do if a member of the Westboro Baptist Church enrolled at a university and began shouting one of the church's crude "God hates X" slogans at a person belonging to a group protected under Title IX.)

Compare the actions taken by the ACLU on this front with the stance it took on victims' rights vis a vis Marsy's Law:

Marsy's Law is premised on the notion that victims should have "equal rights" to defendants. This opening salvo is a seductive appeal to one's sense of fairness. However, the notion that victims' rights can be equated to the rights of the accused is a fallacy. It ignores the very different purposes these two sets of rights serve.

Victims' rights are not rights against the state. Instead, they are rights against another individual. The Marsy's Law formula includes the rights to restitution, to reasonable protection, and to refuse depositions and discovery requests, all of which are enforced against the defendant. Such rights do nothing to check the power of the government. In fact, many of the provisions in Marsy's Law could actually strengthen the state's hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of our legal system—the presumption of innocence.

This risk further underscores one of the overarching concerns about Marsy's Law: It pits victims' rights against defendants' rights. Creating such a conflict means that defendants' rights may lose in certain circumstances. This result accepts that defendants' rights against the state will be weakened or unenforced in some cases, potentially at a significant cost to constitutional due process. In other words, the chances that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime they did not commit could potentially increase. The proponents of Marsy's Law may not intend for this outcome, but nothing in their formula prevents it.

So much for that.


NEXT: COVID-19 Contact Tracers or Cootie Cops?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The ACLU vs. due process.

    Seems like the trajectory they’ve been on for a while.

    1. Welcome to 10 years ago. Not sure what took Robby this long.

      1. We were all young and naive once.

        1. I never had that hair though.

          1. i decided to shoot for “the Doc Brown” by Halloween.

          2. You don’t choose the hair, the hair chooses you.

  2. Poll: Compliance with social distancing is dropping

    The rate of autism must be dropping. We need a vaccine now!

  3. The group has filed suit to thwart Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s recently proposed reforms to bolster due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

    Get woke, become a joke.

    1. They have been a joke for a very long time. All they have ever done is try and free murders from death row and force the government to allow Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods. They have been a joke for at least 50 years. They are nothing but the Southern Poverty Law Center with slightly better press.

      1. At least I can finally agree with my semi-reactionary dad that those stupid “Civil Liberties” people are just a bunch of annoying assholes.

        1. Even at their best they only defended the rights of people leftists liked and assholes like the Nazis that the left could use to embarrass the right. The ACLU has never given a flying fuck about gun rights, economic rights, religious freedom or anything except things that either protect classes of people preferred by the left or protect people like the Nazis whose existence can be used to slander the right. That is it.

          1. Nazis were leftists; National Socialists with an agenda our current Donkeys would embrace ( except for the blatant pro German bias).

          2. “…….classes of people preferred by the left…..”

            From the article: “…..students with or without disabilities…..” That pretty much covers everyone. Still, had they not pandered specifically to “students of color, LGBTQ……” they might be mistaken for racist homophobes!

            It’s just fucking reflex now. Too funny.

      2. Let’s try to be a little less black and white about that shall we? The SPLC is pretty much an irredeemable front for Marxists who indiscriminately and slanderously label anyone to the left of Mao as hate groups. The ACLU at least historically has taken some principled stands for free speech for some pretty unsavory characters. A joke for the last 50 years? I don’t believe so. The last 10? Unfortunately you’re probably right there.

        1. The ACLU at least historically has taken some principled stands for free speech for some pretty unsavory characters.

          They took stands but they were not principled. They never stood up when it mattered. All they have ever done is defend a few far right people who were not threat to anyone but themselves and were useful in slandering the right. If you are a leftists, you want the Nazis to be able to march. It allows you to associate everyone on the right with them.

          Where was the ACLU on Citizens’ United? The wrong side. Where were they on religious freedom to not accept gay marriage? The wrong side. Where were they on gun rights? The wrong side.

          And they have been on the wrong side of these campus kangaroo courts since the beginning. This is not a change for the ACLU. It is black and white. They have been like this going back to the 70s.

          1. Actually, the ACLU was on the right side of CU.

            “ We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.”


            1. They, like Reason, have stayed radio silent as California destroyed CMP and Dadelien in California. Fuck them.


          2. I agree that they’re very inconsistent. That’s why I said they’re at best a mixed bag. Each individual in any organization has their own motives. I don’t doubt that at least some of the Nazi speech defenders are sincere and can see the bigger picture on censorship.
            But to say they’re basically the SPLC is a step too far. There is nothing good to say about that flaming trash heap.

            1. “I hate Illinois NAZIs.”

          3. The ACLU has repeatedly sued to get the Boy Scouts thrown out of public schools and off public property for 2 decades. I notice now that the left has wheedled the Scouts to accept Gay scoutmasters the legal community is running ads looking for sexual abuse victims from former scouts. Where that skin suit proudly.

            1. Where Wear. sheesh.

        2. The ACLU has been evolving (devolving) continuously for 50 years. They are a shadow of the once proud organization.

        3. I don’t think they’re a front for anyone. They’re grifters who know the best way to part a fool from his money is to convince him his money is going to fight racism.

        4. Alas, it does seem more like at least 30 or 40 years since they were worthwhile.

    2. You cannot guarantee outcomes and uphold principles at the same time.

  4. “Trump, Republicans launch attack to reframe Russia investigation as ‘deep state’ plot”
    “The effort has been aided by a Justice Department decision to dismiss its prosecution of former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn, an action that rewrites the narrative of the case in a way that former federal law enforcement officials say downplays the legitimate national security concerns they believe Flynn’s actions raised and the consequences of the lies he pleaded guilty to telling.
    The dismissal decision comes as Trump and his Republican allies push to reframe the Russia investigation as a “deep state” plot to sabotage his administration, setting the stage for a fresh onslaught of attacks on past and present Democratic officials and law enforcement leaders…”

    It’s a DNC (oops) AP editorial, masquerading as journalism.

    1. It won’t be a shocking scandal impacting democracy and undermining the rule of law until the moment a Republican copies it.

    2. As long as they label it as an editorial, I have no problem with their publishing their opinions.

      1. They didn’t.

    3. If we’re following trends here, whatever they’re accusing Trump of is exactly what they’re doing. The attempted coup against Trump is becoming undeniable as evidence continues to mount while the journo-class remains effectively silent. I’m not sure if there’s a bigger scandal in American political history.

      1. I don’t know what you mean. Who’s Tara Reade?

    4. AP announced they will no longer use the term “mistress”. AP can now be called the DNC’s Fuck Buddy.

    5. This is phase II of the scandal. The first phase was ignoring it, now it is denying it is a scandal. They are already entering phase III, which is anger and some have started entering phase IV, bargaining. It is exactly like the stages of grief because it is grief they’re experiencing. If you studied the more conservative/pro Republican media during Watergate and Iran Contra, they went through the same process. Scandals are generally slow growing. Not all of a sudden, all the “evidence’ laid before you. It takes time for acceptance. A sudden “scandal”, such as the Ukrainian quid pro quo that wasn’t really, just pushed people into partisan corners. For a true scandal you have to a steady drip, drip, drip of new information until it reaches critical mass. Watergate didnt happen overnight, it took months once the story was first released. It was a buildup of ever more incriminating evidence. This started nominally with the Mueller report (albeit, I think we can actually start with the IRS abuses in 2014). Then the FISA warrant, then the Flynn case and now the unmasking. The first three could all be written off as the actions of a few underlings, but the unmasking now demonstrates that people within the White House knew and even were likely directing it. COVID-19 has for the most part kept this off the front pages, but the American public is burnt out on COVID-19 fearmongering. So the media is now forced to reluctantly report on it. Right now they are dismissing it, but even by dismissing it they are breathing life into it. If they had been smart they would have dropped it all after the Mueller report and then played the “it’s old news” game. They didn’t, now they have a monster of their own making and Dr. Frankenstein can’t control it (and like the actual story of Frankenstein, they not the monster are the true villains).

      1. I hope you’re right, but the MSM will amplify their narrative of ‘it’s nothing to get concerned about’ and 77% of Donkeys will ignore it.

        Recall “Hands up, Don’t shoot“ and ‘little Trayvon’ etc.

  5. The lawsuit frequently asserts that marginalized students will suffer under the new rules, but it never acknowledges that students of color were disproportionately harmed by the old rules.

    The ACLU as Karen. Coming to a campus near you.

    1. Attikus Finch was a no good Jew lawyer and that nigger was guilty as hell.

      Actual quote from the ACLU commentary track for To Kill a Mockingbird.

      1. I may be wrong, but I’m sensing that you have a particular hatred for them. Justifiably so.


    Google has drastically rolled back its diversity work due to fears of being perceived as anti-conservative. Sources say employees have been pushed out, programs cut, and workers have been discouraged from even using the word diversity anymore.

    I think they think Trump will be re-elected and actually be allowed to be in charge of the Justice Department in his second term.

    1. When massive corps like this make cuts of this nature, it’s usually one of two things–they expect to be targeted for specific purposes by some government entity, or they’re bleeding money and are going after low-hanging fruit like the affirmative action hires.

      I seriously doubt Google gives a damn if they’re perceived as “anti-conservative,” however. If they were really that concerned about it, they’d be dicking around with their algorithms to be less biased towards NPC media outlets, not laying off Shaniqua and Chloe (who used to be Christopher but transitioned last year). So it’s more likely they’re bleeding money from somewhere.

      1. I find it hard to believe they are bleeding money. But, maybe people really have stopped using them because of the perception.

        I think it is more likely they are expecting to be targeted by a government entity. You are correct that what really matters is their dicking around with their algorithms. Firing some diversity coordinators and telling the freaks that work for them to knock it off is just window dressing. But window dressing is how companies first deal with a problem like this. They don’t want to change. If they did, they wouldn’t need the threat of government action to do so. So, when that threat comes, they first do bullshit changes like this hoping the appearance it creates makes the whole thing go away.

        1. You bring up some good points. We’ll see if this ends up becoming a bigger story for the MSM gossip queens, and we may get a better picture of what’s going on at that point.

          Of course, if Trump gets re-elected and Barr starts going after them, that will pretty much confirm it.

        2. I agree customers are probably an issue. Another is that perhaps their little witch hunts internally (Jame Demore(?)) maybe be hurting their employment retention, new hires and causing friction because every micro-aggression is reported.

          1. The hiring issue is a really good point. The thing about the tech industry is that it is really talent based. There are not that many people who are really geniuses at coding. A company like google has to get the best talent or it won’t stay on top for very long.

            People who code and are really top talent tend to be men and come from the gamer, bro, nerd culture. I have to wonder if the treatment of Denmore and the general woke lunatic culture at Google is impacting their ability to attract and retain top talent. If you were some wiz kid going into the tech industry, would you want to work for Google? Maybe at first just to put it on your resume but if you were really a top talent with options, you would be unlikely to stay in that culture and would leave the first chance you got if you came at all.

            1. “”There are not that many people who are really geniuses at coding.””

              A byproduct of telling people to lean to code.

        3. My guess would be more along the lines of efficiency. Having people employed in your organization that are basically there to start fires over semantic cultural issues would have to be incredibly distracting and irritating to all but the true believers. Even an organization like Google is probably only composed of 5% true believers. More and more of the rest of the population probably just wants them to STFU.

          1. That is a good guess too. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it is impacting their ability to attract talent as Sometimes a Great Notion says above.

    2. So is this real? Or is this just an overreaction by snowflakes? The reports rely on interpretations by anonymous employees. It really says more about how the employees interpret the actions and nothing about the actual actions.

      1. It is on twitter. Everything on Twitter is true. Didn’t you know that?

        Seriously, who knows what they are actually doing. Everyone who works for that company is a degenerate lunatic. The actual truth could be anything and is probably something too strange and degraded to even imagine.

      2. FTA
        “According to its own reporting, Google’s 2020 hires were 48.5% Asian, 43.1% white, and 67.5% men. In 2019, those numbers were 43.9% Asian, 48.5% white, and 66.8% men.

        The company’s hiring of black applicants rose from 4.8% to 5.5% from 2019 to 2020, while Hispanic hires dropped from 6.8% to 6.6%.”

    3. Could be they are planning on going full Chinese all the time or Indian. Except Top Men of course.

  7. The journey from Tokyo to Hong Kong normally takes me about five hours. It’s now been 19 hours since I left Narita airport and I’m still not home, as I await my COVID-19 test result. This is what international travel is like during the coronavirus pandemic.

    My heart fucking bleeds for these brave heroes of truth. So much sacrifice!

    1. I don’t give a shit about that guy. But, I do have a real problem with this bullshit becoming an excuse to end international travel.

      1. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that colleges here are going to be in a real bind if these travel restrictions aren’t lifted before the next school year. They’re heavily reliant now on massive foreign student tuition fees now, especially all the trust fund kids from China and India that flood campuses every year. If that money source gets cut off, it’s going to be a bloodbath–colleges will have to choose between their Marxist class instructors or their bullshit Burger King Kids Club diversity outreach departments.

        1. Red, I just don’t want the trust fund kids coming here. Maybe in a few years when this all shakes out. But not now.

      2. But Greta is happy.

        1. Wouldn’t she be happier if the virus killed 3/4 of human life on the planet?

          1. That would be ‘a good start’ for Greta.

    2. In my industry there are a lot of “location independent” people who would brag about it at every opportunity and it has always grated on me. So I admit I am enjoying the whining a little more than I probably should. It turns out maybe being an international luxury hobo has it’s downsides.

      1. International luxury hobo

        That is awesome. I am totally stealing that.

        1. Band name?

          1. Album name. International Luxury Hobo, the new album by These Fabulous Lesbians.

    3. How is this different than, say, having to show proof of a bunch of vaccinations before being allowed to board? I.e., couldn’t he have gotten the test yesterday, and would that have been sufficient?

  8. Hmmm.

    Not news.

  9. Compliance with social distancing is dropping—both in states that don’t have stay-at-home orders and states that do.

    If only we had socialized healthcare we could withhold that right from these wreckers.

  10. The ACLU has devolved into just another Democratic Super-PAC masquerading as a human rights organization.
    The Evil Party corrupts everything that touches it.

  11. But we hear so much about the red state-blue state divide that one can’t help wondering how the coronavirus has impacted each state. So, let’s take a look. Based on data from the New York Times collected May 14 at 3:00 p.m. ET, of the ten worst states in terms of coronavirus cases per capita, all but one (Louisiana) voted for Hillary in 2016.

    New York (1.79%)
    New Jersey (1.61%)
    Massachusetts (1.16%)
    Rhode Island (1.14%)
    Connecticut (0.98%)
    Washington, D.C. (0.95%)
    Delaware (0.74%)
    Louisiana (0.72%)
    Illinois (0.67%)
    Maryland (0.60%)
    We see a similar trend when we look at coronavirus deaths per capita. Only three of the top ten states voted for Trump. Two of those states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, voted for Barack Obama twice and could be more accurately described as purple states.

    New York (0.141%)
    New Jersey (0.112%)
    Connecticut (0.088%)
    Massachusetts (0.077%)
    Washington, D.C. (0.051%)
    Louisiana (0.051%)
    Michigan (0.047%)
    Rhode Island (0.044%)
    Pennsylvania (0.034%)
    Maryland (0.031%)

    1. But somehow this is the fault of deplorables in red states denying the pandemic and not following lock-down rules.

      1. Cuomo is almost as Dreamy as Amash. Almost.

    2. Louisiana is being dragged down by the filthy, obese sewer of humanity that is New Orleans. Take them out of the equation and their stats aren’t as bad as they could be.

      Same with the country as a whole. New York, especially New York City, has had so many cases and deaths on their own that they’re skewing the data with their presence. There are a lot of urban areas around the country, even ones that are international travel hubs, who haven’t been hit nearly as bad, even though most of the shutdowns took place around mid-March, long after the horse had been let out of the barn.

      1. Yep. New York has 6% of U.S. population and 25% of coronavirus deaths. Yet, somehow, Andrew Cuomo is the Left’s hero of the pandemic.

        And let’s not forget New York requiring nursing homes to take infected patients, at least up until last Saturday.

        1. I’ve been wondering why we are so high in Michigan, and surprise surprise, I just saw a report yesterday that Whitmer did follow NY lead again, and forced nursing homes to take Covid patients.

          1. Gretched has her very own mini-me as a signer.


            With the expressions on her face and the right subtitles this vid could rival the Hitler parodies.

            1. We’ve been going with Whitless. Gretched Whitless? Yeah that has a nice ring to it.

        2. Still borderline criminal that De Santis is polling poorly for his handling of the pandemic while Cuomo is praised while their actual results demonstrate the precise opposite.

    3. I see Delaware is on the list (7th) in cases per population, but Penna. isn’t. Yet Delaware’s governor has banned Pennsylvanians from traveling into Delaware thereby harming all those businesses (e.g. liquor stores) that depend on Penna. customers.

    4. Wrong division. Coronavirus had hit high-population, blue-voting cities hard, and left low-population, red-voting rural areas (and smaller cities) alone. So the correlation with political leanings is a second-hand effect*, at best.

      [Well, except that those god-fearin’ red voters have the sense not to live cheek-to-jowl in huge communal disease-spreading hives, but it would be impolite to point that out.]

      1. You could look at the cities hit by population ranking and realize the assertion you made is silly.

      2. For example… compare NYs policies to stop the spread vs Florida. The latter targeted testing at at risk populations, the former forced at risk populations to allow covid infected patients in.

  12. The House of Representatives will allow members to vote on bills remotely.

    Cut their pay. They no longer need to maintain two residences.

    1. Is that even legal? Don’t you have to vote inside the chamber?

      1. “voting by electronic means permitted” in the fine print.

    2. This is great. Without their commute, they will have more time to read bills, consider their financial and civil rights implications, and think about unintended consequences.

      1. Um…more time to dream up big government programs and power grabs.

  13. It has been years since the ACLU was anything but the judicial attack arm of the DNC.
    If equality, and logic, applied the SPLC would put them on the hate group list.


    Chinese State Media Warn Country Will Interfere in U.S. Election

    I thought evil foreigners interfering in our elections is the worst thing ever. Oddly, the Democrats don’t seem to concerned by this. I guess foreign interference is only bad when the Russians do it.

    1. Only bad if it is perceived as harmful to statists.

    2. Of course they’re ignoring it, the Chinese mean to help the DNC. If Hillary has won we never would have heard about Russian interference.

  15. Those calls for facemasks if you’re healthy… could be killing you.

    “Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods?”

    “They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. ”

    “There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages.”

    1. ” If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages.”

      You mean if I’m infected I might infect myself?

      1. No, it means you increase the concentration of the virus in your body. That is what medications against viruses, or anti virals, attempt to reduce, the concentration and replication of a virus. The mask actually exacerbates the problem by reconcentrating virus loads in your lungs, making the problem worse.

      2. I’d rather they be rebreathing the virions they creating than giving me an extra big dose.

        1. I would rather you shove your head even further up your ass so that we don’t have to see the panic in your eyes. Maybe the next order should be Tyvex suits when leaving the home so we don’t give you Ebola as well?

          1. Full body condoms

          2. What the hell? Did you not read JesseAz’s original comment?

            We’re talking about infected people who are actively shedding virons. There’s nothing panicky about this.
            It’s the fact that they’re isolating everyone else rather than the infected that’s the problem.

            And yes, if you’ve got Ebola and are refusing to take precautions to keep from spreading it to me, then I want a Tyvex suit whenever you’re around.

            1. You should have read the article. You have very little chance of catching sans a cough or sneeze. Just breathing has not been shown to be an effective transmission device.

              The issue with the masks is that it increases viral loads on the lungs making the infection worse. So you worsen the problem for virtually no benefit.

              1. I doubt it.

                I’m no rocket surgeon but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

                1. The neurosurgeon in the article actually is a doctor…

                  1. What’s the difference between a neurologist a neurosurgeon and a psychiatrist?
                    A neurologist knows everything but can do nothing. A neurosurgeon knows nothing but can do everything and a psychiatrist knows nothing and can do nothing.

            2. I will have to continue to disagree. When your understanding of the NAP leads to the conclusion that breathing normally in public is a violation, you might want to recheck your assumptions. As I have consistently questioned throughout this entire fiasco, why is your health my problem. It is easily demonstrable that people at risk isolating or providing their own protection provides both maximum utility and maximum freedom.

              1. “why is your health my problem”
                It isn’t.
                Neither is your health my problem, which is why I said that if you’ve got it I’d rather you be rebreathing the virions than have you giving them to me.
                Note that I didn’t say anything about forcing you to isolate or wear a mask, but you still told me to “shove your head even further up your ass so that we don’t have to see the panic in your eyes”.

                I’m not forcing anyone into a mask, but if you have been diagnosed the coof, or the flu or Ebola it’d be kind and gentlemanly if you’d take measures not to spread it all over the place.

    2. If you are not infected, you are just creating a nice warm moist environment right in front of your nose and mouth.
      And a warm moist environment has been a breeding ground for bacteria and germs forever.
      So a mask known to be ineffective against C19 (any mask not N95 or better) is actually likely to make you sick from everything else.
      (Just for the record, I went out to eat yesterday. Twice. In both cases, all employees had a mask, but not an N95 mask. In every case, it was not used properly. Every. Single. Case.

      1. The article discusses the non effected issues too. Mainly increased hypoxia from recirculated C02. Which is shown to have disastrous results on ones immune system. Literally increasing your chances of not being able to fight covid if infected.

      2. Another risk, and one that is harder to treat, is the risk of respiratory fungal infections. This is especially true if you aren’t maintaining your mask properly and are reusing it. I see this being a problem especially with people wearing homemade cloth masks. How many of them are cleaning it every time they take it off?

    3. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages.”

      Don’t expect the ‘public health experts’ to give a shit about this. They are concerned about how the virus spreads in society. The health of individuals is not important. The freedom of individuals to make healthy choices for themselves impedes their mission and must be sacrificed to the greater good.

    4. Does he discuss why we haven’t seen these issues in people who routinely wore masks for long periods of time in their everyday jobs before Covid? Or is it just that pre-Covid nobody gave a shit of those people were being adversely affected by wearing masks, so no studies are available?

  16. If I wanted to be cynical, I might suggest the ACLU is only opposing this because of who is trying to implement it. But that couldn’t be the case, because the ACLU is a principled organization…

    1. That’s a large part of it, but I think that institutions like the ACLU are now so heavily infected with woke that they now oppose civil liberties and due process as a matter of principle.

      “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” – Matthew 6:24
      I think for the ACLU those masters were civil liberties and intersectional ideology,

  17. A summary of why media highlighting those failed trials of Hydroxycholrine that focused on late/serious cases instead of intended prophylactic usage is wrong.

  18. Many victims do not want their assailants investigated, or to go through the steps that it would take have them sanctioned. They want to be heard, supported, and counseled.

    The ACLU knows that it is about the nail.

  19. “Sexual harassment and assault have no place in our schools,” declared the ACLU in its press release.

    “Of course, on the other hand, hypocrisy and bullshit do.”

    1. Hard to have an official ideology without hypocrisy and bullshit.

  20. “The ACLU vs. due process. If you were looking for more evidence that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been losing its principled approach to civil liberties, look no further”

    Hey REASON. You know how you look at the way the ACLU has changed and betrayed its mission in recent years and you shake your head in dismay? Well, that’s how many of us feel as we read REASON these days.

    1. Nailed it!

    2. Harsh, but true.

      It’s not all of the writers, but far too many writers writing some pretty un-libertarian shit while flying the flag of libertarianism.

      I’m not anti-ENB, but don’t really think she’s editor material.

      1. Robby’s links are far superior.

      2. She’s actually one of the better long form, investigative writers they have. Her beat is pretty niche (mostly sex work) and I mostly agree with her positions on those matters. For the links, she can’t seem to help herself in mostly agreeing with establishment left positions and assumptions. She’s certainly allowed her positions, but I don’t think that’s what most people come to a libertarian website to see.

    3. body blow! body blow!

  21. Social distancing in US drops significantly

    “As we enter Phase 2 of the Grand Mitigation, we are reducing The Distance to four feet.”

    1. Well, the six feet was made up back in the dark ages when it was admitted that a cloth mask was ineffective, and only distance was going to work.
      Now that the miracle has occurred, and cloth masks not only work, but should be mandated, we still need to stay six feet apart just because – – – – – – –

      (Remember, the six foot distance was thought up by the same guys who predicted millions of deaths)

    2. Zeno would approve.

  22. “Progressive Democrats’ disappointment with House coronavirus legislation this week caps a frustrating start to 2020 for the left flank of the party, which has seen its favored presidential candidates exit the race, down-ballot hopefuls meet mixed results and some priorities stall in Congress.”


    This article goes into detail about how the progressive wing of the Democratic party keeps getting their asses kicked. After listing all their policy and election failures since taking the House, it cites Bernie Sanders and some polls suggesting that progressives can take comfort in the fact that more Americans find their ideas appealing.

    “A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in March found that 67% of Democratic primary voters supported a Medicare for All system, while a Pew Research survey in January found that 63% of U.S. adults supported making public college free, both priorities of Mr. Sanders’s during his 2020 presidential run.”

    Contrary to what’s being sold here, calling people up and asking them if they want free stuff at other people’s expense and finding that two-thirds of them say, “yes”–that isn’t a new phenomenon. If I were an honest Bernie Sanders or the Wall Street Journal, I wouldn’t give progressives any credit for creating that demand. The desire for free stuff has always popular in the abstract.

    Of course I want an Alfa Romeo 4C . . . right up until the moment you tell me how much it costs.

    For the millionth time, elections are better than polls and markets are better than elections for this very reason–people are rife with conflicting desires, and they often don’t really know what they want to do until they’ve actually done it. Yeah, call people up and ask them if they want free healthcare, a world without air pollution, and all their student debt wiped out, and you get one answer. Give registered Democrats a short list of candidates to choose from who promise all of that, and they vote for Biden, AKA “None of the Above”.

    And in the real world, they sign onto student loans, make tough choices about healthy insurance and healthcare, and drive a car commensurate with their concern about the environment (or lack thereof)–no matter what the polls say or how they voted.

    There will never be an estimate of what people want truer than the actual choices they make.

    1. I said at the time that winning just the House and not the entire Congress in 2018 was the worst result possible for the Democrats. Had they won neither, they could blame everything on the Republicans and tell their nutbag wing that the promised land is coming in 2020. Had they won both houses of Congress, they could have at least stopped Trump from appointing judges and could have likely extracted some real concessions from him. But taking just the House got them nowhere. It just caused their brain dead Prog base to get their hopes up and now has left them disillusioned.

      We saw this happen to the Republicans in 2010. They took the House on a wave of Tea Party enthusiasm. By 2012, the party leaders had sent the Tea Party to the back benches and the Republicans had absolutely nothing to show for holding the House. They ran an establishment stiff for President, their base stayed home, and Obama won re-election being the first sitting President to ever do so while getting fewer votes than he did in his first election. It is playing out exactly the same way for the Democrats in 2020, only with Biden playing the role of Romney and the Bernie Bros playing the role of the Tea Party. It likely to be even worse for the Democrats because at least the Republicans held the House in 2012. I have serious doubts the Democrats will be able to even do that.

      1. The House did manage to impeach POTUS Trump.

        Geritol Joe has lost his fastball. Painful to watch an old man humiliated.

        1. But since the Democrats din’t control the Senate, they didn’t get him removed from office or even have a trial that did any damage to Trump. It ended up being another thing that contributed to the disillusionment of their base. They actually managed to convince people that they were going to impeach Trump and remove him from office. Now that that hasn’t happened and won’t happened, a lot of Democrats are angry and bitter about it.

          If Trump does win re-election, and who knows if he will, a lot of Democrats are going to be devastated. I don’t know how they are going to react. But, if it happens it will be a catastrophic blow to the psyches of a lot of people. I don’t know if they go join a third party and leave the Democrats or just tune out from politics altogether. I hope it is the latter but who knows. Whatever they do, I don’t think they are going to be very enthusiastic Democrats.

          1. Not only did they fail to remove Trump from office, the sham impeachment motivated Trump’s base while, as you note, causing the Democratic base to become jaded. They’d have been far better off doing nothing at all, but they have too many rabid morons in their party and they had to appease them.

            It’s only going to get worse for them as more details of the Flynn investigation come out, but I think you’re spot on that winning the House gave the Democrats just enough rope to hang themselves. If Trump wins I think you see the Democratic party go full retard and start letting people like AOC play more than a token role, the rabid morons will demand change and they’ll get it. This will put the final nail in their coffin, and they will blame everyone else for it.

            1. They will demand it, but I am not sure they have a majority big enough to get it. I wonder if they really don’t follow through and form a third party and leave the Democrats really screwed.

              1. Maybe not this election cycle, but I think it’s coming. The younger Democrats are way dumber and way further left than the establishment folks, but eventually all the older and more reasonable (relative to say AOC) Democrats are going to die off or get pushed out.

                I guess the question is whether the young folks have the patience to wait to inherit the Democratic party or whether they’ll split off to form an actual Socialist party. In either case, the Democratic party as we know it is done for if Trump wins again.

                1. My uncle, die hard pro-union, hard nosed Democrat all his life is now posting pro-Trump, pro-Republican, pro-Conservative memes, his two oldest children (the younger two aren’t old enough to vote yet) are hard core Conservatives. Despite him being a big time gun collector he always dismissed my worries about the Democrats and the 2A, now he is even more outspoken than I am when it comes to progressives and the 2A. He hates Biden with a passion and regrets ever voting for Obama. It is amazing, considering how he used to argue with me about anything to do with politics, to see him agreeing with me on so many issues (I still am not a Trump fan, but he is). He still is pro-union (and I am in the abstract) but he gets disgusted by the unions bedding down with the progressives (my father has a similar take on unions, but is less rabidly pro-union, though he is pro-union). The union thing I think is mainly cultural, my father’s family was Midwestern Scandinavian before emigrating to Idaho in the 1960s and the worked in the heavily unionized mining industry in North Idaho. My uncle is also a commercial electrician who lost his job when his company went out of business during the recession, but he managed to keep employed by getting contracts through the union.

                  1. That was one of the big red flags for Democrats during the last election, far more union guys voted for Trump than they anticipated or wanted.

                    They’re losing people like your relatives because they stopped caring about the issues your average union worker cares about. I’m gonna wager your relatives aren’t super invested in trans rights, or the Green New Deal, or ending the patriarchy, or any of the other social justice bullshit the Democrats have been crowing about for the last decade. “It’s the economy, stupid” is still relevant to a huge portion of the population, and they care far more about feeding their family than the “plight” of some stranger in Manhattan. The only time Democrats talk about the economy anymore is in the context of social justice, and that doesn’t appeal to people who don’t view themselves as victims.

                    1. They lost my Dad in the late 1970s (some was in rebellion against his pro-Democrat parents, even more so was serving in the Army under Carter). I never thought they’d lose my uncle despite how many things he disagreed with them on. But Obama did it. And it took two terms but I doubt he’ll ever go back. Also, it doesn’t hurt that of the six kids, he and one sister were the last Democrats. Now it is just my aunt and I doubt she will ever change (she is also the only one who chooses to live in an urban area and her husband is pretty progressive, her kids even more so). Starting in the 1970s the Democratic party managed to drive 83% of my once solidly blue, progressive family away (the Scandinavians immigrants we’re almost more progressive than the German immigrants). Looking at recent trends in this once solidly blue, progressive population, I believe Minnesota will become even darker purple, much like Wisconsin and Michigan.
                      The middle class descendants of German and Scandinavian immigrants we’re a solid base in the upper Midwest and plains west for over a century, they’ve lost them, especially in rural areas.

                    2. To show how bad it was one of my Dad’s uncles was a card carrying Communist. Mostly, according to family it was to be contrarion but he actually believed it to a degree also (was part of the Farmers Union movement during the depression). The progressives have lost most of my family. And to me, they seem not to care and almost joyful to have lost this demographic.

        2. “Painful to watch an old man humiliated.”

          A normal old guy, sure. Not that amoral, serially groping, sack of filth. Fuck that guy. I hope it physically hurts him to run this ridiculous endurance contest we call a Presidential campaign.

          That said, I’m glad he’s their candidate instead of someone more competent or inspirational.

      2. You make a good case, but I still think we could have done without all the impeachment shit and maybe (with the feckless Republicans co-operating) actually had some investigations into the Obama/Biden/Clinton corruption.

        1. I would have preferred they not won the House. They still did damage. I am just saying they did that damage without doing themselves any good.

          1. They managed to destroy centuries-old institutional norms and went scorched earth against Trump (even though, not having the Senate, they lacked the ability to finish the job). Going forward, I think it’s going to be total war when one party is in the White House and another controls even one house of Congress.

            1. “Going forward, I think it’s going to be total war when one party is in the White House and another controls even one house of Congress.”

              That’ll end well. If the incumbent thinks they’re going to jail after their term, no matter what they do, the incumbent is very motivated to never leave office. Of course, that can’t happen here…

              God damn that worthless piece of shit Obama for corrupting the institutions of governance to a degree that it would do more damage to ignore them than to try the offenders for their criminal actions.

            2. If Democrats have been consistent about anything the last 12 years or so, it’s been a complete inability to think beyond the current political situation. They don’t think anything they do is going to turn around and bite them in the ass or be used against them.

              They killed the filibuster, and Cocaine Mitch has used that to pack the courts that Obama was too lazy to fill. They nuked Bork’s SC nomination and tried to nuke Thomas’s, and ended up seeing Merrick Garland lose his chance at the big chair. They ding Trump for being a sexual predator, and nominate a guy that allegedly used his staffer as a hand puppet, and can’t even stay awake during pressers. Now they get caught red-handed pushing fake intel, unethical unmasking practices, and literally committing perjury in Congressional testimony, and they think this won’t lead to the Republicans doing the exact same thing. And they do this because they know the press won’t hold them accountable for it, as they’re all on the same political team.

              1. I think it is the result of the media being so biased and social media allowing Democrats to isolate themselves from any dissenting voices. The Democrats killed the filibuster because they honestly thought no Republican would ever win the Presidency again. So, they didn’t think it would ever come back to bite them. It is not that they didn’t think long term. It is that they were unable to see the long term as it was. The media bias allowed them to live in this fantasy world where there would always be a Democratic President and they would forever control the courts.

                1. This. And while the MSM gets more and more biased and Dems go deeper into a bubble, more people get there news from other sources and see the bias for what it is.

                  It’s like they still don’t realize that the internet has ended their monopoly on informing people.

                  1. And when I say internet, I’m not talking about Twitter. Last I saw less than 10% of Americans use Twitter.

                2. Totalitarians don’t plan for when the other guy has power, because totalitarians don’t plan on letting the other guy live to get power ever again

                3. The Democrats killed the filibuster because they honestly thought no Republican would ever win the Presidency again. So, they didn’t think it would ever come back to bite them. It is not that they didn’t think long term. It is that they were unable to see the long term as it was.

                  All true. They think their institutional control will eternally increase their ability to control the government.

                  On the other hand while their projection was premature it’s not clear that won’t be true at some point in the near future.

                  1. The MSM cheerleading has Donkeys believing their own BS, thus not able to be self reflective. Being surrounded by yes men is dangerous, and this is also a Trump weakness.

    2. “…right up until the moment you tell me how much it costs.”

      Of course, given that 20% of taxpayers pay the vast majority of the costs and 50% pay nothing, one might even expect the pro-free-shit poll numbers to be even higher, so I think we are also seeing a small but significant portion of the population that is also principled and not of the I-got-me-mine mindset.

  23. You know for all the whining I’ve seen over these rules I have yet to see anyone present actual valid arguments against them.

    1. I humbly submit 30 million unemployed and 6T new debt.

      1. Let’s not get distracted by facts and logic.

      2. He said Valid Arguments you grandma killer.

      3. Why do you want to kill my grandma?

        1. Because the bitch has her hand in my pocket to the tune of: (4.4 trillion USD US Gov’t expenditures * at least 0.40 of that being Medicare, Medicaid to Seniors, and Social Security, per Dr. de Rugy at Mercatus) / (1/6 total US population over 65 * 330 million people) or $32,000 a head. Just this year.

          Money printer go Brrrr, indeed.

          (I don’t really think your grandma’s a bitch. But I bet she’d use worse language against me if I were to magically get rid of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.)

          1. No offense taken, and I agree that the old should not be stealing from the young via government run ponzi schemes.

            My grandma would probably think a lot of nasty things about you if you did that, but I sincerely doubt she’d ever vocalize them.

    2. “You know for all the whining I’ve seen over these rules I have yet to see anyone present actual valid arguments against them.”

      A commie-kid sock?

      1. I think he was talking about arguments against the new rules, not the Obama rules.

    3. uh…. the constitution?

    4. Just to clarify, which rules are you talking about? Title IX or the unconstitutional, illiberal lockdown rules?

      1. I’m talking about the new title IX rules

        1. I thought so. That is why I didn’t jump on the bandwagon.

  24. The aclu has abandoned the first two amendments of the bill of rights. They are the worst kind of prog left org now and should be shunned and never quoted. Only when we rid our culture and society of far left ideology will we be truly free.

    1. Also the Fifth.

      1. At least they’ve been strong and consistent about the Third.

        1. Just you wait until the dems take the senate and ol’ Joe is in the white house. As soon as he can he will activate the military to take the temperature of every citizen every day and then decide if they can have a pass to go outside that day. In order to ‘save the taxpayer money’ (always a key dem concern) he will declare that the soldier must stay in the house to assure compliance.
          The ACLU will oppose whoever first tries to bring a suit claiming that practice illegal.

    2. like most progs, they’re very good on the 4th amendment for some reason. it’s always confused me because the 4th is one of the biggest threats to proggie-utopia.

      1. They plan on redefining “unreasonable” just like they have redefined “temporary”, “infringed”, “necessary” and “male”.

      2. Even on the Fourth they screw themselves with nonsense arguments intended to appeal to SJW’s. If your Fourth Amendment concerns can be dealt with by having the cops simply beat up more innocent white people, then it’s time to stop focusing on proportionality and start focusing on the beating of innocent people.

    3. I would add 4-8 now too.

  25. When it comes to Flynn why is the judge trying to play games? Surely he knows Trump will just pardon Flynn even if the games succeed. If Michael Flynn going to prison is a win for them then they have lost. Bigly.

    1. I have a few hypotheses on it. I think it’s some combination of the following:

      1) He’s got a severe case of the TDS
      2) He’s vying for a promotion come the next Dem administration
      3) He’s getting serious, serious pressure from Obama-World because this scandal is huge. Note, by the way, that the FISA Court took a similar approach. The FBI knowingly submitted false documents, lied in open court, and altered evidence. These facts were pointed out to the court on several occasions, but the chief(?) judge there, Rosemary Collyer, basically pretended there was nothing wrong until the IG Report dropped and it was the top news story for nearly two weeks. Even then, rather than be angered by what happened, she ordered the perpetrators of the offense to come up with a way to stop committing the offense, and even tapped FISA-abuse-denier to spearhead it

      1. I think the guy cited in this blogpost is probably right about Sullivan.

        Here is my prediction for what Judge Sullivan will eventually do if he is forced to make a decision on the motion. He will write a long long opinion that is a one-sided work of historical revision that ignores nearly all the misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors, and relies greatly on the proceedings by which Gen. Flynn was led to plead guilty. He will then comb through every scrap of paper he can find to denigrate and dismiss the rationale that has been offered by DOJ, and find that all the legal arguments offered are specious.

        He will conclude by excoriating Gen. Flynn for the “conduct” underlying the charges that were brought against him — and likely for uncharged conduct involving the allegations of FARA violations (but he won’t make the mistake of referencing “treason” again), and explain why Gen. Flynn’s conduct, in Judge Sullivan’s view, was a threat to the Flag, Democracy, Apple Pie, and Hot Dogs.

        But in the final paragraph he will say that, notwithstanding everything he has found to be true as reflected in his opinion, he has no choice under the law but to grant DOJ’s motion and dismiss the case.

        He’ll order that his opinion be published in the Federal Supplement, with the goal being that his account will be the definitive historical account of the Gen. Flynn saga.

        Sullivan is likely virtue signaling and buying himself a lifetime supply of good will and street creed from the legal establishment. If I had to bet, I would bet what this guy describes is exactly what he does. Sullivan is not stupid. He knows he can’t bring charges on his own or successfully hold Flynn in contempt. So, he is just playing to the cameras and the woke mob.

  26. Reason is still pretending everything is A-OK with the FBI and CIA, I see.

    1. I heard Wray is going to clear it all up with a conference call.
      REASON sucks dick.

  27. Once you realize the left believes it is the job of an American government to protect the world from Americans, instead of protecting Americans, it all makes sense:

    Unless you understand that the U.S. is a nation perpetuated by violence – founded on the genocide of indigenous peoples, built through the enslavement of humans & still dedicated to the project of white supremacy – you may think simply requiring mask usage is good public policy

    1. I saw that. After reading it and seeing that the guy bills himself as a “disabled chronically ill…” I couldn’t help but think “maybe there is an upside to this pandemic”.

      I should feel guilty for that but I can’t bring myself to feel it.

  28. “The ‘just stay home’ message will backfire.”

    There must be some mistake. Do we need to send someone over the The Atlantic editor’s home to do a safety check? This is so off narrative that someone is going to get fired. Will it be the guy at the DNC that gets final say on what they print?

    1. “This is so off narrative that someone is going to get fired.”

      Think tank editorial staffs all over D.C. and New York: “Sweet!!! There’s going to be an opening? Where’s my latest pieces for my prospective employer portfolio?”

      1. Suderman has already submitted his.

  29. I get that Robby is a SJW-lite leftist but I’m perpetually aggravated by his misstatement of title IX. It is not “gender-based discrimination” it’s “sex based discrimination”. You’d think the very leftists that were demanding that sex and gender were different things a few years ago would remember that, but instead they’ve chosen to lump sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity into one incoherent ball. The dishonest misrepresentations are more grating than the to-be-sure equivocation.

    1. to be sure, it’s not the only thing they are confused about

      1. They are not confused about anything.
        They, unlike the individual freedom crowd, have exhibited a laser like focus on their one goal since the sixties. Anything that does not further federal government control of individual actions is a distraction and a waste of time. Anything that furthers federal government control of individual actions is the only objective.
        What you think of as confusion is the fact that they will switch from one form of coercion to another when politically necessary, or even politically convenient.

    2. Yeah, that’s what grievance mining looks like. It gets messy, and sometimes the various groups don’t even like each other.

      It’s kinda funny.

  30. Betsy De Vos is probably the best – well, least bad, anyway – member of Trump’s cabinet, and the constant freak-outs about her are a testament to the power of teachers’ unions in the Democratic Party.

    1. She’s probably the best thing Trump has done other than getting Gorsuch a seat.

  31. New day, same as the old day, Reason with wall-to-wall to coverage on the Obama Administration’s crimes against our republic. Could we please talk about something else?

    1. bated. breath.

  32. The ALCU has forgot one important part of this argument. If the plaintiff does not receive satisfaction in what ever venue they try there is always the courts. But as far as sexual assault in colleges and universities it is always the man involved that gets the short end of the stick. Just having a charged by an unidentified person will in almost every case destroy the accused chances of justice even if no assault ever occurred. When the defendant cannot even face his accuser justice will not be carried out.
    Schools should no be involved as supporting one side in these cases. Now the schools might act as a mediator between the two parts but should not proponent or opponent in act of being a mediator. Now if there is no way to reach an agreement between the two then the schools should turn over the information to the law enforcing agency.
    In other matters of that may come before the schools the schools should also act as a mediator between the two. Again if there is no satisfaction can be found then turn it over to the law agencies to solve it. If a satisfactory solution is found then the school can supervise the agreement reached at their institution.

  33. The ACLU vs. due process. If you were looking for more evidence that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been losing its principled approach to civil liberties, look no further:

    Nah, there was plenty years ago.

  34. “”If allowed to be implemented at educational institutions nationwide, these provisions will make the promise of equal educational opportunities irrespective of sex even more elusive.”

    Aaaaand…… I’m out.

    Even more elusive? Are these people delusional? The vast, vast majority of people seeking and attaining college degrees are women. At many top schools the ratio is 60:40. Two women for every male student.

    Elusive access to higher education for women? It actually makes me more angry at the people who treat their statements and lawsuits seriously when they talk like this. It is laugh-out-loud ludicrous to claim that women are denied equal access to higher education in the united states. It cannot seriously be argued at this point in time… and it has been that way for 30 or 40 years.

    1. Yeah, it’s just a flat out lie and any male that has attended university has seen it.

      I went to college ~15 years ago, and it was clear that as a male you were to be walking on eggshells at all times. So much as a hint of impropriety on your part would have you up to your eyeballs in bullshit for the rest of your academic career. And yeah, way more women than men at the school, although that was a feature and not a bug in my eyes.

      The education system in general has always catered to females, and is only becoming moreso with the removal of gym classes and recess. Elementary school now requires kids to sit still and shut up for hours on end, and anyone who has spent any time around an 8 year old boy can tell you that sitting still and shutting up aren’t their strong suits.

    2. One of the groups least likely to go to college has been for awhile lower middle class white males.

      1. That’s what makes us so privileged. We don’t have tens of thousands in student loan debt for mostly meaningless degrees.

        1. That and the fact that it is very difficult to outsource electricians and plumbers.

  35. I made a comment earlier I want to clarify. I said for all the whining I’ve seen over these new rules I have yet to see any valid arguments against them.

    Since the article is mainly about the new title IX rules I assumed people would know that is what I meant, but I guess not. So okay, just to be clear: I have not seen a valid argument for why Betsy’s new rules are bad. Ideally people would go to the cops and have them investigate, etc. but if people insist colleges get heavily involved these rules are necessary.

    1. I thought this was you intent, that is why I asked for clarification. Considering Reason’s and all the medias hyperfocus on COVID-19 I somewhat understand the overreactions but I read your comment in context of the lead story and wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly. I think many of those who attacked you would agree with you. They should have asked for clarification rather than reacting and looking foolish.

      1. P.S. I thought your comment was fairly self evident. I guess I was wrong, as evidenced by the reaction to it.

        1. P.P.S. I also have been guilty of this in the past. I am not perfect and never claimed to be. Except in jest.

    2. It seems the biggest problem is that Betsy actually followed the proper procedures, had the changes out for review and comment, and in general did it right, rather than send out a decree.
      In addition to creating more reasonable rules, it makes them very hard to challenge in court.

  36. Assertion:

    White woman accuses black man of rape; black man is expelled was a distressingly common series of events under the old regime

    Facts from the linked “evidence”:

    While the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which regulates how colleges respond to sexual assault, collects a lot of data on race, it does not require colleges and universities to document the race of the accused and accuser in sexual-assault complaints. An OCR investigator told me last year that people at the agency were aware of race as an issue in Title IX cases, but was concerned that it’s “not more of a concern. No one’s tracking it.”

    The truth is that we don’t know whether the race issue is true, left wingers and Robby simply assert it because it fits how they view the world. In one sense we should be pleased since their phrasing suggests if blacks were not disproportionately effected they would consider the lack of due process a problem. At least if they believe minorities are disproportionately effected it causes at least some concern. The problem with this is that they could revise their processes to grant due process only to minorities and consider it successful. The idea that everyone is entitled to due process seems foreign to everyone involved.

  37. This is ridiculously brain-dead and ignorant of the ACLU. Figures. As the great Early Cuyler put it with the subject of the ACLU. I’ll ACLU in h*ll before my rights keep getting trampled the way that they have been by such phoney groups as this. They need to be registered as domestic terrorists. What filth they are.

  38. The ACLU is losing its uniqueness and just becoming another organization of the left, gradually conforming itself completely to leftist principles. Like other organizations have done, such as the NAACP, who I believe one of its top goals is to fight climate change (what that has to do with advancing “colored peoples” I don’t know). When these organizations surrender their visions to the vision that fits with the leftist narrative, then they lose credibility – and a loss of credibility hurts their member numbers and revenue in the long run, because even the run of the mill leftist can’t tell the difference (and they often have limited funds to donate to them anyway, so which one should they donate to because they all represent pretty much the same thing)?

  39. I doubt the ACLU every had any principles beyond the communist sympathies of its founders. The occasional lawsuits for unsympathetic clients were a strategic move, not a principled one.

  40. Well, what would you expect them to do?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.