Title IX

Catherine Lhamon, Once and Future Title IX Czar, Says Campus Rules Don't Require 'Presumption of Innocence'

Her response to questions from the Senate HELP committee were disqualifying.


On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) scrutinized Catherine Lhamon, a former assistant secretary in the Obama-era Department of Education whom President Biden tapped to return to her previous job.

Lhamon was a key enforcer of the Obama administration's ruinous guidance relating to Title IX, the federal statute that prohibits sex and gender-based discrimination in public education. Lhamon actively participated in the federal government's vast expansion of Title IX to include due-process-free investigations and tribunals for students and professors accused of sexual misconduct. President Obama's Education Department urged colleges and universities to deny cross-examination during Title IX hearings, and move to a single-investigator model that involved a sole official—often a hostile one—dictating the terms of the entire procedure.

These unfair proceedings were reformed during the Trump years: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos restored several due process protections to the Title IX process, effectively ensuring that the accused would be more likely to enjoy the presumption of innocence to which they are entitled under liberal norms of criminal justice.

That's why it was so troubling on Tuesday when Lhamon all but assured that the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard would again be jeopardized if the Senate gives her back her old position. Consider this exchange between Lhamon and Sen. Richard Burr (R–N.C.):

Burr: "Would you support keeping a presumption of innocence requirement in the current Title IX rule, if the Title IX rule is changed?"

Lhamon: "I'm trying to not to over-lawyer. But there isn't a presumption of innocence in the existing Title IX regulation. In fact, the Title IX regulation that the Trump administration took pains to note that criminal procedure does not apply in schools.

Burr: "But my question was, would you support keeping a presumption of innocence?"

Lhamon: "Yes, I understood that. But I couldn't keep something that is not there. It is not there now."

Lhamon is engaging in semantics. While the new Title IX rules—which went through the formal administrative rule-making process, including legal review and public notice and comment periods—might not literally use those words, their entire purpose was to re-enshrine the idea that accused students and professors should not be presumed guilty from the outset of a complaint. That's the point of requiring cross-examination, granting access to attorneys, and mandating an actual hearing rather than a report by a single investigator. Lhamon's opinion that colleges and universities are under no obligation to assume that people accused of sexual misconduct are innocent until proven guilty is thus a startling admission.

This was not the only low moment of her hearing. She later clarified that Title IX adjudicators should merely be "open to the possibility" that an accused person is innocent. She also declined to walk back her previous comment that the DeVos rules make it "permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity."

It's worth remembering that even the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive feminist icon, criticized Obama-era Title IX guidance "for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard." Lhamon has a long history of working tirelessly to undermine basic fairness, and her testimony before the Senate earlier this week gave no indication that she's had a change of heart. Her begrudging contention that she would enforce the existing guidance, even if she does not agree with it, was unpersuasive.

The civil liberties of students and professors will be gravely imperiled by her confirmation as assistant secretary in the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights.

NEXT: Withdrawing From Afghanistan Is Still the Right Thing To Do

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. Is this where we get told that she's adopting the Republican Caricature of Herself?

    1. No, it's where we get told that her statements will be taken out of context by far-right insurrectionists spreading dangerous debunked conspiracy theories.

      1. Misinformation, that must be banned from the internet and text messages

        1. Email filtering no doubt to follow.

          Might have to start hitting the flea markets looking for an actual mimeograph machine.

          Can't trust anything with a USB port. And who doesn't miss that smell?

    2. I mean, what do you expect from a fat shaming mansplaining racist.

  2. As long as trans women can continue to take athletic scholarships away from cis women I’m on board.

    1. Penn State football to become the most progressive program in the country with half their team identifying as women.

      1. The Tittany Lions?

        1. More like dickless wonders

      2. Sandusky really did a number on them, when they were little.

  3. It really is jaw dropping to me just how authoritarian and arbitrary the left is becoming.

    From flower children to "if you think differently than me, I will destroy you." Just amazing.

    1. "'It really is jaw dropping to me just how authoritarian and arbitrary the left is becoming. From flower children to “if you think differently than me, I will destroy you.” Just amazing."'

      I first noticed that in the early 1980's. Nothing new.

      1. Same, the language was mild, but the intent was clear, and backed by action and policy. There was slightly more dedication to neutral presentation of facts, acceptance of different views, minus in 'their' spaces, but I suspect that is because they had not cemented control of campus, entertainment, news media at that point. The 'left' has always been as shitty as the far right. Horseshoe theory for the oh, nobody but the asshats wins.

        1. "The hippies were the biggest frauds in the history of creation."

          Well, if you believed what the media (both sides) said about them, then sure. But the young of every generation tend to be viewed with disdain:

          "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households." Socrates (469–399 B.C.)

          1. How did that end up here?

            1. Poltergeists!

              1. +

            1. Doesn't matter. Whoever said it was right.

      2. "I first noticed that in the early 1980’s. Nothing new."

        In hindsight it was clearly there by the mid to late 1960s, but I was too young to notice then. For me I began to notice the intolerance of my leftist school teachers by the mid 1970s - by 1978 for sure. It was most obvious in the way they played favorites with the kids who toed the party line. It was blatantly obvious they were not interested in any actual free thinking.

    2. The hippies were the biggest frauds in the history of creation.

      1. Bob Weir agrees, sort of:

        “The Summer of Love was pretty much the death knell of what was happening, of the little renaissance that we had in San Francisco in the mid-1960s. If you ask anybody who lived in the Haight-Ashbury before the Summer of Love, they’ll all tell you the same thing.”

        1. Didn't they symbolically bury the hippie at the end?

          1. Yes. To be "reborn as free men".

            What happened to that? Hippies weren't really political. The media conflated them with the "New Left", but in truth they just weren't the same thing.

            1. But as critical thought was not particularly 'stylish' among them, most gravitated to the 'free-shit' side of the political spectrum.

      2. Depends on who you mean by "Hippies". I have kind of a soft spot for those who were hippies before it became the fashionable youth trend (like Weir is talking about). Naive as they may have been about many things, they tended to be genuinely individualistic and wanted to do their own thing, not force society to come along.

        1. Naive as they may have been about many things, they tended to be genuinely individualistic and wanted to do their own thing, not force society to come along.

          That was when they assumed the entire country was simply going to follow their lead. Most of the radicalism of the later decade was them getting pissed off that everyone else wasn't following them like lemmings and doing what they wanted the country to do.

          Make Hard Hat Riots Great Again

          1. Those would be the Yippies like Abbie Hoffman.

          2. I think you are making a mistake of conflating all counter-culture people from the 60s with Hippies. The "real" hippies basically declared their movement dead when it became the broad cultural phenomenon that it did.

            1. + pretty much!

            2. Charles Manson was a real hippie...

              1. I always thought of him as more a con-artist and professional psychopath.

                1. And he never even ran for office. What a waste.

                  1. He likely would have been a better senator than Feinstein.

        2. >>who you mean by “Hippies”


    3. Courtesy of Phil Ochs:

      Once i was young and impulsive
      I wore every conceivable pin
      Even went to the socialist meetings
      Learned all the old union hymns
      But i've grown older and wiser
      And that's why i'm turning you in
      So love me, love me, love me, i'm a liberal

      1. +

    4. "becoming"


  4. Of course she did. The whole point of the Obama Title IX regs was to circumvent due process because proving that the accused was guilty was too hard for progressive feminists to deal with.

  5. I miss Betsy DeVos.

    1. +

    2. One of the few things Trump did right.

      1. Betsy DeVos
        Neil Gorsuch
        Ajit Pai

        Who am I missing?

        1. +

        2. I think ACB is going to turn out well, but it's early.

        3. Bostok sullied gorsuch a bit.

      2. "One of the few things Trump did right."

        You got what you wanted, TDS-addled piece of shit.

      3. Apart from all the other things.

        1. But this TDS-addled piece of shit was certain that Trump simply wasn't couth enough!
          Assholes tend to focus on trivialities.

          1. like Nancy Pelosi ripping up a copy of Orange Tubby's SOTU address.. non-assholes focus on all the laughs and smiles they both shared when meeting to agree to raise the debt ceiling

      4. He did most things right. Considering how many people fought everything he did or tried to do.

    3. Would really like to have seen her have the opportunity to work herself out of a job [shut down the Department of Education]

      1. +

    4. Reason got the administration they wanted. This is just a bump in road on our way to the normal parameters all libertarians crave.

    5. There's always Marjorie Greene Teeth.

  6. Guilty until proven innocent.
    And no due process.

    For Lhamon, the right outcome is more important than right or wrong.

    1. She is very Cardassian.

      1. She does have a thick neck.

    2. the right outcome is more important than right or wrong

      If college men are not sufficiently intimidated, they might challenge the narrative. Fear is the counter to critical thinking.

      1. As an addition, fear is also largely the source of the both the narrative, and the resentment and grievance-based cultures. Irrational fear of people and things, inflated into imaginary situations with inflated or false statistics from which policies, regulations and laws are created. This has never been about justice, or equality.

  7. Congratulations, Reason. You got exactly what you wanted.

    1. Well, yeah, all this might be unfortunate. But, don't you understand? There's no more mean tweets!! Sure, a couple of innocent guys might get railroaded out of school and have their lives destroyed. But, isn't that a small price to pay to not have a guy in the White House who says things that are embarrassing amongst the smart set?

      1. Plenty of stuff Biden tweets out SHOULD be embarrassing to the smart set.

        1. See that "D"? 'Nuff said.
          The TDS-addled piece of shit Brandybuck is not at all concerned.

          1. Yep, believe all women....except the ones that accuse the New York governor. They are lying harpies.

      2. For the greater good.

    2. Someone had to say it...surprised is was this far down in the comments.

    3. Note to foreign readers: The Kleptocracy nourishes the sort of bovine incomprehension of mathematics that helps the self-deluded struggle to ignore the law-changing leverage of libertarian spoiler votes. Assuming half the staff votes LP, at the 1972 leverage their clout would equal 200,000 votes. The Kleptocracy sees only the fascist/communist vote counts and is therefore blind to the trends accelerated by Libertarian spoiler votes. The Kleptocracy got the initiation of force it voted for. It's only the names on the paychecks they whine about here.

      1. Depends on where they live. In my state, Biden crushed Trump. His Orange Immensity could have received every vote cast for JoHo/Spike and it would have made no difference, at all. Which states could have flipped if the LPers voted GOP?

  8. Seems to me that the main problem here is thinking that title IX applies to any of this stuff at all. It says that institutions can't discriminate based on sex. How does that apply to personal relationships among individuals and criminal assaults? Here's what it says"

    No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

    How does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here?

    1. Mission

      1. It's almost like maybe congress should do their job and write the actual laws that people are going to have to deal with rather than giving that power over to executive agencies.

        1. The institution "tolerating" sexual assault is somehow discriminating, even if the naughtiness isn't perpetrated by an employee, but by a fellow customer (student.)
          We could drag in the old in loco parentis argument that makes teachers responsible for the behavior of their charges, but that was whittled back to high school when the 18-year-old vote came in during the early 1970s. The newly matriculated have almost all reached the Age Of Majority, or will before the first semester is out. Of course, there is the movement to re-infantilize those "adults" who haven't completed two decades of life + a year: no booze, can't buy a handgun.
          {But we'll try you as an adult at much younger than 18.}

  9. Well we didn't have this problem before Biteme was in office and after Barry was gone. Now why was that again?

  10. Catherine Lhamon raped me.

    1. Walk around campus with a mattress strapped to your back.

      1. In terms of grievance performance art, I suspect that now an entire bed would be required.

        1. Or a larger mattress. None of this ultra thin ultra light twin nonsense. Barely bigger than a blanket.

    2. I believe Catherine Lhamon raped Eeyore. That makes me a material witness.

      1. A credible witness supporting a credible accusation, one might even say. If one were a member of the narrative-driven press, and there were a target with an (R), or who rejected the dominant paradigm (registered tm, I suspect, team blue).

      2. She's a government official. Guarantee you she raped him. And you, me, and everyone else.

    3. All I really remember is how much her face makes me uncomfortable. I'm sure with a little "recovered memory therapy" we can sharpen up the details.

      1. If you can name a decade during which you were at some point in the same state as her, it meets Reason's demonstrated standard for "credible" accusation.

  11. 'Her begrudging contention that she would enforce the existing guidance, even if she does not agree with it, was unpersuasive.' An activist is less than honest? Social 'justice' theorists and practitioners are in fact, in no way concerned with matters of justice? Rico, this is the sort of suggestion that is keeping you from getting invitations to the really good parties. The parties with great hors d'oeuvres and swanky people, not just journalists. You know, the 'betters' that one of those dim trolls is always on about.

    1. "...that one of those dim trolls is always on about."

      Muted his ass and I'm better off for it.

      1. You say ignorance is bliss.

        You like the bigotry button that censors counter arguments that you deny but can’t refute.

  12. Catherine Lhamon will not rest until Haven Monahan has been brought to justice.

  13. > "But I couldn't keep something that is not there. It is not there now."

    BUT IT IS THERE NOW! The presumption of innocence undergirds all of English and American criminal law! By asserting it isn't there she is asserting that Title IX violations are not felonies, misdemeanors, and not even an infraction. It's asserting that rape on campus does not even rise to the level of jaywalking.

    1. "BUT IT IS THERE NOW!..."

      You got what you wanted, TDS-addled piece of shit.


      I’ll accept that logic.

      It only seems like laws don’t exist unless someone is being persecuted by them.

  14. somebody is still hateful about missing prom.

    1. There is probably more to that than a jest; such persons can devote an entire lifetime to achievements and attaining power for the sole purpose of doling out payback.

  15. exactly. when I was in grade-school it was easy to tell which teachers could land a man and which were in NOW

    1. this was @quo. squirrels.

    2. In high school, I had a teacher who worked as a ring girl at the boxing matches in Atlantic City during her college years.

      Many, many fantasies around her.

      1. oh yes. Geometry was basically Miss New Jersey and Pre-Calc was a 5'10" redhead ... no idea how I got A's

        1. English for me. Strawberry blonde. Had a thing for a math teacher that was twice her age.

      2. Are you saying she had a significant figure?

  16. We Koch / Reason libertarians overwhelmingly backed Biden mainly because we knew he'd be better for billionaires like our benefactor Charles Koch. But he's also doing plenty of other great things. This is just one example.


  17. "The civil liberties (is this code for rights?)... will be gravely imperiled by confirmation of her as assistant secretary of the E.D. of Civil Rights."
    Putting coercive govt., i.e., an elite who have been granted a monopoly on violence, imperils/results in violation of rights. I note the original goal (end) was right's protection, however the means is inconsistent with the end.

    1. Tara Smith of the University of Texas managed to define a political right in ten words. This is in "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" on Amazon.

  18. No matter what they say, I consider you a National treasure.

  19. The Llama's doublethink matches the Soviet prosecution team at Nuremberg, as revealed in "The Arms of Krupp" Kindle version. "A man in communist custody was already guilty--that, after all, was why he had been picked up." The obvious insincerity comes from Hitler-church-bell republican infiltrators seeking to tarbrush Dope Czar Biden's gang as Christian National Socialists rather than the international socialists running China and North Korea. Were it to work, we'd have to assume God's Own Prohibitionists are something other than fascist Axis ideologues. Here we have the pot calling the kettle black in an effort to erode some LP spoiler vote clout and keep them coathangers bloody.

    1. Don't forget Comstock.

  20. There's always Marjorie Greene Teeth. She's as republican as they can find.

  21. See, if they could prevail against a presumption of innocence, the case would be in criminal court, where it should be.

  22. Check Who is Elisa Gayle Ritter ? check confusion between Reba Entire and Elisa Both are Ex-wife of Narvel Blackstock.

  23. She doesn't look like she will ever have to file a title IX complaint. So whats her horse in this race?

  24. "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a progressive feminist icon"

    For now. Just wait until she's unpersoned for such heresies.

  25. This totally angers me, that a fundamental part of American common law is ignored. I wish that Trump had hired a reasonable DOE secretary so that any idea that DOE secretary had wasn't automatically dismissed.

  26. Free advice to college students, though they may well perceive that is worth only what they paid for it:

    (1) if you are a cis-gendered heterosexual male, be aware that should you be charged with rape or sexual coercion or "harassment", even with circumstances that in the real world would be considered patently false or perhaps a parody of fact, you will still likely have to "prove" your innocence. And the complainant will be allowed to change her story if her first telling is demonstrated to be an impossibility (e.g., she may be allowed to change the date without impairment of her credibility if you can prove you weren't in town the night you are accused of misbehaving). Therefore (a) behave yourself and (b) don't voluntarily put yourself in situations that lend themselves to false charges being made and possibly believed.

    (2) if you are a female contemplating the use of this (metaphorically nuclear) weapon against a male who has "offended you", you are surely aware that your complaint and his denial will not be regarded as having similar credibility. But are you equally aware that personal destruction wreaked against a male in this fashion that he cannot otherwise address or defend against may ultimately result in your suffering from his exercise of a right of private action? It may be tempting to use the "mechanism" set up to your advantage to grind up a victim, the price for doing it may turn out to be unacceptably high. Therefore restrict your complaints about sexual victimization to the truth - the whole truth.

    1. Why the surprise at this harpy.
      Men are GUILTY. Period.

  27. Seems like one of the easiest ways for the Right to start minimizing the power of the Left in schooling is using their foolishness against them. Start making "claims" against Leftists professors. Start making "claims" against female college students. If there's no presumption of innocence, they'll eat their own.

    1. That’s exactly right. The claims do need to have merit from the perspective of the claimant.

      That will require those of us who don’t think ANY of these title IX have merit to perceive it as the war it is.

      Intelligent people will have difficulty, but it can be done.

      It won’t get mainstream media coverage so the details of each battle will need to be shared on social media.

    2. Think about it.

      The sluttiest women make the claims as their behaviour puts them in contact with the most men.

      There is probably a list of male actions that constitute grounds for IX persecution.

      We’ll need a list of similarly offensive female behaviour and men willing to see the persecution through to conclusion or accuse the universities of hateful misandry for disregarding men’s claims.

  28. Since due process rules should be shot down if they allow rapists to get away with their crimes, and since Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping, does this mean the Biden administration is going to appoint judges who will overturn Miranda v. Arizona?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.