Here is a wonderful, and horrifying, law review article that shows clearly what the "Dear Colleague" letter set in motion and why it had to be changed. DeVos' regulations are far better than what existed. I will vote for Biden, but he is completely wrong about this one - and should now have a clearer understanding of the issue. https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-theory-workshop/files/the_sex_bureaucracy_21.pdf It clearly must not come back in the old form, if there is a change in regulation.
This is an important and provocative discussion, and one that is necessary. But it is disappointing to see the author ignore one of the key problems facing both Title IX and any correctives proposed for it: that, unlike other areas of sexual assault adjudication, Title IX issues are heard by the campus authorities themselves, who have biases and vested interests in the outcome of any investigative proceedings. By "balancing" out the rights of the accused, and here using the Supreme Court's comments on cross-examination as support, you ignore the challenges that are structurally in place in the nature of a self-governing campus community which by nature are preferential to the accused, rather than the accuser -- since the accused is in a sense the de facto representative of the institution and its practices, reputation, and public presence.
It would be nice to hear more about how a future Democratic administration might address those issues, and how the impetus to push back on many of the changes from DeVos and the current administration are driven by a larger goal, and perhaps suggest some rational approaches to correcting the underlying problems with a school trying to address what is inherently a criminal, not an educational, issue.
Biden's response to the DeVos guidance is not at all puzzling. He was pandering to the broad swath of progressives who would like to see the system of campus ajudication prior to the DeVos guidance applied to the courts in general. That is, to replace legal experts with bureaucrats, the discovery of truth with "social justice," and the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt.
Biden is the least of it. The ACLU and a partnership of progressive groups is suing the DeVos DoE over this. Activists on campus and off have declared that they have no intention of following the new guidelines. Time Magazine and the Washington Post have declared them a disaster. It's as if Trump is not alone expressing interest in precedent and the rule of law only when it suits him.
Just want to add my voice to the general direction of the comments and thank you for a very informative and balanced essay. I will vote for Biden without reservation but am discomfited by this and a couple of other knee-jerk positions that Democrats have taken.
"Given the cruel nature of most regulatory initiatives taken by the Trump administration, it is understandable that Democrats have responded to DeVos’ reforms with reflexive condemnation."
No, I do not give them a pass. Each took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is their responsibility to listen and deliberate. I have had quite enough of Democrats decrying the presidential assault on the rule of law while pressing for these excrescences of injustice to continue. Hypocrisy in the name of cheerleading! Shame!
A peculiar sub-title to this article. Isn't this article about rules for a finding of guilt (or innocence) while protecting rights of the accused, NOT about methods of punishment?
Here is a wonderful, and horrifying, law review article that shows clearly what the "Dear Colleague" letter set in motion and why it had to be changed. DeVos' regulations are far better than what existed. I will vote for Biden, but he is completely wrong about this one - and should now have a clearer understanding of the issue. https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/law-theory-workshop/files/the_sex_bureaucracy_21.pdf It clearly must not come back in the old form, if there is a change in regulation.
This is an important and provocative discussion, and one that is necessary. But it is disappointing to see the author ignore one of the key problems facing both Title IX and any correctives proposed for it: that, unlike other areas of sexual assault adjudication, Title IX issues are heard by the campus authorities themselves, who have biases and vested interests in the outcome of any investigative proceedings. By "balancing" out the rights of the accused, and here using the Supreme Court's comments on cross-examination as support, you ignore the challenges that are structurally in place in the nature of a self-governing campus community which by nature are preferential to the accused, rather than the accuser -- since the accused is in a sense the de facto representative of the institution and its practices, reputation, and public presence.
It would be nice to hear more about how a future Democratic administration might address those issues, and how the impetus to push back on many of the changes from DeVos and the current administration are driven by a larger goal, and perhaps suggest some rational approaches to correcting the underlying problems with a school trying to address what is inherently a criminal, not an educational, issue.
Biden's response to the DeVos guidance is not at all puzzling. He was pandering to the broad swath of progressives who would like to see the system of campus ajudication prior to the DeVos guidance applied to the courts in general. That is, to replace legal experts with bureaucrats, the discovery of truth with "social justice," and the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt.
Biden is the least of it. The ACLU and a partnership of progressive groups is suing the DeVos DoE over this. Activists on campus and off have declared that they have no intention of following the new guidelines. Time Magazine and the Washington Post have declared them a disaster. It's as if Trump is not alone expressing interest in precedent and the rule of law only when it suits him.
Just want to add my voice to the general direction of the comments and thank you for a very informative and balanced essay. I will vote for Biden without reservation but am discomfited by this and a couple of other knee-jerk positions that Democrats have taken.
"Given the cruel nature of most regulatory initiatives taken by the Trump administration, it is understandable that Democrats have responded to DeVos’ reforms with reflexive condemnation."
No, I do not give them a pass. Each took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is their responsibility to listen and deliberate. I have had quite enough of Democrats decrying the presidential assault on the rule of law while pressing for these excrescences of injustice to continue. Hypocrisy in the name of cheerleading! Shame!
A peculiar sub-title to this article. Isn't this article about rules for a finding of guilt (or innocence) while protecting rights of the accused, NOT about methods of punishment?