12 Comments

Entirely agree. This is a terrible appointment. Ms Lhamon has not published much and I have not forced myself to read through all her previous Congressional testimony. That said, people who dealt with her during her previous time at the Department of Education report she justifies lowering standard of proof in campus sexual cases on the grounds that such alleged transgressions are “civil rights violations. “

Standards of proof were lowered during Civil Rights movement, properly in my view, in circumstances in which federal authorities sought to prosecute atrocities, e.g. murders of voter registration workers, and complicit local law enforcement had already destroyed evidence.

Analogy between such horrors and

encounters between young people, both likely addled by drink, would be risible if aftermath of “convictions” were not so devastating

This is bad law and worse politics. Embrace of radical feminist orthodoxy on “toxic masculinity” will continue to drive men of all races out of the Democratic Party

And, yes, I am a feminist in what I regard as best American tradition: “My rights and nothing more; my rights and nothing less.”

Expand full comment

What of your duties?

Expand full comment

Do my best to fulfill them. Suffragists sought civic responsibility

Expand full comment

Good to hear. What are they?

Expand full comment

I'm less concerned with Biden's bravery, since it's subjective eye-of-the-beholder stuff no matter who is President. I am interested in finding our more about DeVos's own understanding of higher academics and the collegiate ecosystem. Maybe she actually possesses that kind of comprehensive knowledge. Maybe her ruling was researched and written by professors like Nussbaum and other legal scholars, who had DeVos's ear based on a mutual goal of curtailing government regulation of the education system. I'm willing to give Betsy credit if she performed her own due diligence in good faith and had more of a stake in the matter other than her lifelong goal of privatizing education.

Expand full comment
author

It is hard to know how informed DeVos became herself, as opposed to the Departmental officials. But the Final Rule was VERY much better than the draft rule, after a long and highly engaged notice and comment period - which gives one a little more faith that these can make a difference. But what matters most is the substance of the Rule rather than the interior of Betsy DeVos's mind.

Expand full comment

Fair enough, and I appreciate your reply. Giving discretion to the colleges themselves, as you indicated in your response to Chiu, may have been enough for Betsy DeVos. It may have been the only skin she had in this particular game.

I also hope the Final Rule makes a difference that's substantive, the kind that the frat bros can't appropriate to leverage their own agenda.

Expand full comment

Either version is regulation. No one has or is about to curtail regulation.

Expand full comment

Questions that arise for me from this are:

1) Who decides the 'properness' of 'proper' due process? Ought it not be codified?

2) Same question with 'fundamental fairness'. What is it?

3) Ought we evaluate Nussbaum's message upon identitarian grounds or rather based on the scrutiny of her message?

4) Is it an alcohol-fraternity complex, or just Greek life? In what way have you ruled out sororities from contributing? What are the trends by gender on binge drinking? Is it not accurate that binge drinking among women is increasing at a greater rate than among men?

“Gender Differences in Binge Drinking | Alcohol Research: Current Reviews.” Accessed May 19, 2021. https://arcr.niaaa.nih.gov/binge-drinking-predictors-patterns-and-consequences/gender-differences-binge-drinking.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the comment. I do write "Alcohol has to be consumed well away from adult eyes, often in fraternity or sorority houses." You're right that it is the substance of Nussbaum's analysis that counts - and it is extremely good. I simply wanted to point out that she's hard to dismiss as a crazy alt-right red-piller. The 2020 Rule gives a fair degree of discretion to colleges (eg. on burden of proof) to decide what is "proper", without fear of losing federal dollars. Whether variation across campuses is a good thing or not is another matter.

Expand full comment

Fair enough. I just struggle with the framing as a gendered issue in the face of the data. I am not much of a social constructionist or a gender essentialist. YMMV.

This being said, I really appreciate the work and the article. Thanks!

Expand full comment