Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Think Solyndra and you have my city. Not far from San Jose and SE of San Francisco.
    Posts
    6,090
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Sexual crimes back to bite and who wants free speech?

    Sorry but you must use the link to read all the story but this should whet your appetite. Mona Charen is the author.

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administ...070000053.html

    Two years ago, this column, along with others, raised an alarm about the Obama administration's decision radically to diminish the due process rights of those accused of sexual harassment onAmerican campuses. There's a new outrage today, but first, a recap:
    In a 2011 letter to colleges, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) mandated that in cases of suspected sexual harassment or sexual assault, universities were to reduce the standard of proof to a more likely than not standard. The new standard requires that fact finders believe only that there is a 50.01 chance that the charges are true.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,736
    Thanks (Given)
    23999
    Thanks (Received)
    17509
    Likes (Given)
    9742
    Likes (Received)
    6188
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475525

    Default

    good find, but you could have inserted a few key paragraphs:

    From link:

    ...I warned at the time that students falsely accused could see their lives upended and possibly destroyed. Clearly, if a student has committed a crime or serious offense, the university has a duty to investigate. But serious charges, which can blight careers, require serious guarantees of the rights of the accused. In a court of law, a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to see any exculpatory evidence the state discovers, the right to be represented by counsel and the presumption of innocence. In felony cases, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.


    No such safeguards are available to accused college students. As self-described feminist Judith Grossman discovered to her horror when her son was falsely accused of "non-consensual sex" by a former girlfriend, "the Department of Education's OCR has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice." Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other documents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him. Thanks to Grossman's legal expertise and assistance, her son was eventually cleared. Other students are not so fortunate.


    Following the Education Department's directive, the University of Hawaii announced that students may be evicted from dormitories after no more than an accusation. At Yale, an unsubstantiated charge of sexual assault against a star football player was enough to deny him a Rhodes scholarship. At Xavier University, a student who was found not guilty of sexual assault by a judge was nonetheless told by the university that he would be prohibited from participating in classes or extracurricular activities with his "victim." Caleb Warner was banned from the campuses of the University of North Dakota for three years. When police investigated the case, they issued an arrest warrant for his accuser, charging her with making a false rape charge. Only after repeated interventions on Warner's behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) did the university finally admit that the charges were without foundation.


    ...

    The reasonable person standard is now gone. The new definition of sexual harassment decreed by the Obama administration is "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct." The purported victim now has the power to decide whether a young man or woman (but it's nearly always a man) is branded a sexual harasser. It's entirely subjective....


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Think Solyndra and you have my city. Not far from San Jose and SE of San Francisco.
    Posts
    6,090
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    good find, but you could have inserted a few key paragraphs:

    From link:
    Abbey, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a 2 paragraph rule in the fair doctrine?

    I tried to post enough to not violate copyright rules.

    I also stated that if one used the link, they could get all of the story.
    Last edited by Robert A Whit; 05-14-2013 at 07:57 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,736
    Thanks (Given)
    23999
    Thanks (Received)
    17509
    Likes (Given)
    9742
    Likes (Received)
    6188
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475525

    Default

    4 is suggested, but discretion is encouraged. Carry on everyone.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums