New Title IX guidelines formalized by Betsy DeVos.

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
Basically, because someone argued and the court agreed that the school not having a process for handling sexual harassment/assault above and beyond simply passing it to the legal system was a form a sex discrimination.

It is noteworthy that the college Title IX process doesn't replace law enforcement, but can be done separate form or in combination with law enforcement.
The point that the process doesn't replace law enforcement makes the argument concerning sex discrimination illogical, if not the insistence that authorities should not be informed.

The guidelines are poorly constructed because they lump together all of the three types of misconduct, ranging from sexist remarks to rape.

Clearly, acts of violence should be reported immediately to internal security and authorities.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
348
88
Country
US
I'll admit I missed this one in passing when it came up before in the thread.

the unusually strict definition of sexual harassment,
Yeah, they just decided that one seemingly at random and not, for example, from the majority opinion (penned by SCOTUS Justice and notorious male antifeminist misogynist Sandra Day O'Connor) on Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled that educational programs are liable for failing to stop student-on-student sexual harassment under certain circumstances under Title IX.

Guidelines for the procedure to respond to a thing using the same definition of that thing as the court case that ruled they have to respond to that thing is clearly madness. Obviously, they should use a definition from a court decision on a different piece of law.

Hell, the Title IX standard being looser than the Title VII standard is the only reason certain "feminist art projects" were allowed to exist. Sure you want to hold campus anti-rape protesters and "art projects" to Title VII standards about what might be considered harassment? Because that's not going to end well for the protesters and projects in question.

decrease in cases that the college must consider
So, the complaint is that the school has no responsibility in situations where the school has no control or where US law doesn't apply (for example when abroad)? Or that they aren't required (but have the option) to pursue cases where the victim doesn't want them to?

potential increase in genuine victims dissuaded from taking action
How so? What in the new process dissuades genuine victims from taking action?

All policy reflects the preoccupations of the people who carried it out. There's never any harm pointing out what some of them may be.
That icky preconception that there should be due process for the accused, there should be a fair hearing of the evidence from a neutral perspective and that the accused should be able to defend themselves rearing it's ugly head again.

if not the insistence that authorities should not be informed.
What insistence authorities should not be informed?

You have two separate processes, and either or both can be used in any combination. The normal criminal process and/or the Title IX process which has a much lower standard of evidence but also can only hand out academic punishments. The accuser can literally take it to the Title IX Coordinator, and leave their office and head directly to the police, or vice versa. Or do one or the other, of their choosing.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Yeah, they just decided that one seemingly at random and not, for example, from the majority opinion (penned by SCOTUS Justice and notorious male antifeminist misogynist Sandra Day O'Connor) on Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled that educational programs are liable for failing to stop student-on-student sexual harassment under certain circumstances under Title IX.
Whatever the context of that case, the definition has been narrowed from current and - me not being an expert so I'm going on opinion of others - is arguably narrower than conventional law. Whether there is a precedent or not to provide some rationale, obviously other definitions were viable. But they chose a narrow one.

So, the complaint is that the school has no responsibility in situations where the school has no control or where US law doesn't apply (for example when abroad)? Or that they aren't required (but have the option) to pursue cases where the victim doesn't want them to?
So if Jim rapes his classmate Ben in France on holiday, the college shouldn't be required to do anything at all?

How so? What in the new process dissuades genuine victims from taking action?
I think if you've spent as much time reading up on issues of sexual assault, as many years on these forums across many threads would indicate, you know exactly what the concerns are. If you don't, you should.

* * *

Of course, when we think of the motives of those who framed the guidelines, we can also bear in mind the initial draft prior to seeking opinion. These were considerably more protective of the accused and less protective of the victims. Fair enough, a great deal of amendments after opinion were made and that's great, but the start point says a certain something about the attitudes of the policymakers.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
What insistence authorities should not be informed?

You have two separate processes, and either or both can be used in any combination. The normal criminal process and/or the Title IX process which has a much lower standard of evidence but also can only hand out academic punishments. The accuser can literally take it to the Title IX Coordinator, and leave their office and head directly to the police, or vice versa. Or do one or the other, of their choosing.
That doing so should be avoided because authorities tend to engage in "sex discrimination," and that false reports are small in number, never mind the fact that the authorities came up with that conclusion.

The claim that there are two separate processes is wrong because even the Title IX process must follow laws of the land.

The point that it deals with "a much lower standard of evidence" only makes matters worse because the same standard must apply to all processes.

If the accuser reports a crime of sexual violence to the Coordinator, the latter must report it to the police for the simple reason that "academic punishments" are not the proper punitive actions for such crimes. In which case, there is no "one or the other" procedure.