Princeton Guilty Of Liking Due Process Too Much
The Feds went after Princeton, essentially accusing the university of violating federal anti-discrimination law for treating those accused of rape with "too much due process," per a Robby Soave reason story.
Yes, up is down, and ass backwards is right-side-up, in the fight to remove rights from men on campus:
Princeton had been one of the last hold-outs on the standard of proof in college rape trials. The university required adjudicators to obtain "clear and convincing" proof that a student was guilty of sexual assault before convicting him. That's too tough, said DOE. As part of its settlement, Princeton is required to lower its evidence standard to "a preponderance of the evidence," which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser.Princeton's old policy was also criticized by DOE for allowing accused students to appeal decisions, but not accusers. Both this practice and the evidence standard were revised under Princeton's new, DOE-compliant policy.
Both of these are worrying changes for civil libertarians. Using a low burden of proof in college rape trials is very problematic, since adjudicators are poorly equipped to determine innocence or guilt in the first place. They just don't have the right training. That's part of the reason 28 Harvard University law professors have spoken out against their own campus's new, similarly unfair policy.
...On the other side, Laura Dunn, executive director of victims' advocacy center SurvJustice, hilariously told InsideHigherEd that "ingrained male privilege" was the only reason for using a lower evidence standard.
Yes, women speak this way now and aren't concerned that they seem crazy, totally unjust, or antithetical to everything justice in America has been about.
This reflects the rising power of bureaucrats.
The bureaucrat sticks his finger in the wind and crafts policy to fit the prevailing political climate. No time tested standards need apply.
doombuggy at November 12, 2014 6:31 AM
To add to what doombuggy said, the bureaucratic government need not be based on any established principles at all, whether they be principles of law or just basic standards of civilized conduct. Our government is built around satisfying the whims of irrational people, after having raised and trained them to be irrational.
Cousin Dave at November 12, 2014 8:06 AM
This isn't about justice, or even "justice".
It's get-even-ism writ large.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 12, 2014 9:07 AM
Ingrained male privilege? How do I get some of that?
Conan the Grammarian at November 12, 2014 11:20 AM
@Conan: That's the problem in a nutshell, and it applies to all the different flavors of "social justice". SJ says if you're white, male, and/or straight, you're guilty. Never mind the fact that the kind of discrimination some of "your group" did or benefited from may have ended before you were even born; you are still labeled as "privileged", so you owe the professional victim groups anything they demand.
tl;dr: "Social justice" equals sexism and racism, and has no place in the laws of any country or the rules of any institution.
jdgalt at November 12, 2014 7:31 PM
Amy, why do you hate women and love rape so much?
Seriously, men should be grateful that feminism has allowed so many women to feel free to reveal so much of their true selves to men -- who are recoiling with horror and disgust. The majority of women? No, but enough so that things are being ruined for the rest.
BTW, are these delicate, drunken little snowflakes in college the same women who are supposed to be leading men into combat, running fortune 500 companies, and heading the government? What if they don't get a trigger warning at some point and go all to pieces? We can't have that, now can we?
Jay R at November 13, 2014 2:03 PM
Leave a comment