UC Prez Napolitano Talks About "Looking Into" Due Process For Men -- As If Looking For A Lost Scarf
Sexual assault accusations made against men (mostly men and a woman here or there) in college have led to their being stripped of their due process rights and having their fate decided in campus kangaroo courts.
UC's Napolitano, speaking at a Senate hearing on campus sexual assault, was asked by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy (R) how schools could better address the rights of the accused. Ashe Schow writes at WashEx:
Napolitano jumped in, saying "we're actually looking in to that right now." This would seem to indicate that such rights were not considered previously -- certainly not last year when she convened a task force to address the issue of campus sexual assault.The University of California, over which Napolitano presides, was recently excoriated by a federal judge for providing students with an "unfair" hearing. Perhaps that is why Napolitano is "now" looking into due process rights.
When Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate HELP committee, asked the panelists how to ensure a fair hearing is held involving an accusation of sexual assault, a noticeable six-second silence followed.
Napolitano again mentioned that UC was "looking into" the issue of due process rights, but the way she talked about what those rights should look like was dismaying.
"It does illustrate the difference between a student disciplinary proceeding and a criminal proceeding," Napolitano said. "The confrontation rights, for example, they should be different for students."
She also mentioned that her school was "going through that right now," an allusion a recent case in which a California judge ruled that the university provided an inadequate procedure for cross-examination. The student was allowed to submit questions only before the hearing, and the hearing panel decided which questions to ask, leaving out questions that would challenge the accuser's side of the story. The panel also provided no follow-up questions and allowed the accuser to avoid answering by claiming the questions were irrelevant.
Again, sexual assault accusations belong in the justice system and not the campus system.
Here's a clue for her: Amendment V, US Constitution - "nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
MarkD at July 30, 2015 6:54 AM
One of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitutional amendments is the right to face one's accuser. The anonymous accusations of the European inquisitions were not going to be tolerated in the new country our Founding Fathers were building.
Not being able to face one's accuser is the hallmark of a dictatorship. Anonymous accusations and being forced to defend oneself without knowing the nature of the accusation itself makes for a nervous population afraid to say or do anything, lest it be misinterpreted as a thought crime.
The Nazis, the Soviets, the Stasi, Pol Pot, Mao, Hugo Chavez, and the Castro brothers all understood this.
How is it these supposed "liberals" don't get it?
Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2015 8:04 AM
How is it these supposed "liberals" don't get it?
You're presuming that they're in favor of the Bill of Rights, but that's not apparent from the evidence presented. Remember, they're progressives. The earlier progressive movement from about 100 years ago admired some of the leaders of the aforementioned regimes. One of them was able to get the trains to run on time.
They think central planning with experts at the controls is far superior to the "wisdom of the crowd".
I R A Darth Aggie at July 30, 2015 9:50 AM
Conan,
Look at liberals pining to be china for a day. Or their support of the USSR. They get it. That is in fact what they aspire to be.
Ben at July 30, 2015 10:04 AM
Napolitano is one of the best arguments for dismantling the DHS.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 30, 2015 10:10 AM
"we're actually looking in to that right now."
Translation: We didn't think of that.
Seriously, whenever anyone in authority, (politician, school administrator, CEO) says that they are looking into it what they mean is they just didn't think of it before.
charles at July 30, 2015 12:22 PM
Translation: "We didn't think it mattered."
OR
"Doing it that way interfered with our ability to exert control and implement our agenda so we didn't do it that way."
Conan the Grammarian at July 30, 2015 1:30 PM
Actual liberalism is pretty much a dead philosophy in the U.S. these days. Back in the 1960s, when the Leninist Left took over the Democratic Party, they forced all of the liberals to make a choice. Some of them converted and became leftists. Some went to libertarianism, and some just dropped out of political participation. Every now and then something resembling classical liberalism tries to pop up among the Democrats, but whenever it happens, the leadership twists their arms to support leftist schemes, which results in the ones that are in elected office losing when they come up for re-election. Witness the moderate Democrats who won Congressional seats in 2012, but were forced out in 2014 after the Party persuaded them to vote for Obamacare.
Classical liberalism's last best chance is to align itself with libertarianism. Liberals may find some of the laissez-faire aspects of libertarianism unpalatable. But we've seen how central planning works out, time and time again. Further, to compel a person to live according to a government plan is to strip them of their human dignity, which is something that is supposed to be a cornerstone of liberalism.
Cousin Dave at July 31, 2015 6:13 AM
Leave a comment