Shills For Obama-Era Title IX Due Process Violations Against Men Insist Adjudication Process Is Constitutionally Hunky-Dory
Shiwali Patel is one of them (@wali824) -- as seen in this tweet from @CatherineLhamon.
Former OCR #TitleIX attorney @wali824 explains: "the Obama-era guidance explicitly required OCR to enforce Title IX in ways consistent with federally protected due process rights." https://t.co/7fcUubpoNE
— Catherine E. Lhamon (@CatherineLhamon) August 10, 2018
From Rewire (in that tweet above), Shiwali Patel reports this gem about the supposedly "fair process" under Title IX for sexual assault.
...There is no inherent conflict between ensuring a fair process for survivors and a fair process for alleged perpetrators. For the record, when we advocate that schools be trauma-informed in responding to sexual violence and that schools stop and prevent sexual harassment, we are not asking the school to take away due process rights. It's possible to advocate for both a fair process for all students and the safety of survivors of sexual violence. Take cross-examinations, for example, where institutions could ensure a fair process by allowing parties to submit questions to each other through hearing panels or investigators, yet still protect the safety of survivors by not permitting direct questioning by the accused student.To highlight a recent case, a federal court last month held that the University of Michigan had violated an accused student's due process rights to a live hearing and an opportunity to question the woman who filed the complaint against him. In doing so, the court "consider[ed] the emotional harm and trauma" to survivors of being directly questioned by their rapists. It concluded that the accused student had a right to question the woman who filed the complaint, but could only do so by submitting his questions to the student resolution panel or other school administrators, who would then ask the questions on his behalf.
I'm no lawyer; I'm just somebody who follows a few lawyers on Twitter; and even I knew immediately that this was, shall we say, merde du cheval.
Luckily, some lawyers who appear to have spent their constitutional law classes awake instead of in a coma quickly popped up on this tweet thread -- quite correctively:
How do the shills justify the new-style proceedings where the accusation is brought by the Title IX office itself, and the self-proclaimed "victim" doesn't even show up at the hearing?
Check out Academic Wonderland if you want to be informed on this issue.
dee nile at August 12, 2018 6:30 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that it's somewhat disrespectful and pretentious to refer to victims of sexual harassment as "survivors"?
"Survivor" implies that there's a realistic possibility of death. "Cancer survivor" obviously makes sense, and given the number of gruesome stories of rape victims that also become murder victims.
But "sexual harassment survivor"?
"The men in my office told dirty jokes and wouldn't stop even when I asked them to! I don't know how I survived!"
Patrick at August 12, 2018 7:06 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that it's somewhat disrespectful and pretentious to refer to victims of sexual harassment as "survivors"?
No, you're not. But calling everyone a "survivor" puts everyone on the same moral plane. I don't think any sensible person would equate the trauma of a really dirty joke with the trauma of actual physical violence, but using the same term kind of forces one to do that, or to toss out the term "survivor" as essentially meaningless.
As an aside, cartoonist Bill Mauldin spoke of something kind of parallel in his book Up Front. In it, he said that Army field jackets with authentic bullet holes were highly sought-after by the soldiers in the rear. They weren't so popular with the combat troops who were wearing them when they got the bullet holes.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at August 12, 2018 8:45 AM
"In doing so, the court "consider[ed] the emotional harm and trauma" to survivors of being directly questioned by their rapists."
How about the "emotional harm and trauma" done by false accusations?
charles at August 12, 2018 4:19 PM
I think Ms. Lhamon's tweet should be construed as a waiver of the right to cross-examine should she ever be in a legal dispute.
Karl Lembke at August 13, 2018 8:08 AM
Leave a comment