mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Higher Education Watch
Campus Inquisitors Have Second Thoughts

The Office for Civil Rights in Education, the highly ideological governmental agency that has spent the last five years ordering colleges to expand their sex bureaucracies and undermine due process for students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct, has determined that one college took its advice a little bit too far. The Washington Post reports on the agency’s settlement with Wesley College in Delaware, which expelled a student without even asking for his version of events:

So “inequitable” was the college’s treatment of the accused male student that the OCR, better known for its aggressiveness in protecting the rights of accusers, has forced the college into a settlement involving wholesale revisions of its adjudication process to make it fairer to those accused of sexual misconduct.

What also makes the case unusual is that it is believed to be a first for the government.

In summary, the student didn’t fully know precisely what he was accused of, the basis for the accusation or what recourse might be available to back up his claim that he was not responsible. Indeed, he was summoned to what he thought was a preliminary “educational” session, something informal, without knowing that it was a full-blown hearing that would determine his fate, a hearing for which he was completely unprepared.

The OCR has leaned on colleges across the country to implement proceedings with biased judges, a low standard for guilt, and few procedural protections for the accused student or professor. In its ruling on Wesley College, however, the activist bureaucrats said that while the hearings should be stacked against the accused, they should afford him or her a better chance than he would have in a Soviet show trial.

OCR’s finding that Title IX at least affords a modicum of protection to students accused of sexual misconduct as well as their accusers will likely improve the prospects for fairness on campus by leading some colleges to abandon their more outlandish proceedings. But it would be have been better if the agency hadn’t set the inquisition in motion in the first place.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jim__L

    “OCR’s finding that Title IX at least affords a modicum of protection to
    students accused of sexual misconduct as well as their accusers will
    likely improve the prospects for fairness on campus by leading some
    colleges to abandon their more outlandish proceedings.”

    That, or it will prevent true due process from being implemented.

    OCR needs to be taken down.

  • FriendlyGoat

    I have long maintained that egregious accusations and kangaroo procedure will be turned back in finding the proper balance on this issue. Here you see it happening administratively. We will also see some court rulings.

    • Anthony

      Off topic: a consideration that “any” human wanting U.S. success cannot feel optimistic about (“no matter where you fall on the political spectrum this is a tragic outcome.” – http://www.theatlantic.com/political/archive/2016/10/what-will-happen-to-the-trump-die-hards/504032/

      • FriendlyGoat

        Thanks for both of these. On the first one, we really do have to wonder and worry about where Trump supporters go for solace if they lose this election.
        Some of them are just batsh*t crazy as the saying goes, but a full half, maybe two-thirds of protestant church people are now sucked into this style and substance of “communication”. To where and what for them from here?

        The second one I will take as vindication that tax cuts didn’t create jobs as advertised. But even I know that I’m one of the few people in any party who has become convinced enough to say so. As you know, it’s not a popular view. So many people have been “brought up” on Reagan and post-Reagan that few will even CONSIDER that it might have worked in reverse, here and everywhere else.

        Also, thanks for your “like” over on another thread today. It’s tough to talk to these guys about what an aspirational view of human rights might be. It’s tough to defend that there are real reasons for why the college instructional community has not “gone Limbaugh”.

        • Anthony

          I’ll take your statements in reverse order: you’re welcome as you know and I really thought your point about exchanging on site (internet generally) was poignant. The Stiglitz’s article I thought would support your on-going tax position as well as shed additional light on this so-called populace phenomena – though tensions that populists face when confronted by globalization, deindustrialization, and consequent transformation of our country’s way of life is not unique historically. Finally, character matters and you can’t defend the indefensible no matter how one tries to contort it. That is, many, before Trump, have selfishly advantaged themselves via exploiting both the callow and emotive dispositions of hurting people. The result leaving said folks still “with the dirty end of the stick”. To that end, the hard work begins Nov. 9, 2016 perhaps ( but “skeptical self-analysis is beyond the powers of the gullible because they already feel insecure, must [as they say] ‘believe in something’ if only in believing. Intimations of any lack in their judgment are resisted.”). Thus, they (we) may have to move from some extensive tribe type thinking – as you imply, to where and what.

          As an aside FG, there is an outstanding essay on Forms of Hatred @ TAI. Read essay if you have opportunity.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks, and again I would add the not insignificant concern that Trump has not really lost yet.

          • Anthony

            I concur and do not want to be understood otherwise. As a very old competitive athlete, I had it drilled into me that nothing is won until it’s actually won (and if you keep it close, then bad things may happen).

        • Anthony

          Update: Reading this linked piece ( theweek.com/articles/654890/america-ever-recover-from-donald-trump ) reminded me of your expressed internet travails. I trust if you read it you can draw a direct link to coarser “norms” (and I say that sardonically) being applied (with some cases) in anonymous internet discourse.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks.

            1) The article assumes Trump does not win the election. I still need to see it correctly over before I declare it “over”. I still think there is some risk—-even though HOPING for better than our national submission to this spirit of over-the-top deception coupled with meanness.

            2) As for where the Republicans go if they lose—–once upon a time I would have suggested “back to church” for some recalibration of attitude and message. Today, as best I can tell, too much of the church is lately with Trump—-so, better NOT go back THERE.

          • Anthony

            If you note, I omitted Trump from my initial reply to not be distracted, as I intended focus to be on “coarseness” (trending down as author referenced). Still as I said prior, nothing is won until it is! My other intent was to bring to mind “where we (country) go” more so than where Republicans go – including our Christian brothers and sisters. By the way, you and Proud Skeptic had an enjoyable exchange on another thread.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m not sure there is any cure for “coarseness”. Today, almost any position representing sense or kindness is immediately assassinated by dismissing it as “political correctness”. It’s hard to imagine who fixes that. Lord knows both of the Obamas have tried—–without penetrating the core of the coarseness. Pope Francis is trying.
            Who do we get after them?

  • Beauceron

    Who cares what our politicized, corrupt DOJ has to say?
    The DOJ/FBI are as crooked as the criminals.

    • Jim__L

      Mostly it’s the influence of the Obama administration. Comey told the truth, he was just forbidden to act on it.

      Get rid of the corruption at the top, and it will be surprisingly easy to reform the organization as a whole.

      • The_Smashmaster

        He had a duty to preform, he didn’t. The most charitable interpretation is he was derelict in those duties he was appointed.

        I’d put a special prosecutor on the case, I’m sure many of Comey’s subordinates would gladly testify against him.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service