For the last four years, a little-known civil rights office in the U.S. Department of Education has forced far-reaching changes in how the nation’s colleges and universities police, prosecute and punish sexual assaults on campus.
With a strong mandate from President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, the office’s lawyers have redefined campus sexual assault as a federal civil rights issue, changed the standard by which allegations must be judged and publicized the names of a growing number of schools under investigation for allegedly failing to respond properly to complaints of sexual misconduct.
“This is the first administration to call sexual violence a civil rights issue,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, a former ACLU lawyer in Los Angeles who, as assistant secretary of Education, heads the Office for Civil Rights and has brought the style of an aggressive litigator to the once-staid education post.
“We don’t treat rape and sexual assault as seriously as we should,” she said, citing surveys that found one-in-five women say they were victims of sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact in college. There is “a need to push the country forward.”
A fluke. Do not count on it actually being enforced or adopted by universities.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see you express agreement with this intitiative–most of the conservative voices I’ve heard on this issue have slammed the new sexual assault guidelines and have stated that sexual assault on college campuses
Is an exaggerated problem. Glad to see that not all conservatives feel that way.
Rape is a serious crime. So is falsly accusing someone of rape.
This conservative’s objection to the new guidelines is that they can create an imbalance that tramples on the rights of the accused. Quoting from the article:
And from the article’s author, Timothy Phelps:
It isn’t just conservatives expressing concern when college administrators and lawyers can make a statement like that.
According to some surveys, cited in Wikipedia, rape has declined overall in the last four decades:
Did you catch that? If not, I’ll repeat: “…only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim.”
If rape can be asserted, whether or not the “victim” says he/she has been raped, isn’t that a formula for injustice? Doesn’t that make the proceedings nothing more than a kangaroo court?
There was a time in this nation when women found it nearly impossible to get justice in rape cases. All these years later I’d hate to see us make the same mistake with men as the victims of injustice.
Radicals tried to convict Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in a public hearing by citing the “preponderance of the evidence” rather than actual evidence or proof. It seems like these guidelines are intended to work on that model.
This action by the Obama administration smells like another appeal for votes to me. A lawyer should know better.
Tina, all good points from where I see it, you added needed balance.
Here’s another really interesting article about our college campuses and the student’s ability to live in an environment where they are not always protected.
The Coddling of the American Mind:
“In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.
There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.
But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Once more Tina I thank you for good clear thinking.
your comment about
“Obamas vote seeking intentions” are valid.
Never has he worked for the American public as hard as he does to promote himself or further the power base of his parties fraction that follows his ideology.
Should this administration, so eager for a positive legacy, and so deceitful in his governing style ever be trusted to take the steps needed for American values, My answer is quite obviously, no!
Harold, I had to re-think this one and it looks like my praise might be premature. There’s some obvious flaws in the program.
There is by far more of a rape problem than false accusations. If false accusations become a problem guidelines can be amended added to or fixed.
Bottom line a case has to be proven. Ignoring the problem because someone might falsely accuse it irresponsible. Any false accusation would be shamed beyond. Rape is a huge problem.
Look at how many years Cosby got away with it because they were afraid to speak against a celebrity.
Rape is not a right, freedom, Liberty, or just a small problem.
Dewey the guidelines in our actual laws should be sufficient.
See http://www.hg.org/rape-law.html“>here, here, and here.
Also we don’t bring people before the courts or a hearing based on how many cases have occurred.
No one here has suggested that colleges should “ignore the problem because someone might be falsely accused.”
It is a huge problem when “guidelines” fail to protect the accused and these guidelines do just that.