skip to main |
skip to sidebar
From
The National Review:
This new motion comes after a wave of cases across the country that
have invalidated and reversed the results of campus kangaroo courts —
and these rulings are coming from judges across the political/judicial
spectrum. In California, progressive state-court judges issued rulings
that effectively halted proceedings in 75 campus sexual-misconduct cases, while California universities reworked their processes. Earlier this month, Amy Coney Barrett and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined dozens of other courts in ruling that university processes should face exacting legal scrutiny.
In fact, it’s hard to think of a modern legal policy more thoroughly repudiated than the Obama administration’s 2011 “Dear colleague” letter ,
which required every single public and private college that received
federal funds (except for the few religious colleges that had opted out
of Title IX) to adjudicate sexual-misconduct complaints under
streamlined procedures that mandated lower burdens of proof, implemented
a form of double jeopardy, and discouraged basic elements of due
process, such as cross-examination.
Acting under intense internal and external pressure — and empowered
by a #BelieveWomen ideology that dogmatically asserted that it is
extremely rare for women to file false sexual-assault claims —
universities encouraged women to report and prosecute cases under a
system that was built from the ground up in defiance of generations of
jurisprudence defining appropriate due process and in defiance of clear
legal standards that prevent both anti-male and anti-female discrimination. Much of the critique of university processes has focused on the
plight of falsely accused students, and many of the cases contain facts
so bizarre and extreme that it’s hard to believe that any fact-finder
anywhere could have imposed punishment. (Read more.)
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment