I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world
I don’t disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
public court
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn’t perfect but better than any of the alternative.
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them.
The original Title IX didn’t say anything about accusations of sexual assault, at all. It literally just sad that federally funded educational programs could not discriminate with respect to sex. The interpretation that that included sports programs or similar extracurriculars came later, the interpretation that that requires a parallel court-like system for adjudicating sexual assault allegations by students under a looser standard than actual courts came even later.
The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence).
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let’s say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn’t be claiming that bringing that into the principal’s office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
For every 100 reported to police, about 13 get sent to a prosecutor (the rest being dropped due to lack of evidence, strong contradictory evidence, inability to identify a culprit, that sort of thing) about 10 of which result in a charge and 7 in a conviction, prosecution and conviction rates not radically out of line with other crimes. Prosecutors only try cases they think have a good chance of being successful (meaning they don’t think the evidence is good enough in about a quarter of cases sent to them), and the standard for criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt. That 13 is a bit lower than other crimes, but not radically so. Most stats you see implying it’s much worse (like an order of magnitude worse) are essentially using a fudge factor for unreported rapes as though the criminal justice system can even hypothetically do anything about an unreported rape.
Considering that the standard for a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt” while the standard for a Title IX hearing is at strictest “clear and convincing” and is often “a preponderance of the evidence” (aka slightly more likely than not), the rate of being found liable in a Title IX hearing is much higher, though not as high as it was when some schools used training said that women never lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way, the accused didn’t need to be told exactly what they were being accused of or what evidence they needed a defense for and an accuser’s testimony could not be questioned.
EDIT: Just to point out how ridiculous accounting for “unreported” rapes is, if every time a rape was reported to law enforcement the accused was summarily executed without any process of any kind, just accusation->death, the “conviction rate” would still be at most ten percent.
Me: reporting, prosecution and conviction rates are disastrously low.
You: that’s because they don’t come forward much, cases aren’t taken to court and men are found not guilty, therefore none of those men are guilty.
You need a higher standard of proof to put someone in jail, but this is just chucking them out of the same institution as their rape victim, and kids get chucked out of school for just punching someone, without lawyers being involved. Just move the guy on. That’s all.
You need a higher standard of proof to put someone in jail, but this is just chucking them out of the same institution as their rape victim, and kids get chucked out of school for just punching someone, without lawyers being involved. Just move the guy on. That’s all.
So, you want to end someone’s college career on someone else’s word alone, unless they can provide absolute proof that person is lying (and if we’re following Obama/Biden era rules they aren’t required to be told what they’re trying to prove beforehand) they should be expelled from college in a way that will make it much harder to get admitted to another one, right?
Sounds fair /s
I’d note that the Devos guidelines Trump brought back call for things to be done to make it easier for the alleged victim prior to any finding, so long as those actions aren’t punitive - examples given back in 2018 were things like changing housing arrangements or switching classes for one or both as necessary to separate them. The key point being not punishing the accused before any finding and establishing a process that is as fair as could be managed for making that finding.
Your accusation->death line is hyperbole.
It is hyperbole, but it’s hyperbole to demonstrate a point - when you talk about how abysmally low conviction rates are, even if we went as far in the other direction as possible and simply executed everyone accused on the spot, you’d still be able to complain that the conviction rate was painfully low at ten percent because the bullshit about including “unreported cases” in a way we don’t treat any other crime makes a ten percent conviction rate the highest it can hypothetically be, when it’s really not radically different than any other crime if measured by the same metrics.
Dude, unreported crime rates exist for other categories than rape and sexual assult, but it’s particularly high for crimes where victims believe that they are very unlikely to get a conviction and are very likely to have a terrible time in court and death threats afterwards, like sexual assault, rape, and organised crime syndicates.
It’s not jail, it’s school exclusion. It happens all the time over far less serious behaviour than rape. Don’t bring that expensive lawyer justice-evasion victim-blaming victim-shaming shit into schools.
Don’t keep failing to join the dots on the rapist changing the rules to benefit fellow rapists.
unreported crime rates exist for other categories than rape and sexual assult
…but no one tries to use them when calculating conviction rates, because they’re vague estimates rather than any kind of hard number and everyone properly understands in every other case that law enforcement can’t even hypothetically do anything about an unreported crime.
It’s not jail, it’s school exclusion. It happens all the time over far less serious behaviour than rape.
Are you college aged or older? Do you have student loans? Now, imagine you have all those student loans, but you have no degree and a dramatically harder time moving to another school (for which you’d have to take out further student loans if you manage to get in) because the previous school says why you were expelled when asked.
If it were just “go to another school” with that being the full extent of the consequences, that would be one thing but it’s really not.
Also, under the Devos rules supporting actions can be taken to make things easier for the accuser in response to the accusation alone (before any hearing, finding or even investigation), but those actions cannot be unreasonable, punitive or deny access to education (for example changing class schedules for one or both, changing housing assignments, or other things to prevent contact between them).
victim-blaming victim-shaming shit
So, no one can question or challenge any part of an accusation in any way? Or do you have some (likely media fueled) image in your mind that the guidelines allow for the accused or his lawyer to grill the accuser, shouting irrelevant questions at her until she breaks down and submits? Because what the Devos guidelines actually call for for cross-examination is that all questions have to be submitted to the judge-analog (typically Title IX coordinator, but can be delegated) who is supposed to decide if the question is relevant or not to the accusation and the question can only be asked if it’s approved. If she’s a slutty slut slut is unlikely to be considered relevant, as is what she was wearing unless an article of clothing is somehow central to the evidence.
Question: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment.
You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.
Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.
So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.
It’s just a school expulsion, not prison, and it’s well documented that women don’t go to trial because they know it will be them and their lives on trial, not the rapist, who will very very likely get off. Bringing all that into K12 is just bringing a set of scales that are tipped heavily in the rapist’s favor and a horrific experience for the victim into a school expulsion.
Trump knows the effect this will have, and I expect you do too, but you’re pretending not to. Admittedly Trump is clearly and publicly well practiced at using expensive lawyers to silence women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by him, and I can’t say the same about you, but use your brain and stop defending the Rapist in Chief for watering down consequences for rapists in education.
Ah yes, the catastrophic effect having a person ask questions before they expel someone will have.
You know what, since you clearly don’t care about expelling innocent people and there are many unreported rapist despite no lawyers being involved, let’s just expel everyone. That way, we expel all the rapists. Problem solved.
Because there are clearly no issues with expelling innocent people in your head. It’s not like the mere accusation would follow a person for the rest of their life. I am sure they will have no issue explaining to employers, that it was just an expulsion and they are innocent, that they should be given a job.
All that surely won’t have worse consequences than a lawyer asking questions.
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous. It’s always full on character-assassination of the already traumatised victim. You also seem to think that lawyers bring truth and clarity where teachers and administrators cannot, and you’re incorrect. The situation in court is currently skewed very badly indeed in favour of rapists. It doesn’t need to be so in school. You’re also dismissing the effect that rape has on girls and women as if it were nothing. You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
If your only argument is making up fake numbers and facts and calling me Trump supporter and rape supporter, then there is no point continuing here. I can’t disprove every irrational fear you make up about lawyers in your head.
You are trying to pretend to some moral high ground with these comments, but what they boil down to is this:
“Everyone, please present to me fact based arguments that ignore the facts about the established goals and behavior about the person proposing these changes. THOSE facts are undesired.”
I disagree with your assessment of the legislation in any case, but you haven’t accepted similar arguments from anyone else, so I don’t see why you’d accept them from me.
It’s a shitty change that also comes from a shitty person.
We know trump serves only himself and his cronies. Ergo, any legislation from him is to serve himself or his cronies.
And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it. It’s relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up. These are his kind of people. He gets them. He protects them. Girls and others who have been raped? No, he just wants them to suffer in silence, shut up or be humiliated in public.
It’s relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up.
He’s not proposing changes. He’s rolling back the changes Biden made, which in turn mostly rolled back the 2018 changes made by Devos, most of which were either tied to basic notions of due process or were things people had won lawsuits over since the previous changes by the Obama admin.
You’re playing semantics over what counts and doesn’t count as change while the USA’s Rapist in Chief allows lawyers to obstruct school exclusion meetings. Did you conveniently forget that he (unsuccessfully) tried to sue his own rape victim for libel? Yes, of course he believes that wealthy men should be allowed to use high powered lawyers to cover up their crimes against women.
I know right? We should definitely go back to the rules where if a woman accused a man he wouldn’t necessary know who accused him or of exactly what, what evidence was brought against him, or what the procedures are and what training was given to faculty in how to follow those procedures, where part of that training in at least some cases includes that women never ever lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way (we found this out when a student sued over it), where the person essentially prosecuting it also gets to decide the result and if they believe it’s even slightly more likely true than not then that man will be expelled. On the other hand, if a man accuses a woman all she has to do is accuse him in response and his claim will be dismissed as retaliation and hers will go forward.
***That *** sounds like the most fair possible system, doesn’t it? Because that’s what Obama created as Title IX policy, that Devos replaced in 2018, Biden essentially reinstated, and Trump reverted back to the Devos rules.
The short version is that the Obama/Biden rules are designed to punish any man accused who isn’t able to conclusively prove he can’t possibly have done it, while potentially being kept in the dark about what he’s even supposed to be defending himself against until the last minute. The Devos rules are at least a reasonable attempt at enshrining something that resembles a fair due process and if you can’t express your problems with it beyond “Orange Man Bad!” then there’s not really anything to discuss.
Is it perfect? No. Is it a damn lot better than the previous policy? Yes.
You actually believed some right wing talk show bullshit that told you that teachers were trained that girls never ever lie and boys lie all the time! You’re losing what little shred of credibility you ever had.
Fox news isn’t uncovering the truth. They’re peddling downright lies. Trump really is a bad president, a compulsive liar and a rapist, and pretending that he’s not is refusal to accept reality.
No, the training materials got leaked after their release was ordered in several court cases against the schools in question where the training materials were considered likely examples of bias (except Ole Miss, where the training materials were leaked first and then referenced by the plaintiff in that case). There were several of these, all roughly in the early-mid 2010s, as the Obama guidelines that reduced due process went into effect in 2011 and the Devos guidelines that included mandating that training materials be available to the public took effect in 2018. Cases against Yale and UMiss are probably the largest and most reported on, but not the most egregious.
I’d give you a link to the training materials from the era, but my old one is a dead link and I’m unwilling to dig through the 400-odd Title IX due process lawsuits between 2011 and 2019 to find the right one, especially since the database I used back when is behind a paywall. Said database was maintained by A Voice For Male Students, now branded as Title IX For All if you have an interest in the many and varied complaints students have filed suit against colleges for related to Title IX it might stroke your fancy. I’d point to current training materials, but those are generally based on the Devos rules since the Biden rules were only in effect for a single semester (taking effect 8/1/24) and even then were blocked by injunction in 26 states.
Fox news isn’t uncovering the truth. They’re peddling downright lies.
Yeah, generally. More often than the average news media, less often than Alex Jones, but yeah. You’re the only one in this conversation that thinks Fox News has anything to do with anything though.
Trump really is a bad president, a compulsive liar and a rapist, and pretending that he’s not is refusal to accept reality.
I have never claimed otherwise. He was an extra-shitty Republican last time (who kept saying outrageous things on social media to draw attention away from what was going on), and seemed to have jumped wholly off the deep end in the less than two weeks we’ve been into his second term (and we have nearly four more years of this shit unless he keels over, and I don’t expect Vance to be any better).
But even he and his largely terrible appointees very rarely express good ideas despite that. For example, Trump has suggested putting an end to daylight savings time, RFK wants to ban some food additives that are banned elsewhere, Trump signed FIRST STEP into law during his first term, and Devos revised the Title IX guidelines and all of those things are things I support. To be fair, that’s an almost exhaustive list of things I support that Trump and his minions have supported, but Trump supporting it doesn’t for example make ending daylight savings time suddenly a bad idea.
Again, the Devos rules aren’t perfect, but they’re much better than the Obama ones were and “Trump is bad!” is not really an argument against the guidelines, despite broadly being true.
And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it.
You are delusional. I criticize Trump myself in multiple comments on this thread.
It’s relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up.
It is absolutely irrelevant who proposes changes when debating whether those changes are good or bad. Even Hitler enacted some good laws. Does not make him less Horrible person or excuse other things he did. But my whole complaint is that so many people are now unable/unwilling to discuss the actual policy on it’s own merit and you are proving me right.
Instead of forming your own opinion on the policy based on rational arguments, all you can do is “TrUmP bAd, PoLiCy MuSt Be BaD.”
changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up.
Because all I see is opportunities for rich boys’ lawyers the chance to disrupt a school exclusion meeting and turn it into a media circus debating the victim’s sex life in detail, and if you think that isn’t how that plays out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Your point is entirely based on trashing other people’s skepticism that the rapist president might not have young rape victims interests at heart, and I have to call out your gullability on that point. It’s absolutely not irrelevant that Trump himself is a rapist, and repeatedly insisting that it is defies logic.
Because all I see is opportunities for rich boys’ lawyers
Because you are willfully blind.
turn it into a media circus
Title IX hearings are not public, nor is anyone arguing they should be public. It’s just a strawman argument you and people like you are making.
Your point is entirely based on trashing other people’s skepticism that the rapist president might not have young rape victims interests at heart, and I have to call out your gullability on that point.
I am trashing peoples inability to actually think about and evaluate a policy for themselves. So yes, I trash people who have to resort to trashing Trump instead of being able to intelligently discuss a policy.
It’s not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day.
You give off strong "I’m not a Trump supporter, but… " vibes because of how you can’t abide people mentioning that the USA’s Rapist in Chief tried (and failed) to sue his rape victim for libel and that that might just have a bearing on him proposing to bring expensive lawyers into a school exclusion meeting.
I don’t disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn’t perfect but better than any of the alternative.
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
The original Title IX didn’t say anything about accusations of sexual assault, at all. It literally just sad that federally funded educational programs could not discriminate with respect to sex. The interpretation that that included sports programs or similar extracurriculars came later, the interpretation that that requires a parallel court-like system for adjudicating sexual assault allegations by students under a looser standard than actual courts came even later.
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let’s say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn’t be claiming that bringing that into the principal’s office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
For every 100 reported to police, about 13 get sent to a prosecutor (the rest being dropped due to lack of evidence, strong contradictory evidence, inability to identify a culprit, that sort of thing) about 10 of which result in a charge and 7 in a conviction, prosecution and conviction rates not radically out of line with other crimes. Prosecutors only try cases they think have a good chance of being successful (meaning they don’t think the evidence is good enough in about a quarter of cases sent to them), and the standard for criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt. That 13 is a bit lower than other crimes, but not radically so. Most stats you see implying it’s much worse (like an order of magnitude worse) are essentially using a fudge factor for unreported rapes as though the criminal justice system can even hypothetically do anything about an unreported rape.
Considering that the standard for a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt” while the standard for a Title IX hearing is at strictest “clear and convincing” and is often “a preponderance of the evidence” (aka slightly more likely than not), the rate of being found liable in a Title IX hearing is much higher, though not as high as it was when some schools used training said that women never lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way, the accused didn’t need to be told exactly what they were being accused of or what evidence they needed a defense for and an accuser’s testimony could not be questioned.
EDIT: Just to point out how ridiculous accounting for “unreported” rapes is, if every time a rape was reported to law enforcement the accused was summarily executed without any process of any kind, just accusation->death, the “conviction rate” would still be at most ten percent.
Me: reporting, prosecution and conviction rates are disastrously low.
You: that’s because they don’t come forward much, cases aren’t taken to court and men are found not guilty, therefore none of those men are guilty.
You need a higher standard of proof to put someone in jail, but this is just chucking them out of the same institution as their rape victim, and kids get chucked out of school for just punching someone, without lawyers being involved. Just move the guy on. That’s all.
Your accusation->death line is hyperbole.
So, you want to end someone’s college career on someone else’s word alone, unless they can provide absolute proof that person is lying (and if we’re following Obama/Biden era rules they aren’t required to be told what they’re trying to prove beforehand) they should be expelled from college in a way that will make it much harder to get admitted to another one, right?
Sounds fair /s
I’d note that the Devos guidelines Trump brought back call for things to be done to make it easier for the alleged victim prior to any finding, so long as those actions aren’t punitive - examples given back in 2018 were things like changing housing arrangements or switching classes for one or both as necessary to separate them. The key point being not punishing the accused before any finding and establishing a process that is as fair as could be managed for making that finding.
It is hyperbole, but it’s hyperbole to demonstrate a point - when you talk about how abysmally low conviction rates are, even if we went as far in the other direction as possible and simply executed everyone accused on the spot, you’d still be able to complain that the conviction rate was painfully low at ten percent because the bullshit about including “unreported cases” in a way we don’t treat any other crime makes a ten percent conviction rate the highest it can hypothetically be, when it’s really not radically different than any other crime if measured by the same metrics.
Dude, unreported crime rates exist for other categories than rape and sexual assult, but it’s particularly high for crimes where victims believe that they are very unlikely to get a conviction and are very likely to have a terrible time in court and death threats afterwards, like sexual assault, rape, and organised crime syndicates.
It’s not jail, it’s school exclusion. It happens all the time over far less serious behaviour than rape. Don’t bring that expensive lawyer justice-evasion victim-blaming victim-shaming shit into schools.
Don’t keep failing to join the dots on the rapist changing the rules to benefit fellow rapists.
…but no one tries to use them when calculating conviction rates, because they’re vague estimates rather than any kind of hard number and everyone properly understands in every other case that law enforcement can’t even hypothetically do anything about an unreported crime.
Are you college aged or older? Do you have student loans? Now, imagine you have all those student loans, but you have no degree and a dramatically harder time moving to another school (for which you’d have to take out further student loans if you manage to get in) because the previous school says why you were expelled when asked.
If it were just “go to another school” with that being the full extent of the consequences, that would be one thing but it’s really not.
Also, under the Devos rules supporting actions can be taken to make things easier for the accuser in response to the accusation alone (before any hearing, finding or even investigation), but those actions cannot be unreasonable, punitive or deny access to education (for example changing class schedules for one or both, changing housing assignments, or other things to prevent contact between them).
So, no one can question or challenge any part of an accusation in any way? Or do you have some (likely media fueled) image in your mind that the guidelines allow for the accused or his lawyer to grill the accuser, shouting irrelevant questions at her until she breaks down and submits? Because what the Devos guidelines actually call for for cross-examination is that all questions have to be submitted to the judge-analog (typically Title IX coordinator, but can be delegated) who is supposed to decide if the question is relevant or not to the accusation and the question can only be asked if it’s approved. If she’s a slutty slut slut is unlikely to be considered relevant, as is what she was wearing unless an article of clothing is somehow central to the evidence.
Question: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment.
You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.
Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.
So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.
It’s just a school expulsion, not prison, and it’s well documented that women don’t go to trial because they know it will be them and their lives on trial, not the rapist, who will very very likely get off. Bringing all that into K12 is just bringing a set of scales that are tipped heavily in the rapist’s favor and a horrific experience for the victim into a school expulsion.
Trump knows the effect this will have, and I expect you do too, but you’re pretending not to. Admittedly Trump is clearly and publicly well practiced at using expensive lawyers to silence women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by him, and I can’t say the same about you, but use your brain and stop defending the Rapist in Chief for watering down consequences for rapists in education.
Ah yes, the catastrophic effect having a person ask questions before they expel someone will have.
You know what, since you clearly don’t care about expelling innocent people and there are many unreported rapist despite no lawyers being involved, let’s just expel everyone. That way, we expel all the rapists. Problem solved.
Because there are clearly no issues with expelling innocent people in your head. It’s not like the mere accusation would follow a person for the rest of their life. I am sure they will have no issue explaining to employers, that it was just an expulsion and they are innocent, that they should be given a job.
All that surely won’t have worse consequences than a lawyer asking questions.
Your characterisation of attack lawyers as mildly asking questions is disingenuous. It’s always full on character-assassination of the already traumatised victim. You also seem to think that lawyers bring truth and clarity where teachers and administrators cannot, and you’re incorrect. The situation in court is currently skewed very badly indeed in favour of rapists. It doesn’t need to be so in school. You’re also dismissing the effect that rape has on girls and women as if it were nothing. You would rather 99 out of 100 guilty rapists get to further traumatise their victim at school. It’s because you don’t care two cents about rape victims, you only care about male impunity, just like your leader Trump
If your only argument is making up fake numbers and facts and calling me Trump supporter and rape supporter, then there is no point continuing here. I can’t disprove every irrational fear you make up about lawyers in your head.
Yeah, liars should be punished. There is however irony in that statement considering the current president…
Again, what the fuck.
Me: US people are incapable about talking about the actual policy without just bringing up who proposed it.
You: BuT tHe CuRrEnt PrEsIdEnT.
You are trying to pretend to some moral high ground with these comments, but what they boil down to is this:
“Everyone, please present to me fact based arguments that ignore the facts about the established goals and behavior about the person proposing these changes. THOSE facts are undesired.”
Yes, I am pointing out it is idiotic to assume everything an evil person says or does is evil or wrong.
Hitler pushed for animal welfare. Are we supposed to assume that was wrong and start torturing dogs because Hitler wanted animal welfare?
The policy is either good or bad. Whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden or Lincoln makes no difference to that.
The fact I have to spell this out for you is extremely concerning.
I disagree with your assessment of the legislation in any case, but you haven’t accepted similar arguments from anyone else, so I don’t see why you’d accept them from me.
It’s a shitty change that also comes from a shitty person.
We know trump serves only himself and his cronies. Ergo, any legislation from him is to serve himself or his cronies.
So fighting climate change is shitty as long as a shitty young person decides it is in their interest to fight climate change?
No. Maybe the policy is shitty but it coming from Trump does not prove that.
You had to grasp for fictional legislation to find something NOT serving Trump or his cronies I see.
Removed by mod
And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it. It’s relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims’ reputations when they speak up. These are his kind of people. He gets them. He protects them. Girls and others who have been raped? No, he just wants them to suffer in silence, shut up or be humiliated in public.
He’s not proposing changes. He’s rolling back the changes Biden made, which in turn mostly rolled back the 2018 changes made by Devos, most of which were either tied to basic notions of due process or were things people had won lawsuits over since the previous changes by the Obama admin.
You’re playing semantics over what counts and doesn’t count as change while the USA’s Rapist in Chief allows lawyers to obstruct school exclusion meetings. Did you conveniently forget that he (unsuccessfully) tried to sue his own rape victim for libel? Yes, of course he believes that wealthy men should be allowed to use high powered lawyers to cover up their crimes against women.
I know right? We should definitely go back to the rules where if a woman accused a man he wouldn’t necessary know who accused him or of exactly what, what evidence was brought against him, or what the procedures are and what training was given to faculty in how to follow those procedures, where part of that training in at least some cases includes that women never ever lie but men will say whatever they have to to get their way (we found this out when a student sued over it), where the person essentially prosecuting it also gets to decide the result and if they believe it’s even slightly more likely true than not then that man will be expelled. On the other hand, if a man accuses a woman all she has to do is accuse him in response and his claim will be dismissed as retaliation and hers will go forward.
***That *** sounds like the most fair possible system, doesn’t it? Because that’s what Obama created as Title IX policy, that Devos replaced in 2018, Biden essentially reinstated, and Trump reverted back to the Devos rules.
The short version is that the Obama/Biden rules are designed to punish any man accused who isn’t able to conclusively prove he can’t possibly have done it, while potentially being kept in the dark about what he’s even supposed to be defending himself against until the last minute. The Devos rules are at least a reasonable attempt at enshrining something that resembles a fair due process and if you can’t express your problems with it beyond “Orange Man Bad!” then there’s not really anything to discuss.
Is it perfect? No. Is it a damn lot better than the previous policy? Yes.
You actually believed some right wing talk show bullshit that told you that teachers were trained that girls never ever lie and boys lie all the time! You’re losing what little shred of credibility you ever had.
Fox news isn’t uncovering the truth. They’re peddling downright lies. Trump really is a bad president, a compulsive liar and a rapist, and pretending that he’s not is refusal to accept reality.
No, the training materials got leaked after their release was ordered in several court cases against the schools in question where the training materials were considered likely examples of bias (except Ole Miss, where the training materials were leaked first and then referenced by the plaintiff in that case). There were several of these, all roughly in the early-mid 2010s, as the Obama guidelines that reduced due process went into effect in 2011 and the Devos guidelines that included mandating that training materials be available to the public took effect in 2018. Cases against Yale and UMiss are probably the largest and most reported on, but not the most egregious.
I’d give you a link to the training materials from the era, but my old one is a dead link and I’m unwilling to dig through the 400-odd Title IX due process lawsuits between 2011 and 2019 to find the right one, especially since the database I used back when is behind a paywall. Said database was maintained by A Voice For Male Students, now branded as Title IX For All if you have an interest in the many and varied complaints students have filed suit against colleges for related to Title IX it might stroke your fancy. I’d point to current training materials, but those are generally based on the Devos rules since the Biden rules were only in effect for a single semester (taking effect 8/1/24) and even then were blocked by injunction in 26 states.
Yeah, generally. More often than the average news media, less often than Alex Jones, but yeah. You’re the only one in this conversation that thinks Fox News has anything to do with anything though.
I have never claimed otherwise. He was an extra-shitty Republican last time (who kept saying outrageous things on social media to draw attention away from what was going on), and seemed to have jumped wholly off the deep end in the less than two weeks we’ve been into his second term (and we have nearly four more years of this shit unless he keels over, and I don’t expect Vance to be any better).
But even he and his largely terrible appointees very rarely express good ideas despite that. For example, Trump has suggested putting an end to daylight savings time, RFK wants to ban some food additives that are banned elsewhere, Trump signed FIRST STEP into law during his first term, and Devos revised the Title IX guidelines and all of those things are things I support. To be fair, that’s an almost exhaustive list of things I support that Trump and his minions have supported, but Trump supporting it doesn’t for example make ending daylight savings time suddenly a bad idea.
Again, the Devos rules aren’t perfect, but they’re much better than the Obama ones were and “Trump is bad!” is not really an argument against the guidelines, despite broadly being true.
You are delusional. I criticize Trump myself in multiple comments on this thread.
It is absolutely irrelevant who proposes changes when debating whether those changes are good or bad. Even Hitler enacted some good laws. Does not make him less Horrible person or excuse other things he did. But my whole complaint is that so many people are now unable/unwilling to discuss the actual policy on it’s own merit and you are proving me right.
Instead of forming your own opinion on the policy based on rational arguments, all you can do is “TrUmP bAd, PoLiCy MuSt Be BaD.”
Which part of this are you on board with?
Because all I see is opportunities for rich boys’ lawyers the chance to disrupt a school exclusion meeting and turn it into a media circus debating the victim’s sex life in detail, and if you think that isn’t how that plays out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Your point is entirely based on trashing other people’s skepticism that the rapist president might not have young rape victims interests at heart, and I have to call out your gullability on that point. It’s absolutely not irrelevant that Trump himself is a rapist, and repeatedly insisting that it is defies logic.
Because you are willfully blind.
Title IX hearings are not public, nor is anyone arguing they should be public. It’s just a strawman argument you and people like you are making.
I am trashing peoples inability to actually think about and evaluate a policy for themselves. So yes, I trash people who have to resort to trashing Trump instead of being able to intelligently discuss a policy.
I am not the gullible one here.
You give off strong "I’m not a Trump supporter, but… " vibes because of how you can’t abide people mentioning that the USA’s Rapist in Chief tried (and failed) to sue his rape victim for libel and that that might just have a bearing on him proposing to bring expensive lawyers into a school exclusion meeting.
Removed by mod