SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-06-16 02:09 AM - Post#203568
In response to Stuart Suss
Stuart Suss again makes sense. Contrary to Jeff's assertion I've been following this issue for years. What has changed of late is that the Department of Education's Office of Equal Opportunity has issued, without any hearings or comment. a ukase that schools must a) lower their evidentiary standards for conviction in a sexual misconduct case from 'clear and convincing" to "preponderance of evidence" (50.00001% likelihood of guilt leads to conviction), b) the accused should not be given an opportunity to confront, much less cross-examine, the accuser, and c) systems that have a designated person act as investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge are preferred if a school wants to avoid OEO heat. Failure to comply leads to an enhanced risk of embarrassing investigations, government lawsuits, and possible termination of all federal funding under Title IX. When Harvard knuckled under, a boatload of its law school faculty publicly opposed the new system. A driving force in writing the protest letter was a woman who pioneered pro-accuser reforms in the criminal law on rape who believes that the lack of due process will be an engine of injustice and resentment.
|