[WestIndianArchie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/educat...olicy.html

Dozens of Harvard Law School faculty members are asking the university to withdraw its new sexual misconduct policy, saying that it violates basic principles of fairness and would do more harm than good.

“Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required” by the federal anti-discrimination law, known as Title IX, they wrote in an op-ed article signed by 28 current and retired members of the Harvard Law faculty and posted online by The Boston Globe on Tuesday night.

Harvard College and Harvard Law School are among the dozens of higher-education institutions under investigation by the federal education department over their handling of complaints of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

The federal government has threatened to withhold funds from universities that do not have adequate sexual misconduct policies.


So over the summer, Harvard, like many other institutions on the list, announced a broad new policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence. The policy, which went into effect last month, defined sexual harassment for the first time, and created new procedures for dealing with complaints.

The law professors say the new procedures are fundamentally flawed.

“Harvard has made the Title IX office the charger, the prosecutor, the investigator, the adjudicator and the appeals board, and its sole task is to get this Title IX furor to go away. So at every stage, that office is deeply invested in the rightness of what they did at the prior stage,” said Janet Halley, one of the professors who signed the article. “It’s a totally secret process, in which real genuine unfairnesses can happen, and it’s so airtight that no one would know.”

The new policy, the professors said, is skewed against the accused, who have no assurance of adequate representation, or of a chance to confront witnesses or present a defense at an adversary hearing.

In a statement responding to the law professors, Harvard defended the new policy, which it said was “an expert, neutral, fair and objective mechanism for investigating sexual misconduct cases involving students.”

“The university appreciates that not every member of the community will agree with every aspect of the new approach,” the statement said. “Some believe the policies and procedures go too far; others believe that they do not go far enough.”

While Harvard is confident that the new policy and procedures offer a “thoughtful, fair and consistent approach to these profoundly complex and sensitive situations,” the statement said, it added that a committee of faculty, staff and students will consider possible improvements.

MaryRose Mazzola, a public policy student at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and member of Harvard Students Demand Respect, is one of those who would like to see an even tougher sexual misconduct policy. Her group has started a petition to add to the policy an affirmative consent provision, similar to one recently adopted in California, requiring both students to consent actively to each sexual act.

“We’re deeply concerned with the sentiments of the letter,” Ms. Mazzola said. “But it’s important to note that the latter is from some law faculty, but doesn’t represent the whole school or the university or the students. There’s disagreement on both sides.”

The Harvard law professors are not the only ones pushing back against the policies that have resulted from the Department of Education’s more aggressive enforcement efforts. An article in the Oct. 27 issue of The New Republic magazine argues that many college students accused of sexual assault are having their rights trampled. Its author, Judith Shulevitz, cited 20 pending lawsuits by students who said they had been treated unfairly.

[TravelerKai]

(10-15-2014 06:13 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

An article in the Oct. 27 issue of The New Republic magazine argues that many college students accused of sexual assault are having their rights trampled. Its author, Judith Shulevitz, cited 20 pending lawsuits by students who said they had been treated unfairly.

I would like to know more about this part. This could imply some "Tempest in a Teapot" going on that we are not aware of.

[Ensam]

Don't fuck with the lawyers.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Link to the actual letter, and text below. The letter is excellent.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/...story.html

Quote:

As members of the faculty of Harvard Law School, we write to voice our strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school.

We strongly endorse the importance of protecting our students from sexual misconduct and providing an educational environment free from the sexual and other harassment that can diminish educational opportunity. But we believe that this particular sexual harassment policy adopted by Harvard will do more harm than good.

As teachers responsible for educating our students about due process of law, the substantive law governing discrimination and violence, appropriate administrative decision-making, and the rule of law generally, we find the new sexual harassment policy inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach. We also find the process by which this policy was decided and imposed on all parts of the university inconsistent with the finest traditions of Harvard University, of faculty governance, and of academic freedom.

Among our many concerns are the following:

Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:

■ The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

■ The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

■ The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.

Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by:

■ Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law.

■ Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

Harvard has pursued a process in arriving at its new sexual harassment policy which violates its own finest traditions of academic freedom and faculty governance, including by the following:

■ Harvard apparently decided simply to defer to the demands of certain federal administrative officials, rather than exercise independent judgment about the kind of sexual harassment policy that would be consistent with law and with the needs of our students and the larger university community.

■ Harvard failed to engage a broad group of faculty from its different schools, including the law school, in the development of the new sexual harassment policy. And Harvard imposed its new sexual harassment policy on all the schools by fiat without any adequate opportunity for consultation by the relevant faculties.

■ Harvard undermined and effectively destroyed the individual schools’ traditional authority to decide discipline for their own students. The sexual harassment policy’s provision purporting to leave the schools with decision-making authority over discipline is negated by the university’s insistence that its Title IX compliance office’s report be totally binding with respect to fact findings and violation decisions.

We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community.

The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.

We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community.

[The Lizard of Oz]

It would be difficult to imagine a stronger indictment of these Harvard procedures (which are also being implemented by many other universities) than what is written in this letter.

It states unambiguously that Harvard has created a kangaroo court that is essentially judge, jury and executioner, that has all possible functions vested in one single authority, which in itself is responsible to "Title IX compliance" and thus inherently biased against the accused. It notes that the accused is given no chance for fact discovery or adequate representation. It further notes that the definitions of "sexual assault" or "sexual misconduct" have been stretched beyond all reason in a way that is "starkly one-sided". It states that all this has been imposed by executive fiat, without the least consultation with the faculty, and all to "appease certain federal administrative officials". And it finally states that if Harvard wanted to fight the government on this, it would be as well-positioned as anyone due to the size of its endowment.

It is a great letter that should be cited all the time. It does not win any fights in and of itself, but it will make a difference over time. Of course, it is also telling that only 28 of 122 Harvard Law School faculty members saw fit to sigh this superb letter. But 28 is a lot better than nothing.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

That was the good part.

Now expect these 28 professors to be blacklisted, "named and shamed," and harassed for being "rape apologists." The feminist left are nothing if not irrational. Presenting them with well-reasoned arguments and expecting a measured response is like giving pudding to a 2-year-old and expecting him to eat neatly.

They brought down Harvard President Larry Summers a decade ago for making a comment about the different ways girls and boys play. It wouldn't surprise me if these profs were also targeted for firing.

[Suits]

(10-15-2014 06:52 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Of course, it is also telling that only 28 of 122 Harvard Law School faculty members saw fit to sigh this superb letter. But 28 is a lot better than nothing.

28 is a lot, actual. That's 28 that had the balls to sign it and whole-heartedly agreed. There's gotta be more that agreed in part or just didn't have the balls to actually put their signature on the paper itself.

[Cattle Rustler]

Those are 28 lawyers teaching at Harvard Law, not Bumfuck State.

They can get together, put a wrongful termination lawsuit.....and take over Harvard. That's like a Legion of Doom to Progressive-SJWs.

[kmhour]

I guess we know what department at Harvard is most likely to sleep with the students.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(10-15-2014 07:30 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

That was the good part.

Now expect these 28 professors to be blacklisted, "named and shamed," and harassed for being "rape apologists." The feminist left are nothing if not irrational. Presenting them with well-reasoned arguments and expecting a measured response is like giving pudding to a 2-year-old and expecting him to eat neatly.

They brought down Harvard President Larry Summers a decade ago for making a comment about the different ways girls and boys play. It wouldn't surprise me if these profs were also targeted for firing.

Yes, but it's virtually impossible to fire a tenured professor. They have more job security than just about anyone in the world, and far more than a university president.

Also, some of those who have signed the letter are "Emeritus" so they could care less. Some are celebrated figures, like Alan Dershowitz, or Charles Ogletree (a prominent black law professor who is apparently close to Obama). Some are recognized feminists like Nancy Gertner.

These new regulations are so insane, so far beyond the pale, that even the natural allies of the feminists are rebelling against them. It does not mean they will succeed -- not immediately, for sure -- but it is worth something.

[TheBulldozer]

Looking at some of these names who signed it, these people really don't give a shit what Harvard can do to them. The law school needs these people more than they need Harvard.

Fire them? You're going to fire emeritus professors like Shapiro and Dershowitz? Yeah right.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-15-2014 07:41 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Those are 28 lawyers teaching at Harvard Law, not Bumfuck State.

They can get together, put a wrongful termination lawsuit.....and take over Harvard. That's like a Legion of Doom to Progressive-SJWs.

Here is a picture of 12 of the 28 lawyers

[Kingsley Davis]

(10-15-2014 08:01 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 07:41 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Those are 28 lawyers teaching at Harvard Law, not Bumfuck State.

They can get together, put a wrongful termination lawsuit.....and take over Harvard. That's like a Legion of Doom to Progressive-SJWs.

Here is a picture of 12 of the 28 lawyers

[Quintus Curtius]

Roll call of the Legion of Doom....in case you need to know who those 12 members are. I did.

[Vigo_the_Carpathian]

Already laughing at how Harvard is going to try to marginalize 20% of their law school faculty--especially heavy-hitting crim lawyers like Shapiro and Dershowitz. It's sad, if expected.

The real issue is, it's buried beneath Ebola, and ISIS, and the market being in the fucking tank, and who-knows what else in the MSM. Don't get me wrong--these are real threats. But maybe if our leaders would work on solving REAL problems instead of focusing their efforts on developing (or at least incentivizing) these sham courts to pander to their feminized bases, we wouldn't have the big problems we're facing right now.

Oh well, better to wrongly ruin a young guy's life because a chick regretted blowing him the night before than to worry about a communicable disease with a 70% mortality rate spreading throughout a country of 300 million, or to stem the tide of a ridiculously radical Islamic State developing in the Middle East.

Ho hum...nothing to see here...

Vigo

[Days of Broken Arrows]

And here we go, just as I predicted.

The blog Community of the Wrongly Accused (formerly called False Rape Society) has a post today that tells about "anti-due process activists" calling out the Harvard professors and their letter.

It also mentions that there is now a Feminism subreddit post about the so-called "rape apologist" professors. He says the real test will be when Salon and Jezebel respond to the professors' letter. I feel they will fail that test, but that's just me.

Community of the Wrongly Accused is a blog that I really think is doing important work. This particular post makes some brilliant points about anti-rape hysteria, likening the move away from due process to the days lynch mobs strung up alleged "rapists" because they too felt the legal system wasn't cutting it.

Rather than rehash his points, I urge people to read the full post and make the blog regular reading, since it's an authoritative source on this topic: http://www.cotwa.info/2014/10/the-anti-d...ts-at.html

[Dr. Howard]

(10-15-2014 10:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Roll call of the Legion of Doom....in case you need to know who those 12 members are. I did.

If there was ever an ROK writers meeting, I'd imagine it would look similar to that video QC.

[TigerMandingo]

This was an interesting take on things from one of the profs:

Quote:

Prof. Banzhaf has previously pointed out that illegals crossing the border have more rights than college men accused of rape

Imagine that.

[DannyAlberta]

looking at the on-line bios available for many of the 28 current and former professors who signed on, it strikes me that many of them already were sjws (or at least progressives). this includes an advisor to the obama campaign. nonetheless, they oppose the new policy.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bartholet/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/bio.php

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/prs/field.html

http://www.nancygertner.com/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/suk/

https://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty...cie-white/

this is remarkable.

[Cattle Rustler]

(10-16-2014 02:18 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Roll call of the Legion of Doom....in case you need to know who those 12 members are. I did.

If there was ever an ROK writers meeting, I'd imagine it would look similar to that video QC.

The ROK meeting would probably look like something from Dr. Strangelove. Which is similar.

[runsonmagic]

(10-16-2014 02:18 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 10:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Roll call of the Legion of Doom....in case you need to know who those 12 members are. I did.

If there was ever an ROK writers meeting, I'd imagine it would look similar to that video QC.

Hehehe, I've posted that video when people ask what ROK meetings are like.

[WestIndianArchie]

Insisting on due process, on fair treatment under the law is VERY PROGRESSIVE. It's very much in tune with social justice. We've fought wars on American soil over this. Had non-violent revolutions over this.

It's the same idea behind the rightful and righteous outrage when cops kill unarmed citizens. Or insisting that enemies, enemy combatants, non-citizens, and citizens are treated justly.

Part of the problem with the SJW's, mainstream media, and the manosphere, is that they haven't really studied politics, history, philosophy, economics, and the basics of science. All the pieces matter. Your pet policy has negative unintended consequences that you did not realize before hand.

It's the same problems the conservatives have when they want to be "strict constructionists". It's a neutral way of reading laws, but it doesn't always lead to the contemporary desired political results.

Liberals are cool with science you bring up all the pseudo-health crap at Whole Foods.

WIA

(10-16-2014 02:38 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

looking at the on-line bios available for many of the 28 current and former professors who signed on, it strikes me that many of them already were sjws (or at least progressives). this includes an advisor to the obama campaign. nonetheless, they oppose the new policy.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bartholet/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/bio.php

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/prs/field.html

http://www.nancygertner.com/

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/suk/

https://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty...cie-white/

this is remarkable.

[Foolsgo1d]

This may protect students going to Harvard, hell you have a lot of money coming from students there. This will not protect the men at other colleges.

The only thing which will stop this sort of thing is case after case of severe financial punishment on the colleges which expel innocent men on the lies of some slut.

There should also be a case for highlighting to would-be students about the threats they face at certain colleges. Black list them.

[DannyAlberta]

(10-16-2014 04:26 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

Insisting on due process, on fair treatment under the law is VERY PROGRESSIVE. It's very much in tune with social justice. We've fought wars on American soil over this. Had non-violent revolutions over this.

for what it's worth i agree with you wia. these things are classically thought of as "progressive", or to be more historical: "liberal".

but the modern day "progressive" or "liberal" generally holds no allegiance to the classical ideology.

today the modern progressive thought is that: men are increasingly raping or sexually assaulting women, all men have this innate potential (particularly young men), therefore it is just that men should bear the onus of disproving an allegation of the same against them.

[Dusty]

I'd like to see the California law argued in the Supreme Court. Of course though you have those dykey illiberal liberals on the court now who rule by emotion and left wing ideology.