Harvard Law Gave More Rights To Accused Students In Sexual Harassment Cases, Feds Find

Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2015-01-02 06:55

Story here. Excerpt:

'Harvard Law School violated federal law by giving more rights to accused students than to accusers in sexual harassment and assault cases, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights announced Tuesday.
...
Harvard Law afforded more post-hearing rights to accused students in sexual harassment and assault cases than to students who were alleging they were harmed, OCR found. If a student was facing dismissal or expulsion for allegedly committing a sexual assault, he or she had the opportunity to call and question witnesses during a supplemental hearing process, the OCR said. Accusers in the cases did not receive the same opportunity.
...
In one instance, federal officials found, the law school took 13 months to make its final determination in the case. During that time, the accused student was provided a supplemental hearing with representation by counsel and was allowed to provide testimony, while the complainant was not. In the end, the school reversed its initial decision to dismiss the accused student and dismissed the reporting student's complaint.

The feds also faulted Harvard Law for using a “clear and convincing” evidence standard of proof in sexual assault cases. OCR said this policy was "inconsistent" with the "preponderance of the evidence" standard -- more likely than not to have occurred -- which the Education Department noted is "required by Title IX for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Indeed, Hahhhh...vahhhd, once a great American university, but today a bastion of PC foolishness, tenuring radicals happily and spending countless millions grown almost tax-free from investments and business dealings funded by donations made over many decades by all those evil old white males who thought their green'd be put to good use educating future generations of geniuses and business and political leaders. High-jacked some time ago by iconoclastic whackos, they started frittering it away on ludicrous endeavors including but not limited to creating departments that attracted and grew even more nutcases more virulent than those who hired them. Result: The hand that fed is being chewed on by the mouth that got fed. Probably it'll get chewed off before all's done.

Well, you made your bed, Hahhhh...vaahhhd administrations of these past 30-40 years, now sleep in it like the rest of the Ivies and indeed, all of "higher" ed.

Bloody fools.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2015-01-02 07:07

"Harvard Law afforded more post-hearing rights to accused students in sexual harassment and assault cases than to students who were alleging they were harmed, OCR found."

Right. It's okay to deny men due process--by lowering the level of proof needed, for example--but the schools better not deny women any of their rights.

That's the problem when the government begins watering down rights. It's hard to know when to stop.

The OCR claims the accused could call witnesses when the accuser could not. But in many cases in other schools the accused does not have the right to call witnesses or even ask questions. The OCR is okay with that. But if the accuser is denied any rights, well, the school loses its right to federal funding.

This also shows that dismissing a complaint by an accuser is a very risky thing to do. The safest thing to do is to find the accused guilty. In effect, the "judge" in these cases is being bribed to find the accused guilty. That's okay, apparently--but deny the accuser any rights and there's hell to pay.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2015-01-02 15:27

Yes, US law schools of all places ought to be encouraged to foster a preponderance standard of evidence when deciding not liability for something (as in civil matters) but guilt when considering issues that typically would be heard in criminal court if the accused were actually facing a real civil authority instead of a panel made up of professors, college admins, and fellow students some of whom have axes to grind.

Law schools also, I hear tell, should skip teaching about sexual assault crimes to avoid "triggering" student-victims in the classroom. Perhaps the real reason for these requests is so the students don't learn how "rape" and "sexual assault" are actually defined or get much encouragement to think about why such things as a kiss on the cheek are not considered crimes under the law.

When is a lawyer not really a lawyer? When she doesn't know how criminal offenses are actually defined.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2015-01-02 16:55