Dave Chappelle's Netflix show

If the person wearing a dress is voluntarily in the men's bathroom, aren't they identifying as men by default? But I suppose the case he imagines is of a biological female that identifies as a man? (not sure how a biological female would be helped by a male urinal in the first place; they don't need to stand next to it to use the gadget you linked to; also, wearing a dress doesn't typically make you pass for a man).
Maybe he was imagining someone who identifies as female, and was biologically male (would make much more sense), but then the line would be against asking those people to use the male urinal.

He was talking about a trans woman having to use the men’s restroom.
 
How many of you are reading and reporting excerpts you found in 3rd party articles?
 
As an update to this, it turns out that it was explicitly Republican policy behind this issue.

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/1454088148217171973

Good piece by @michelleinbklyn on the right’s lies in the Loudoun rape case. She also points out that letting an accused rapist return to school is the preferred GOP policy and was a big Betsy DeVos agenda item.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/loudoun-county-trans.html

Michelle mostly mentions this in passing, but seriously, it's worth really fleshing out. Because Obama's DOE ruled that Title IX requires schools to boot sexual predators from campus, and Republicans screamed *bloody murder* about it.



Feminists were accused of being man-haters who were trying to destroy "due process," all because we believed schools should have a way to remove sexual predators that worked on a swifter timetable than the slow-moving court system. And the right won — DeVos rolled back Title IX.

THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED, REPUBLICANS. You demanded that accused rapists be returned immediately to classes, even if the school had preponderance of evidence to show guilt. The ONLY reason to boot a rapist Republicans would accept is a guilty verdict after a lengthy trial.

This is what happens when we do things the way Republicans want, which is to return accused rapists to classes and wait for the slow-ass court system to render a verdict instead. They get a chance to attack other victims. This is what feminists warned you would happen, *******s.

The quote tweet then links a bunch of articles about the Title IX Fight, and The Betsy DeVos war to protect rapists.

But of course, policy doesn't matter, when culture war stoking is at hand. Just saw this tweet and thought it was worth an update as the real issue behind the policy.
 
Betsy DeVos was fighting to protect rapists?

Yes? From one of the multiple linked articles

Early Friday morning, NBC News reported that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — who is used to living in high luxury as a member of a billionaire family that owns a basketball team — has been using taxpayer money to command a security detail reminiscent of what a tinpot dictator like Muammar Gadhafi liked to flaunt. An estimated $20 million of your money and mine has been spent on her round-the-clock security detail, far surpassing the $3.5 million price tag for former EPA head Scott Pruitt, the Trump administration's most infamous taxpayer leech.

DeVos clearly likes feeling safe and secure and expects the taxpayer to spare no expense for her protection. But when it comes to the millions of girls in public schools and women in U.S. colleges and universities, she is not so considerate. On the contrary, the Department of Education proposed on Friday to massively roll back federal rules to protect students from sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape. The move suggests that the security-ensconced DeVos takes a more fend-for-yourself attitude about the safety of girls and young women in the education system.

DeVos was appointed to her office by Donald Trump, a man caught on tape gleefully bragging about how he prefers to "just start kissing" women and will "grab them by the pussy," noting that consent was unnecessary: "When you’re a star, they let you do it."

"I do think that their goal here is to ensure that [abuse] survivors don’t report," said Jess Davidson of End Rape on Campus, of the newly proposed rules. “This is going to significantly reduce the amount of investigations that schools open.”

The proposed rules appear to be focused mostly on throwing up obstacles to reporting, and making victims wonder if it's worth their while to ask for help. The definition of what constitutes sexual harassment will be significantly narrowed, and the number of people to whom a student can report such claims will be drastically limited, forcing victims to work up the nerve to talk to strangers in official positions rather than trusted professors or student leaders. The level of evidence required to discipline an offender will be similar to what is needed to convict someone in a criminal trial, rather than the current standard, which is modeled on civil liability court.

In addition, a student who is raped by another student while off campus will have no recourse with the school, a limit that Davidson flagged as especially ridiculous.

“Most sexual assaults do not happen at the library," she said. "They happen at the bar or an off-campus party.”

If an accuser manages to get over these new hurdles, the proposed regulations seem designed to make the investigation process far more punishing for her. Schools must allow an alleged assailant to personally cross-examine his accuser, setting up a situation where he could potentially re-traumatize and bully her before an audience.

If the accuser seeks relief from contact with her alleged abuser during this process, the proposed rules say that relief cannot "burden" the accused. Supposedly there will be mutual responsibility for maintaining a no-contact order, but in practice, this is likely to mean the alleged victim will be forced to move or change her class schedules in order to stay away from the accused.

Notably, these rule changes are focused only on sexual misconduct allegations. Students who have complaints about another student stealing from them or assaulting them in a non-sexual manner will encounter no differences in the way such cases are reported or handled.

Most of the focus on these proposed rule changes has concerned college students, but it's worth noting that Title IX regulations on sexual harassment and abuse are also meant to cover students in public schools. The September hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, in which he was publicly accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford when both of them were high school students, helped draw national attention to the fact that these problems aren't limited to adults.

Unfortunately, the same administration that pushed Kavanaugh's nomination through the Senate is also in charge of determining what rights girls and women who find themselves in Blasey Ford's situation should have.

During the early stages of drafting these rules, DeVos leaned heavily on the advice of "men's rights" groups that exist primarily to stoke fear of women's equality and to promote the idea that false accusations are common, which they aren't. False reports of rape, for instance, only constitute 2 to 8 percent of reports overall. The percentage of false accusations is even smaller, as most women who make false reports tend to invent lurid stories about stranger rape rather than accuse men they know.

At least one of the groups that advised DeVos during this process has been flagged by the Southern Poverty Law Center as promoting misogyny and male supremacy.

As the debate has dragged on about the rights of student victims, critics of the Title IX law — which requires schools to offer environments free of sexual abuse — have frequently suggested that schools should stay out of this issue entirely and leave such matters to the police. In theory that may sound like a reasonable solution, but Davidson offered some important objections.

“The police cannot change somebody’s class schedule. They cannot change somebody’s dorm accommodation," she said, noting that it often takes months or years to adjudicate a rape case through the criminal justice system. In the meantime, she noted, "most students just do not want to sit in math class with the person that sexually assaulted them."

This objection also doesn't take into consideration how much Title IX enforcement is about sexual harassment, which often doesn't rise to the level of a criminal offense but can make it impossible for the victim to attend classes and finish schoolwork in a safe and equal fashion.

This past year has witnessed the rise of the #MeToo movement, which has highlighted the various ways that women are routinely harassed and assaulted in the work environment. The limits DeVos wishes to impose on schools would make it impossible for many of the women in these stories to get justice. Many abusers, for instance, don't harass colleagues in the office environment, but in an informal social situation or by pestering them at home. But many such men were fired or otherwise penalized, because common sense tells us that this off-hours abuse still affects the work environment. Students at school deserve the same consideration.

“The system is not built for survivors. It is not built for marginalized people. It is built to protect powerful white men," Davidson said, adding that DeVos' new proposal "is yet another clear example of that."

Basic Summary. Schools are REQUIRED to engage in a criminal trial level of investigation and fact-finding before they can provide accommodations to separate a rapist from their victim, let alone boot them from campus. This is not the case, for non-sexual assault-related crimes, like stealing a laptop or physical fighting. So a rapist can continue to sit in class next to their victim, but the laptop thief could be banned by the school from being in the same class as someone they stole from.

There is no way to slice that, as being anything but pro rape.

And this isn't academic, because the Right Wing just engaged in this culture war bullfeathers, when it was their rules that didn't allow the school to move the rapist away from potential victims, and they then reoffended.

The Biden Admin is rewriting these rules, which will come into enforcement at some point.

Also, Betsy DeVos's family money comes from Amway, the Pyramid Scheme Company. Not directly related to sexual assault, but it bears mentioning, that the main reason she got appointed to her position, is because Amway from its founding has been a massive donor to the GOP, who in turn protected it from being busted for being a scammy cult.
 
Oh God, an Amanda Marcotte article.

The Title IX enforcement during the Obama administration was notorious for giving the accused no right to defend himself and it looks like Marcotte is expecting the accused be barred from campus or at least from certain classes without any sort of conviction.

Is the laptop thief banned from school over an accusation or a conviction?

Biden himself was accused of sexual assault and under his own standard would he be given due process?
 
Biden himself was accused of sexual assault and under his own standard would he be given due process?

Remember where you are. Sometimes it's who, not what. And there is always room for more who.
 
Oh God, an Amanda Marcotte article.

The Title IX enforcement during the Obama administration was notorious for giving the accused no right to defend himself and it looks like Marcotte is expecting the accused be barred from campus or at least from certain classes without any sort of conviction.

Is the laptop thief banned from school over an accusation or a conviction?

Biden himself was accused of sexual assault and under his own standard would he be given due process?

You're remarkably plugged in to have a grudge against some particular Journalist. Makes you constant previous, just asking questions, JAQing off look remarkably hollow.

Title IX enforcement is a misnomer. The Obama Admin sent out a letter reminding universities that sexual harassment is covered under the existing Title IX sexual discrimination law, with universities very widely in noncompliance. It did not set out specifics (handling sexual harassment isn't some new fangled thing), and some universities mishandled cases because many universities were setting up systems for the first time and aren't actually that smart or savvy, or didn't care enough to make a proper effort. Plenty of solid systems they could have copied, and many quietly did. And Universities are generally sometimes bad about students' rights, with expulsions and disciplinary action happening at the whim of policymakers.

Said universities that screwed up, got sued in court, and lost because their rules were bunk, which is the legal system working in action. The universities that did it right, didn't have issues.

The Obama admin did not require immediate expelling of all suspected rapists, as you so pretend. It requires reasonable accommodations. Such as moving a rapist from a class where the victim is in, because it would negatively impact learning to have a student be forced to learn with a rapist lurking around them.

This already happens with nonsexual assault-related issues. At my high school, there was a big physical fight, where the teachers weren't sure who started it, or what happened exactly. So they moved the two to separate classes, while they worked through the issue. This is not a complex or groundbreaking idea. Its basic logic. If people punching each other, being around each other, is a hindrance to learning and safety, so is a rapist and their victim in the same class.

The Conservative response was culture war blowing up the issue. See how we've already switched from outrage about the evil liberal school allowing predators in dresses that started this digression, to now defending against the evil feminist hordes accusing every man of rape. See the logical incoherency.

Now, even if the university has a very solid basis of evidence, it has to go through criminal trial-type proceedings to determine guilt. Which it is not required to do, with literally any other issue of student discipline, wherein, civil type proceedings are fine. Which is what I pointed out, and you missed by a mile.

If you're actually interested in this topic, this podcast episode covers the issue in great depth, with an expert on the law on this topic.

The direct result of all this, in this case, is the student in question sexually assaulting another girl, after previously date raping a girl. The latest conservative culture war outrage was engineered, by the conservative Presential administration.

The Joe Biden accusations are pure whataboutism, and are clearly bunk. They got investigated, and the details were all over the place, contradicted by basic logic, or public record, she was already in trouble for being a compulsive liar and was only brought up as a political stunt to derail a Presidential campaign. Unlike Donald Trump who had credible accusations well before he ran for President in 2016, has multiple ones, instead of one, hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, Epstein, and gave the person who gave Epstein a cushy plea deal, a cabinet-level position, while filling his admin with rape apologists.
 
Last edited:
You're remarkably plugged in to have a grudge against some particular Journalist. Makes you constant previous, just asking questions, JAQing off look remarkably hollow.

I don’t think I’ve talked about Amanda Marcotte before. She’s notorious for being a fanatic on these issues. I think your autocorrect might have caused some issues, I can’t get what else you tried to say there. It looked like some kind of masturbation reference.

Title IX enforcement is a misnomer. The Obama Admin sent out a letter reminding universities that sexual harassment is covered under the existing Title IX sexual discrimination law, with universities very widely in noncompliance. It did not set out specifics (handling sexual harassment isn't some new fangled thing), and some universities mishandled cases because many universities were setting up systems for the first time and aren't actually that smart or savvy, or didn't care enough to make a proper effort. Plenty of solid systems they could have copied, and many quietly did. And Universities are generally sometimes bad about students' rights, with expulsions and disciplinary action happening at the whim of policymakers.

Did the office of civil rights not send out guidelines on how these issues should be addressed? Is university government funding not an issue? Title IX was not even originally meant to cover sexual harassment or rape.

Said universities that screwed up, got sued in court, and lost because their rules were bunk, which is the legal system working in action. The universities that did it right, didn't have issues.

You’re acting like this wasn’t a big deal, all they have to do is sue.

The Obama admin did not require immediate expelling of all suspected rapists, as you so pretend. It requires reasonable accommodations. Such as moving a rapist from a class where the victim is in, because it would negatively impact learning to have a student be forced to learn with a rapist lurking around them.

I said the Obama administration required immediate expulsion? You’re awfully quick to use the word rapist in the absence of a conviction.

This already happens with nonsexual assault-related issues. At my high school, there was a big physical fight, where the teachers weren't sure who started it, or what happened exactly. So they moved the two to separate classes, while they worked through the issue. This is not a complex or groundbreaking idea. Its basic logic. If people punching each other, being around each other, is a hindrance to learning and safety, so is a rapist and their victim in the same class.

This sounds like something a lot of other people witnessed. Some of these rape accusations involve two people drinking and accusations not made until months after the fact. Some Title IX charges are just cases of reported speech. Even feminists have criticized the way these are handled.

The Conservative response was culture war blowing up the issue. See how we've already switched from outrage about the evil liberal school allowing predators in dresses that started this digression, to now defending against the evil feminist hordes accusing every man of rape. See the logical incoherency.

I stayed out of that conversation. Just because some conservatives might misrepresent the issue doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

Now, even if the university has a very solid basis of evidence, it has to go through criminal trial-type proceedings to determine guilt. Which it is not required to do, with literally any other issue of student discipline, wherein, civil type proceedings are fine. Which is what I pointed out, and you missed by a mile.

Is this a justification for having a low burden of proof? Well we do it for everything else? Instead of addressing that as possibly a problem?

If you're actually interested in this topic, this podcast episode covers the issue in great depth, with an expert on the law on this topic.

The direct result of all this, in this case, is the student in question sexually assaulting another girl, after previously date raping a girl. The latest conservative culture war outrage was engineered, by the conservative Presential administration.

The Joe Biden accusations are pure whataboutism, and are clearly bunk. They got investigated, and the details were all over the place, contradicted by basic logic, or public record, she was already in trouble for being a compulsive liar and was only brought up as a political stunt to derail a Presidential campaign. Unlike Donald Trump who had credible accusations well before he ran for President in 2016, has multiple ones, instead of one, hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, Epstein, and gave the person who gave Epstein a cushy plea deal, a cabinet-level position, while filling his admin with rape apologists.

I don’t know if you think I supported Donald Trump or this is just more “whataboutism.”

I brought this up because taking a lax attitude toward the rights of the accused, which the guidelines under the Obama administration did, seems really hypocritical from someone accused of sexual assault, that is if Biden supports those guidelines.
 
Just asking questions, known as JAQing off, sea lioning, and other variations, are a way of trolling or nonargument, by proposing endless questions, without setting out a proper base of argument. It's what you constantly do. I can give you responses to literally every question, spending far more effort than you do by asking them, and then you will come back with more 'questions' and be endlessly evasive with your actual stance or thoughts. Its a discussin that will go nowhere, which is why I called you on it.

How am I supposed to respond to a county-wide policy, with your deliberate vagueries about the policy or outcomes? Do I have to answer for every single university? Every single case?

Meanwhile, you happen to actually know the journalist immediately, someone I don't recognise. I don't really clock the author of a piece unless I read a particular person a lot. So it's clear you do know what is going on, and I don't need to explain the basics to you.

If you want a proper discussion on the topic, you could specifically quote the issues with the Obama Title IX requirements, instead of vague generalities of 'oh Obama did such and such', when it was actually specific universities mishandling and misunderstanding. My position was never universities are universally great and wonderful, they very much aren't.

My point was that Betsy Devos made policy to protect rapists, not victims. That's just a fact. She requires a higher standard of proof, for a clearcut rape than for literally anything else, like a fight or theft, or anything else that could require separation of students. Your response of 'oh some rapes happened a long time ago, or aren't actually rape' is bull, and irrelevant. It's absolutely not an argument, except a general statement that could be used to excuse any rape accusation.
 
Just asking questions, known as JAQing off, sea lioning, and other variations, are a way of trolling or nonargument, by proposing endless questions, without setting out a proper base of argument. It's what you constantly do. I can give you responses to literally every question, spending far more effort than you do by asking them, and then you will come back with more 'questions' and be endlessly evasive with your actual stance or thoughts. Its a discussin that will go nowhere, which is why I called you on it.

I have never heard of this before. Why sea lioning? Are sea lions known for asking questions? I don’t really get your frustration, maybe you’re wanting to pigeonhole me as conservative, I guess I shouldn’t speculate.

How am I supposed to respond to a county-wide policy, with your deliberate vagueries about the policy or outcomes? Do I have to answer for every single university? Every single case?

Deliberate vagaries are fine, this isn’t a research paper.

Meanwhile, you happen to actually know the journalist immediately, someone I don't recognise. I don't really clock the author of a piece unless I read a particular person a lot. So it's clear you do know what is going on, and I don't need to explain the basics to you.

She used to write for slate.com, which I have followed for for over 10 years and she writes for salon.com. I haven’t read salon regularly for a long time so I haven’t read anything of hers for a long time but I remember who she is.

If you want a proper discussion on the topic, you could specifically quote the issues with the Obama Title IX requirements, instead of vague generalities of 'oh Obama did such and such', when it was actually specific universities mishandling and misunderstanding. My position was never universities are universally great and wonderful, they very much aren't.

Okay one issue with the guidelines is that they have often been criticized for expanding the definition of harassment, creating “sex bureaucracies” and that the accuser could appeal an outcome, meaning double jeopardy. This last one, I’m not sure if it comes from the guidelines

My point was that Betsy Devos made policy to protect rapists, not victims. That's just a fact. She requires a higher standard of proof, for a clearcut rape than for literally anything else, like a fight or theft, or anything else that could require separation of students.

Does she? How many of these rape accusations are “clear cut?” If you think there isn’t enough protection of the rights of people accused of theft or plagiarism or assault why not criticize the lack of protection instead of asking to lose the burden of proof over sexual assault?

Your response of 'oh some rapes happened a long time ago, or aren't actually rape' is bull, and irrelevant. It's absolutely not an argument, except a general statement that could be used to excuse any rape accusation.

It’s irrelevant? There are cases of students continuing their romantic relationship with the accused long after the alleged assault.
 
Does she? How many of these rape accusations are “clear cut?”
Oh cool, more moving the goalposts. How about you prove how many, statistically, are false? Burden of proof and all that.

You're the one who keeps claiming things like:
Some of these rape accusations involve two people drinking and accusations not made until months after the fact. Some Title IX charges are just cases of reported speech. Even feminists have criticized the way these are handled.
Prove that these are actually-relevant (statistically). Because they're great as conservative soundbites, but if you want to complain about policy, you need something more concrete.
 
My point was that Betsy Devos made policy to protect rapists, not victims
That’s certainly a skewed way of presenting it, given there were a large number of criticisms over how the policy worked in practice coming from the left and right.
For example, two students engage in a consensual but alcohol fueled hookup. By current policies at most colleges alcohol fueled hookups cannot be consensual in a “legal” sense. Does that mean whether a student is accused by the college disciplinary proceedings comes down to who the faster sprinter to the deans office is?

Student disciplinary procedures were designed for stuff like cheating and minor crimes like throwing a rock at a window or minor altercations, not crimes. It shouldn’t be a surprise they don’t work well at dealing with actual crimes.
 
That’s certainly a skewed way of presenting it, given there were a large number of criticisms over how the policy worked in practice coming from the left and right.
For example, two students engage in a consensual but alcohol fueled hookup. By current policies at most colleges alcohol fueled hookups cannot be consensual in a “legal” sense. Does that mean whether a student is accused by the college disciplinary proceedings comes down to who the faster sprinter to the deans office is?
I'd imagine this comes down to "evaluated on a case by case basis". This is the problem with speculation - speculation can be biased to whatever the presupposed outcome might be. In this case, your example is weighted towards demonstrating a problematic scenario.

EDIT

Also, I'm not sure what relevance criticism of the original policy has, considering criticism can be accurate (or inaccurate), but what Devos did can still be argued to be a net negative. Nobody gets points for making an imperfect thing worse.
 
That’s certainly a skewed way of presenting it, given there were a large number of criticisms over how the policy worked in practice coming from the left and right.
For example, two students engage in a consensual but alcohol fueled hookup. By current policies at most colleges alcohol fueled hookups cannot be consensual in a “legal” sense. Does that mean whether a student is accused by the college disciplinary proceedings comes down to who the faster sprinter to the deans office is?

Student disciplinary procedures were designed for stuff like cheating and minor crimes like throwing a rock at a window or minor altercations, not crimes. It shouldn’t be a surprise they don’t work well at dealing with actual crimes.

Thats a skewed way of presenting it ... okay now let's present a skewed example of rape, as a way to trivialize it.

Neither you or @NovaKart have actually provided a single linked example. By simply listening to a podcast episode and reading a few articles, I easily know more than 99.99% of people do about this issue, which is still not a lot. I have no idea if you are referencing specific cases, or just engaging in the usual trivialization that people often do when it comes to sexual assault and rape.

I've provided a example, the Virginia case that was used as the culture war spark. The DeVos policy, required, the situation that resulted. A Date Rapist raped a girl in the school bathrooms, which was put under investigation by the Police. The police however investigate, they can't dictate changing of classes or circumstances, only eventual arrest. They were then allowed to remain free at the school with no change of supervision or anything else, and then the perpetrator sexually assaulted another girl. That simply is what happened.

Now if the Obama policy were in place, maybe the school still would have stuffed up. But there would actually be the chance that a second girl could have avoided being sexually assaulted. Under the DeVos Policy, it was basically unavoidable by design.

I'm not arguing for immediate expulsion at the mere accusation of anything. But schools do not, and should not be required to follow the standard of criminal law. Criminal Law requires innocent until proven guilty, and the other legal principles it has, because of the inherent level of punishment. All that however makes criminal law slow and unwieldy. There is a very good reason why civil and criminal law are separate, and company and institutions policy is not supposed to be as onerous as criminal.

In the case of rape or serious sexual assault, the victim and the perpetrator should be separated, even before a full investigation is done. And the onus of the DeVos policy puts it all on the victim to avoid the perpetrator, which is contrary to justice. This is not about drunken fumbles, which is the go-to response to trivializing sexual assault. And pretending that every case will merit the exact type of response, be it a drunken fumble or a violent rape, is stupid and reductive. This reductive nonsense rarely happens with most crimes, but seems to really frequently crop up with sexual assault-related crimes.

And the perpetrator should be restrained in some way from potentially being a repeat offender if it warrants it, while it is investigated. That happens all the time, with other crimes, with a vast variety of measures. Jail, Bail, Probation, Monitoring, counseling,
in-school suspension, etc.

It is absolutely unjust, for a victim of a rape to be forced to learn alongside their rapist. How do you expect them to learn as normal, in that condition? Just like it wouldn't be expected, for someone who had their skull violently cracked, to just sit by the person who did it. The thing that my position is akin to, is to treat sexual assault, more like other issues. I think that requires a much lower standard of proof, than your guys, sexual assault should be treated abnormally, with the onus against the victim, which is the DeVos policy.

People are restricted in some way when under suspicion, all the time. No, it doesn't feel fair if you didn't do it. But false rape accusations are widely overblown as a topic of concern, are on similar levels to false reports of other crimes, are often untargeted, rather than against a specific person.

Anyway, the Biden admin isn't just bringing back the Obama rules, as otherwise, they would have simply done so. Clearly, they are drafting something somewhat different.
 
Thats a skewed way of presenting it ... okay now let's present a skewed example of rape, as a way to trivialize it.
First, was posting mobile, so doing research and links is hard.
Second, the internal student disciplinary process was never supposed to be used for crimes. It was designed for small misdemeanors like underage drinking, small altercations, or academic conduct. Colleges interpreted Obama era “zero tolerance” requirements in a way that resulted in policies that, as applied, were widely condemned as being vague, inconsistent, and paid no respect to nature of allegations. Mutual awkward alcohol fueled hookups are clearly different than forcible rape; but in a number of well publicized cases, colleges responded to awkward sex complaints as if violent rape had been committed. Schools were at times overzealous in the new policies in order to protect themselves (not students!) from legal risk or loss of federal funds. Other articles have suggested the Obama era policies were applied in a racist manner that seemed to target black or minority students.
If someone believes a crime has been committed, go to the police. The school should provide accommodation to support the student during the reporting and investigation. If a student was the victim of a violent physical assault, we would expect the matter to be handled by the police, not the disciplinary body set up to handle the drunken freshman that yelled something racist.
 
Oh cool, more moving the goalposts. How about you prove how many, statistically, are false? Burden of proof and all that.

What was the previous goalpost?

There isn’t a way to measure how many - I guess you mean accusations of rape - are false. You could evaluate how many were proven to be false but it’s generally hard to prove a negative.

You're the one who keeps claiming things like:

Prove that these are actually-relevant (statistically). Because they're great as conservative soundbites, but if you want to complain about policy, you need something more concrete.

Looking at the statistics, according to this paper 72% https://www.titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/19.8.31_Gilbert-Copy-FINAL-TO-PRINT.pdf of students who allege sexual assault on college campuses were under the influence of alcohol.

I’ve seen different figures but it looks like they’re all at least about 50%. According to the paper, many students binge drink as part of drunken hookups.

But what happens when both parties were drinking? According to this site on legal advice
https://www.duffylawct.com/does-title-ix-apply-if-both-parties-were-under-the-influence-of-alcohol/ the law doesn’t really address the situation but schools will try to look at the level of consent for each party during the encounter, who initiates the encounter, things like that. So, sex bureaucracies. Keep in mind they were drinking and probably pretty hazy about what happened.

I’ve been around people who were drunk but seemed coherent at the time, then later couldn’t remember I was at the bar that night. You can’t always tell how drunk someone is, especially if you yourself have been drinking.

The article also says in recent years it’s often the first student who reports the offense who gets the benefit of the doubt. A court has recently (this was actually in 2018) ruled that it was discriminatory to only hold one student responsible when both were drinking - article on this below. Unfortunately the article might be paywalled if you’ve recently read other Atlantic articles. It shows how ridiculous these cases can be: the accused student was female, she had previously accused a student, then another male student accused her by being the first to report their drunken sexual encounter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/
 
If someone believes a crime has been committed, go to the police.
As we all know, that famously works perfectly and causes no additional complications or problems ;)

The point here is your criticism is rooted in Title IX allegedly causing problems in implementation, when "go to the police" was already causing problems in reality, despite being the agreed-upon advice in theory. I understand that this is how you think things should work, and I'm guessing that this is informs your general position on Title IX. Am I close? Or am I off of the mark?

I'm not trying to gotcha you here, and I'm not putting you in the same bucket as some other arguments I've seen.

What was the previous goalpost?

There isn’t a way to measure how many - I guess you mean accusations of rape - are false. You could evaluate how many were proven to be false but it’s generally hard to prove a negative.
  • First it was "Devos was fighting to protect rapists"?
  • Then it was "Title IX enforcement was bad" (as a claim, with no evidence).
  • Then it was "how many of these rape allegations are clear cut" (as an attempted defense of Devos' actions).
The first was a leading question, as you're evidently familiar with the material. The second is the lynchpin of your claims here. It's tautological. "Title IX is bad because Title IX" is bad. You don't actually discuss what Devos did at all, whatever she did, and whatever consequences arose from it, are justified from the existing, unproven standpoint of "Title IX is bad". We'll get more onto this below.

The third was switching tracks (i.e. moving goalposts) from discussing Devos, to questioning every single instance of alleged rape on campus. It is generally hard to prove a negative, you're right. It's similarly hard to impose a burden of proof like that on somebody in a forum thread. What was it you said - that this wasn't a research paper? So why are you asking Drakle to litigiously prove a presumably vast amount of alleged rape cases when you yourself don't want to be held to the same standard?

But regardless - asking you to prove a negative is difficult. So you probably shouldn't rely on it as the key point behind "Title IX is hard because it causes too many issues in determining rape accurately". If Title IX has caused a demonstrable number of cases where it wasn't rape, you should be able to prove this - statistically. Because this is the foundation of your problems with Title IX applying to cases of alleged rape.
Looking at the statistics, according to this paper 72% https://www.titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/19.8.31_Gilbert-Copy-FINAL-TO-PRINT.pdf of students who allege sexual assault on college campuses were under the influence of alcohol.

I’ve seen different figures but it looks like they’re all at least about 50%. According to the paper, many students binge drink as part of drunken hookups.
This isn't evidence that allegations are made months after the fact. Specific cases may involve circumstances where allegations are made months after the fact, but this happens outside of drunken encounters on-campus. It's a popular argument people make against (actual) rape victims - why did they wait X days / weeks / months before coming forwards?

Do you want to know why? Because they get people who voice opinions like yours, i.e. telling them they were just drunk and regretting it :) Among any other number of victim-blaming excuses. Rape is traumatic. In the cases where it happens, you cannot expect a traumatised victim to behave rationally nor logically. Meanwhile, the attacker will be able to. This is why having additional protections like those granted by Title IX can situationally benefit any given case.
But what happens when both parties were drinking? According to this site on legal advice
https://www.duffylawct.com/does-title-ix-apply-if-both-parties-were-under-the-influence-of-alcohol/ the law doesn’t really address the situation but schools will try to look at the level of consent for each party during the encounter, who initiates the encounter, things like that. So, sex bureaucracies. Keep in mind they were drinking and probably pretty hazy about what happened.

I’ve been around people who were drunk but seemed coherent at the time, then later couldn’t remember I was at the bar that night. You can’t always tell how drunk someone is, especially if you yourself have been drinking.

The article also says in recent years it’s often the first student who reports the offense who gets the benefit of the doubt. A court has recently (this was actually in 2018) ruled that it was discriminatory to only hold one student responsible when both were drinking - article on this below. Unfortunately the article might be paywalled if you’ve recently read other Atlantic articles. It shows how ridiculous these cases can be: the accused student was female, she had previously accused a student, then another male student accused her by being the first to report their drunken sexual encounter.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/
It shows how difficult to navigate one specific case can be. Again, this isn't the evidence that I was asking for.

It's easy to cherry pick individual incidents and say "this is a mess". Thankfully, the law exists to deal with mess. The fact that individual cases can be messy is not an argument that the cases shouldn't happen in the first place. Which is what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say that these kinds of allegations shouldn't be allowed to be made in the first place, right? That's why you're opposing Title IX, and therefore supporting Devos' rolling back of it (and presumably whatever else she did on the general subject)?
 
As we all know, that famously works perfectly and causes no additional complications or problems ;)

The point here is your criticism is rooted in Title IX allegedly causing problems in implementation, when "go to the police" was already causing problems in reality, despite being the agreed-upon advice in theory. I understand that this is how you think things should work, and I'm guessing that this is informs your general position on Title IX. Am I close? Or am I off of the mark?

I'm not trying to gotcha you here, and I'm not putting you in the same bucket as some other arguments I've seen.

The fact that the police suck does not make Title IX perfect. I do understand the concerns, or some of the concerns, that Title IX was responding to. I understand the inadequacies of the justice system particularly with respect to sexual violence.

But it is inarguable that Title IX has been implemented at many schools in a way that has led to patently unjust outcomes. This is because not giving people due process is easier than coming up with positive solutions to rape culture on campus. Schools could probably do more to curtail campus assaults by a policy of expelling any student found to be a member of a Greek organization or any student found to have attended a Greek event, but they will not go after those organizations because they have deep pockets and, frankly, form a key part of the allure of campus life for many prospective students.

Ultimately I do believe it is barking up the wrong tree to expect college administrators to handle the problem of sexual assault, this is a wider problem in the culture, and the expectation that schools be able to handle this perfectly is frankly foolish (just as it is foolish to expect college administrators to "end white supremacy" or sexism or whatever).
 
Top Bottom