5 ms·

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Some College Title IX Trials Are Unfair to Accused

52 points by MollyR 9y ago

HarryHirsch 9y ago
The Reason piece is a commentary on an interview with Judge Bader Ginsburg in the Atlantic; the full piece is here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/-/553409/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/-/55340...
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Probably the most important piece of that article starts with "Rosen: Is there any area for progress in the law and might your dissents in sexual-harassment cases be vindicated?".
misterbowfinger 9y ago
I wasn't familiar with reason.com. Looked through a bit, it looks like it's a digital publication with a libertarian angle: https://reason.org/frequently-asked-questions/#q1 https://reason.org/frequently-asked-questions/#q1 Not an issue per se, but good to know.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  Why "not an issue per se" and not "not an issue at all"? There is a bit of subtle implication there. Libertarians care a great deal about civil liberties so this perspective is also not a shock.
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    Libertarians have a very conflicted position with respect to civil liberties. For them freedom of association often trumps access to markets. This has created a weird pseudo-alliance between Libertarians and those who would limit access to markets based on genetic attributes. The Libertarians tend to downplay this fact, but not to the point of generally preferring market access over freedom of association.
    - tb_technical 9y ago
      Ahhhhh, calling the libertarians crypto-racists. Internet, never change!
  - misterbowfinger 9y ago
    Oh sure, I don't disagree, I just think it's important to know if a publication has a particular slant.
- SeanBoocock 9y ago
  Likewise. David Koch sits on the Board of Trustees, which should give you a good indication of what Reason might promote. More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation
jeffdavis 9y ago
Kangaroo courts, plain and simple. Sacrificing innocent people to get more of the guilty ones when evidence is flimsy.
- Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
  Not even a court. Pretty much you have to prove that you didn't rape her 14 months ago. Of course she reported it this late because she was ashamed or whatever. Meanwhile, your life is ruined. Sex is not like a dishwasher you can return within 30 days if you regret it later. I have a feeling that a lot of these actresses knew what they exactly what were doing. They made a bet, and now they want to blame the other side 100%.
  - jeffdavis 9y ago
    "I have a feeling that a lot of these actresses knew what they exactly what were doing." I think that goes way too far.
    - Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
      No it doesn't. Want to secure the role so the other actress doesn't get it? What I said, doesn't apply to Weinstein types
      - dang 9y ago
        This crosses into trolling on what is a particularly divisive topic. We ban users that do that, so please don't post like that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
duxup 9y ago
It's hard to imagine there are many folks who work in the legal world wouldn't be shocked by some of practices at colleges. Colleges shouldn't be playing the amateur legal system game, and they're doing a great job of proving why at seemingly every turn. After a local university in my area did a review of their processes some of the recommendations were pretty shocking. Things like "the accused should be allowed to present evidence", "the accused and accuser should be allowed to have or provided representation", "the accused should be notified of appeals". It's hard to have a response that isn't a WTF.gif to things like that.
bitwize 9y ago
It's important to distinguish between the policies of specific campus sexual-assault review boards and what was set forth in the 2011 Department of Education "Dear Colleague" letter. There is nothing objectionable in the "Dear Colleague" letter, and it articulates sound policy for American colleges. While it is true that colleges must adhere to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard or risk falling out of Title IX compliance, a) preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard to use in non-criminal proceedings, including and especially civil-rights violations which are what Title IX covers; b) colleges also risk falling out of compliance of Title IX if the accused and the complainant do not have equal access to information used at the hearing, or equal time and opportunity to present their respective cases. Whenever disciplinary investigation by a school for sexual assault becomes a "kangaroo court", it is almost assuredly a CYA move on the part of the college staff to look like they are "doing something" about campus rape without following the procedures set forth by the government. But it's not only unfair and against the law, it's in violation of Title IX and the very letter the MGTOW crowd has been whinging about. Oh, and Betsy DeVos is an idiot for overturning this policy.

52 points by MollyR 9y ago

The Reason piece is a commentary on an interview with Judge Bader Ginsburg in the Atlantic; the full piece is here: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/-/553409/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/-/55340...

peterwwillis 9y ago
Probably the most important piece of that article starts with "Rosen: Is there any area for progress in the law and might your dissents in sexual-harassment cases be vindicated?".

misterbowfinger 9y ago

I wasn't familiar with reason.com. Looked through a bit, it looks like it's a digital publication with a libertarian angle: https://reason.org/frequently-asked-questions/#q1 https://reason.org/frequently-asked-questions/#q1 Not an issue per se, but good to know.

tanderson92 9y ago
Why "not an issue per se" and not "not an issue at all"? There is a bit of subtle implication there. Libertarians care a great deal about civil liberties so this perspective is also not a shock.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  Libertarians have a very conflicted position with respect to civil liberties. For them freedom of association often trumps access to markets. This has created a weird pseudo-alliance between Libertarians and those who would limit access to markets based on genetic attributes. The Libertarians tend to downplay this fact, but not to the point of generally preferring market access over freedom of association.
  - tb_technical 9y ago
    Ahhhhh, calling the libertarians crypto-racists. Internet, never change!
- misterbowfinger 9y ago
  Oh sure, I don't disagree, I just think it's important to know if a publication has a particular slant.
SeanBoocock 9y ago
Likewise. David Koch sits on the Board of Trustees, which should give you a good indication of what Reason might promote. More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation

jeffdavis 9y ago

Kangaroo courts, plain and simple. Sacrificing innocent people to get more of the guilty ones when evidence is flimsy.

Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
Not even a court. Pretty much you have to prove that you didn't rape her 14 months ago. Of course she reported it this late because she was ashamed or whatever. Meanwhile, your life is ruined. Sex is not like a dishwasher you can return within 30 days if you regret it later. I have a feeling that a lot of these actresses knew what they exactly what were doing. They made a bet, and now they want to blame the other side 100%.
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  "I have a feeling that a lot of these actresses knew what they exactly what were doing." I think that goes way too far.
  - Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
    No it doesn't. Want to secure the role so the other actress doesn't get it? What I said, doesn't apply to Weinstein types
    - dang 9y ago
      This crosses into trolling on what is a particularly divisive topic. We ban users that do that, so please don't post like that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

duxup 9y ago

It's hard to imagine there are many folks who work in the legal world wouldn't be shocked by some of practices at colleges. Colleges shouldn't be playing the amateur legal system game, and they're doing a great job of proving why at seemingly every turn. After a local university in my area did a review of their processes some of the recommendations were pretty shocking. Things like "the accused should be allowed to present evidence", "the accused and accuser should be allowed to have or provided representation", "the accused should be notified of appeals". It's hard to have a response that isn't a WTF.gif to things like that.

bitwize 9y ago

It's important to distinguish between the policies of specific campus sexual-assault review boards and what was set forth in the 2011 Department of Education "Dear Colleague" letter. There is nothing objectionable in the "Dear Colleague" letter, and it articulates sound policy for American colleges. While it is true that colleges must adhere to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard or risk falling out of Title IX compliance, a) preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard to use in non-criminal proceedings, including and especially civil-rights violations which are what Title IX covers; b) colleges also risk falling out of compliance of Title IX if the accused and the complainant do not have equal access to information used at the hearing, or equal time and opportunity to present their respective cases. Whenever disciplinary investigation by a school for sexual assault becomes a "kangaroo court", it is almost assuredly a CYA move on the part of the college staff to look like they are "doing something" about campus rape without following the procedures set forth by the government. But it's not only unfair and against the law, it's in violation of Title IX and the very letter the MGTOW crowd has been whinging about. Oh, and Betsy DeVos is an idiot for overturning this policy.