5 ms·

I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of d

I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of due process is odd.

denkmoon 7y ago
Keep it contained. Keep it within your control or within the control of your cronies, and then you'll always get the outcome you want. The people pushing this aren't in it for fairness or due process.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
You can trace this mentality about government back to the progressive era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government
gedy 7y ago
From the article: "This ideology is a successor to liberalism. It brandishes terms that superficially resemble normative liberalism—terms like diversity and inclusion—but in fact seeks to supplant it. This new regime, in which administrative power has been fashioned into a blunt instrument of deterrence, marks off a crucial distinction—between the liberal rule of law, and the punitive system of surveillance rooted in identity politics known as 'social justice.'”
- doodliego 7y ago
  It's neo-Stalinism, the goal and methods are both fundamentally anti-democratic. It's effects are as bad as the McCarthyism and red scares of the mid-20th century.
- nullc 7y ago
  That is essentially the subject of this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-speech-is-no-longer-safe-speech-at-today-s-elite-colleges?srnd=opinion https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-s... ... but I felt that coverage was a bit thin and-- lacking a better phrase-- subjective. Perhaps the continuation of this series will be more substantive, it seems off to a good start.
wahern 7y ago
The requirement comes from the original Civil Rights Act. Say you're a minority student and some other students start using epithets to taunt you (as was common). Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Is it administratively efficient to require a student to make a federal case out of it, especially if all that's required is a firm rebuke from the administration to cease the hostile behavior? Remember, the defendant as far as the law is concerned is the university, not the accused student(s). These rules are about requiring the school to provide procedures to address its own conduct; namely, permitting a hostile school environment. Which brings up another point: can a school even be considered to have permitted a hostile environment if they haven't been given the chance to remediate things before initiation of a federal lawsuit? Thus, these rules for internal, administrative adjudication are also about setting standards for judging whether a school has willfully or negligently permitted a hostile environment. The problem is that in their zeal to avoid being adjudged as having permitted a hostile environment they've in some cases crafted administrative procedures that unfairly treat the accused. But the accused can also make similar claims against the university--that the adjudication procedures sexually discriminated against them. So there's back pressure, it just requires time for things to settle into an equilibrium. (See my post elsethread about the cause for the recent radical shifts.)
- naasking 7y ago
  > The requirement comes from the original Civil Rights Act. Say you're a minority student and some other students start using epithets to taunt you (as was common). Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Is it administratively efficient to require a student to make a federal case out of it, especially if all that's required is a firm rebuke from the administration to cease the hostile behavior? I'm confused, a student being racist against another student is not a crime as far as I know. A student raping another student is a crime. How are these remotely comparable?
  - wahern 7y ago
    Because a university isn't investigating to determine whether a crime, per se, has occurred, but to determine whether allegations of discriminatory (racial, sexual, etc) harassment are credible. If such harassment is occurring, or something equivalent which creates a discriminatory hostile environment for the student, a university has an obligation under these laws to end it. A rape is a crime, but a rape followed by the ongoing presence of the rapist also equates (under legal precedent) to a hostile environment for the student victim, which is how Title IX comes into play. The question was why are universities conducting these investigations. Rape plus ongoing presence of the rapist is considered a form of sexual discrimination by the university, in so far as the university willfully permits the rapist's ongoing presence. Thus the university is put into the position of judging the credibility of any allegations. In this way it's also identical to the racial epithet scenario. Shouting racial epithets isn't a crime or even illegal, but a university that doesn't stop such ongoing behavior among its students is considered to be illegally racially discriminatory against the target of the epithets.

I understand “why,” in that they are required to. What I don’t understand is why this is a thing to begin with. Government end-runs around standard systems of due process is odd.

denkmoon 7y ago

Keep it contained. Keep it within your control or within the control of your cronies, and then you'll always get the outcome you want. The people pushing this aren't in it for fairness or due process.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

You can trace this mentality about government back to the progressive era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government

gedy 7y ago

From the article: "This ideology is a successor to liberalism. It brandishes terms that superficially resemble normative liberalism—terms like diversity and inclusion—but in fact seeks to supplant it. This new regime, in which administrative power has been fashioned into a blunt instrument of deterrence, marks off a crucial distinction—between the liberal rule of law, and the punitive system of surveillance rooted in identity politics known as 'social justice.'”

doodliego 7y ago
It's neo-Stalinism, the goal and methods are both fundamentally anti-democratic. It's effects are as bad as the McCarthyism and red scares of the mid-20th century.
nullc 7y ago
That is essentially the subject of this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-speech-is-no-longer-safe-speech-at-today-s-elite-colleges?srnd=opinion https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-s... ... but I felt that coverage was a bit thin and-- lacking a better phrase-- subjective. Perhaps the continuation of this series will be more substantive, it seems off to a good start.

wahern 7y ago

The requirement comes from the original Civil Rights Act. Say you're a minority student and some other students start using epithets to taunt you (as was common). Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Is it administratively efficient to require a student to make a federal case out of it, especially if all that's required is a firm rebuke from the administration to cease the hostile behavior? Remember, the defendant as far as the law is concerned is the university, not the accused student(s). These rules are about requiring the school to provide procedures to address its own conduct; namely, permitting a hostile school environment. Which brings up another point: can a school even be considered to have permitted a hostile environment if they haven't been given the chance to remediate things before initiation of a federal lawsuit? Thus, these rules for internal, administrative adjudication are also about setting standards for judging whether a school has willfully or negligently permitted a hostile environment. The problem is that in their zeal to avoid being adjudged as having permitted a hostile environment they've in some cases crafted administrative procedures that unfairly treat the accused. But the accused can also make similar claims against the university--that the adjudication procedures sexually discriminated against them. So there's back pressure, it just requires time for things to settle into an equilibrium. (See my post elsethread about the cause for the recent radical shifts.)

naasking 7y ago
> The requirement comes from the original Civil Rights Act. Say you're a minority student and some other students start using epithets to taunt you (as was common). Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Is it administratively efficient to require a student to make a federal case out of it, especially if all that's required is a firm rebuke from the administration to cease the hostile behavior? I'm confused, a student being racist against another student is not a crime as far as I know. A student raping another student is a crime. How are these remotely comparable?
- wahern 7y ago
  Because a university isn't investigating to determine whether a crime, per se, has occurred, but to determine whether allegations of discriminatory (racial, sexual, etc) harassment are credible. If such harassment is occurring, or something equivalent which creates a discriminatory hostile environment for the student, a university has an obligation under these laws to end it. A rape is a crime, but a rape followed by the ongoing presence of the rapist also equates (under legal precedent) to a hostile environment for the student victim, which is how Title IX comes into play. The question was why are universities conducting these investigations. Rape plus ongoing presence of the rapist is considered a form of sexual discrimination by the university, in so far as the university willfully permits the rapist's ongoing presence. Thus the university is put into the position of judging the credibility of any allegations. In this way it's also identical to the racial epithet scenario. Shouting racial epithets isn't a crime or even illegal, but a university that doesn't stop such ongoing behavior among its students is considered to be illegally racially discriminatory against the target of the epithets.