Program attempting to dismiss me

[Chibucks15]

---

Members don't see this ad.

But there have been a number of well publicized false accusations, title ix is dangerous in that it does not operate with the same rights for the accused as criminal investigation

Oh I completely agree just stirring the pot

 

[Osminog]

Title IX taken to its logical conclusion:

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Hi, I'm sorry to be commenting here as I am only a premed, but I'm also about to be a state-trained rape crisis advocate in the emergency room (not the nurse) and a mandatory reporter so ...

2 students decided to accuse me of sexual harassment and after a lengthy investigation over entirely hearsay, I was found not guilty.

I know a *lot* of survivors who have been involved in title IX cases. I am an activist involved in the survivor community. As it happens, I am fairly unsympathetic towards your description of your situation.

Students don't just casually decide to accuse another student of sexual harassment.

For those that do, they are often persuaded to drop their case by school administrators.

Your accusers are two fellow medical students. Each one put their careers on the line by making a complaint but must have felt strongly enough about something you did to do so.

There are others more qualified to speak here because I am only a premed, but as someone who is about to work with rape and domestic violence survivors on a professional and regular basis, I notice you reduce your transgression to an "immature thing that happened during a physical exam" and 1) don't show any remorse or regret 2) don't seem to have considered how strongly upset how your female peers could have felt, or how much it could have affected their time in medical school 3) consider yourself free of all wrongdoing 4) consider yourself unfairly attacked and scrutinized in an era where the USC school gynecologist was just found out to have been sexually assaulting students for decades 5) call fairly grave accusations "stupid incidents"

If you felt strongly enough about your innocence and wanted to clarify your situation, you would have pulled out all the stops to make that meeting with the administrator that was scheduled "on a whim," whatever that means.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Like saying that Title IX policies, as they are actually applied at universities, directly infringe on the civil liberties of male students and subject them to biased investigations without any due process.

Universities are not a court of law.

Universities can expel any student they want for conduct unbecoming of a student at that university, especially if they are a private university.

My alma mater expels students for a single proven act of cheating, lying or stealing, under the Honor Code, in an institution known as "single sanction".

I suppose however, medical students are not law students.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...[6]

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...[7]

Neither amendment mentions universities, or placement at a university, as part of their due process clauses.

It is true that public universities are often see as an extension of the state, and a seat at that university can be contended to be "liberty" or "property" -- however it is very different from the usual interpretation.

I suggest you read up on the US Constitution. But perhaps you think rape shield laws take away due process.

 

[Fenderbaum]

Universities are not a court of law.

Universities can expel any student they want for conduct unbecoming of a student at that university.

My alma mater expels students for a single proven act of cheating, lying or stealing, under the Honor Code in an institution known as "single sanction".

I suppose however, medical students are not law students.



Neither amendment mentions universities, or placement at a university, as part of their due process clauses.

I suggest you read up on the US Constitution.

This is about the level of understanding (i.e. actively asserting things which are incorrect) of how the constitution interacts with the campus environment that I'd expect from someone acting as a "victim's advocate" in title 9 investigations.

Universities that 1) accept federal money or 2) whose students are recipients of federal financial aid cannot trample on the constitution. This is a derivative of the 14th amendment. If you want to go strict-constitutionalist, then I guess almost all forms of government economic intervention, the education subsidy, privacy rights, and abortion rights are unconstitutional as well.

Here's the ACLU on the first amendment:

Speech on Campus

If your school has a uniformly-enforced "one strike" policy for academic dishonesty, there is nothing remotely unconstitutional about that; it merely needs to follow a consistent procedure and allow the student opportunity to present contrary evidence. What it cannot do is target men or blacks or muslims under the dishonesty policy, either in detection of cheating or enforcement of the rule, or prevent the student from defending themselves during internal discipline hearings.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Universities which 1) accept federal money 2) whose students are recipients of federal financial aid cannot trample on the individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. This is a derivative of the 14th amendment.

The Sixth Court of Appeals found in favor that the University of Cincinnati (UC) violated John Doe's due process rights when Jane Roe did not show up to the hearing and Doe was unable to cross-examine Roe, and then UC found in favor of Roe anyway. (This is not what happens in the sheer majority of hearings.) BUT in their analysis, this is what the court wrote:

« UC has a strong interest both “in eliminating sexual assault on its campus and establishing a fair and constitutionally permissible disciplinary system.” Doe, 860 F.3d at 370. And in defendants’ favor, we have recognized that a constitutionally permissible disciplinary system need not follow the rules of evidence. See Flaim, 418 F.3d at 635. Cross-examination can “unnecessarily formalize school expulsion proceedings” precisely because it “impos[es] the additional burden on school administrators of applying, to some extent, the rules of evidence.” Newsome, 842 F.2d at 925 n.4. UC’s administrators are “in the business of education, not judicial administration.” Flaim, 418 F.3d at 640. “To saddle them with the burden of overseeing the process of cross-examination (and the innumerable objections that are raised to the form and content of cross-examination) is to require of them that which they are ill-equipped to perform.” Newsome, 842 F.2d at 926. »


... and as for why the court found in Doe's favor, it continues ...


« But that holding gets defendants only so far. Fear of “saddl[ing] school officials with the burden of overseeing . . . cross-examination” convinced the Cummins court that this “circumscribed form of cross-examination” is sufficient when a student’s accuser appears for the hearing. See id. (quoting Newsome, 842 F.2d at 926, brackets omitted). The court left open the possibility that UC’s procedures may nonetheless violate due process as applied to a student whose accuser fails to appear for the hearing. Sparing the ARC panel from having to navigate traditional crossexamination justifies the requirement for written preapproved questions, but it does not justify denying the opportunity to question an adverse witness altogether. »

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0224p-06.pdf

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, Appellants-Defendants; No. 16-4693. Appeal from the United States, District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 1:16-cv-00987 — Michael R. Barrett, District Judge. Argued: August 1, 2017. Decided and Filed: September 25, 2017. Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

P.S. Being a rape crisis advocate in the emergency room for patients is not the same as being a vicitm's advocate in Title IX investigations; it's a semiclinical role, not a legal one.

 

[Fenderbaum]

The Sixth Court found in favor that the University of Cincinnati (UC) violated John Doe's due process rights when Jane Roe did not show up to the hearing and Doe was unable to cross-examine Roe, and then UC found in favor of Roe anyway. (This is not what happens in the sheer majority of hearings.) BUT in their analysis, this is what the court wrote:



... continued ...



http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0224p-06.pdf

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI; ANIESHA MITCHELL; JUAN GUARDIA, Defendants-Appellants. No. 16-4693 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 1:16-cv-00987 — Michael R. Barrett, District Judge. Argued: August 1, 2017. Decided and Filed: September 25, 2017. Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

Again, you are asserting things which are factually incorrect, which is what I would expect from someone holding your position.

There is nothing in that ruling which asserts that the accused wasn't entitled to due process or constitutional protection; its a ruling regarding admissibility of evidence.

It actively affirms that the constitution applies to title ix hearings in the sentence you highlight:

"And in defendants’ favor, we have recognized that a constitutionally permissible disciplinary system need not follow the rules of evidence."

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

I was contesting a different assertion by one of our local incel premeds, in which he contests due process violations in Title IX investigations are "rampant."

Again, universities are not courts of law. Federal courts recognize this.

 

[WingedOx]

One just can't question the narrative without getting labels. This is really getting ridiculous now.

🙄

just against stupid people in positions of power.

Sorry guys, this isn't freshman year of college anymore. No one gives you special snowflake points for being "anti-establishment". I don't know what your deal is Prince, but you're rushing to the defense of a dude who's spent the last month treating these threads as his own personal pity party over the fact that he's quitting medical school because his lack of social skills are making him miserable.

Unfortunately it's a lot easier to blame politics for your situation than it is to look in the mirror and say "I need to grow up".

 

[Fenderbaum]

no, i was contesting a different assertion by one of our local incel premeds, in which he contests due process violations in Title IX investigations are "rampant"

You said:

Universities can expel any student they want for conduct unbecoming of a student at that university, especially if they are a private university.

...which is just false, if they or their students receive federal dollars. They have to follow due process, e.g. the student has to break a consistently-enforced rule that isn't itself unconstitutional, then the university has to go through some consistent process for discipline.

 

[Fenderbaum]

🙄


Sorry guys, this isn't freshman year of college anymore. No one gives you special snowflake points for being "anti-establishment". I don't know what your deal is Prince, but you're rushing to the defense of a dude who's spent the last month treating these threads as his own personal pity party over the fact that he's quitting medical school because his lack of social skills are making him miserable.

Unfortunately it's a lot easier to blame politics for your situation than it is to look in the mirror and say "I need to grow up".

This is a sustained ad hominem campaign from someone who also advances an orwellian perspective on professionalism. Is it professional to launch a sustained attack on the character of a person because they disagree with you about sociopolitical issues? Perhaps a discipline hearing at your degree granting institution is warranted.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

It's so puzzling that MRAs accuse the "establishment" of being biased against male students accused of sexual harassment, misconduct or assault when school administrators almost always give the accused student the advantage.

 

[Fenderbaum]

It's so puzzling that MRAs accuse the "establishment" of being biased against male students accused of sexual harassment, misconduct or assault when school administrators almost always give the accused student the advantage.

So long as you've dropped your flatly-false factual claims about the constitution not offering any protection to students, you're free to opine as you like.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

You said:



...which is just false, if they or their students receive federal dollars. They have to follow due process, e.g. the student has to break a consistently-enforced rule that isn't itself unconstitutional, then the university has to go through some consistent process for discipline.

see "conduct unbecoming of a student at that university"

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

So long as you've dropped your flatly-false factual claims about the constitution not offering any protection to students, you're free to opine as you like.

Federal courts hold that universities have a very different interest and function from legal courts, and thus may follow different rules and procedures.

 

[Fenderbaum]

Federal courts hold that universities have a very different interest and function from legal courts, and thus may follow different rules and procedures.

I don't know that this statement is true. They can't trample on the rights outlined in the bill of rights, they have to have a process that is open, fair, consistent. Its true that discipline hearings don't have to follow every legal rule a court does, but context is important.

What you originally said - that the constitution is not relevant to discipline hearings - was flat wrong.

 

[VincentAdultman]

You don't have to be any of these things to realize how corrupt the typical title ix investigation is, and adjust all dating behavior miles and miles away from people who attend your school. Presuming you have the capability to attract the opposite sex away from campus.

Yeah I’m still laughing.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

What you originally said - that the constitution is not relevant to discipline hearings - was flat wrong.

You are very intent on making that interpretation, perhaps because you have an agenda to make. I stated two main assertions:

a) "universities are not a court of law"
b) "neither amendment [explicitly] mentions universities, or placement at a university, as part of their due process clauses."

Also, I cited legal case law and the legal analysis and opinion of the Sixth Court of Appeals while you're citing me a web page that can hardly be called a legal or academic literature source. I'm curious -- what is the typical quality of the sources that you use for school?

 

[JP2740]

 

[Fenderbaum]

You are very intent on making that interpretation, perhaps because you have an agenda to make. I stated two main assertions:

a) "universities are not a court of law"
b) "neither amendment mentions universities, or placement at a university, as part of their due process clauses."

Also, I cited legal case law and you're citing me a web page that can hardly be called legally admissible evidence.

A is obvious. Universities are not a court of law.

B is false, by the legal case law you cited, which affirmed the relevancy of constitutional protections. I underlined it for you. I went on to link to a webpage with dozens of USSC rulings on how the constitution's protections apply to campus. I haven't the furthest clue how you're persisting with that argument.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Show me where the US Constitution mentions universities or placement at a university, or similar educational institution, in one of the due process clauses.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Are you confusing jurisdiction with explicit discussion in an amendment?

 

[Fenderbaum]

Show me where the US Constitution mentions universities or placement at the university, in the due process clause.

So you're arguing strict-constitutionalist in a higher education case?

Can you show me the part of the constitution that specifically mentions its right to tax and fund higher ed?

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Are you confusing jurisdiction with explicit discussion in an amendment?

 

[Fenderbaum]

Are you confusing jurisdiction with explicit discussion in an amendment?

Stop making arguments about the constitution when you don't know the first thing about it. You may otherwise opine as you like. The end.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Students accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault cannot expect the Constitution to guarantee they will have the same rules of evidence at a Title IX hearing as they would in a court of law.

This is because
a) universities are not courts of law and have different interests from courts of law
b) universities are not explicitly mentioned in the due process clauses and so are thus are only covered under substantive due process

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

Of course, maybe you're picking on me, Fenderbaum, because you have a score to settle with someone's victim's advocate. 🙂

 

[Fenderbaum]

Of course, maybe you're picking on me because you have a score to settle with someone's victim's advocate. 🙂

That's it, because I call you on your misrep about constitutional law, I'm a rapist. Classy.

 

[adrenocorticotropicana]

you misinterpreted my original statement.

also yeah, i was almost placed in foster care as a kid, have a single mom, and hang out with the poorest people ever. I'm the shameless antithesis of classy. I am sorry that you think social class and pedigree are prerequisites for practicing medicine, while believing that sexual improprieties ⸺ to put it mildly ⸺ should be freely excused.

 

[Fenderbaum]

you misinterpreted my original statement.

also yeah, i was almost placed in foster care as a kid, have a single mom, and hang out with the poorest people ever. I'm the shameless antithesis of classy. I am sorry that you think pedigree is a prerequisite for practicing medicine.

"Classy" doesn't refer to SES.

It refers to graceless behavior. Like, for example, calling someone who called you on your charlatanism a rapist.

 

[gyngyn]

Closing.