Support NeoGAF

[Syncytia]

Coming soon: GOP decriminalizes domestic abuse.

 

[Already Torn]

Coming soon: GOP decriminalizes domestic abuse.

Hey, Putey did it.

 

[TCKaos]

Title IX is a legitimately awful way to try and address the issues w/ how schools handle sexual assault. However, it was also just about the only way they were able to do it (because of the GOP lockdown on congress.)

The due process concerns are actually legitimate here, the problem is that the GOP (just like with the ACA) has no interest in replacing/correcting the actual underlying issue that led to the externalities.

The most simple solution in the short term is to have the campus immediately turn over everything they have to the local PD when an allegation is made. I don't know why that isn't already a thing.

The thing you do for the long lasting impact is to get rid of Greek Life and to stop venerating student athletes. Men who join fraternities are three times more likely to rape and women in sororities are 74% more likely to get raped.

 

[Neo C.]

They really hate women.

GOP can hate the women and still get enough women's votes to stay in power.

 

[Wag]

They really hate women.

Only because God told them to.

 

[Rest]

When you pour yourself of a bowl of Three Branches Cereal, it will take you back to the good old days, when men were White and protestant, gas was cheap, and women and niggers knew their place! Just add some unpasteurized, raw milk, and you'll get a spoon full of flavor that makes you say "Mmmmm! Now that's regressive!"

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Soon, everyone will be grabbing the pussy..

 

[Two Words]

ie, a crime that actually harms white male perpetrators.

 

[Metaphoreus]

GOP wants to remove Sexual Assault as part of Title IX Harassment

This is completely false. I'm guessing your misunderstanding comes from this sentence in the Fox article you link to:

Lankford is referring to letters sent by the OCR to schools in April 2011 that made sexual assault a form of harassment prohibited by Title IX.

But this isn't true, either. In fact, while the letter (PDF) does say that "a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment," it backs up this statement with citations to six court cases from as far back as 1999. Republicans' criticism of the letter is not that it "made sexual assault a form of harassment prohibited by Title IX." Consequently, it's not true--as you apparently inferred based on this fake factoid--that Republicans want to "remove sexual assault as part of Title IX harassment."

If you want to understand Republicans' criticisms of OCR's policy, this year-old letter (PDF) from Senator Lankford is as good a place to start as any. It criticizes how the rules were enacted:

Before promulgating regulatory policy, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires agencies to provide notice of a proposed rule and solicit public comment on the proposal. The APA exempts from the requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking "interpretative rules or general statements of policy," also referred to as guidance. Recently, the Supreme Court described "the critical feature of interpretive rules" as those that are "issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules it administers" that otherwise "do not have the force and effect of law." If a policy statement does more than bind regulated parties to an agency's interpretation of a governing statute or rule, it would be properly characterized as substantive, subject to APA rulemaking procedures.

What language does OCR purport to construe in its 2010 and 2011 Dear Colleague letters? The Dear Colleague letters cite Title IX at-large as authority for the letters' policies on sexual harassment and sexual violence. Yet, OCR fails to cite to specific statutory or regulatory authority that the letters purport to "interpret." . . . Regulated parties deserve a more precise legal justification than an "et seq." citation to a 3,400-odd-word law and corresponding chapter in the Code of Federal Regulations.

It quotes others' substantive criticisms:

[A]fter Harvard University acquiesced to OCR's policies by establishing an Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution, 28 Harvard Law School faculty penned an op-ed criticizing the Office's sexual harassment policy as "inconsistent with many of the most basic principles we teach." The op-ed outlined eight specific due process concerns, concluding that the resulting sexual harassment policy "departs dramatically from legal principles [developed by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts], jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials." An open letter [PDF] from 16 University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty, published in the Wall Street Journal, similarly noted that "[a]s law teachers who instruct students on the basic principles of due process of law, proper administrative procedures, and rules of evidence designed to ensure reliable judgments, we are deeply concerned by these developments..." . . .

Commissioners Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights articulated their concerns in a February 26, 2015 letter [PDF] to Congress. Specifically, the Commissioners argued that OCR significantly and substantively expanded Title IX's provisions by ignoring Supreme Court precedent; broadly defining "sexual harassment," which "can easily cover speech protected by the First Amendment"; expanding the scope of liability for schools in dealing with bullying; and relaxing the burden of proof in sexual harassment and assault proceedings. On November 15, 2015, Ms. Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, delivered a lecture arguing that OCR's policies constitute an "overbroad, unjustified concept of illegal sexual harassment as extending to speech with any sexual content that anyone finds offensive," and "OCR's distorted concept of sexual harassment actually does more harm than good to gender justice, not to mention free speech."

Lankford also criticizes OCR for improperly trying to use its enforcement power to coerce schools to comply with what is supposedly non-binding guidance.

Representative Foxx's criticisms are similar.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

How does the onion even write articles when shit like this is now real news

Write the incredible.

Write how awesome the incoming administration is satirically

 

[Nomadic Sparks]

A Scalia avatar on GAF

WOW

That's a new one for me

off you go to the ignore list you awful shit

 

[NEO0MJ]

Soon, everyone will be grabbing the pussy..

Grabbing the pussy is the right of all sentient beings.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A Scalia avatar on GAF

WOW

That's a new one for me

off you go to the ignore list you awful shit

You're doing it wrong. The ignore list is for people who contribute nothing to a conversation. What you're looking for is the option to turn off avatars. Once you've done that, I bet you'll have no problems reading through the substance of my post and contributing a rational response.

I'll wait.

 

[Aske]

This makes me feel physically sick.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

A Scalia avatar on GAF

WOW

That's a new one for me

off you go to the ignore list you awful shit

I don't know if you actually read his post, but it's pretty well-argued and -sourced.

If anything, this is one of the few moves by the GOP of late that I actually think has some merit. To read this thread, you'd think the idea of criticizing the heavy-handed use of Title IX to get colleges to extrajudicially combat sexual assault was a novelty, instead of something that has been going on for years.

 

[Aske]

I don't know if you actually read his post, but it's pretty well-argued and -sourced.

If anything, this is one of the few moves by the GOP of late that I actually think has some merit. To read this thread, you'd think the idea of criticizing the heavy-handed use of Title IX to get colleges to extrajudicially combat sexual assault was a novelty, instead of something that has been going on for years.

The problem is that for all its faults, including sexual harassment under Title IX is an attempt to redress an imbalance in the system that favours men who sexually harass women in college. As I understand the issue, the proposed change is like throwing out Obamacare: trashing an imperfect solution to a major problem simply because it's imperfect. As a result, all that happens is a return to the former status quo, which was far worse in both cases: people without healthcare, and guys getting away with unconscionable behaviour.

 

[Breads]

Hypothetical wolf crying victims are more important than sexual assault victims.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The problem is that for all its faults, including sexual harassment under Title IX is an attempt to redress an imbalance in the system that favours men who sexually harass women in college. As I understand the issue, the proposed change is like throwing out Obamacare: trashing an imperfect solution to a major problem simply because it's imperfect. As a result, all that happens is a return to the former status quo, which was far worse in both cases: people without healthcare, and guys getting away with unconscionable behaviour.

It's an attempt, but it's a bad attempt that functionally abrogates the rights of the accused and puts political and financial pressure on schools to punish them with a lower threshold of evidence than that used by the authorities. Plus, per the sources cited in Metaphoreus's post, Title IX may not even really have the authority to do what it's currently doing. I am all for finding ways to combat sexual assault and to empower victims to report it when it happens, but I do not for a second believe that it requires bending the law and ethics to find ways to extralegally punish those accused of it, either.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Women are going to have start packing heat. Stay safe women.

 

[Mesoian]

Women are going to have start packing heat. Stay safe women.

Small form tasers were on sale last week. I bought one for my niece.

 

[Cagey]

As an OCR attorney, without offering an opinion and this shouldn't be read to imply endorsement of the opinions expressed there, you'd be wise to read Metaphoreus's post and research the issue at hand.

There's valid (even if disagreed with or incorrect) criticism to be had of the 2011 DCL, as the notoriously right-wing HLS faculty set forth. (that's a joke)

I won't get into what the intent behind scaling back the oversight may be.

 

[Funyarinpa]

What in the actual fucking fuck am I fucking reading. What the fuck. What the actual fucking fuck. If you're that worried about false allegations then take measures to ensure the safety of due process for fuck's sake. How about beginning from actually prosecuting known rapists?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

As an OCR attorney, without offering an opinion and this shouldn't be read to imply endorsement of the opinions expressed there, you'd be wise to read Metaphoreus's post and research the issue at hand.

There's valid (even if disagreed with or incorrect) criticism to be had of the 2011 DCL, as the notoriously right-wing HLS faculty set forth. (that's a joke)

I won't get into what the intent behind scaling back the oversight may be.

It's unfortunate that the GOP's poisonous attitude toward women on other issues totally obscures everything that they do, because this is an example of an issue where they genuinely could do good in checking a "good intentions, bad results" liberal policy, allowing the government to go back to the drawing board in tackling the underlying issue.

 

[Aske]

It's unfortunate that the GOP's poisonous attitude toward women on other issues totally obscures everything that they do, because this is an example of an issue where they genuinely could do good in checking a "good intentions, bad results" liberal policy, allowing the government to go back to the drawing board in tackling the underlying issue.

That's the real problem. This move feels like an "all lives matter" approach to sexual harassment. Knee-jerk legislation that does more harm than good is unacceptable, but I'd rather read "GOP wants to work to reduce sexual harassment; proposes alternatives to including it under Title IX", because since the GOP is best known for only championing wealthy white men, it's hard not to treat this move with cynicism.

 

[FromTheFuture]

shit post

It would be great to have conversations about actual issues instead of just making references to trump. Its becoming the new "Thanks Obama" meme

You don't see the irony in your statements? When the evidence of Trump's gross sexual behavior came out, that should have been an "actual issue." The fact that we're in a society that perpetuates this behavior is an actual issue. The way you equated the advocacy of sexual assault and its normalization to people saying "Thanks, Obama" is an actual issue.

Until you realize that there are more actual issues than only the ones you care about do you have any right to cut out someone else's cause. I'm going to assume you're not a woman, because it seems to be a clear lack of understanding and empathy for the issues women have to deal with. In this case, basic safety and piece of mind that you won't be the target of sexual harassment and assault in order to just to live life in the way a man does.

 

[Cagey]

It's unfortunate that the GOP's poisonous attitude toward women on other issues totally obscures everything that they do, because this is an example of an issue where they genuinely could do good in checking a "good intentions, bad results" liberal policy, allowing the government to go back to the drawing board in tackling the underlying issue.

Well partly the consternation is from a legal precedent and administrative rulemaking perspective, which is independent of the intent or the result for the specific issue and more about macro concerns. In other words, can OCR do this?

That is half the criticism.

The other half fits the bolded: whether agreed or not on if it's bad policy, there's concern if it's the right way to address this issue. In other words, should OCR do this?