Archive for April, 2011

Wait for more of these cases with the new Title IX regs

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

Caleb Warner was a student at The University of North Dakota. He was accused of rape by a fellow student. The University kicked him out for violating the code of student life because of the accusation. It was the kind of swift decision that the current title IX regulations require. He was never formally charged by the police for a crime.

Three months after he was expelled from school, the police charged his accuser with filing a false police report.  Despite this fact, the university is refusing to reopen the case and change their minds on their rash decision.

People wonder why the university would refuse to act. I mean, common sense dictates that they must open the case if the police believe the woman lied, right? Well, common sense is not common any more. And the new Title IX regulations I blogged about previously do not use common sense on issues like these. I believe that universities will be afraid to revisit these cases because they will be afraid that the federal government will come down on them for violating Title IX. See, even though they might want to seek justice and right a wrong, the new regulations have nothing to do with justice. When you can kick someone off campus on the word (and the word alone) of someone else, you fail to achieve justice.

And while this decision to expel was not made with the new Title IX regulations in place, those regulations will open the flood gates for more rulings such as this.

This must be stopped.

Presumption of innocence and the Duke rape case false accuser.

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Seems as if Crystal Magnum, the false accuser in the Duke rape case, is now accused of Murder.

I hope she is treated with the presumption of innocence that the media failed to give the young men she falsely accused. I hope the courts are allowed to do their jobs and I hope, if guilty, she is punished accordingly.

Just sayin…

The presumption of innocence and Title IX

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

The Department of Education under Obama has sent a “Dear Colleague Letter” to colleges and universities regarding their responsibilities under Title IX when it comes to sexual harrassment (including claims of sexual violence).

Now, I was prepared to write a lengthy blog post describing the PDF (that is rather large) but I have found another article that basically describes my displeasure with this letter. I highly suggest you read the link. However, if you do not feel the need to read even that, I will give you the very short version.

Even though Title IX only applies to schools, it is requiring that compliance with Title IX requires that any claim of sexual assault by one student on another be treated quickly, take place regardless of law enforcement involvement, and be treated under the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard than the “clear and convincing standard” that is used in criminal procedings.

Now, I have no problem if claims against a school for sexual discrimination are decided via the lower standard. However, to require that students accused of sexual assaults be punished swiftly under preponderance standards is horribly unjust.  The requirement that the school protect the accuser from retribution during the investigation is reasonable. However, instead of creating a duplication of resources, the Department of Education should just require that all claims of sexual violence reported to the school to be reported to the local police and then require the school to help the police in their investigation of the alleged crime.

Of course, the “Men’s Rights Activists” (MRA) have jumped all over this one. And nobody should blame them for being angry. They should just blame them for how they respond. Posts like the one I shared earlier describing the letter are reasonable. Responses to the initial post here just go too far and are not helping. Yes, some are correct that it seems like the mere accusation could enough to get a kid kicked out of school and that is absolutely wrong. However, it is not schools who are coming up with this horribly flawed set of guidelines, it is the current administration who  (for reasons I cannot determine) are rejecting the presumption of innocence. They are absolutely wrong about this and if you care about the presumption of innocence you should contact the Department of Education and share your displeasure with this letter in a clear, concise and rational way (i.e. not like many MRA will).

Defending what you shouldn’t.

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

A while ago I got a letter from a lawyer. That lawyer is a friend of my false accuser. I had notified my false accuser, after seeing her career choice as an advocate for rape victims, that I found her career choice ironic. The lawyer sent me a big bully lawyer letter, meant to intimidate me. Of course, I knew he had nothing because (as several lawyer friends of mine have said) I have a good understanding of the law for a lay person.

Well, I did some research on this lawyer to see what he was all about. He is a lawyer who has focused on fighting child abuse and rape. So it is no shock that he would happen to know my false accuser as they are in the same field.

Then the irony came. In the discussion about the video about raising males to be  good men, I had made several points in response to the MRA at “a voice for men“.  Look at that site for the name “Roger Canaff”. He actually defended a post of mine (I posted there under lj4adotcomdan). Well, can you imagine the shock that I had when the person who wrote the big mean lawyer bully letter would then defend me? I thought two things. He was either stalking me and seeking to bait me OR he really had no clue that i was actually the same person he had mailed months prior.

Well, he also started a topic of discussion on his blog to discuss that video.  I responded, asking if he realized the irony of his defense of me. He could never figure it out until I told him. Well, once I did, he removed all my posts from his board.

Fortunately, that last link contains a screen shot of my last post. How can a guy who claims to stand up for victims be supportive of someone who would make false accusations about sexual assault? For a supposed defender of victims, he is sure defending something (or someone) here that he should not be.