Hey, Putey did it.Coming soon: GOP decriminalizes domestic abuse.
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.
They really hate women.
They really hate women.
GOP wants to remove Sexual Assault as part of Title IX Harassment
The Ever-Reliable Fox News said: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.
Sen. Lankford said: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.
Sen. Lankford said:[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."
Write the incredible.How does the onion even write articles when shit like this is now real news
Soon, everyone will be grabbing the pussy..
A Scalia avatar on GAF
WOW
That's a new one for me
off you go to the ignore list you awful shit
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.
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.
Women are going to have start packing heat. Stay safe women.
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.
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
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?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.