Dating colleague case study
When De Vos invited experts on the issue to private listening sessions, the voice given to men accused of sexual assault drew outrage from sexual-assault victims. (As with all sexual-assault statistics, it is important to note that these estimates are imprecise.) However, as the Obama administration led the Department of Education on a social-justice march toward a total abandonment of individual justice in favor of virtue signaling, Kafkaesque trials of every possible kind sprouted across the country.Obama’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter imposed a number of measures on campus sexual-assault cases; they were far too stringent in some domains while ignoring others.This has resulted in show trials conducted by hapless administrators who lack the power to subpoena evidence, operating either parallel to or in lieu of a criminal investigation.On the Right, horror stories of men being expelled or driven to suicide for crimes they did not commit have run rampant.
Trying a sexual assault without the ability to subpoena evidence, without the ability to gather immediate witness statements, and without allowing cross-examination, a school tribunal cannot issue an honest verdict.f all of Donald Trump’s cabinet appointees, few have attracted as much ire as Education Secretary Betsy De Vos.Nor does any other Trump secretary face as troubling a terrain to navigate, save for maybe Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.Most controversially, this “guidance” document suggested (in practice, required) that universities try sexual-assault cases using the “preponderance of the evidence” standard — meaning a student is punished, possibly expelled, if it’s more likely than not he is guilty — rather than the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, a higher burden that still requires less proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials.However, contrary to popular belief, this directive was not terribly consequential — as The true flaw of Obama’s letter was the fact that it expanded the authority of a broken system — and limited its capacity to find facts by, for example, discouraging the cross-examination of accusers — rather than fundamentally repairing it.