Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration battle the #metoo movement

Ripskater

Johnny Mac's friend
Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
5,022
Reaction score
2
"Believe all victims" may come to an end on college campus.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...s-college-sexual-assaults-20181114-story.html

"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is set to release a sweeping overhaul of how colleges and universities must handle allegations of sexual assault and harassment, giving new rights to the accused, including the ability to cross-examine their accusers, people familiar with the matter said.

The proposal is set for release before Thanksgiving, possibly this week, and replaces less formal guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2011."

The Obama guidelines had strongly discouraged use of direct cross-examination.


My opinion, listen to both sides, there's 2 sides to every story. Weigh the evidence. The accused should be able to know who is accusing them. And the accused have a right to question their accusers. Good for Betsy DeVos and good for the Trump administration.

Discuss
 
Last edited:
Betsy Devos is a stupid person doing stupid shit. If my daughter gets sexually assaulted in college, the dude is getting the Whitey Bulger pad lock in a sock treatment.
 
Their framing of the issue is completely dishonest. Obama raised the minimum standard of proof that universities must meet to take tangible actions against a student: he did not lower them or make schools be "compelled by Washington to enforce ambiguous and incredibly broad definitions of assault and harassment," as the "overly prescriptive" guidelines promulgated by the Obama administration very clearly sought to constrain universities from exercising too much discretion in ruling against either party, but especially the accused. This is pretty much just an advancement of what Obama did, other than the targeting of reduction of university liability, which is disgusting and unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Betsy Devos is a stupid person doing stupid shit. If my daughter gets sexually assaulted in college, the dude is getting the Whitey Bulger pad lock in a sock treatment.
Yeah vigilante justice and mob rule worked so well in the past right? No need for proof, due process and rule of law?

Betsy Devos is obviously unqualified to be secretary of education, but there is nothing wrong with this proposal.
 
Last edited:
What a relief. Thank God this nonsense pitchfork mob is being concretely addressed.
 
One of the relatively few things I agree with the Trump Administration on. This witch hunt against young men and the kangaroo courts and the sexual assault moral panic needs to come to an end.
 
Yeah vigilante justice and mob rule worked so well in the past right? No need for evidence, due process and burden of proof?

Betsy Devos is obviously unqualified to be secretary of education, but there is nothing wrong with this proposal.

most girls who are sexually assaulted don't report it, and this will just make them less likely to report it.

and yeah, vigilante justice works well, if you are smart.
 
most girls who are sexually assaulted don't report it, and this will just make them less likely to report it.

and yeah, vigilante justice works well, if you are smart.
All sexual assault should be reported. There need to be investigations. Conclusions will need to be evidence based in a proper court of law. Accusing others of sexual assault without evidence has serious social consequences for the accused even when he's not guilty, and that has no place in a free and democratic society.

I'm assuming you are in favour of the Salem witch trials which 19 women ended up being hung and black men being lynched by a white mob in the 18th century for "desecrating" white women? That's your vigilante justice working well right there.
 
most girls who are sexually assaulted don't report it, and this will just make them less likely to report it.

and yeah, vigilante justice works well, if you are smart.
You still gotta listen to both sides and weigh the evidence.
 
All sexual assault should be reported. There need to be investigations. Conclusions will need to be evidence based in a proper court of law. Accusing others of sexual assault without evidence has serious social consequences for the accused even when he's not guilty, and that has no place in a free and democratic society.

I'm assuming you are in favour of the Salem witch trials which 19 women ended up being hung and black men being lynched by a white mob in the 18th century for "desecrating" white women? That's your vigilante justice working well right there.

You need to have guys' hired lawyers cross examine the girls to get the facts of the case? :rolleyes:

And your witch trial trope sucks.
 
but but "victim blaming".

progressist will argue this with buzzwords, as usual.
 
You need to have guys' hired lawyers cross examine the girls to get the facts of the case? :rolleyes:

And your witch trial trope sucks.
Yes, cross examination is a proper legal procedure. If your narrative cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you have no case. This isn't some third world banana republic where you have to prove your innocence last time I checked. The onus is on the accuser or state to prove the accused is guilty.

Salem witch trial is the perfect example of your mob vigilante justice working. It sucks for you because it doesn't fit your feeble minded narrative. Those incapable of logical reasoning tends to hate historical precedents being brought up.
 
Last edited:
Yes, cross examination is a proper legal procedure. If your narrative cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you have no case. This isn't some third world banana republican where you have to prove your innocence last time I checked. The onus is on the accuser or state to prove the accused is guilty.

Salem witch trial is the perfect example of your mob vigilante justice working. It sucks for you because it doesn't fit your feeble minded narrative. Those incapable of logical reasoning tends to hate historical precedents being brought up.

Perhaps he should watch some actual footage of vigilante justice in action.

Watching accused suspects dragged out of prison cells, being bricked and burnt alive prior to being convicted is no way to run the west.

Parts of Africa & Asia still work this way.
 
Will wait to read the proposal before commenting. I've been a big supporter of the movement mainly due to how it has empowered victims to come forward. However, the "believe all accusations no matter what" approach is dangerous and should be addressed. It's a tough situation bc having evidence of sexual assault is very difficult. Mob justice isn't the answer though.

This is an issue I've change a lot on since having my daughter. I remember being in college and listening to guys talking about how they got a girl fucked up for an easy lay. Guys are also very persistent when it comes to sex. Does that mean we are automatically guilty of wrongdoing? Of course not. But there's a line some guys (especially intoxicated) might cross without even realizing it.
 
Yes, cross examination is a proper legal procedure. If your narrative cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you have no case. This isn't some third world banana republic where you have to prove your innocence last time I checked. The onus is on the accuser or state to prove the accused is guilty.

Salem witch trial is the perfect example of your mob vigilante justice working. It sucks for you because it doesn't fit your feeble minded narrative. Those incapable of logical reasoning tends to hate historical precedents being brought up.

You are setting up a false choice between no scrutiny and allowing an opposing attorney to cross examine a sexual assault victim.

And your Salem Witch Trial example still sucks, insulting me doesn't help your shit example.
 
Their framing of the issue is completely dishonest. Obama raised the burden of proof that universities must meet to take tangible actions against a student: he certainly did not lower them or make schools be "compelled by Washington to enforce ambiguous and incredibly broad definitions of assault and harassment," as the "overly prescriptive" guidelines promulgated by the Obama administration very clearly sought to constrain universities from exercising too much discretion in ruling against either party, but especially the accused. This is pretty much just an advancement of what Obama did, other than the targeting of reduction of university liability, which is disgusting and unnecessary.
Interesting and worth quoting. To what extent did his administration raise the burden of proof?
 
Back
Top