SkipCaptcha
235
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Harassment: update
{{cquote|Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX}}
{{cquote|Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX}}
Based on this interpretation, schools and colleges modified their student conduct systems to address allegations of sexual harassment by defining the prohibited conduct as well as the due process rights and procedures available to students, faculty and staff accused of harassment. Feminists then argued that an insufficient number of accused harassers were being found responsible under such procedures, and in response the Obama Administration issued a "Dear Colleague" letter and a Question and Answer list that made important policy changes without undergoing the notice and comment procedures required by the [[Administrative Procedure Act]]. The changes included mandating an easy to meet "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or "clear and convincing evidence" standard when determining when the accused was responsible. The procedures combined the investigator and adjudicator role and limited the right to counsel and the cross examination of witnesses. As a result, schools processed a high number of sexual harassment cases, with many of the accused filing court cases against the schools seeking to overturn the improper results.
One of these cases reached the US Supreme Court. In ''Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education,'' 526 U.S. 629, 633 (1999), the Court determined that sexual harassment in the educational context is targeted, discriminatory conduct
{{quote|that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.}}
The Court reached this definition in an effort to balance the free speech rights of the accused against the right of students to get an education. However, the Department of Education adopted a much broader definition that would allow students, faculty or staff to be punished if a "hostile environment" was created for the student, regardless of how much the accused contributed to that environment.
The Trump Administration, rescinded the "Dear Colleague" letter and conducted a full notice and comment rulemaking. Opponents of reform sought to delay the rulemaking by submitting 250,000 individual comments and seeking in-person meetings with the federal employees working on the rules. Nonetheless, the Department of Education issued final rules to be effective August 14, 2020. A number of advocacy groups then sought court injunctions to block the final rule from going into effect, without success. Meanwhile, schools seeking to punish students for making "politically incorrect" statements, adopted new Title IX rules that follows the definition of sexual harrassment from the final rule, but then defines "creating a hostile environment" as a separate violation.
==Student on student sexual issues==
==Student on student sexual issues==
For centuries, colleges and universities have had to deal with the sexual activities of students. For most of this time, there were clear rules that were enforced by summary suspension from the school. As colleges dropped ''in loco parentis'' policies toward student conduct since the 1960s, an increasing portion of the undergraduate students have become sexually active. The problem arises when there are claims made after-the-fact that these encounters were not consentual. Typically, the male student would be brought before a campus judicial system, where there is a presumption of innocence, and the female student would testify against him. In many cases, both were drunk and did not have clear memories of the episode. Given the presumption of innocence and a requirement of proving the man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a majority of cases, the male student would not be punished. Feminists then lobbied the Department of Education to interpret such disciplinary procedures as depriving female students of their full educational opportunities in violation of Title IX. The Department of Education calls romantic encounters that were later regretted "sexual violence."
For centuries, colleges and universities have had to deal with the sexual activities of students. For most of this time, there were clear rules that were enforced by summary suspension from the school. As colleges dropped ''in loco parentis'' policies toward student conduct since the 1960s, an increasing portion of the undergraduate students have become sexually active. The problem arises when there are claims made after-the-fact that these encounters were not consentual. Typically, the male student would be brought before a campus judicial system, where there is a presumption of innocence, and the female student would testify against him. In many cases, both were drunk and did not have clear memories of the episode. Given the presumption of innocence and a requirement of proving the man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a majority of cases, the male student would not be punished. Feminists then lobbied the Department of Education to interpret such disciplinary procedures as depriving female students of their full educational opportunities in violation of Title IX. The Department of Education calls romantic encounters that were later regretted "sexual violence."