Had these been the rules when JJ was accused, he would not have gotten an initial ruling to get kicked out of school, the DOJ would not have come to Missoula to investigate, and he would not have been charged. I believe all of the constant publicity, and Florio and the Missoulian, resulted in what broutht the DOJ and charge. The 2011 Dear Colleague letter was previously rescinded by DeVos.
"The proposed rules ... narrow the definition of sexual harassment, holding schools accountable only for formal complaints filed through proper authorities and for conduct said to have occurred on their campuses. They would also establish a higher legal standard to determine whether schools improperly addressed complaints."
"Ms. DeVos said in September 2017. “Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved.”
"The new regulations cement some of the most debated policy positions in the interim guidance, such as allowing schools to choose the evidentiary standard — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence — to apply in determining whether accused students are responsible for alleged misconduct. They also leave it to schools to decide whether to have an appeals process."
"The Trump administration rules propose that a school’s choice of evidentiary standard must apply to any investigation of civil rights violations."
"The rules also maintain Ms. DeVos’s year-old policy of using mediation to reach informal resolutions, and would add the ability for victims and their accused perpetrators to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other."
"The new rules would define sexual harassment to mean “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” [Contrast that to the old Obama rules: "“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” that includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”]
"The new rules would require that institutions only be held legally responsible for investigating formal complaints and responding to reports that school officials have “actual knowledge” of happening. A formal complaint is one made to “an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures,” not, for instance, a residential adviser in a dormitory."
"The new rules would require that institutions only be held legally responsible for investigating formal complaints and responding to reports that school officials have “actual knowledge” of happening. A formal complaint is one made to “an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures,” not, for instance, a residential adviser in a dormitory."
"The new rules would also hold schools responsible only for investigating episodes reported to have taken place within their own programs, or on their campuses, not, for instance, in off-campus parties. The Obama administration required that schools investigate a complaint regardless of where the conduct initially took place." [Note that the JJ issue was off-campus, and even though UM's rules still said they applied only to on-campus stuff, UM and its Dean used the Obama standard and not UM's rules.]
"The regulations go to great lengths to require impartiality in investigations. They call on schools to conduct objective investigations and provide “prompt and equitable” resolutions. And, for the first time, the administration explicitly says that just as an institution’s treatment of a complainant could constitute sex discrimination, so would the treatment of the accused."
"The regulations require that schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty." [What a novel theory. Ha. Until Obama and the UM Dean/Engstrom, one would have thought that innocent until proven guilty was the rule.]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html?imp_id=163152905&action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
"The proposed rules ... narrow the definition of sexual harassment, holding schools accountable only for formal complaints filed through proper authorities and for conduct said to have occurred on their campuses. They would also establish a higher legal standard to determine whether schools improperly addressed complaints."
"Ms. DeVos said in September 2017. “Survivors, victims of a lack of due process and campus administrators have all told me that the current approach does a disservice to everyone involved.”
"The new regulations cement some of the most debated policy positions in the interim guidance, such as allowing schools to choose the evidentiary standard — “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence — to apply in determining whether accused students are responsible for alleged misconduct. They also leave it to schools to decide whether to have an appeals process."
"The Trump administration rules propose that a school’s choice of evidentiary standard must apply to any investigation of civil rights violations."
"The rules also maintain Ms. DeVos’s year-old policy of using mediation to reach informal resolutions, and would add the ability for victims and their accused perpetrators to request evidence from each other and to cross-examine each other."
"The new rules would define sexual harassment to mean “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” [Contrast that to the old Obama rules: "“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” that includes “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”]
"The new rules would require that institutions only be held legally responsible for investigating formal complaints and responding to reports that school officials have “actual knowledge” of happening. A formal complaint is one made to “an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures,” not, for instance, a residential adviser in a dormitory."
"The new rules would require that institutions only be held legally responsible for investigating formal complaints and responding to reports that school officials have “actual knowledge” of happening. A formal complaint is one made to “an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures,” not, for instance, a residential adviser in a dormitory."
"The new rules would also hold schools responsible only for investigating episodes reported to have taken place within their own programs, or on their campuses, not, for instance, in off-campus parties. The Obama administration required that schools investigate a complaint regardless of where the conduct initially took place." [Note that the JJ issue was off-campus, and even though UM's rules still said they applied only to on-campus stuff, UM and its Dean used the Obama standard and not UM's rules.]
"The regulations go to great lengths to require impartiality in investigations. They call on schools to conduct objective investigations and provide “prompt and equitable” resolutions. And, for the first time, the administration explicitly says that just as an institution’s treatment of a complainant could constitute sex discrimination, so would the treatment of the accused."
"The regulations require that schools approach all investigations under the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty." [What a novel theory. Ha. Until Obama and the UM Dean/Engstrom, one would have thought that innocent until proven guilty was the rule.]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/us/politics/devos-campus-sexual-assault.html?imp_id=163152905&action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
