• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Who let the dogs out

lshaneg

Well-known member
The WSJ article excerpt below identifies the UM Title IX dispute as the genesis for runaway PC and loss of freedoms.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...52289065492.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion


The trigger event was an agreement signed last May between the federal government and the University of Montana to resolve a Title IX dispute over a sexual-assault case.

Every college administrator in the U.S. knows about this agreement. Indeed, there are three separate, detailed "Montana" documents that were signed jointly—and this is unusual—by the civil-rights divisions of the Justice and Education Departments. Remarked DoJ's Joceyln Samuels, "The government is stronger when we speak with one voice."

That's real muscle. But read the agreement. It is Orwellian.

The agreement orders the school to retain an "Equity Consultant" (yes, there is such a thing) to advise it indefinitely on compliance. The school must, with the equity consultant, conduct "annual climate surveys." It will submit the results "to the United States."

The agreement describes compliance in mind-numbing detail, but in fact the actual definitional world it creates is vague. It says: "The term 'sexual harassment' means unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature." But there are also definitions for sexual assault and gender-based harassment. All of this detailed writ is called "guidance." As in missile.

No constitutional lawyer could read this agreement and not see in it the mind of the Queen of Hearts: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" Indeed, the U.S. Education Department felt obliged to assert that the agreement is "entirely consistent with the First Amendment."
 
This guy.

this-man-let-the-dogs-out.jpg


http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66194" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I'm not sure I agree with the writer's argument that the UM agreement with DOJ triggered a wave of censorship against conservatives on college campuses across the USA. I think the trend began before that.

In fact, you can go back and look at the case of Rob Natelson in the UM law school several years ago as an example of how folks on the left can let their crusades against conservatives get out of hand.

That said, the UM agreement certainly seems to add fuel to the fire.
 
Without taking a position one way or the other on the conservative issue, I found the whole mention of the UM agreement as a genesis toward unreasonable sanctions, impossible limitations and a red flag to college sports a troubling reference.
 
grizonbob said:
I'm not sure I agree with the writer's argument that the UM agreement with DOJ triggered a wave of censorship against conservatives on college campuses across the USA. I think the trend began before that.

In fact, you can go back and look at the case of Rob Natelson in the UM law school several years ago as an example of how folks on the left can let their crusades against conservatives get out of hand.

That said, the UM agreement certainly seems to add fuel to the fire.

The trend was actually away from that. There was a time not so long ago when the deans word was law and there was little anyone could do about it. Still not over turned are ruling from the sixties where students don't have an absolute right to due process and if the school doesn't want them there. They don't have a right to be there. All that Title IX actions have done is reiterate that point. If someone is extraordinarily creepy, they are unsure whether he is a threat to other students but it seems likley, makes people unduly uncomfortable, is likely guilty of something but it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt etc etc . No institution has an obligation to put their students at risk. There is still a mechanism to provide a modicum of oversight, which can yes be abused. By the same token it can go the other direction. (as it did with an transfer student from Bozeman this winter who should NEVER have been admitted.)
 
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??
Yup.
 
'68griz said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??
Yup.


Actually, I believe that process was put into place during the DOE/DOJ investigation.
 
EverettGriz said:
'68griz said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??
Yup.


Actually, I believe that process was put into place during the DOE/DOJ investigation.

I'm sure that putting the process into place was aimed, at least in part, at impressing the feds on how far UM was going to "remedy" the problems there might be.
 
grizonbob said:
EverettGriz said:
'68griz said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??
Yup.


Actually, I believe that process was put into place during the DOE/DOJ investigation.

I'm sure that putting the process into place was aimed, at least in part, at impressing the feds on how far UM was going to "remedy" the problems there might be.


Of course.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
So was this agreement responsible for me and every other student having to take and pass a quiz about sexual assault before we could register for classes??

Sounds like the Red Guards are running the show. Stand by for the Little Red Book of Chairman Engstroms Quotations.
 
Back
Top