Sexual crimes are heinous and certainly do need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.   False claims of sexual crimes are even more heinous and equally in need full prosecution.

As noted earlier everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense to assure the accused are truly guilty.   Good on Sec, Devos.   This appears to assure that ....... some folks visceral hatred of her not withstanding ....

False claims of sexual crimes are even more heinous and equally in need full prosecution.

Really? Is this the hill man? Do you really want to stand by the statement that someone falsely being accused of rape is worse than someone being 

This appears to assure that ....... some folks visceral hatred of her not withstanding ....

Seriously? So what, victims now have to document their rapes in real time for it to be convincing enough? 

See 5.1.2 and 5.3.2

As noted earlier everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense to assure the accused are truly guilty.

If a person is SUSPECTED of rape 'in the REAL world', they are arrested and their victim is assisted/protected by law enforcement, medical staff and counselors. 

We don't WAIT until AFTER the perpetrator is FOUND GUILTY before we remove them from the community and if they make bail, LIMIT their access to the victim and any FUTURE victims. 

So WHY are college campuses any different. 

This appears to assure that

HOW? Oh and HOW do Devos' changes to policy PROTECT the victim or future victims in any way? 

Depends on what type of victim you're talking about.   A rape victim or a person falsely accused of a crime.   Both are victims.   Do you feel one is worth more or less than the other?

And it takes a lot more than simply being "suspected" of rape to be arrested and you know it.

Many young men have had their lives ruined by being falsely accused.

Not nearly as many as the number of young women who have had their lives ruined, their sense of safety and security shattered, and their bodies violated but end up being dismissed and even maligned for making any accusations against their attacker. Not nearly as many as the number of girls who have felt like they were powerless and simply had to suffer through it because they were told by school administrators or peers that they simply wouldn't be believed without having collected some DNA evidence at the time even if that wasn't physically possible. Not nearly as many as the number of women who, for the rest of their lives, live with PTSD, who no longer feel safe in the presence of men, who often suffer daily in silence or have even taken their own lives due to the overwhelming depression that became their norm after an assault.

So please do forgive me for not shedding any tears for the handful of wrongly accused young men who didn't like being accused. I agree, false accusations are a terrible thing, but so is the rape and sexual assault of our daughters, sisters and wives, so we shouldn't be working on making it harder for them to be believed, we should be working to make sure they know they have our support, love and create tools for them to be better protected and have the ability to seek justice when they are assaulted and abused.

it takes a lot more than simply being "suspected" of rape to be arrested and you know it.

Actually a person who hasn't been found guilty is called a suspect. Everyone in a jail cell that is awaiting trial is a suspect. So NO, it DOESN'T take MORE than being a suspect to be arrested. 

Secondly, y'all whip out the canard about false rape allegations. Less than 5% of rapes that are investigated are found that "no crime has been committed". 

A very small percentage of children whose parents claimed to have been kidnaped were actually killed by that parent but I NEVER see anyone say that we shouldn't believe parents until we can PROVE a kidnapping actually happened. We ACT in the interest of the victim. 

It's always great to see those who hate the bill of rights identify themselves so readily. 

Thanks for posting this. Who knew people in America think it's okay to punish citizens without proof? 

Betsy DeVos is a very wealthy woman (she inherited it all).

She makes laws that favor rich people.

Gosh.

Betsy DeVos is a very wealthy woman (she inherited it all).

What do her wealth and how she obtained it have to do with her job?

She makes laws that favor rich people

Only Congress can make laws.

She bought her position in Rump's administration.  That's how.

You forgot to include a link to  prove that your claim is factual. Then again, maybe it's only opinion?   

Then again, maybe it's only opinion?

Actually not, jasper . While it's true she didn't contribute to Trump's campaign:

Though DeVos and family are longtime contributors to the Republican Party, she did not support Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election.

it's further true that her family is wealthy and her husband is as well. And Trump smells money. He becomes aroused about money. 

DeVos (born Elizabeth Prince) is the daughter of the late Edgar Prince, a wealthy industrialist, sister of Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater USA, and wife of Dick DeVos, entrepreneur and heir to the fortune of Amway founder Richard DeVos, valued at about $6 billion. With her husband, she co-owns the  Windquest Group , a technology investment firm.

Cite .

Trump sees money as a means to an end. He intends on filling his swamp to the fuckin' brim. He has counted on the low intellect of his constituents and has called them idiots from the outset. He still calls them idiots and they're too deplorably stupid to get it . 

But as is so often the case, the accusation that was made falsely against Democrats turns out to be true of Trump. For all his vaunted populism, he is filled with contempt for average people in general and his own supporters in particular. Trump has touted the mindless loyalty of his base, and when he marveled that he would not lose any support if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, he was not complimenting the discernment of his supporters. He has tried to turn that into a positive — “ I love the poorly educated! ” — but the association with low socioeconomic strata has grated on him. Trump is the ultimate snob. He has no sense that working-class people may have equal latent talent that they have been denied the chance to develop. He considers wealthy and successful people a genetic aristocracy, frequently attributing his own success to good genes.

Cite .

What do her wealth and how she obtained it have to do with her job?

They have nothing to do with her job, although they explain how she was chosen. She is the sister of Eric Prince, of Blackwater infamy.

Her wealth and how she got it are essential to understanding the rules she makes.

Thank you for your Snopes and The Daily Intelligencer links, but neither addresses the question I asked Tessy in comment  8.1.2   . She claimed that Betsy DeVos "bought" her Sec'y. of Ed position; I asked her to prove that this is what DeVos did.

Your two links merely show:

1. DeVos' bio (Snopes, marked "Mixture"). Please note that several of DeVos' predecessors also did not have classroom experience and/or education degrees.
2. an anti-Trump piece entitled " Trump Is a Snob Who Secretly Despises His Own Supporters" and doesn't even mention Betsy DeVos.

DeVos' bio (Snopes, marked "Mixture"). Please note that several of DeVos' predecessors also did not have classroom experience and/or education degrees.

I also noted she didn't contribute to Trump. And? 

Regarding your other complaint, jasper, perhaps you should report me if you find it so offensive. 

Once again, we ask you to prove it.

From  Walt O'Hara , Consultant at U.S. Department of Defense (1986-present):

  Her family all donated extensively to the campaigns of leading Republican voters— these are guys who not only sold THEIR votes, but could influence the votes of other Republicans. I’m sure you might have seen the graphic floating around: So make no bones about it, this was a campaign, with a bought and paid for objective, and all the Senators on the list above who are crowing now about her qualifications and service to educating sectors of the economy who didn’t have access to schooling before and now do via school vouchers for private schools (paid for by us) probably don’t care one whit who is SecEd. That Betsy DeVos (who has enjoyed a career in the business side of Professional Wrestling) is manifestly unqualified for this post is hard to question, but it hardly matters. Betty DeVos is also manifestly wealthy, which is clearly more important than any qualms about things like education. Don’t be surprised if the department takes a MAJOR hit in the years ahead. That’s a long way around the tree to say “I think Donald Trump owed the DeVos family a favor”.

Once again, we ask you to prove it.

Prove her qualifications. 

that Betsy DeVos "bought" her Sec'y

And I said it was the love affair with money that consumes Trump. Perhaps she didn't word it the way you have chosen for her to have it worded it, jasper. DeVos didn't have the blind loyalty that serves as currency for the Liar-In-Chief, but no one gets into the Trump administration without some kind of currency, be it financial or blind loyalty. He surrounds himself with crooks and liars, he's a crook and liar, but rarely does anyone get into the Trump administration based on knowledge and expertise. 

So Tessy was right. Unless you're a nitpicker, DeVos got the job using some kind of currency he covets. 

She makes laws that favor rich people.

You're correct. In a 60 Minutes interview, she indicated her cluelessness:

In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes  that aired Sunday night, DeVos said years of federal investment in public education had produced “zero results” and that American schools were stagnating and failing many students. But asked by CBS’ Lesley Stahl whether she had visited low-performing schools to understand their needs, DeVos, an ardent proponent of school choice, admitted to having visited none.

“I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming,” DeVos said.

“Maybe you should,” Stahl said.

“Maybe I should,” DeVos said.

DeVos is out of touch. She's clueless and even the WH had early on indicated their reservations. The WH indicated reservations. The WH. What does that tell you? And what's with her lack of command of the English language: "I have not intentionally visited schools...." You mean she  may have unintentionally visited schools? Did she pass one on the way to work and mistook it for a Starbucks and stopped into the cafeteria? 

Less than a day after DeVos was appointed to chair a federal commission on school safety, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders downplayed DeVos’ role in the process. Asked whether DeVos would be the face of the commission, Sanders said Monday, “I think that the president is going to be the lead on school safety when it comes to this administration.”

In total fairness:

Elizabeth Mann, an education expert with the Brookings Institution, said that DeVos’ failure to tour struggling schools undermines her credibility as an advocate for the children that they serve.

“It’s difficult for her to establish credibility in speaking about those issues when she hasn’t visited an underperforming school as secretary,” Mann said.

But Mike Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said the criticism was unfair and that the questions and the tone of the interview were tough. He added that he is not sure that DeVos’ predecessors in the Obama administration would have done a better job in a similar interview .*

“She is facing the glare of the spotlight much more than they did and the press is much less friendly to her,” Petrilli said.

Cite .

*Imagine ... president of the Fordham Institute making such an informed opinion. Operative word: "Opinion." You'd think the president of an institution of higher learning would know better than to make an empty opinion. Well, if that's the case, I'm not sure Betsy's up for the job simply because the press is less friendly. It would seem to me that if that's the case, it would make sense that she visits and sits with heads of school districts to listen to and address issues. But what does learning have to do with being the Education Secretary, after all. Wait. What??

Stupid is as stupid does. 
  ~Forrest Gump

DeVos may be clueless... but it is certain that she doesn't give a shit.

The ultra-wealthy are different. They are a separate species. They see us hoi-poloi as "other". If they are human, then we are not. We are creatures that exist to serve them, directly or indirectly.

This is psychologically necessary. Owning several mansions (as DeVos does) is only possible if the people who are hurting are not really people.

I don't believe for one New York minute that Betsy DeVos gives a fuck about working class kids

Betsy DeVos is preparing new guidelines for how schools should handle sexual offenses

O this ought to be great coming from one of trump's "Best of the Best!" ...  lol

...........................

DeVos' Michigan schools experiment gets poor grades

Betsy DeVos, has spent two decades successfully pushing "school choice" in her home state of Michigan — a policy that she and her husband vowed in 1999 would “fundamentally improve education.”

Except the track record in that state shows that it hasn’t.

Despite two decades of charter-school growth, the state’s overall academic progress has failed to keep pace with other states: Michigan ranks near the bottom for fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-grade reading on a nationally representative test, nicknamed the “Nation’s Report Card.” Notably, the state’s charter schools scored worse on that test than their traditional public-school counterparts, according to an analysis of federal data.

Great Lakes Education Project Executive Director Gary Naeyaert said “Is Michigan the poster boy for what we should be doing nationally? I sure hope not,” Naeyaert said. “We’re not doing anywhere near what we need to be doing when it comes to educating kids.”

politico

fox2now  

She is a poor excuse of a woman....

I think she should be restricted to teaching a course on "how to buy political influence" only !

There she seems to accel. 

..................................

Betsy DeVos and her husband, Dick, are billionaires who have funneled millions of dollars in campaign donations to support lawmakers who push school choice.

All told, the DeVoses have contributed at least $7 million to lawmakers and the state Republican Party in recent years, and their influence can be seen in just about every major piece of education-related legislation in Michigan since the 1990s. That includes the 1993 law that permitted charters in the state and a 2011 vote to lift a cap on the number of charter schools in the state.

politico

Betsy DeVos and her husband, Dick, are billionaires who have funneled millions of dollars in campaign donations to support lawmakers who push school choice.

Great comment and true words. 

Lol, I can see the defense now, " can you provide photo or video evidence of when he raped you?" 

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 rules also allow the complainant and the accused to have access to any evidence obtained during the investigation, even if there are no plans to use it to prove the conduct occurred.

So if you have a daughter or close female family member etc in this school situation where she is raped - do you really want to look at her and say " it's ok honey, now you have to go see him, let him question you and provide him the evidence he wants from you to substantiate your rape claim !! and of course, you can ask him questions too ! "

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.

as if we don't have enough scandals with schools covering up sexual crimes already.... 

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.”

could someone explain this ? does it mean that your daughter could be the victim of unwanted constant sexual advances - yet it wouldn't be harassment since she could still go to class ?

The proposed regulations do not define what constitutes a “hostile environment” for victims as previous guidance did, but does allow a school to remove an accused person from campus after conducting a safety and risk assessment.

great... now we can have more cover-ups because of the myriad of definitions of " hostile environment ".... 

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.

good ! very good to hear

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.

oh... so if you are scared, intimidated, ashamed or don't feel comfortable telling " an official who has the authority to institute corrective measures " then the school doesn't have legal responsibility to investigate... even if you told the RA who you feel comfortable talking to about such a horrible event ..

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.

now this one i can agree with - the school is responsible for it's own property .. so if during an off-campus party some sexual assault happens then they should definitely call the police and file a report .

The rules also say that the government will not penalize schools if they provide “supportive measures” to victims who choose to forgo filing a written complaint. The regulations encourage measures that are “nondisciplinary individualized services” and “nonpunitive, time-limited and narrowly tailored” to keep students in school. The rules provide an extensive list of options, such as counseling, deadline extensions, changes in class schedules, campus escort services, mutual restrictions on contact between the parties, changes in housing, leaves of absences or increased security and monitoring.

yes it's good to provide those options - fantastic ! if the victim is not able to file a written complaint ( which does happen ) then the school can still do something about it which is a good thing.

all quoted pieces of article from:  nytimes  ( which is linked in the seeded article )

Campus Sexual Assault

• 20% - 25% of college women and 15% of college men are victims of forced sex during their time in college.
• A 2002 study revealed that 63.3% of men at one university who self-reported acts qualifying as rape or attempted rape admitted to committing repeat rapes.
• More than 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report the assault.
• 27% of college women have experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact.
• Nearly two thirds of college students experience sexual harassment.

Cite .

It's called "DUE PROCESS" - something Barak Obama denied when he corrupted title nine.  If you believe in the Constitution, everyone has it. The burden of proof is on the accuser

It's called "DUE PROCESS"

Due Process is a restriction on GOVERNEMENT actions. NONE of the rule changes effect the GOVERNMENT.

- something Barak Obama denied when he corrupted title nine. 

Oh please DO tell us all about how Obama 'corrupted' Title IX. Perhaps you can concentrate on the 2011 DoE guidelines that Devos rescinded.  From what the seed indicates, some of the changes that Devos is making aren't connected to the 2011 changes. 

If you believe in the Constitution, everyone has it. The burden of proof is on the accuser

Unless of course you are a student of an 'school's education program' , then Due Process doesn't apply, you are at the mercy of the 'grievance procedures' of that program. 

BTW, Title IX REQUIRES schools to PROTECT students from sexual discrimination and violence. 

Due Process is a restriction on GOVERNEMENT actions. NONE of the rule changes effect the GOVERNMENT.

That is an outrageous statement and yes it was Obama who got us to this point:

"Federal panel blocks suspension of University of Cincinnati graduate student, saying institution did not respect his constitutional rights after he was accused of sexual assault."

"A federal appeals court has agreed to block the University of Cincinnati’s suspension of a student, saying the institution violated his rights by not allowing him to question the female student who accused him of sexually assaulting her.

The  decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit  follows the announcement Friday from Education Secretary Betsy DeVos  that she would pull guidance on Title IX  investigations and adjudication the Obama administration released in 2011."

insidehighered

That is an outrageous statement and yes it was Obama who got us to this point:

You really should READ that ruling. 

Please cite which of Devos' rule changes effect the GOVERNMENT. 

Cite?  There are 6 rule changes that pertain directly to what we are talking about...  If you can't or won't recognize that obvious fact, I'm really wasting my time.

Cite?  There are 6 rule changes that pertain directly to what we are talking about... 

Great so you DON'T need me to go look it up for you. So now, which one of those changes effect the GOVERNMENT. 

If you can't or won't recognize that obvious fact, I'm really wasting my time.

What relevance does the NUMBER of changes have to whether ANY of them effect the GOVERNMENT? If all you have is deflection, you're wasting MY time.

I can't be more clear nor can I improve on what Iv'e already said......Oh wait, maybe Rich Lowry said it better:

"A judicial process that doesn’t allow the accused to cross-examine his accuser or reliably see the evidence against him is a civil libertarian’s nightmare. It traduces every principle of fairness and is blatantly un-American.

Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.

The Education Department is preparing new rules that would  roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations . It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.

In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.

The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.

It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.

It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.

It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.

The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.

In their important book “ The Campus Rape Frenzy ,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”

The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.

One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.

The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.

A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”

This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a  New York Times report  suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com


Was that better?

I can't be more clear nor can I improve on what Iv'e already said......Oh wait, maybe Rich Lowry said it better: Was that better?

Well since you still failed to cite even one change that effects the GOVERNMENT, no. 

He's feigning ignorance. One hopes.

"Ma'am, can you please give us any proof? Maybe some identifying features or marks?"

"His dick looks like a baby carrot, but not as long."

[deleted]

Removed for context

Here are two men who were falsely accused of rape when they were in college who would have benefited from the newly proposed rules:

nypost

atlantablackstar

Two words:

 Duke Lacrosse ......

Why on earth would you think it's only one incident?

And Columbia U's  Paul Nungesser, another male VICTIM . "Mattress Girl" even got awards, college credit, and and an invitation to Obama's SOTU address BEFORE it was learned that she was a LIAR. 

nationalreview

No said it did which only reaffirms the innocent until proven guilty standard being pushed by DeVos.    Good on her for defending EVERYONES 14th amendment rights.