In The News
By Wendy Murphy
Dear Gloria, Irwin, and the American Bar Association;
You have all expressed an interest in helping prevent campus sexual assault, but your actions belie your words.
To the American Bar Association (ABA): you recently adopted a policy urging all colleges and universities to segregate out only violence and abuse of women for second-class treatment in campus-based civil rights redress proceedings. You nowhere urge that schools treat any other class of student in such a discriminatory manner. Nor do you explain why you believe women as a class should be subjugated, or why violence against women deserves worse treatment compared to other civil rights abuses. Indeed, you utterly fail to acknowledge that women were granted full equality in civil rights laws nearly forty-five years ago when Title IX was enacted (Title IX covers private schools) and “sex” was added as a protected class category to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title IV covers public schools). This shameful move by such a prestigious legal organization is both disturbing and curious. Forty-five years after being granted full equality, women have a right to expect the ABA to issue a policy statement demanding enforcement of their rights, once and for all.
Betsy DeVos today rescinded the part of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter that explained why schools must apply a preponderance of evidence standard in campus redress hearings under civil rights laws, such as Title IX.
This follows DeVos recent comments where she threatened to revoke the Dear Colleague Letter because the era of "rule by letter" is over –
But then she just issued her own "letter" by modifying President Obama’s letter, and removing only a piece of his directive.
Devos has no authority to ALLOW schools to violate Title IX by subjecting the credibility of women to stricter scrutiny than their male attackers, which is what it means to allow schools to apply a burden of proof more onerous than preponderance.
By Wendy Murphy
Betsy DeVos has made it clear that she intends to revoke President Obama’s 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter,” a letter that simply gives schools guidance on how to comply with women’s and girls’ educational civil rights. She says her motive is to protect "due process" rights for campus sex offenders.
Here’s the truth.
Betsy DeVos doesn’t care about “due process” rights for accused students. How could she? There aren’t any. Due process rights apply when the government is endeavoring to deprive a person of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Colleges are not the government and there is no constitutional right to remain in college.
Which doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to want due process rights for college students. Many people do, because some students are expelled without any process whatsoever, even for minor offenses like cheating, smoking marijuana, and drinking alcohol. In fact, students are often expelled for smoking pot, without an investigation or hearing, and without having the drugs for testing to make sure it was pot that the student was actually smoking. Students also get expelled for assaults against Muslim, black and Jewish students, without investigations and hearings. Betsy DeVos has never once objected, or expressed concern that expelling all these types of students without due process is problematic. Why? Because DeVos doesn’t give a damn about due process. What she cares about is subjugating women, and only women, to deprive them of the right to equal and safe access to education, a right they have enjoyed for almost fifty years.
Watch the MSNBC video below, of presidential candidate Gary Johnson struggling and stammering to answer a question about the Campus SaVE Act, posed to him by a student at the University of New Hampshire.
Please take time to read the new DOJ ruling against the University of New Mexico – link below. It is VERY important and affects all women’s civil rights on all college campuses.
The DOJ makes clear for the first time that schools can NOT adopt separate policies to address sexual assault if the policies uses second-class laws and standards from the federal Campus SaVE Act (or from state law, or elsewhere).
If schools want to have “two tracks” of redress on campus, one under Title IX and one under “sexual misconduct” rules, they can, but the second track “sexual misconduct” policy can NOT deviate from Title IX’s mandatory requirements. (which raises an interesting question – why have a distracting separate track at all?)
Cosby Honorary Degree Status
|Amherst College||Rescinded October 17, 2015|
|Baylor University||Rescinded October 9, 2015|
|Bennett College||No comment|
|Berklee College of Music||“Engaged in internal discussion”|
|Boston College||“Boston College does not rescind honorary degrees”|
|Boston University||Rescinded December 14, 2015|
|Brown University||Rescinded September 25, 2015 (second in school history)|
|Bryant University||No comment|
|California Polytechnic State University Pomona||Rescinded November 20, 2015 (first and only in University history)|
|Carnegie Mellon University||“Having internal discussions”|
|Colby College||“No Comment”|
|Colgate College||“Under discussion”|
|Cooper Union||No comment|
|Delaware State University||“Most leadership did not know had been awarded, not a board agenda item, long time ago|
|Dillard State University||No comment|
|Drew University||Rescinded November 16, 2015|
|Drexel University||Rescinded November 12, 2015|
|Fashion Institute of Technology||Internal discussion, no comment|
|Fordham University||Rescinded September 24, 2015 (first and only in University history)|
|Franklin and Marshal College||Rescinded October 19, 2015|
|George Washington University||Not University practice to rescind|
|Goucher College||Rescinded October 15, 2015|
|Hampton University||No comment|
|Haverford College||Not University practice to rescind, considering accepting student/alumni input|
|Howard University||No comment|
|John Jay College of Criminal Justice||University President recommended rescinding, pending rescission approval from Board of Trustees|
|Johns Hopkins University||No comment|
|Marquette University||Rescinded September 24, 2015|
|New York University||Board agenda item, no comment|
|North Carolina AT&T State University||Under discussion|
|Northwestern University||No comment|
|Oberlin College||Rescinded December 21, 2015|
|Occidental College||Rescinded December 15, 2015 (first and only in University history)|
|Ohio State University||Under review|
|Old Dominion University||Would need to be recommended by Board of Visitors, unclear if agenda item|
|Paine College||No comment|
|Pepperdine University||No University provision for rescission and no plan to create a new policy to allow rescission|
|Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute||No plans to rescind|
|Rust College||No plans to rescind|
|Sisseton Wahpeton College||No discussion of rescission because does not matter to everyday life in South Dakota, can discuss but haven’t|
|Spelman College||Terminated Cosby-funded professorship|
|Springfield College||Rescinded October 24, 2015|
|Swarthmore College||Rescinded December 7, 2015|
|Talladega College||“At the time, he was everyone’s favorite dad.” “No further comments.”|
|Temple University||No discussion of changes|
|The College of William and Mary||Historically, no rescissions. “Awards do not constitute endorsement of an individual’s moral character.”|
|Tufts University||Rescinded October 15, 2015|
|University of Cincinnati||No comment|
|University of Connecticut||“Thoughtful discussions…but no decisions.”|
|University of Maryland||No comment|
|University of Notre Dame||Not university practice to rescind|
|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill||“In the process of considering”|
|University of Pennsylvania||“No new information to report”|
|University of Pittsburgh||Rescinded November 13, 2015|
|University of San Francisco||Rescinded September 25, 2015|
|University of South Carolina||No comment|
|University of Southern California||No comment|
|Virginia Commonwealth University||No policy for revoking|
|Wesleyan University||No change in rescission policy|
|Westchester University||No comment|
|Wilkes University||Rescinded October 8, 2015 (first and only in University history)|
|Yale University||No historical rescissions, no plans to discuss|
The story below from today’s Dayton Daily News about the federal CASA bill is an important example of how subversive laws are enacted.
CASA was filed by Senator McCaskill right after the federal court approved my lawsuit against the SaVE Act to proceed, which led to the SaVE Act being curtailed when the court ruled that SaVE could have “no effect” on Title IX.
Many groups have since lobbied against CASA because CASA directly amends and weakens Title IX. (The SaVE Act did the same thing INDIRECTLY, but the federal court ruled in my case that indirect amendments could not weaken Title IX’s substantive provisions, which was an important victory.)
When objections to CASA mounted, the silly Safe Campus Act (SCA) was filed as a prop to create a false choice for women between bad (CASA) and worse (SCA).