Gymnastics' international governing body is really solving the important problems facing the sport. Gymnasts wearing cat makeup.
I've always hated the idea that decision making bodies shouldn't be "wasting" time on minor decisions while serious problems are outstanding - anything that requires minimal discussion *should* be cleaned from the docket so problems don't backlog while a necessary debate eats up weeks and months. But in this case, fucking come on what the hell.
Does this mean that the US won’t have an Olympic gymnastics team anymore, or just that USA Gymnastics won’t have a say with regards to decisions of the committee?
Does this mean that the US won’t have an Olympic gymnastics team anymore, or just that USA Gymnastics won’t have a say with regards to decisions of the committee?
A new organization will be created to run things.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Does this mean that the US won’t have an Olympic gymnastics team anymore, or just that USA Gymnastics won’t have a say with regards to decisions of the committee?
A new organization will be created to run things.
This would be my preferable outcome. Burns the organization that failed so many, with minimum impact on the actual athletes.
Hopefully the new organization won't just be the old one with a respray to drop the wanted level.
Would be a good opportunity for former Olympic gymnasts to step up. I've always thought the best way to combat abuse is to get the abusers out of upper management, and replace them with former athletes, and empower current athletes with direct representation, like recalling management that is protecting abusers instead of them.
That still leaves coaches and doctors in the middle management, and that's where the abuse happens, but the coverups happen above them, and real change means fixing the coverup culture, not playing eternal whackamole as rapists pop up.
Hopefully the new organization won't just be the old one with a respray to drop the wanted level.
Would be a good opportunity for former Olympic gymnasts to step up. I've always thought the best way to combat abuse is to get the abusers out of upper management, and replace them with former athletes, and empower current athletes with direct representation, like recalling management that is protecting abusers instead of them.
That still leaves coaches and doctors in the middle management, and that's where the abuse happens, but the coverups happen above them, and real change means fixing the coverup culture, not playing eternal whackamole as rapists pop up.
Pick any sport and it will be full of former greats who tried to transition into coaching or management roles and proved hopelessly inept.
The things that make someone a good athlete and someone good at running a nation wide multi million dollar organization are not really the same set of things. It is primarily a job of organization, budgeting and fundraising like most non profits. The best chef in the US isn't who should run Feeding America. And not specific to anyone but when you spend 25+ hours a week training at a sport as a teen, and have tons of travel and competitions in there you maybe don't spend as much time studying as would be ideal for a highschool student.
If anything history has taught us that former athletes have a penchant for excusing abusive behavior if it is a lot like the abusive behavior they suffered while competing; which "helped" make them great. And long standing interpersonal relationships is part of what helps protect abusers. Better to have a board of outsiders, than someone who has been working with so and so since they were 15, and he never laid a finger on them.
I believe there is already a competing gymnastics organisation in the US
Personally i'd put in a complete ban on anyone having, ever, worked for USAG to be working for the new org, and make a strong and pro active framework for monitoring everyone who does work for/in/with the new org for misbehaviour.
And yes, i know it would (probably) burn lot of perfectly decent people, and loose a ton of institutional knowledge.
But there just is no way to know who knew or how much, so fuck that and start over, anything that was not written down can be learned anew over time.
I believe there is already a competing gymnastics organisation in the US
Personally i'd put in a complete ban on anyone having, ever, worked for USAG to be working for the new org, and make a strong and pro active framework for monitoring everyone who does work for/in/with the new org for misbehaviour.
And yes, i know it would (probably) burn lot of perfectly decent people, and loose a ton of institutional knowledge.
But there just is no way to know who knew or how much, so fuck that and start over, anything that was not written down can be learned anew over time.
I'd only do that for management. Plenty of others are probably trying to do the right thing
I believe there is already a competing gymnastics organisation in the US
Personally i'd put in a complete ban on anyone having, ever, worked for USAG to be working for the new org, and make a strong and pro active framework for monitoring everyone who does work for/in/with the new org for misbehaviour.
And yes, i know it would (probably) burn lot of perfectly decent people, and loose a ton of institutional knowledge.
But there just is no way to know who knew or how much, so fuck that and start over, anything that was not written down can be learned anew over time.
I'd only do that for management. Plenty of others are probably trying to do the right thing
And how many of these others knew, or suspected, and did nothing, because they wanted to keep their jobs?
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That's an excellent question we should find the answer to
The two Democrats who want Engler fired appear to have won their elections last night. Board should be split 4-4 on that, unless someone else has changed their mind.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+9
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Who could have expected this from the hand-picked secretary of President Sex Criminal?
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
Who could have expected this from the hand-picked secretary of President Sex Criminal?
Frankly, i would not be surprised by this from republicans in general, it being a Trump stooge is not really significant (beyond being one more thing to find Trump disgusting over).
Who could have expected this from the hand-picked secretary of President Sex Criminal?
Frankly, i would not be surprised by this from republicans in general, it being a Trump stooge is not really significant (beyond being one more thing to find Trump disgusting over).
It's not like she has a financial interest in for-profit colleges whom are benefiting from her oversight...oh wait.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
Same difference, since the individual doing the cross is an agent for the accused. Also, note that DeVos is not implementing any sort of rape shield protections that prevent such cross examinations from becoming stages to put the victim's sexual history on trial (which should be unsurprising as well.) This, of course, will further discourage victims from coming forward, because as we learned a month ago, Republicans believe that the real tragedy is for young men to be accused of sexual assault.
Both DeVoses are fundamentalists. Their theology almost certainly assumes that not only is the victim at fault in sexual assault cases, but takes it far enough to assume the assailant is the real victim due to his "stumbling" - because of the person he assaulted - placing the status of his soul at risk.
There's a reason a lot of Christian colleges' responses to on-campus assault is giving sexual assault victims a choice between publicly apologizing to their assailants or expulsion. She can't quite explicitly extend that to secular schools, but actively making life harder for victims is entirely consistent with that kind of thinking.
There's a reason a lot of Christian colleges' responses to on-campus assault is giving sexual assault victims a choice between publicly apologizing to their assailants or expulsion.
It's a standard policy at places like BJU, Liberty, other institutions in that general constellation, etc. Some are ... bold enough to actually codify it in writing, but in practice they sneak the policy in as some form of Christian Counseling(tm) coupled with lots of used gum analogies. They're super open about victim blaming being the rule.
Basically they sit the victim down with the assailant, explain the spiritual risks he's going through due to his being caused to "stumble," and browbeat the victim into asking his forgiveness for the whole situation. Nothing generally happens to the assailant, and if the victim refuses to put up with that she's shown the door for not complying with the school's disciplinary process. If they aren't overt enough to handle it that way, it's usually trivial to pressure the victim into withdrawing or transferring.
One of my friends got dragged through that at one of those kinds of schools, and another was threatened with it before noping out of the institution ahead of time. I can't really articulate the amount of contempt I have for fundamentalist schools because of how common policies like that are.
Both DeVoses are fundamentalists. Their theology almost certainly assumes that not only is the victim at fault in sexual assault cases, but takes it far enough to assume the assailant is the real victim due to his "stumbling" - because of the person he assaulted - placing the status of his soul at risk.
There's a reason a lot of Christian colleges' responses to on-campus assault is giving sexual assault victims a choice between publicly apologizing to their assailants or expulsion. She can't quite explicitly extend that to secular schools, but actively making life harder for victims is entirely consistent with that kind of thinking.
Yup. It's the same thing you see behind the whole female head covering thing so common among various fundamentalist religious groups and repressive cultures. When a man cheats or assaults a women or the like, it's the women's fault for tempting him. Because the only alternative would be holding men to account for their actions and that's just beyond the pale.
As a resident of Michigan, I humbly apologize to the rest of the country for the DeVos family.
Second, this is just going to embolden your assholes on campus something fierce. If you have an entire organization- like a fraternity- that jumps in on this whole hog, and then is able to get away with bullying and harassment of victims and witnesses? Things are going to go to hell in a handbasket.
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
if you are allowing students to have lawyers (I have not heard of a school in my area that actually allows lawyers to be in these hearings as actual advocates) who do cross examination, you need to have an environment where rules of evidence apply and a neutral arbiter applies them
This is extremely not the case when the neutral arbiter is a panel of school employees, who very much have an incentive (whether on purpose or sub consciously) to protect their school's reputation, and also very often have little to no training on the dynamics of sexual assault or how evidence of sexual assault should be evaluated, all happening in a forum where zero rules of evidence apply
Make no mistake- these school hearings are already a disaster for most victims who go through them. DeVos's policy will make them ten times worse.
The first time Dartmouth neuroscience graduate student Vassiki Chauhan met former professor Bill Kelley, she says, it was after being hit by his car. The impact knocked her down and sent her belongings flying across the street; she later heard that he and his girlfriend (who was allegedly driving) had been drinking earlier that day. A few months later, Kelley suggested Chauhan dress as roadkill for Halloween, and proceeded to call her by that nickname—Roadkill—for the next two years.
That allegation might as well be a metaphor for all the others from the 72-page class-action lawsuit against the trustees of Dartmouth College that was filed Thursday in federal court in New Hampshire. The complaint, made on behalf of Chauhan and six other current and former students, alleges rampant gender discrimination, sexual assault, and sexual harassment perpetrated by three tenured professors in the school’s department of psychological and brain sciences. (One retired under pressure last summer; the other two resigned in the weeks that followed.) If its assertions are accurate, then Kelley and his colleague Paul Whalen in particular have been on a cruel and reckless path for quite some time, without even pausing to look in their rearview mirrors.
And it just gets worse from there:
For one thing, this week’s lawsuit has multiple accusations of rape. The suit alleges, for instance, that Whalen forced Chauhan to engage in nonconsensual intercourse—and refused to wear a condom—after having cajoled her into a night of drinking. The complaint says Chauhan sought out medical attention after this encounter, and that Whalen told her she was being “paranoid” for doing so. At one point, according to the filing, he asked that she meet him at a bar to “celebrate” the results of medical testing she’d decided to pursue following the rape.
Those events are alleged to have occurred several weeks after several of the plaintiffs had reported sexual misconduct by Whalen, Kelley, and the third professor, Todd Heatherton, to Dartmouth’s Title IX office, PBS department chair Dave Bucci, and Director of Graduate Studies Thalia Wheatley. The complaint alleges that no immediate action was taken to protect the graduate students.
Another plaintiff in the suit, Kristina Rapuano, says that Kelley tweaked arrangements for her travel to an academic conference such that she would arrive a day earlier and need to stay in his hotel room. The two went out drinking and ended up having sex that night, the complaint alleges, despite her having been so intoxicated that she could not consent and does not remember what happened. The filing characterizes this as a “sexual assault.”
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
if you are allowing students to have lawyers (I have not heard of a school in my area that actually allows lawyers to be in these hearings as actual advocates) who do cross examination, you need to have an environment where rules of evidence apply and a neutral arbiter applies them
This is extremely not the case when the neutral arbiter is a panel of school employees, who very much have an incentive (whether on purpose or sub consciously) to protect their school's reputation, and also very often have little to no training on the dynamics of sexual assault or how evidence of sexual assault should be evaluated, all happening in a forum where zero rules of evidence apply
Make no mistake- these school hearings are already a disaster for most victims who go through them. DeVos's policy will make them ten times worse.
That can all be true, though it doesn't dispute that cross examination by the accused themselves is not allowed by rule. I'm simply correcting a factual error being repeated here that has been misreported by several organizations.
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
if you are allowing students to have lawyers (I have not heard of a school in my area that actually allows lawyers to be in these hearings as actual advocates) who do cross examination, you need to have an environment where rules of evidence apply and a neutral arbiter applies them
This is extremely not the case when the neutral arbiter is a panel of school employees, who very much have an incentive (whether on purpose or sub consciously) to protect their school's reputation, and also very often have little to no training on the dynamics of sexual assault or how evidence of sexual assault should be evaluated, all happening in a forum where zero rules of evidence apply
Make no mistake- these school hearings are already a disaster for most victims who go through them. DeVos's policy will make them ten times worse.
I remember watching an episode of The Good Wife where a lawyer was allowed to be present at the arbitration hearings, but the lawyer was only allowed to observe, not participate in any way (including giving advice to her client during the hearings). I thought this seemed really weird and probably unrealistic, but apparently the reality is even worse.
Anyhow, I might be wrong but I always assumed that the ultimate purpose of these guidelines has been to limit the legal exposure of schools: give them the tools to step in before a situation gets to the point where they have a hugely expensive lawsuit in their hands. Won't these more relaxed guidelines actually increase their exposure in cases where actual criminal or civil litigation become applicable?
Can states impose more stringent requirements? Not that they should be forced to because this is really outrageous, but hopefully some colleges can be forced to comply with a reasonable standard.
Because they need to be forced to do it, there has been so much evidence that cover ups and protecting abusers is the default that will be in place unless there are harsh and direct legal consequences.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
The new regulations change the evidentiary standard for Title IX sexual harassment proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment cases (the rules use the term “sexual harassment” to encompass both harassment and assault), but they must use the same standard for allegations against students as they use for those involving employees, including faculty.
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “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.”
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about or “reasonably should” have known about an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible.
At universities, the survivor must also make a formal complaint through official channels, meaning that telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient, as Meckler noted. And schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
if you are allowing students to have lawyers (I have not heard of a school in my area that actually allows lawyers to be in these hearings as actual advocates) who do cross examination, you need to have an environment where rules of evidence apply and a neutral arbiter applies them
This is extremely not the case when the neutral arbiter is a panel of school employees, who very much have an incentive (whether on purpose or sub consciously) to protect their school's reputation, and also very often have little to no training on the dynamics of sexual assault or how evidence of sexual assault should be evaluated, all happening in a forum where zero rules of evidence apply
Make no mistake- these school hearings are already a disaster for most victims who go through them. DeVos's policy will make them ten times worse.
I remember watching an episode of The Good Wife where a lawyer was allowed to be present at the arbitration hearings, but the lawyer was only allowed to observe, not participate in any way (including giving advice to her client during the hearings). I thought this seemed really weird and probably unrealistic, but apparently the reality is even worse.
Anyhow, I might be wrong but I always assumed that the ultimate purpose of these guidelines has been to limit the legal exposure of schools: give them the tools to step in before a situation gets to the point where they have a hugely expensive lawsuit in their hands. Won't these more relaxed guidelines actually increase their exposure in cases where actual criminal or civil litigation become applicable?
There was another change in their requiring schools to be actually knowledge of the event to be held accountable, instead of just needing to be reasonably believed to should have known.
And telling a teacher or coach no longer qualifies as reporting it.
Posts
I've always hated the idea that decision making bodies shouldn't be "wasting" time on minor decisions while serious problems are outstanding - anything that requires minimal discussion *should* be cleaned from the docket so problems don't backlog while a necessary debate eats up weeks and months. But in this case, fucking come on what the hell.
I wish the NCAA had the guts to do that to some athletic programs.
Or the Department of Education/State of Michigan with some universities.
Does this mean that the US won’t have an Olympic gymnastics team anymore, or just that USA Gymnastics won’t have a say with regards to decisions of the committee?
A new organization will be created to run things.
This would be my preferable outcome. Burns the organization that failed so many, with minimum impact on the actual athletes.
Would be a good opportunity for former Olympic gymnasts to step up. I've always thought the best way to combat abuse is to get the abusers out of upper management, and replace them with former athletes, and empower current athletes with direct representation, like recalling management that is protecting abusers instead of them.
That still leaves coaches and doctors in the middle management, and that's where the abuse happens, but the coverups happen above them, and real change means fixing the coverup culture, not playing eternal whackamole as rapists pop up.
Pick any sport and it will be full of former greats who tried to transition into coaching or management roles and proved hopelessly inept.
The things that make someone a good athlete and someone good at running a nation wide multi million dollar organization are not really the same set of things. It is primarily a job of organization, budgeting and fundraising like most non profits. The best chef in the US isn't who should run Feeding America. And not specific to anyone but when you spend 25+ hours a week training at a sport as a teen, and have tons of travel and competitions in there you maybe don't spend as much time studying as would be ideal for a highschool student.
If anything history has taught us that former athletes have a penchant for excusing abusive behavior if it is a lot like the abusive behavior they suffered while competing; which "helped" make them great. And long standing interpersonal relationships is part of what helps protect abusers. Better to have a board of outsiders, than someone who has been working with so and so since they were 15, and he never laid a finger on them.
Personally i'd put in a complete ban on anyone having, ever, worked for USAG to be working for the new org, and make a strong and pro active framework for monitoring everyone who does work for/in/with the new org for misbehaviour.
And yes, i know it would (probably) burn lot of perfectly decent people, and loose a ton of institutional knowledge.
But there just is no way to know who knew or how much, so fuck that and start over, anything that was not written down can be learned anew over time.
I'd only do that for management. Plenty of others are probably trying to do the right thing
It astounds me that someone is trying to make it harder for anyone to report sexual assault.
This is very bad
The changes also requires schools that hold hearings to provide the accused an opportunity to cross examine the victim
Many schools currently let both parties testify but don't allow any direct cross examination for reasons I would hope would be obvious
It's not like she has a financial interest in for-profit colleges whom are benefiting from her oversight...oh wait.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
It allows the accused's advisor to cross examine, not the accused themselves.
Same difference, since the individual doing the cross is an agent for the accused. Also, note that DeVos is not implementing any sort of rape shield protections that prevent such cross examinations from becoming stages to put the victim's sexual history on trial (which should be unsurprising as well.) This, of course, will further discourage victims from coming forward, because as we learned a month ago, Republicans believe that the real tragedy is for young men to be accused of sexual assault.
There's a reason a lot of Christian colleges' responses to on-campus assault is giving sexual assault victims a choice between publicly apologizing to their assailants or expulsion. She can't quite explicitly extend that to secular schools, but actively making life harder for victims is entirely consistent with that kind of thinking.
what the shit?
It's a standard policy at places like BJU, Liberty, other institutions in that general constellation, etc. Some are ... bold enough to actually codify it in writing, but in practice they sneak the policy in as some form of Christian Counseling(tm) coupled with lots of used gum analogies. They're super open about victim blaming being the rule.
Basically they sit the victim down with the assailant, explain the spiritual risks he's going through due to his being caused to "stumble," and browbeat the victim into asking his forgiveness for the whole situation. Nothing generally happens to the assailant, and if the victim refuses to put up with that she's shown the door for not complying with the school's disciplinary process. If they aren't overt enough to handle it that way, it's usually trivial to pressure the victim into withdrawing or transferring.
One of my friends got dragged through that at one of those kinds of schools, and another was threatened with it before noping out of the institution ahead of time. I can't really articulate the amount of contempt I have for fundamentalist schools because of how common policies like that are.
I can, but I don't want to immediately get perma-banned.
Yup. It's the same thing you see behind the whole female head covering thing so common among various fundamentalist religious groups and repressive cultures. When a man cheats or assaults a women or the like, it's the women's fault for tempting him. Because the only alternative would be holding men to account for their actions and that's just beyond the pale.
As a resident of Michigan, I humbly apologize to the rest of the country for the DeVos family.
Second, this is just going to embolden your assholes on campus something fierce. If you have an entire organization- like a fraternity- that jumps in on this whole hog, and then is able to get away with bullying and harassment of victims and witnesses? Things are going to go to hell in a handbasket.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
if you are allowing students to have lawyers (I have not heard of a school in my area that actually allows lawyers to be in these hearings as actual advocates) who do cross examination, you need to have an environment where rules of evidence apply and a neutral arbiter applies them
This is extremely not the case when the neutral arbiter is a panel of school employees, who very much have an incentive (whether on purpose or sub consciously) to protect their school's reputation, and also very often have little to no training on the dynamics of sexual assault or how evidence of sexual assault should be evaluated, all happening in a forum where zero rules of evidence apply
Make no mistake- these school hearings are already a disaster for most victims who go through them. DeVos's policy will make them ten times worse.
And it just gets worse from there:
Once again - What. The. Fuck.
That can all be true, though it doesn't dispute that cross examination by the accused themselves is not allowed by rule. I'm simply correcting a factual error being repeated here that has been misreported by several organizations.
I remember watching an episode of The Good Wife where a lawyer was allowed to be present at the arbitration hearings, but the lawyer was only allowed to observe, not participate in any way (including giving advice to her client during the hearings). I thought this seemed really weird and probably unrealistic, but apparently the reality is even worse.
Anyhow, I might be wrong but I always assumed that the ultimate purpose of these guidelines has been to limit the legal exposure of schools: give them the tools to step in before a situation gets to the point where they have a hugely expensive lawsuit in their hands. Won't these more relaxed guidelines actually increase their exposure in cases where actual criminal or civil litigation become applicable?
Because they need to be forced to do it, there has been so much evidence that cover ups and protecting abusers is the default that will be in place unless there are harsh and direct legal consequences.
There was another change in their requiring schools to be actually knowledge of the event to be held accountable, instead of just needing to be reasonably believed to should have known.
And telling a teacher or coach no longer qualifies as reporting it.