Sexual assault policy in universities was originally designed to create campuses safe for women, but now has devolved into a biased and unfair campus-based justice system that is stacked against the accused. At Stanford, which is a typical example, a recent sexual assault accusation highlighted the lopsidedness of the Judicial Affairs Board's treatment of such cases: the accused cannot cross-examine witnesses or offer exculpatory evidence on his own behalf other than a request that the campus "Investigator" contact certain witnesses. He is denied appeal, while any acquittal can be appealed.
Under pressure from pushy radical feminists and interest groups, the Obama Administration has sided with this type of bizarre, unjust system. Dr. Russlyn Ali, head of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, essentially rewrote the standard for “due process protection” when determining the fate of the accused in a sexual misconduct case. She “suggests” that universities dismiss the notion that a conviction will result only from a determination of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt" and expel students who are found guilty according to a “preponderance of the evidence” (50.1 percent) standard. So, all a college Judicial Affairs Board has to do is round up enough “jurors”(students and campus community members who are almost never trained in the practice of law) that will hand down a guilty verdict. And as shown before, in this type of system, the accused really has no rights of his own.
To understand the radical, anti-male nuttiness of this approach, look no further than the materials used to train BJA jurors at Stanford, obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education(FIRE). One such item is Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. The book’s author, Lundy Bancroft, is a fraud who makes money off "low-cost workshops" for battered women. He publishes no educational or academic credentials on his website, refuses to answer calls that do not deal directly with setting up speaking engagements, and is a self-described "author, workshop leader, and consultant on domestic abuse" He has no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and disdains evidence-based methods, simultaneously claiming that his methods for rehabilitating abusers are better than existing ones and that they do not work on most abusers because most men cannot stop being abusers. He has frequently made extravagant claims with no proof,such as his admonition that jurors should be “very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence. The great majority of allegations of abuse—though not all—are substantially accurate.”
I am no lawyer, but I am fairly certain that telling people the accused is probably guilty counts as “prejudicing the jury.” No evidence is given for the second assertion, and the first is an hodgepodge amalgamation of other statistics with no accurate citation.
Universities like Stanford and the Obama Administration are allowing the pursuit of justice to devolve into a witch hunt. Do you agree?