Upon further reflection, Occam may provide a simpler answer.
I don’t follow what is meant by “pressure” in this context. There are new federal and, for the UC, state rules. Schools comply with the law like everyone else.
And who specifically is accusing who of what?
UC Berkeley Law Dean Resigns Following Sexual Harassment Allegations
The dean of the University of California Berkeley’s law school resigned March 10 after a lawsuit was filed alleging he sexually harassed an assistant.
The former dean, Sujit Choudhry, said he disagreed with claims made in the lawsuit that he sexually harassed administrative assistant Tyann Sorrell on a near-daily basis beginning in July 2014, according to CNN.
Sorrell claims Choudhry directed “rude and demeaning” behavior toward her, including unwanted kissing, hugging and other physical conduct.
Sorrell also claims she complained about the behavior several times to Choudhry’s superiors but nothing was done.
[quote=“hello_friends, post:66, topic:77419”]
I don’t follow what is meant by “pressure” in this context. There are new federal and, for the UC, state rules.[/quote]
I don’t know a better word to use. Because of a couple of high profile student assault cases, as well as questions about their compliance with DoE guidelines, various stakeholders want UC to get their act together and are applying pressure of various forms, including political pressure (but not yet federal legal pressure, ie there has not yet AFAIK been a concrete threat of federal dollars withheld).
Schools comply with the law like everyone else.
The rules do not provide clear process, mainly outcomes. It is as if I was told that my Calculus students need to learn integration by parts, and that they need to learn it by week 3, but it does not say whether my course should be lecture-discussion, flipped, or programmed text, but reserves the option of punishing me if I use a style they don’t like.
And who specifically is accusing who of what?
You, above, are accusing the campuses of bad intent:
What’s missing? The burden of proof is specified, the timing and standard for consent are described in detail and the requirements for reporting and confidentiality and permissible inferences are all included.
Bad intent? By writing that they’re resolved to shifting that and other risks to rape victims?
Some of the offices (and professors) are struggling with too little competency and are also sometimes too frugal or proud to retain experienced help. I’m not sure that amounts to bad intent.
What’s missing is practically the entire concrete process for fact finding and adjudication. Who sits in judgment? What are their qualifications, and by whom are they selected, and how many for each case? Do they report to an administrator, or are they given autonomous authority?What constitutes evidence, who makes that determination and when, how is it collected, how is it presented, what fraction is accessible to the alleged offender? What discovery is permitted to each side? How much notification does the offender get, how much representation is he permitted? In the event of a finding of guilt, what are appropriate punishments for the offender, and what is the schedule of compensation for the victim? In the event of a finding of not guilt, what is the schedule of compensation for the now-cleared offender?
In other words, everything that happens once the victim comes forward.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your original post, but if someone is “resolved to shift risk to rape victims” what does resolve refer to other than intent?
You don’t sound very familiar with the rules or with adjudicative processes generally. I don’t know what to say. My heart goes out to you.
Lack of competency? Complacency? Laziness? Neglect? Recklessness? Denial? Apathy? . . . It’s a long list before reaching bad intent and conspiracies.
[quote=“hello_friends, post:71, topic:77419”]
You don’t sound very familiar with the rules or with adjudicative processes generally.[/quote]
My familiarity is primarily at universities, and mainly at universities where I have worked. Likewise you don’t seem to understand how universities function, or that adjudication procedures vary from campus to campus, and are not completely determined by external guidelines with which they are attempting to be compliant.
For examples of differences, consider Cal vs Michigan. The composition of the body determining sanctions in the event an investigation finds a violation is spelled out in detail in the U. of Michigan policy, left open in the UC policy. California explicitly allows appeals based on impartiality or lack of thoroughness in the investigation; Michigan does not. Michigan specifies that the appeal will be reviewed by a trained external party chosen by the Vice President; UC allows an appeal panel of university staff or academic appointees.
This is not as simple as you seem to think it is. If it was, we wouldn’t have so many schools whose procedures have been singled out as inadequate by the DoE, we wouldn’t have the American Council on Education recently reiterating many of the things I’m saying:
and you wouldn’t have the DoE itself backtracking on whether some of its rules are “musts” instead of “shoulds:”
It is all clear as mud.
You’re whistling in the dark there professor. 
Just drawing the obvious conclusion from the preponderance of evidence. I would have thought that everyone in the business was aware of all the difficulty schools are having navigating and implementing these regulations, as well as the craven attempts by athletics departments to count cheerleading as a sport for Title IX purposes.
So you did read one of the rules! 
Yeah, but I forgot about the first and second rules…
This topic was automatically closed after 292 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
