New York Times Says Lower Evidence Standard for Campus Rape is Justified
We’re talking about lives that can be ruined by a false accusation but the New York Times thinks that’s fine.
The College Fix reports.
Lower Evidence Standard For Campus Rape Justified, NYT Editorial Says
In a column on new Department of Education draft rules telling colleges how to meet federal requirements for campus safety, The New York Times editorial board plays down the threat to accused students from wrongful accusations of sexual assault:
There is perhaps some risk that students accused of rape won’t feel equipped to properly defend themselves; the accused are not typically afforded due process protections, such as the right to remain silent, in these campus proceedings. In 2011, the Department of Education recommended that universities use “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard of proof instead of the higher “clear and convincing” standard, which it said was inappropriate for violations of civil rights law.
Lower evidentiary standards seem justified since these are administrative proceedings in which the accused student might be facing expulsion, not a loss of liberty.
The “preponderance” standard is exactly what a California bill, passed by the Senate and under consideration in the Assembly, would codify for California schools handling rape accusations.
Read the whole editorial here. Columnist Ross Douthat also gave suggestions for addressing campus rape recently.
Lower Evidence Standard For Campus Rape Justified, NYT Editorial Says (The College Fix)
Comments
I would like to suggest a lower evidence standard for accusations against leftists.
I love how they pick one denied right “the right to remain silent” and ignore all the others:
1) Right to counsel.
2) Right to confront all the evidence.
3) Right to cross examine.
4) Right to confront your accuser.
And this misses the whole apparatus in place.
Before anyone sits on such a board in judgement, they will have gotten all the one sided feminist factoids and passed the ideological indoctrination before they can sit on such a board.
The college has an investigator – who is also ideologically vetted and is not there to disprove the allegation, but is there to prove it.
There is no investigator for the defense.
If the student who is accused runs his own “investigation” and seeks to ask potential witnesses questions he can be charged with interferring with the “investigation”
And the list goes on.
But the Times just glides over all of that.
And, let’s be VERY CLEAR HERE: no one at the times wants to have that standard and process applied to them. Nor do the proffessors or administators of these colleges.
Elite thinking at it’s finest.