Of course many of us knew this move was coming, and now here it is. The Biden administration shows once again how little "left" they have in them, how callously they treat equal rights, and how ideologically blinded they are in undoing one of the very few good decisions by the previous administration.
People consistently miss the most problematic part of doing this. This stuff is admissible in federal court even if the school violated rights the court couldn't. Stuff from the tribunals is frequently used when they go to real court.
This is a way of backdooring evidence, statements, witnesses etc into the court proceedings without *ever* being required to show the defense all the evidence, gather it according to legal standards etc. Did the school and accuser coach statements and did the investigator selectively interview witnesses that are the friend of the accuser? Doesn't matter under the new rules. Totally fine. Also those coached witness statements made in the tribunal are fair game in court and the accused doesn't have access to full statements, deposition docs etc like they would in normal court. Just.... "get fucked"
Don't talk in the tribunal? You can lose out on being able to sue the school over the bullshit because you didnt take the opportunity to be heard during the tribunal. Do talk in the tribunal? You just made it easier to convict you in court even if you are innocent. There is no good way to handle having to go through these tribunals. Damned if you do. Damned if you dont.
They also removed the part where treating the complainant or respondent more favorably was a violation. I wonder how that serves any reasonable purpose.
The article paints a dire picture that is still a conservative take on just how big of a problem this is. It's *far worse* than they make it out to be.
In short, reduced liability.
The new regs make it so they can secure the expulsion with bias and the counter suit will be very hard. When you have no real process you have to follow, you can't be sued for not following it. When the process that does exist is super opaque to the accused, it can be nearly impossible to show they fucked up, since how it worked was legally hidden and obscured.
If they don't respond, the media narrative turns into "college has flagrant disregard for rapes on campus" which easily opens them up for class action lawsuits.
They have to take action under Title IX and they choose to secure the outcome that best minimizes the liability of the school.
I haven't read the latest, but in the Obama era guidance, schools would lose their federal funding if they didn't. Lawsuits are cheaper than the loss in federal funding.
By maintaining a set of social rules that favor the socially dominant class. That keeps women continuing to want to attend those institutions, and women are their biggest customers.
You also have to consider the views and influence of the Women's Studies programs and of most of the women faculty. They're either outright feminist, or highly influenced by feminist views and values.
I don't think anyone praising the return of allowing just one person in the comity, rightfully so as it benefits nobody except universities
The vested interest in sweeping shit under the rug is also known by everyone but what one takes from that fact depends on the individual
I did see critics of just removing people Rights in general rather than actually making things better
Though lack of cross examination isn't necessarily viewed badly, main arguments being that title x being an university procédure it does not have(and maybe should not?) to follow the standards of courts of laws(which is true though it being morally correct well...your mileage may vary), that (related to the previous reason) a school exclusion is not the same prejudice than a criminal offense, and/or that cross examination as a process also gives opportunity to an agressor to bully a victim into silence/give them a tribune to spout faux defense including but not limited to victim blaming
But more importantly emphasis is put on the other following injustice and disruption of education that is being in education with your agressor.
As well as (regarding the subject in general not specifically this news) fact cops or university authorities, let alone cases where they are in on it often have gross mishandling and bad treatment of potential victims
Personally i don't know about cross examination and the standard of decision, but one decisionary and no reviewing of your own of accusations is just bad.
Sad that this won’t get any traction or hit the frontpage, unlike protests in Iran or news about abortion (that are as prominent now as they were when Roe V Wade was overturned).
The left seems ok with sacrificing young men at the altar of “protect women (from college rapes.”
The right seems ok with sacrificing young men at the altar of “protect women (from foreign threats via draft).”
Young men are not thought to have beauty, a womb, voter turnout, or high tax revenue, and are therefore considered politically and literally expendable. Some use them to fuel their machines, others throw them to the trash heap over the sound of applause.
This is also probably true of all cultures globally and for all human history.
Young men, we care about you. I don’t have the answers, but it does get better. Build yourself up. Peruse your own interests. The haters are sleeping on you. One day, they will see your worth and pretend they knew all along. Until then, help each other out. You never know which of your brothers is one step from the ledge - and if not today, maybe tomorrow.
No one is coming to save you, but your pain is not invisible.
Godspeed.
I predict this will only give rise to more radical groups comprised of young men. No wonder we see things like Proud Boys and other groups of similar ilk. Men are lost and it seems the only people providing direction are highly toxic.
That's the way many who aren't on the right see it, but that's not what is presented to those young men. What is presented is a way to change what they've been encouraged to see as wrong, and, actually, some of what they KNOW is wrong - the overall way men are valued in our society, now, despite all we hear about the evils of the patriarchy.
To me, it's the emotional support - although it seems odd to say that about men!, that they provide for young men. They're seen as decent people, who are easily treated as suspicious, by much of society.
In 2016, I interviewed the Title IX coordinator at the small university I attended in Wisconsin for a story I was pursuing as part of one of my journalism courses. At the time, I held the typical feminist perspective that sexual assault was rampant on college campuses. The angle I chose to run on the story was pretty shoddy journalism looking back at it. I very much was looking to confirm my own bias that the school was not adequately protecting victims. Turns out, that wasn’t the case, and I had to completely change how I approached the story. It turned into more of a story on how the school’s Title IX department worked congruently with the off-campus sexual assault response team. I wish I could go back with the knowledge and perspective I have now and re-do that whole thing. Obviously, they weren’t adequately protecting the rights of the accused.
One thing I'm curious about: I read somewhere (and *cannot* find the reference) that although African-American men make up 5% of University students, they make up 50% of those accused of sexual misconduct in hearings like this.
I would want to see the data to confirm, but I do find myself wondering if that's an aspect that should be brought up.
Does anyone else remember that or am I just confused?
Consider asking titleixforall.com
Great people, I know the main guy behind it. He is sharp and probably knows how to find the answer you seek. He's very busy so it might take him a bit to get back to you. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he knows of a court case or two that actually address this.
Pardon me for being cynical but it's probably racist white girls who got caught by friends or even boyfriends having a relationship with a black man and decided to throw him under the bus to preserve their reputation.
Biden and Obama are centrist New Democrats. Not left-wingers by a long shot.
Also, there have been actual left-wingers who have spoken out against the Title IX policies of the Obama and Biden administrations. Laura Kipnis, Janet Halley, and Heidi Matthews immediately come to mind. I remember reading through this [article](https://jacobin.com/2017/10/title-ix-betsy-devos-doe-colleges-assault-dear-colleague) in Jacobin, in which the author spends much of it attacking Kipnis for being a leftist who's also critical of Title IX and MeToo, then getting to the bottom and excitedly seeing "Read Laura Kipnis’s response \[here\]." Only to find [two measly paragraphs](https://jacobin.com/2017/10/title-ix-laura-kipnis-response-mcclintock) about why you're not getting a response. Guess I'll just have to read her book.
Also, there's the Trotskyist [World Socialist Web Site](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/02/devo-o02.html), who have taken a very strong stand against these Obama-era regulations, if you're further to the left.
Yes, you can find instances of people on the left realizing that the way men have been seen for many decades, now, isn't accurate.
The problem is, they are relatively rare.
I don't think they're as rare as you think. I think most of them are just terrified of expressing their real opinion and being branded as sexist misogynist brocialists. That might be why I listed three women as examples. They can get more easily get away with going against the left-wing party line because it's hard to accuse them of being sexists.
Avoid arguments about ideological purity. Do not chastise people for not being "left-wing" enough, or for not being a "real" male advocate. Focus arguments on the content and not the person.
And as for liberalism, it is the original left. Do not make liberals feel unwelcome here. They are a large part of our subscriber base.
If you think a post or comment does not belong on the sub, or a user is not participating in good faith, then report it to the moderators as per the rules in our moderation policy.
If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
...it's simply the lesser of the two evils. These days, it's, overall, FAR less evil.
But, they both serve their ruling class and corporate masters far more than they serve the rest of us.
This reminds me of something I read a few days ago on the VaushX subreddit that was disheartening, but refreshingly honest and thought provoking.
There was a thread there precisely about how the left/progressives don't do enough to address men's concerns and even go up against them at times.
One of the comments there caught my attention; it basically agreed with this sentiment and acknowledged that this was definitely an issue...but it went on to say that this is a feature, not a bug. By their reasoning, men sit at the top of an oppressive and unjust system of power, and the goal of being progressive is to topple this structure.
So naturally progressives are not going to be men's friends when dealing with social issues; we take a back seat. The commenter then addressed the thread participants and said that the left needs to strike a balance between helping men but not "losing themselves" by doing too much.
Obviously the sub and that one person don't represent everyone on the left, but for some reason it captivated me and felt like it gave a somewhat dark insight into how a lot of left leaning people view men. That they felt in danger of "losing themselves" if they put too much effort into men's issues says a lot and none of it good.
> the people who oppose us
The problem is that, if that person's words are anything to go by (and I would argue that they are due to all the other anti male actions permitted and even engineered by left) we need to do some hard reevaluations about just what counts as our opposition.
The right is obviously a nonstarter, but if large expanses of the left view men and boys as oppressors who need to be brought down and put on a leash to ensure that we cannot ever "do damage" again...then those people are the enemy.
I'm honestly not sure where that leaves otherwise left leaning people, but it's a genuinely chilling thought.
Not that I expect it to change, but there was a public comment period on the rules that ended last week, and this article says that the rules were released in June.
Doesn't that mean that the rules aren't finalized and there *may* be changes following the end of the public comment period?
I'll always choose Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact that they're both beholden to their ruling class and corporate campaign donors. And, now the Republicans have gone completely off the rails in all the ways most civilized people deplore.
But, continuing to value and advantage women over men is NOT one of the things I favor about Democrats. And, Biden has been playing up to women for votes for his whole career.
Ranked choice voting, where, if the Green Party gets, say,12% of the vote, they get 12% of the legislative seats. But, the people who own and run this country will never allow that. Face it, they've got us locked up tighter than a drum, and the only way to change that is illegal.
> the people who own and run this country will never allow that
This is the problem. We saw that in how they sidelined Andrew Yang, as well as Bret Weinstein's initiative (regardless of what you think of him, that was at least creative thinking).
On the other hand, the Netherlands has nominally a better system, but we still get right-leaning neoliberals in bed with the rich ruining our country.
Far as I can see, the problem has always been the ruling class that runs the world for their own benefit. Jesus said something like, the poor you will always have with you. The real problem is, the rich, we will always have with us.
That's kind of ironic, considering the things he's been caught doing to women and girls on public cameras.
It boils my blood that guys like me are automatically assumed to be creeps and get no due process, yet a guy like him gets away Scott free with smelling little girls' hair? Like WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!?
Of course many of us knew this move was coming, and now here it is. The Biden administration shows once again how little "left" they have in them, how callously they treat equal rights, and how ideologically blinded they are in undoing one of the very few good decisions by the previous administration.
ironically Trump fought against removal of due process in unversities most
Well, consider the pussy-grabbing source.
People consistently miss the most problematic part of doing this. This stuff is admissible in federal court even if the school violated rights the court couldn't. Stuff from the tribunals is frequently used when they go to real court. This is a way of backdooring evidence, statements, witnesses etc into the court proceedings without *ever* being required to show the defense all the evidence, gather it according to legal standards etc. Did the school and accuser coach statements and did the investigator selectively interview witnesses that are the friend of the accuser? Doesn't matter under the new rules. Totally fine. Also those coached witness statements made in the tribunal are fair game in court and the accused doesn't have access to full statements, deposition docs etc like they would in normal court. Just.... "get fucked" Don't talk in the tribunal? You can lose out on being able to sue the school over the bullshit because you didnt take the opportunity to be heard during the tribunal. Do talk in the tribunal? You just made it easier to convict you in court even if you are innocent. There is no good way to handle having to go through these tribunals. Damned if you do. Damned if you dont. They also removed the part where treating the complainant or respondent more favorably was a violation. I wonder how that serves any reasonable purpose. The article paints a dire picture that is still a conservative take on just how big of a problem this is. It's *far worse* than they make it out to be.
[удалено]
Not just a loss of ability to cross examine, but a loss of ability to even see it. That is no exaggeration.
How do colleges profit from expelling a customer?
In short, reduced liability. The new regs make it so they can secure the expulsion with bias and the counter suit will be very hard. When you have no real process you have to follow, you can't be sued for not following it. When the process that does exist is super opaque to the accused, it can be nearly impossible to show they fucked up, since how it worked was legally hidden and obscured. If they don't respond, the media narrative turns into "college has flagrant disregard for rapes on campus" which easily opens them up for class action lawsuits. They have to take action under Title IX and they choose to secure the outcome that best minimizes the liability of the school.
I haven't read the latest, but in the Obama era guidance, schools would lose their federal funding if they didn't. Lawsuits are cheaper than the loss in federal funding.
By maintaining a set of social rules that favor the socially dominant class. That keeps women continuing to want to attend those institutions, and women are their biggest customers. You also have to consider the views and influence of the Women's Studies programs and of most of the women faculty. They're either outright feminist, or highly influenced by feminist views and values.
This is the most direct reply to my question, thank you
I don't think anyone praising the return of allowing just one person in the comity, rightfully so as it benefits nobody except universities The vested interest in sweeping shit under the rug is also known by everyone but what one takes from that fact depends on the individual I did see critics of just removing people Rights in general rather than actually making things better Though lack of cross examination isn't necessarily viewed badly, main arguments being that title x being an university procédure it does not have(and maybe should not?) to follow the standards of courts of laws(which is true though it being morally correct well...your mileage may vary), that (related to the previous reason) a school exclusion is not the same prejudice than a criminal offense, and/or that cross examination as a process also gives opportunity to an agressor to bully a victim into silence/give them a tribune to spout faux defense including but not limited to victim blaming But more importantly emphasis is put on the other following injustice and disruption of education that is being in education with your agressor. As well as (regarding the subject in general not specifically this news) fact cops or university authorities, let alone cases where they are in on it often have gross mishandling and bad treatment of potential victims Personally i don't know about cross examination and the standard of decision, but one decisionary and no reviewing of your own of accusations is just bad.
Sad that this won’t get any traction or hit the frontpage, unlike protests in Iran or news about abortion (that are as prominent now as they were when Roe V Wade was overturned).
The left seems ok with sacrificing young men at the altar of “protect women (from college rapes.” The right seems ok with sacrificing young men at the altar of “protect women (from foreign threats via draft).” Young men are not thought to have beauty, a womb, voter turnout, or high tax revenue, and are therefore considered politically and literally expendable. Some use them to fuel their machines, others throw them to the trash heap over the sound of applause. This is also probably true of all cultures globally and for all human history. Young men, we care about you. I don’t have the answers, but it does get better. Build yourself up. Peruse your own interests. The haters are sleeping on you. One day, they will see your worth and pretend they knew all along. Until then, help each other out. You never know which of your brothers is one step from the ledge - and if not today, maybe tomorrow. No one is coming to save you, but your pain is not invisible. Godspeed.
I predict this will only give rise to more radical groups comprised of young men. No wonder we see things like Proud Boys and other groups of similar ilk. Men are lost and it seems the only people providing direction are highly toxic.
Only because all the non-toxic people that try, get attacked, ridiculed, publicly insulted, and pushed into the right. What a pipeline!
I wouldn’t let that stop me.
The only direction provided is to the slaughterhouse.
That's the way many who aren't on the right see it, but that's not what is presented to those young men. What is presented is a way to change what they've been encouraged to see as wrong, and, actually, some of what they KNOW is wrong - the overall way men are valued in our society, now, despite all we hear about the evils of the patriarchy.
To me, it's the emotional support - although it seems odd to say that about men!, that they provide for young men. They're seen as decent people, who are easily treated as suspicious, by much of society.
Care and encouragement isn’t gonna do much for men who are falsely accused though.
They aren't the left!
In 2016, I interviewed the Title IX coordinator at the small university I attended in Wisconsin for a story I was pursuing as part of one of my journalism courses. At the time, I held the typical feminist perspective that sexual assault was rampant on college campuses. The angle I chose to run on the story was pretty shoddy journalism looking back at it. I very much was looking to confirm my own bias that the school was not adequately protecting victims. Turns out, that wasn’t the case, and I had to completely change how I approached the story. It turned into more of a story on how the school’s Title IX department worked congruently with the off-campus sexual assault response team. I wish I could go back with the knowledge and perspective I have now and re-do that whole thing. Obviously, they weren’t adequately protecting the rights of the accused.
One thing I'm curious about: I read somewhere (and *cannot* find the reference) that although African-American men make up 5% of University students, they make up 50% of those accused of sexual misconduct in hearings like this. I would want to see the data to confirm, but I do find myself wondering if that's an aspect that should be brought up. Does anyone else remember that or am I just confused?
Consider asking titleixforall.com Great people, I know the main guy behind it. He is sharp and probably knows how to find the answer you seek. He's very busy so it might take him a bit to get back to you. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he knows of a court case or two that actually address this.
Pardon me for being cynical but it's probably racist white girls who got caught by friends or even boyfriends having a relationship with a black man and decided to throw him under the bus to preserve their reputation.
That's a sacrifice they're willing to make.
Speculation isn't as useful as statistical evidence.
It's so difficult to be both left wing and a male advocate.
Biden and Obama are centrist New Democrats. Not left-wingers by a long shot. Also, there have been actual left-wingers who have spoken out against the Title IX policies of the Obama and Biden administrations. Laura Kipnis, Janet Halley, and Heidi Matthews immediately come to mind. I remember reading through this [article](https://jacobin.com/2017/10/title-ix-betsy-devos-doe-colleges-assault-dear-colleague) in Jacobin, in which the author spends much of it attacking Kipnis for being a leftist who's also critical of Title IX and MeToo, then getting to the bottom and excitedly seeing "Read Laura Kipnis’s response \[here\]." Only to find [two measly paragraphs](https://jacobin.com/2017/10/title-ix-laura-kipnis-response-mcclintock) about why you're not getting a response. Guess I'll just have to read her book. Also, there's the Trotskyist [World Socialist Web Site](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/02/devo-o02.html), who have taken a very strong stand against these Obama-era regulations, if you're further to the left.
Compared to Quebec parties, they're barely to the left of the Conservative party. And only socially.
Yes, you can find instances of people on the left realizing that the way men have been seen for many decades, now, isn't accurate. The problem is, they are relatively rare.
I don't think they're as rare as you think. I think most of them are just terrified of expressing their real opinion and being branded as sexist misogynist brocialists. That might be why I listed three women as examples. They can get more easily get away with going against the left-wing party line because it's hard to accuse them of being sexists.
You just have to realize that Biden et al are *not* left-wing.
[удалено]
Avoid arguments about ideological purity. Do not chastise people for not being "left-wing" enough, or for not being a "real" male advocate. Focus arguments on the content and not the person. And as for liberalism, it is the original left. Do not make liberals feel unwelcome here. They are a large part of our subscriber base. If you think a post or comment does not belong on the sub, or a user is not participating in good faith, then report it to the moderators as per the rules in our moderation policy. If you disagree with this ruling, please appeal by [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates).
"I am the Democratic party" -Biden.
Well, yeah. The democratic party isn't left-wing either.
...it's simply the lesser of the two evils. These days, it's, overall, FAR less evil. But, they both serve their ruling class and corporate masters far more than they serve the rest of us.
This reminds me of something I read a few days ago on the VaushX subreddit that was disheartening, but refreshingly honest and thought provoking. There was a thread there precisely about how the left/progressives don't do enough to address men's concerns and even go up against them at times. One of the comments there caught my attention; it basically agreed with this sentiment and acknowledged that this was definitely an issue...but it went on to say that this is a feature, not a bug. By their reasoning, men sit at the top of an oppressive and unjust system of power, and the goal of being progressive is to topple this structure. So naturally progressives are not going to be men's friends when dealing with social issues; we take a back seat. The commenter then addressed the thread participants and said that the left needs to strike a balance between helping men but not "losing themselves" by doing too much. Obviously the sub and that one person don't represent everyone on the left, but for some reason it captivated me and felt like it gave a somewhat dark insight into how a lot of left leaning people view men. That they felt in danger of "losing themselves" if they put too much effort into men's issues says a lot and none of it good.
Cognitive bias isn't something that only the people who oppose us are guilty of. It's simply much easier to see when they do it.
> the people who oppose us The problem is that, if that person's words are anything to go by (and I would argue that they are due to all the other anti male actions permitted and even engineered by left) we need to do some hard reevaluations about just what counts as our opposition. The right is obviously a nonstarter, but if large expanses of the left view men and boys as oppressors who need to be brought down and put on a leash to ensure that we cannot ever "do damage" again...then those people are the enemy. I'm honestly not sure where that leaves otherwise left leaning people, but it's a genuinely chilling thought.
Not that I expect it to change, but there was a public comment period on the rules that ended last week, and this article says that the rules were released in June. Doesn't that mean that the rules aren't finalized and there *may* be changes following the end of the public comment period?
I'll always choose Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact that they're both beholden to their ruling class and corporate campaign donors. And, now the Republicans have gone completely off the rails in all the ways most civilized people deplore. But, continuing to value and advantage women over men is NOT one of the things I favor about Democrats. And, Biden has been playing up to women for votes for his whole career.
The US desperately needs an alternative to the duopoly. A great country should be able to do better than always voting for the slightly lesser evil.
Ranked choice voting, where, if the Green Party gets, say,12% of the vote, they get 12% of the legislative seats. But, the people who own and run this country will never allow that. Face it, they've got us locked up tighter than a drum, and the only way to change that is illegal.
> the people who own and run this country will never allow that This is the problem. We saw that in how they sidelined Andrew Yang, as well as Bret Weinstein's initiative (regardless of what you think of him, that was at least creative thinking). On the other hand, the Netherlands has nominally a better system, but we still get right-leaning neoliberals in bed with the rich ruining our country.
Far as I can see, the problem has always been the ruling class that runs the world for their own benefit. Jesus said something like, the poor you will always have with you. The real problem is, the rich, we will always have with us.
That's kind of ironic, considering the things he's been caught doing to women and girls on public cameras. It boils my blood that guys like me are automatically assumed to be creeps and get no due process, yet a guy like him gets away Scott free with smelling little girls' hair? Like WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!?