Title IX under review


  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    So the head of the department of education (the christian wackjob billionaire that paid for her position via generous donations to the republican party and trump campaign) Betsy Devos is reviewing Title IX, and shit is already hitting the fan!

    Under Betsy, her Education Department's civil rights chief Candice Jackson made this statement to the New Times yesterday:



    -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/...title-iv-education-trump-candice-jackson.html

    Which she apologized for as such:

    Later, in a written apology, Jackson said that what she said was "flippant, and I am sorry."

    “As a survivor of rape myself, I would never seek to diminish anyone’s experience," the apology said. "My words in the New York Times poorly characterized the conversations I’ve had with countless groups of advocates ... All sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously — which has always been my position and will always be the position of this Department.”

    -- http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/12/candice-jackson-campus-sexual-assault-drunk-240464

    So apparently Title IX is being reviewed, not the requirement that campuses adjudicate sexual assault instead of the justice department, no no that dirty Obama requirement be removed and campuses be more fair to the accused when doing these adjudications. And now women's groups are going to war against the cthulian order of trump lackeys.

    Anyways can someone tell me why universities need do this, why not just hand over all claims and complaints of sexual assault to the police on account that it is accusation of a federal crime? Leave this to the police to investigate and the courts to decide? In short why the fuck is the education department and not the justice department dealing with cases of sexual assault?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

    Who the fuck knows anymore... it seems logic and common sense has flown the coop in America...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    cthulian = of the earth?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Started listening to this issue this morning:

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    i sincerely hope that that actually makes sense to you.

    care to translate into american english?

  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    so, cthulian =dead (or dreaming?)?
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Are you being pandantic? I mean "of Cthulhu" or worshipers of Cthulhu! For the followers we be devoured first, their suffering will be shortest!

    Anyways my original question stands on why colleges and universities are dealing with sexual assault extra-judiciously?
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Damned if I know.
    Extrajudicial = beyond the rule of law.
    (forget the trial, and proceed to the lynching?)



    How does a school dealing with sexual matters between students fall under this law?
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    I'm glad we are both on the same page now wondering the same fucking question! Why the fuck are universities determining guilt on such matters for? Worst punishment they can provide is expulsion, seriously a rapist gets expulsion to go off and rape lower class women off campus? Why are not all cases of sexual assault handed off to the police and justice department? How the fuck is Title IX involved? HOW THE FUCK IS TITLE IX INVOLVED???

    What, really?

    Why universities? Stupid traditionalism.

    Why Title IX? Gender equality and equal protection under the law.

    From both political and law enforcement perspectives, it is probably easier, going forward from any given moment, to encourage the universities to do better jobs than to convince the states to alter their laws specifically to take this power away from universities. Virtually any attempt to accomplish such an outcome directly through federal legislation will either fail politically or falter in the courts; the best course forward is in the federal courts vis à vis the states in an attempt to force equal protection outcomes not only on behalf of victims, but also from one victim to the next.

    We also kind of need to do that to the police departments, but for the moment this is about the universities.
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    So universities have traditionally had the right to punish people for serious crimes? So lets say someone is accused of murder at a university, the university does not go to the police, they do their little trial, find the accused guilty and send him packing... does that sound like a proper punishment for murder?

    How? work it through with me: someone is raped at a university, how is title IX involved?
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Gary Dotson

    ..........................even the courts get it wrong(more often that we would like to believe)

    Allowing the schools to adjudicate claims of sexual abuse does not fall under title IX
    which states:


    Let us assume that at some loonietoons university, the claims of the female are always taken as fact, and the male expelled, then the university would be in violation of title IX.
    Whereupon, redress could be sought through the courts.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Our university DID have that right in the early stages of intervening in serious crime; it had its own police department. In other words, if someone was raped, the person would be arrested and jailed (at least initially) by the campus police.

    Most colleges do not have their own police department. They do, however, have a lot of control over what happens at that university by implementing policies and rules to protect students. Most universities, for example, give classes/talks/seminars on rape prevention for both men and women. To a large degree they "set the tone" at a college when it comes to how both consensual sex and sexual assault are approached.
    Nope. But if the college has a drunk driving problem, and they do nothing about it, then they screwed up. And if someone dies as a result, it would behoove them to revisit their policies.
    Once someone is raped it's too late; the system has failed and the damage is done.

    BEFORE someone is raped, though, the university can make it clear to both sexes that no means no, that both parties have a responsibility both to make their wishes known and to respect other people's wishes. They can make it clear that drinking heavily can lead to problems, and give both sexes tips on how to avoid situations that can lead to higher risks of sexual assault and crime. That's what a responsible university would do, anyway. And sometimes things go awry BEFORE rape occurs - someone is groped at a party, or a frat has a party with a "drug em, f*ck em and dump em" theme, or the university is OK with teachers hitting on female students but not male ones. At that point Title IX comes into play. Because when the university has problems like this, and fails to deal with them, Title IX gives students a last recourse - the civil rights section of the education department. And when they use that avenue to get help dealing with discrimination and double standards at universities, the risk of rape and other assault goes down.

    Or you could promulgate the theme that "oh well, most of these so-called rapes happen when students get drunk and change their minds later." And that will result in increased rates of rape and sexual assault.

    Which direction should we go in?

    Similar to your exemplary fantasy, but much more realistic, are the real cases like one out of North Carolina when the university told a rape victim that life is kind of like a football game and the important thing is that she figure out what she did wrong.

    Or we might think of the University of Washington as another example. When I was young, the statement that one couldn't get arrested in a town spoke of prejudice against people, such as for skin color, and postulated an abtract argument about that person being seen to not exist. Not quite invisible man, but close enough. At UW, when Barbara Hedges was Athletic Director, the police were apparently afraid to arrest the football players, to such an end that whether drunk driving, threatening a police officer, or rape, the starting tight end very nearly couldn't get arrested, and the time he did, the police officers received a good chewing out for screwing with the Dawgs.

    And while athletics are one of the most well-known applications of Title IX, and thus probably a more desperate legal inroad, using one's office as A.D. to create disparate impact surrounding an athletic program can create an appearance of a problem. The Clery Act, a 1990 law sponsored by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and signed by President George H.W. Bush (R), is the more direct relevance. Formally titled, "The Right to Know and Campus Security Act", the Clery Act overlaps with Title IX by requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to keep and publish certain security-related information (20 USC 28 (IV.F) § 1092).

    At the University of Oregon, when I was there, for instance, campus security wrote a parking ticket that was complete excrement; the school's policy was to refer such claims to a retired judge retained by university administration. He pulled a police-officer line about it doesn't matter if the car wasn't there thirty minutes because it is unfair and illegal to doubt the officers' words; an added dose of bureaucratic speech explained that the ticket could not be inaccurate for saying the meter that wasn't there had expired because the paint that wasn't on the curb counts as a parking meter. In other words, "law enforcement" on college campuses is often a racket.

    It can become a cynical bit about money, because that's all anyone has left to fight about. To wit, there are plenty of other mechanisms, but the idea of striking that much agreement in that many state legislatures and overcoming that many contemporaneous and subsequent lawsuits is itself problematic, so trying to legislate these processes out of university hands is the sort of not quite doomed project we might be able to accomplish a hundred years and a billion victims later. In some areas, local police and prosecutors find themselves standing off federal authorities about sex crime in general because police and prosecutors just can't stop making excuses for rape. So once the People get all fifty states to agree legislatively and overcome the uncertain lawsuits—we might recall Obergefell as an example of how far even federal judges will go to be political when the panel voted 2-1 to effectively but tacitly recriminalize homosexuality in order to unmarry a dead man, so, no, not even the blatantly obvious has any obvious value among jurists—we still need to convince police officers and prosecutors to stop looking at a woman reporting a rape as some manner of criminal suspect.

    And that's just the general. In particular, Title IX through financial aid is actually a pretty solid mechanism insofar as the general basis is a constitutional requirement: Process is not automatically due process; law and process do not automatically equal justice; these are known realities. So what you do, then, is use the financial aid purse strings. For the university, in dramatic caricature: If, to simplify grotesquely, we can rape and harass the women out of our universities, then, well, at least we got paid, first, with the financial aid tuition disbursements. Or, from the government's perspective, we give out money to be given to yet someone else in exchange for particular products or services; we have an obligation to ensure that the intended beneficiary of the initial benefit given at least has proper opportunity to access the intended benefit, and, furthermore, to ensure that the product or service that money is exchanged for is, in fact, reasonably delivered. Violating the civil rights of rape victims is still a crime regardless of sex, and Title IX intends to address sex and gender discrimination and the effects thereof in education. The underlying obligation under Title IX is that, at the national level, according to simply being "in the United States", no person shall be excluded from or denied benefits on the basis of sex, nor subject to discrimination on such basis, within the range of educational programs or activities receiving federal contributions.

    Except for the fact that this has to do with the sexual abuse of women, it would generally be pretty straightforward. That is to say,

    Which raises a point we might as well attend before it comes up: Title IX will cover men, too. I mention that because it eventually arises that someone should ask what about the men. And the answer is very much similar to the lament about breast and prostate cancer, which is that many days it would probably go over better if, "What about the men?" arose in its own context instead of as a response to women, because then it sounds like, for instance, the men are saying the Komen Foundation should have been focusing on prostate cancer, and at some point someone needs to remind such arguments that it's also possible to make one's own noise. For our purposes, though, the important point considers how we treat women in the context of the fact of their being women. It is not uncommon, for instance, that law enforcement distorts, exaggerates, and even invents her behavior in order to excuse a man from behavior that does in fact equal a sex crime. And, yes, that misogyny even harms men.


    In these aspects we focus on women because that's who the vast majority of the problem affects most directly; hence Title IX, and also the tendency in discourse to focus, when discussing sex crime, on male victimization of females. Nonetheless, societal history reminds quite clearly that men who report rapes face strucutural sex discrimination, too; law enforcement has long been confused by domestic violence 'twixt same-sex partners, and society in general has very strange notions about female sexual victimization of males. In the context of Title IX, though, much like the strange bits about Komen and prostate cancer that flutter through our lives now and again like falling autumn leaves—we tend to hear about it, if at all, when male athletes start wearing pink in October, though the complaint tends to imply, largely for lack of vigilance, we think, though they're never clear, that business considerations such as the role of women in buying tickets and licensed paraphernalia are utterly irrelevant to a pro sports league's outlook—part of the problem described by certain dearths of action is that the stimulus has not enough magnitude to invoke a market response. Like the prostate cancer question. I know there's a ribbon; I don't know what color it is. I really should care, since I'm a candidate for prostate cancer. And in recent years when at least once a year I hear, "What about the men?" in response to male pro athletes wearing pink, I can say that I hear far more from those who gripe that Komen isn't doing enough for men than I do from the actual leading prostate cancer campaign. (I'm intentionally not looking it up right now because, really, I don't know what the campaign is called, nor even its ribbon color; that's how little I hear about it.)

    In questions of sexual harassment and abuse, men find themselves in a really awful cycle; the point that we have, over the course of history, done this to ourselves is only relevant if our address of the cycle depends on comparison to or juxtaposition with women. As its own question, the binary foci of this deadly orbit really are sorts of dark stars that radiate only sickness unto humanity. We do not report because we are ashamed. Some aspect of this perceived shame seems inherent insofar as it so common to survivor accounts that seems to arise inevitably; using that word again, it seems to be a very common aspect of the brain chemistry responding to perceptions of sexual violation, and in truth it is very difficult to discern the relationship between the evolutionary purpose for those chemicals in particular forms of stress response and our apparent translation of the result as shame. But the truly dangerous part of the shame disrupting our reporting of sex crimes against us is the portion our masculine-dominated society delivers unto us.

    To that point: If the cops laugh off or dismiss his rape report, or make a point of demeaning him as a queer or femmeboy or liar, because he got hard and ejaculated, then we are unquestionably describing sex-based discrimination against a crime victim; if that happens within one of these university structures, Title IX is unquestionably in effect.

    Still, though, this is nearly its own question; the Devos review of Title IX intends reassertion of conservative political values, which in turn includes male supremacism, and what is, functionally speaking, rape empowerment.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here's a really perverse way of looking at the state of things in the U.S.: Remember time when Dick Black being a state senator was a good thing because it meant he wasn't at Education helping Betsy Devos figure out Title IX? There's never going to be a day when we all look back on this and laugh, but I do hope we actually get to tell that joke in ten years.

    Meanwhile, Know Your IX↱ offers a survivor-based perspective on Title IX, including the question of why schools handle sexual violence reports:

    Title IX requires schools to combat sex discrimination in education. One of the most common objections we hear to campus adjudication is "but isn't rape a crime?" It absolutely is, and students who report to their schools can also report to the police. However, rape and other forms of gender-based violence manifest and perpetuate inequality, and federal antidiscrimination law recognizes that. To make sure that all students, regardless of their gender identity and expression, have equal access to education, schools are required to prevent and respond to reports of sexual violence. This isn't a replacement for reporting to the police; it's a parallel option for survivors based in civil rights – rather than criminal – law.


    ... even survivors who do report to the police are often abandoned by the system. Only a quarter of all reported rapes lead to an arrest, only a fifth lead to prosecution, and only half of those prosecutions result in felony convictions. Additionally, not all state laws cover sexual violence perpetrated by women or a person the same sex as the victim; some don't recognize men as victims at all. Schools, unlike the state, must take up every report for adjudication and response according to the victim's wishes. For most campus survivors, then, their school may be their only resource for justice and safety.







    First: we don't. Federal law also requires K-12 schools and employers (who are subject to Title VII) to respond to sexual violence. Second, Title IX doesn't take sexual violence away from the criminal justice system; it just gives students additional rights because equality in education is so important. Still, this question points us to an important conclusion: we should work to make sure all survivors have adequate civil protections.


    Q: But aren't colleges handling these reports terribly?



    Know Your IX. "Why schools handle sexual violence reports". (n.d.) KnowYourIX.org. 14 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2tSCrzp
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    So does mine and I see no reason smaller colleges can't go to local police. Also yes university can have their own policies and requirements, but sexual assault is federal crime and should not be the jurisdiction for a college to determine.

    Is this implying colleges have a rape problem? Consider looking up what the rape rate is for girls in college verse those outside of college. If colleges do want to reduce rape more by all means simply have a no fraternizing policy, no sex, not kissing, no touching, anywhere on campus, just like a dry campus, a sexless campus. if your a student, no sex with other students, that simple.... this is genius, this will totally work!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No no no your behind the times, it is "yes means yes" now, women must give "affirmative consent" or else it is rape... what does that mean? Well it means a women must show she is genuinely into having sex, so for example you say your going to stick it in and she says yes, but limply and unenthusiastically, then it is rape. How it is proven if she said yes and how enthusiastically, I have no clue, but the core idea is that it removes the possibility of a drunkenly unconscious women being fucked under the premise that she did not say no. how often that happens? I would guess it is pretty often from all the drunken frat guys that wake up with something shove up their ass, but who gives a fuck about them, am I right?

    Anyways here is the law: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

    Yes yes, and university do these classes already, mandatory.

    CALL THE POLICE! If a fight broke out, call the police, if someone threaten to kill another person with a weapon, call the police, if someone gets gropped, have the university tribunal determine the fate of the accused?

    Wooo wait, where?

    And the rate of law suits costing millions by accused being denied their civil rights rises.

    Maybe, maybe not, maybe cause and effect are backwards there.

    A different direction where the justice department deals with these things!

    So here we have many unfounded assumption, how does rape promote sexual inequality? what about male on male rape, female on female rape, are those ignored? "Respond to reports" means what exactly? Normally when a civil rights violation is proclaimed that too goes to the courts.

    And now we get to are large assortment of problems. First of all this sounds like a problem with the justice department, so why not focus on fixing that? Why the education department? Second accommodations for victims is fine, but punitive punishments on the accused have been putting schools under one law suit after another, for "rapist" is a pretty big scarlet letter to put on someone. Finally removing a rapist from an education on a campus is not protecting anyone, that rapist is free to rape women off campus, but those are peasant non-college going women so who cares right?

  21. birch Valued Senior Member

    unfortunately, it's often men who rape other men, even heterosexual men rape other males as a form of domination or humiliation. fortunately for men, it's very hard for a female to rape a male due to anatomy and also disparate in physical strength. males have been sexually molested by females though. i've often heard of cases of babysitters and such where the female was older and physically stronger. if males are sexually abused, it often is limited to childhood and by someone they know, as is usual with victims of abuse. but as they get older, that risk tends to go away. but for females, they are seen as a target all their life.

    i would guess males reporting sexual abuse by other males tends to be less due to the male ego especially.

    i mean, you have a society where even males think it's luck or a great opportunity if their female teacher hits on them. why is that? because of the lack of threat usually or they tend to see themselves as the stronger sex, regardless.

    though there are women who are sexual predators, it's not nearly as much as males. women also tend to not be as creepy as men either.

    men can be so lame as to use the most creepiest tactics and manuevers such as getting into your personal space and standing too close to you and uninvited. they are much more rude and self-entitled.

    that happened to me recently a couple of times, one in a checkout lane and the other was the pervy mechanic. their body language is stupid too. they would puff out their chest and look down at their feet or ground. the chest puffing is a sign of entitlement and the looking down at ground or feet is because they know it's not appropriate, so don't make eye contact.

    let me know when females act like this because i have yet to see it or even hear of it.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    i saw one clip of a random man on the street who was accosted by this much physically weaker female. i think it was chinasmack. she literally just started to take his clothes off and started having sex with him as in her on top. he just layed on the ground and never said no. he was not groomed by this woman, he doesn't know this woman, he had no reason to fear this woman. he is a grown man who knows what was going on.

    he just did what she wanted. though i think she should be prosecuted for it anyways for public indecency and i do think he was assaulted. it's telling he wasn't much of a victim since he was willing. besides, what decent kind of person would have sex with a total stranger just because she was kind of cute or attractive or just not ugly. hmm, many males? what does that say about them?

    please, spare me the male victimhood of sexual abuse unless it occurred in childhood and when they were weak and vulnerable and under threat of another.
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    yeah so? Are you saying it is not a crime if it is intrasexual? If a women bitch slaps another women, not a crime because it is women on women, just a cat fight?

    Yeah elderly grandmothers are rape all the time I guess. Take sexual assault out of the equation for a moment, which demographic is more likely to be murdered, men or women? which demographic is more likely to by physically assaulted? Men or women, mugged and beat? Oh but that not a crime because it is man on man?

    You don't think there is any social imputes for us to take that shit with us to the grave?

    I don't, more so the lack of threat is merely mental, when a teenage boy find himself having to pay child-support to his rapists, there is certainly a financial and social cost to men when raped. Also I think your logic is all wrong, sexual market values dictates that wombs are of more value than dicks, a man getting sex from a women is a gift then, especially if the women is getting nothing else out of it. This is a lower brain thought process, it is not moral or even conscious.

    Testosterone is why men are more likely to be sexual predators, creepiness is again because of smv : the women will bare the biological cost of reproduction, this cost is tabulated by parts of our brains that evolved millions of years ago, calculating the social and financial cost to the man of being forced to sire and pay for a child requires conscious will of parts of the brain that had to be educated in just a few years.

    What does this have to do with this topic? Anyways a few weeks ago I was training a grad student on an instrument, and she leans over to stare at the screen and puts her butt in my face, oh she knew what she was doing, but I was not interested, I kept my hands and body to my self and at the end of the training I told her politly I have work to finish here and she can go, she got mad at me, I can't imagine why.

Share This Page