The DOE & DOJ redefine campus “speech codes” [Reader Post]

Loading

a6f4709a36dcb70010c44bd0dd64a766

‘Marsupial Justice’ Is a Natural Product of Federal Overreach:

“Earlier this month I blogged about the U.S. Department of Education’s recent push to eliminate free speech and due process on campus. More and more people are starting to notice this attempt by the department’s Office of Civil Rights to force colleges — by threatening an investigation and loss of federal funds — to redefine sexual harrassment to include unwelcome flirting and sex jokes and then lower the burden of proof they use when determining whether students or staff are guilty of violating the new code of behavior….”

“…What is the Department of Education doing setting any sort of standards for speech, conduct, and adjudication of campus disputes — good or bad, strict or lax? Why do we even have a federal Department of Education in the first place?”

Federal Government Mandates Unconstitutional Speech Codes At Colleges And Universities Nationwide:

In a shocking affront to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have joined together to order that nearly every college and university in the United States, public and private, establish unconstitutional speech codes that violate the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent.

UPDATE 5/17/13: FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, in The Wall Street Journal’s lead op-ed space, discusses how the government has mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser, completely ignoring the First Amendment.

The Wall Street Journal’s Lukianoff tells about the problems in the “new standards” letter that has been sent to universities:

Given that the letter represents an interpretation of federal law by major federal agencies, most colleges will regard it as binding. Noncompliance threatens federal funding, including Pell grants and Stafford loans.

The implications for professors and students are enormous. An unsuccessful request for a date, or even assigning a potentially offensive book like “Lolita,” could now be construed as harassment. As attorney and civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer commented on The Atlantic’s website this week: “The stated goal of this policy is stemming discrimination, but the inevitable result will be advancing it, in the form of content-based prohibitions on speech.”

This attack on campus free speech follows the Education Department’s directive two years ago requiring every college in the country that receives federal funds to lower the standard of evidence in sexual-harassment cases. The “preponderance of the evidence,” the judiciary’s lowest standard of proof, became the required standard. (Many institutions had previously used the “clear and convincing” standard.) As former Dean of Harvard CollegeHarry Lewis has noted, the “preponderance of evidence” mandate means “more convictions—of both guilty and innocent individuals,” which is a troubling result “in a society that values individual rights.”

Last week’s letter is part of a decades-long effort by anti-“hate speech” professors, students, activists and administrators to classify any offensive speech as harassment unprotected by the First Amendment. Such speech codes reached their height in the 1980s and 1990s, but they were defeated in federal and state court and came in for public ridicule.

Are there any Constitutional rights left that the Obama administration hasn’t infringed on?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So, is it illegal for a guy to ask a girl out?
Or could that now be construed as sexual harassment?

@Nan G:

It has not been made “illegal” per-se, but it can be adjudicated as harassment.

Forget any of the heterosexual women students getting dates, even if they’re not that Senior Over the Hill whatever it was.

What we need is gangs of conservative women students to dress down, make eyes at the lesbian feminist students, then wait to get asked out and accuse them of sexual harassment. That’s mean and I kinda hate to suggest it, but it could be disruptive fun.

Oh, and they’d have to remember to ask “Are you asking me out on a date?” till they get an affirmative answer. Apparently out here there’s some kind of “lesbian non-date date” thing where someone invites someone to take part in an activity a deux but keeps things vague so that if things don’t move forward, well, it wasn’t a date.

I kid you not.

Sounds like a nasty clever way to ”adjudicate” normal men into a mental health issue (just created) so as to prevent their future gun ownership.
Same type of thing is starting to happen under Hagel in the military.
We need cultural change, where every service member is treated with dignity and respect, where all allegations of inappropriate behavior are treated with seriousness, where victims’ privacy is protected, where bystanders are motivated to intervene and where offenders know that they will be held accountable by strong and effective systems of justice,” Hagel said.
Therefore Hagel is recommending that military commanders be largely stripped of their ability to reverse criminal convictions of service members.
Again, once adjudicated as being a sexual deviant, the red-blooded male might be forever barred from gun ownership.

dangerous and UN CONSTITUTIONAL,
shut the WHITE HOUSE, no more worthy of place call THE SHINNING LIGHT
WHITE HOUSE ON THE HILLS