Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration battle the #metoo movement

Within reason, but there are parents (e.g., Brock Turner's) who don't give a shit if their boy raped someone, and would hire an attorney with the only purpose of getting their boy out of trouble. Forcing 90-98 girls who have been sexually assaulted to endure the grilling of a professional attorney who has been hired to tear her apart for every 2-10 mentally ill or sociopathic girls who are fabricating a story is obtuse. An independent investigator who is functioning more like a judge (who of course should have his/her investigation be subjected to scrutiny by the accused attorney) is a much more rational and humane way of dealing with this issue.
And there are just as many or more false accusers.

Its too serious of an issue for one side to be shielded from question.
 
I don't see how it's any less rational than taking a case to trial, and having the accuser cross examined. What does their age matter? They're adults making very serious, potentially life ruining allegations. At that point, you've put on your big girl pants, and you should be prepared for whatever comes with making such an allegation.

Because the thinking that underpins the way sexual assault is handled has, for years, led to victims not reporting assaults. There obviously needs to be a better way that can result in fewer victims deciding that it just isn't worth the cost to them to report it, while at the same time, allowing for those accused to defend themselves when falsely accused.
 
And there are just as many or more false accusers.

Its too serious of an issue for one side to be shielded from question.

False accusations are rare actually, 2-10%. And I am not coming from a hypothetical position in my thinking as a parent, I have both male and female children.
 
Metoo actually made me not believe women and take them less serious when it comes to this kind of thing. Most "metoos" are just wahmen that made a choice they later regretted so now it's "rape".

Hopefully donald fucks this metoo movement dry and leaves it crying on the beach in the sand.
 
Because the thinking that underpins the way sexual assault is handled has, for years, led to victims not reporting assaults. There obviously needs to be a better way that can result in fewer victims deciding that it just isn't worth the cost to them to report it, while at the same time, allowing for those accused to defend themselves when falsely accused.

You won't ever be able to do that, without proper due process that is afforded to everyone involved.

The "I'm too afraid to come forward" thing, is just not a valid excuse. It might be humiliating, and you may not be able to prove your case, but that's just the way it works. There is no real "better way" without stacking the deck in the accusers' favor. You can't possibly know if someone is being falsely accused without a proper investigation, and that will include tough questions being asked of the accuser. If you eliminate that aspect in any manner, it's simply not a fair process. You have to prove your case. If you can't, well, you can't. It might suck in a lot of cases, but that's the only fair way to do things. You can't just take someone at their word.
 
You won't ever be able to do that, without proper due process that is afforded to everyone involved.

The "I'm too afraid to come forward" thing, is just not a valid excuse. It might be humiliating, and you may not be able to prove your case, but that's just the way it works. There is no real "better way" without stacking the deck in the accusers' favor. You can't possibly know if someone is being falsely accused without a proper investigation, and that will include tough questions being asked of the accuser. If you eliminate that aspect in any manner, it's simply not a fair process. You have to prove your case. If you can't, well, you can't. It might suck in a lot of cases, but that's the only fair way to do things. You can't just take someone at their word.

I clearly said though that I don't think it is rational to just take someone's word. The fact is that the current system has resulted in most victims not coming forward and perpetrators getting away with sexual assault...From the sample size of people I know, nobody I knew in college was accused of sexual assault, nobody from my high school friend circle or football team was accused of sexual assault in college, but on the flip side, several of my wife's friends (those she has known in high school, college, and as an adult) were sexually assaulted in college, and not one of those girls reported it.

You would think that experts in the field would be able to come up with a policy that would result in more victims coming forward, while at the same time making it fair for those accused. This new policy clearly does nothing to encourage victims to come forward, with its sole focus on the latter. As the father of a girl, that greatly concerns me. As the father of a son, I have never had a concern about him someday being falsely accused and punished for sexual assault, given how improbable that would be.
 
Great. The Dear Colleague letter was garbage and the Office of Civil Rights should be ashamed for putting a gun to the head of public universities. Forcing universities to use a preponderance of the evidence standard to label someone a sexual predator and then allowing the accuser to appeal the decision (a form of double jeopardy IMO) was ridiculous. Forcing the proceedings to be expedited was dumb. Strongly recommending that the accused not know who was accusing them or allowing them to cross-examine the accused spits in the face of due process.
 
You won't ever be able to do that, without proper due process that is afforded to everyone involved.

The "I'm too afraid to come forward" thing, is just not a valid excuse. It might be humiliating, and you may not be able to prove your case, but that's just the way it works. There is no real "better way" without stacking the deck in the accusers' favor. You can't possibly know if someone is being falsely accused without a proper investigation, and that will include tough questions being asked of the accuser. If you eliminate that aspect in any manner, it's simply not a fair process. You have to prove your case. If you can't, well, you can't. It might suck in a lot of cases, but that's the only fair way to do things. You can't just take someone at their word.

This is why I despise the "Believe All Women" garbage because while Real Victims are sympathized with, there are those who ABUSE this mantra for their own ends.

By putting the onus back on the Accuser to VERIFY her allegations, and by giving the Accused AN ACTUAL F'N CHANCE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, you are giving both sides a FAIR opportunity to prove their cases.

Sorry, Ladies but this situation is and always should be a TWO-WAY Street.
 
I clearly said though that I don't think it is rational to just take someone's word.

The simple fact is that you can't have a "better" system that doesn't somehow stack it that way.

Sometimes there just isn't a perfect solution.

The fact is that the current system has resulted in most victims not coming forward and perpetrators getting away with sexual assault

Here's the thing though. If they never came forward, how do you know they were actually victims? Aren't you in essence, simply taking their word for it?
 
Their framing of the issue is completely dishonest. Obama raised the minimum standard of proof that universities must meet to take tangible actions against a student: he did not lower them or make schools be "compelled by Washington to enforce ambiguous and incredibly broad definitions of assault and harassment," as the "overly prescriptive" guidelines promulgated by the Obama administration very clearly sought to constrain universities from exercising too much discretion in ruling against either party, but especially the accused. This is pretty much just an advancement of what Obama did, other than the targeting of reduction of university liability, which is disgusting and unnecessary.

Nah man. That's wrong. The Office of Civil Rights set guidelines for state funded universities to follow at risk of losing their funding if they did not comply with the guidelines. Rehnquist would call that a gun to the head. The Dear Colleague Letter that was issued by the Office for Civil Rights told all colleges that receive federal money to use the lowest possible standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence, in sexual assault cases, instead of clear and convincing evidence. The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, which is a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate the proceedings and strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed.
 
The simple fact is that you can't have a "better" system that doesn't somehow stack it that way.

Sometimes there just isn't a perfect solution.



Here's the thing though. If they never came forward, how do you know they were actually victims? Aren't you in essence, simply taking their word for it?

Yes, unless they all had some type of psychotic fugue states where they decided to fabricate a sexual assault, and their emotional reaction to it, to a friend for no reason, and were otherwise normal and solid people, it seemed like the rational thing to do. Are we going to get to the point where we don't trust anyone's memory about anything, or do we just become skeptical about someone's memory when we don't like what it means for the world?

And yes, no system will be perfect, but given what is known about sexual assault reporting, to just throw one's hands up and accept things how they are shouldn't be the reaction.
 
Due process is a must. Every allegation must be investigated, but accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not an easy thing in any case as there are usually no witnesses, but the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our justice system.
 
It's time that false accusations for sexual abuse are taken as serious as sexual abuse already is today. This is a good decision by DeVos.
 
Yes, unless they all had some type of psychotic fugue states where they decided to fabricate a sexual assault, and their emotional reaction to it, to a friend for no reason, and were otherwise normal and solid people, it seemed like the rational thing to do.

But what's the difference between automatically taking their word for it later down the road, and automatically taking their word for it in real time? How does it make their claims any more valid, without any sort of proof? Do you not see any kind of error in that train of thought?

Take the friend element out of it. If they were complete strangers, and told you those same stories, would you automatically believe them and not question it at all? Would you lend such validation to stories about other crimes, or just sexual assault? If you were an authority figure, would those stories affect your judgement of other baseless accounts, if they weren't personal friends telling you those stories? Would you assume that no woman ever lies about these things, or just people you know?
 
False accusations are rare actually, 2-10%. And I am not coming from a hypothetical position in my thinking as a parent, I have both male and female children.
Nah, no one really knows how many false accusations there are. It's a poorly studied phenomenon. The FBI puts the number at 8%, but that's the number proven to be false after investigation. Given the paucity of evidence and of lack of witnesses characteristic of rape accusations, it is easy to see how difficult it would be to determine whether an accusation is clearly false, rather than simply unprovable.
 
But what's the difference between automatically taking their word for it later down the road, and automatically taking their word for it in real time? How does it make their claims any more valid, without any sort of proof? Do you not see any kind of error in that train of thought?

Take the friend element out of it. If they were complete strangers, and told you those same stories, would you automatically believe them and not question it at all? Would you lend such validation to stories about other crimes, or just sexual assault? If you were an authority figure, would those stories affect your judgement of other baseless accounts, if they weren't personal friends telling you those stories? Would you assume that no woman ever lies about these things, or just people you know?

Okay, let's try this thought experiment, if someone you know (and of course that matters, particularly if they are solid enough to be a friend) tells you they had been mugged or car jacked, would you take they claim as true without any sort of proof beyond their word? Of course you would, I don't get why when it comes to sexual assault you are saying that the incredulity should be turned up to 11.
 
Nah, no one really knows how many false accusations there are. It's a poorly studied phenomenon. The FBI puts the number at 8%, but that's the number proven to be false after investigation. Given the paucity of evidence and of lack of witnesses characteristic of rape accusations, it is easy to see how difficult it would be to determine whether an accusation is clearly false, rather than simply unprovable.

The fact is that you have a lot of people in this thread (and the POTUS) talking about a veritable epidemic of false reports of sexual assault threatening upstanding young men in this country, when there is no evidence to support such an assertion. Whereas the evidence suggest that the opposite is true, and, that most (2/3) sexual assaults are not reported, and that even scumbag young men are not being reported and being held accountable for their crimes.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2012-03/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
 
Last edited:
The fact is that you have a lot of people in this thread (and the POTUS) talking about a veritable epidemic of false reports of sexual assault threatening upstanding young men in this country, when there is no evidence to support such an assertion. Whereas the evidence suggest that the opposite is true, that most (2/3) sexual assaults are not reported, and that even scumbag young men are not being reported and being held accountable for their crimes.

Where did I suggest there is an epidemic of false accusations?

I agree that most sexual assaults are not reported and that there are some scumbag young men not being held accountable for sex crimes they commit. That is irrelevant to the point that we really don't have a very clear idea of how many reports of sexual assault are fake. People throw out figures of the amount that can be shown to be false, which is almost certainly lower than the actual number, perhaps substantially lower. Your link seems to make this same very basic error.
 
Where did I suggest there is an epidemic of false accusations?

I agree that most sexual assaults are not reported and that there are some scumbag young men not being held accountable for sex crimes they commit. That is irrelevant to the point that we really don't have a very clear idea of how many reports of sexual assault are fake. People throw out figures of the amount that can be shown to be false, which is almost certainly lower than the actual number, perhaps substantially lower. Your link seems to make this same very basic error.

Your responded to a post I made giving the most accurate statistics available regarding false reporting of sexual assault, which was my response to one of the several posters in this thread who are on board with the idea that there is an epidemic of false accusations of sexual assault. We can argue about the construct validity of relevant studies or about how many false accusers of sexual assault can dance on the head of a pin, but the point is that the evidence available does not support, but contradicts, Trump's argument that "it is a very scary time for young men in America" and the arguments people have offered in this thread endorsing DeVos's changing of policy to increase the scrutiny accusers sexual assault victims will undergo.
 
Your responded to a post I made giving the most accurate statistics available regarding false reporting of sexual assault, which was my response to one of the several posters in this thread who are on board with the idea that there is an epidemic of false accusations of sexual assault. We can argue about the construct validity of relevant studies or about how many false accusers of sexual assault can dance on the head of a pin, but the point is that the evidence available does not support, but contradicts, Trump's argument that "it is a very scary time for young men in America" and the arguments people have offered in this thread endorsing DeVos's changing of policy to increase the scrutiny accusers sexual assault victims will undergo.

No, it isn't an arcane discussion like angels dancing on the heads of needles. Young men in college accused of rape or sexual assault had been stripped of obvious due process protections. That is being rectified. It's a good thing even if one doesn't care for the people doing it. And of course people accusing others of serious crimes like rape should be closely scrutinized. That's a key basis of our entire system of criminal law.
 
Back
Top