Pictured Above: President Joe Biden urged his Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, to consider changes to Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration’s Title IX rules.
Courtesy of Joe Biden on Facebook
By Mark Parker
Betsy DeVos, the former U.S. secretary of education, commended the Trump administration’s Title IX rule changes that increased protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.
“The regulation, which carries the force of law, holds schools accountable for responding equitably and promptly to sexual misconduct and ensures a more fair and reliable adjudication process,” DeVos said in her Jan. 4 farewell letter to Congress.
Two months later, President Joe Biden, ordered his Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, to “consider suspending, revising, or rescinding,” those rules.
The heart of the Title IX debate centers around balancing protections for the accusers with the rights of the accused.
One of the more controversial aspects required that colleges allow students who have been accused of sexual misconduct to cross-examine their accuser through an advocate in a live hearing.
DeVos and supporters of this rule believe it ensures a transparent and reliable process for such a serious matter with long-lasting implications, as well as upholding a person’s Fifth Amendment rights. Biden and other opponents to the rule believe it discourages victims from coming forward.
Senior mass communications major Aliah Farley believes that this might have a traumatic impact on victims of sexual assault, but that it is still fair.
“When convicting anyone of a crime, it is only fair to question all of the evidence and those bringing the evidence forward,” Farley said. “I would hope and pray that the victims can still find the courage to come forward because justice does still need to be served.”
Senior mass communications major Gregory Johnson said these allegations can doom someone.
Johnson stressed that we should all be presumed innocent until proven guilty. While he understands people want to support victims, he believes that there should also be a burden of proof to make sure they are actually a victim.
“Anyone who is feeling devious enough… All they have to do is accuse,” Johnson said. “The accusations tend to stick through people’s lives…and there’s no consequences for the accuser in those scenarios either. It’s such a muddled topic but there needs to be proof.”
DeVos’ changes were precluded by what became known as the “Dear Colleague” letter, as it was addressed, issued by the Department of Education under the Obama administration in 2011. The letter ordered sweeping changes on how colleges were to handle sexual harassment and violence accusations.
It stated that investigations should be handled as quickly as possible, preferably within two months. It also instructed hearing officers to decide cases not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but by a “preponderance of evidence.” And people accused of sexual misconduct were not guaranteed the right to face their accusers in a hearing.
Toward the end of the letter, it stated that institutions which are not properly in compliance can lose their federal funding and be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Proponents of this punishment would say that Obama finally held schools accountable for their own enforcement. Opponents would argue that this was an overcorrection from not respecting the rights of the accuser to disregarding the rights of the accused, while offering incentives for false “convictions.”
The Trump administration would agree with the latter.
The “Dear Colleague” letter was not codified law, which made it easier to change and implement new rules – which the Education Department under DeVos did in late 2018.
Another controversial rule enacted under the Trump administration that Biden’s executive order might change states that campuses would have no jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct that occur off-campus unless it happens at a school-sponsored event or at a fraternity or sorority.
Farley thinks that ignoring those offenses would not be wise.
“Maintaining the safety and security of students is crucial, and events that take place off campus can become an on-campus safety concern,” Farley said. “I think the school should be aware of the issue, keep tabs on the issue and give students the resources to take further action.”
Johnson would disagree, stressing that school officials are not trained to handle investigations such as this.
“In my mind, it is not the school’s area of responsibility to be judge, jury and executioner. Especially if something has happened outside of their control – school grounds,” Johnson said.
Further muddying the issue is that any executive order reversing the DeVos regulations would take a year or two to take effect and might not be implemented until 2024.
While Farley believes that is the due process of law and how the government should function, she also wonders if schools can implement their own rules and handle these issues independently.
Johnson believes that the changes that would come in the executive order is how it should be – that the government has three branches for checks and balances for a reason.
“I think it is the responsible and correct way to go about implementing changes,” Johsnon said. “I don’t think that just because someone believes it is too important we should just push it through and waste time going through the proper channels.”
They both offered similar takes on the importance of upholding due process.
“Due process is a good thing,” Johnson said. “Otherwise, you’re going to revert back to the Salem witch trials. All it takes is a bunch of people to gang up… they don’t have to have any proof, as long as they are loud and angry. That’s all you would need… the loudest people aren’t always right.”
“I think with every crime, due process is extremely important to ensure a fair trial,” said Farley. “I side by victims and feel for the pain and fear they must experience.
“I know that coming forward is often met with criticism, blame, fear and shame.” Farley said. “It is not something easy to do, even in 2021. However, with that said, I think cross examination is part of due process.
“If someone accused someone else of murder, they would be cross-examined.”
The debate over the rights of the accused played out at USF St. Petersburg in a case that wound up in court.
In May 2017, the university expelled Student Government’s vice president-elect, Samuel Goetz, after determining that he had sexually assaulted a female student in his dorm room.
Goetz fought the expulsion in court, arguing that his rights of due process — including the right to face his accuser in a hearing — were ignored by the university.
The Pinellas County Circuit Court initially ruled for the university, then reversed itself on appeal. The expulsion was cleared from Goetz’s record, which now indicates that he was suspended.
