By David French
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Intent on establishing progressive utopias, universities
and federal bureaucrats are together systematically violating the
constitutional rights of students and professors. The stories are legion, the
legal standards are unconscionable, and it’s past time for other branches of
American government to step in and set things right.
Consider what just happened at the University of Oregon.
Acting in response to student and faculty outrage after a white law professor
dressed up as a black man at an off-campus costume party (she was attempting to
protest racism), the university suspended the offending professor and then
issued a lengthy report holding that wearing the costume constituted
“discriminatory harassment.”
Why? Because the incident was race-based and caused
arguments and controversy on campus. Here’s a key statement in the report:
“Based on both the reaction and lack of reaction from other faculty and
professors, students have also felt a sense of anxiety and mistrust towards
professors and faculty beyond just Shurtz, with some students considering and
seeking out transfers to other schools.”
Allow me to interpret. Offended students weren’t just
angry at the professor, they were also angry that not all students and
professors were sufficiently outraged at the offending professor’s actions. In
other words, at Oregon if you speak on an issue of race, gender, religion, or
sexuality, you are responsible not only for any anger your speech may cause but
also for other students’ and professors’
reactions to that anger.
But of course identity politics don’t merely impact
free-speech rights. They also lead to systematic anti-male sex discrimination
and violations of the most basic due-process rights of students accused of
sexual assault.
Then consider this legal complaint, directed
at Indiana University. It is simply astounding. The university expelled a
male student for sexual misconduct even though the female student allegedly
admitted that she invited the male student into her bedroom, asked him to
retrieve a sex toy, and asked him to have sex with her. She told the
Bloomington police department, “I was, like, telling him, like, to have sex
with me.”
The resulting university proceedings were allegedly a
due-process horror show, featuring university hearing officers trained by an
official “who admits that he starts each case believing the [defendant] is
guilty.” The lawsuit points to news reports where this same official admitted
to trying to “break” another defendant.
And speaking of due-process horror shows, this case from
James Madison University shows how universities engineer the results they want.
After an initial finding that the male defendant was “not responsible” on the
charge of sexual misconduct, the female student appealed. The appeals panel
reversed the finding and sanctioned the male student. The male student sued,
and a federal judge ruled in his favor, finding that “no reasonable jury” could
find that he was given a “fair process.” The reasons were legion:
In short, Doe [the male student]
was given no opportunity to respond to some of the evidence . . . , was
hampered by the rules prohibiting contact with witnesses or limited by time
constraints in responding to others . . . , and was not permitted to appear
before the appeal board. . . . Additionally, because the appeal board made no
finding of responsibility by Doe and provided no reasons for its “Increased
Sanction” decision, the appeal board decision and its review . . . were unfair
to Doe.
I bring up these cases not because they’re unusual but
because they’re becoming all too typical on campuses overrun by identity
politics and governed by a federal educational bureaucracy that is lawlessly
expanding Title IX and other federal statutes well beyond their intended scope.
For disturbing chapter and verse on this sad and unconstitutional spectacle,
I’d urge you to read Robert Shibley’s excellent Twisting Title IX.
The new regime mandates that universities conduct their
own quasi–court proceedings to adjudicate criminal matters best left to real
courts, sanctions and encourages “due process” that often denies legal
assistance to defendants, and effectively shifts the burden of proof (through
bizarre “affirmative consent” standards) to the accused. In a Title IX
investigation, the accused is often prevented from adequately reviewing the
charges against him and prevented from adequately questioning witnesses.
University officials conduct themselves in a manner that would embarrass even
corrupt or amateurish judges and prosecutors.
As for free speech, on campus the heckler’s veto is alive
and well — with a student’s or professor’s First Amendment rights mainly
dependent on the size of the outcry against him or her. Raise enough of a
ruckus, and the Constitution fails.
A generation of litigation has inflicted loss upon loss
on public universities, yet the campus climate is still rife with censorship
and due-process violations. It turns out that administrators fear their own
on-campus ideologues and the progressive education bureaucracy far more than
they fear the federal courts. Indeed, the financial penalty for angering a
bureaucrat — loss of federal funding — is far greater than any damage award
imposed by any court. Judges are proving to be a poor check on campus power.
So it’s time to turn the tables. It’s time to readjust
the incentives. Congress needs to intervene in two concrete ways. First, it
needs to withhold federal funds from any public university that repeatedly
violates the constitutional rights of its students or faculty. If a court of
final jurisdiction finds that a public university violated the constitutional
rights of a student or faculty member more than once in any five-year span, it
should lose all federal funding for at least a year. Moreover, there should be
a substantial, fixed financial penalty for each constitutional violation, no
matter how infrequent.
Second, universities need to get out of the
sexual-assault-adjudication business. Universities are educational
institutions, not criminal courts, and they are poorly equipped to decide
criminal cases or even civil liability. It is easy enough to separate students
who are embroiled in pending criminal or civil proceedings, and universities
should discipline or expel only students who are found guilty or liable by
courts of final jurisdiction.
It’s simply too much to ask the Trump Department of
Education to “fix” Title IX or to protect constitutional rights on campus. Any
rulemakings or memoranda generated by a new administration can be just as
easily undone by the next. It’s time to use sensible congressional majorities
to pass sensible laws. Universities have proven they can’t govern themselves.
Perhaps Congress can fill the breach.
No comments:
Post a Comment