Hey, remember when the ACLU gave a damn about civil liberties? We feel like there was a time … but it’s been a while. A long, long while.
Earlier this morning, they flipped out over Betsy DeVos’ new proposed Title IX guidelines that would, among other things, afford due process to college students accused of sexual assault:
We advocate for fair school disciplinary processes that uphold the rights of both parties in campus sexual assault and harassment cases.
Today Secretary DeVos proposed a rule that would tip the scales against those who raise their voices.
We strongly oppose it.
— ACLU (@ACLU) November 16, 2018
The proposed rule would make schools less safe for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, when there is already alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assaults and harassment that go unreported.
— ACLU (@ACLU) November 16, 2018
It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility under Title IX to respond promptly and fairly to complaints of sexual violence.
— ACLU (@ACLU) November 16, 2018
We will continue to support survivors.
— ACLU (@ACLU) November 16, 2018
Talk about a word salad.
— ColonelNationalist (@col_potter94) November 16, 2018
What are civil liberties?
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) November 16, 2018
The ACLU now considers due process to be "favoring the accused." That's good to know. https://t.co/KDyRiCJk8I
— It's Only Words (@itsonlywords) November 16, 2018
"Inappropriately favoring the accused" — The ACLU. https://t.co/0E9YUqwCv3
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) November 16, 2018
To show just how radical and off base the @ACLU is with "inappropriately favoring the accused," it appears via Google search that NO ONE in the history of the world has ever strung together those words in that order before now.https://t.co/7fQKW0j9KA pic.twitter.com/qs1XyfVZq8
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 16, 2018
Recommended
How long before the ACLU starts putting "due process" in scare quotes?
— Franklin 'No Sheds' Harris (@FranklinH3000) November 16, 2018
This is reprehensible. The accused deserve due process. Period.
Shame on you ACLU. The kangaroo courts that take place on campus are the very definition of violation of civil liberties.
— Collin Slattery (@CJSlattery) November 16, 2018
Adjudicative processes like these are *supposed* to favor the accused. The burden of proof is, and should be, on the accuser.
— Brian J. Dolan (@bdolan01) November 16, 2018
A mindboggling statement on proposed TIX regs from @aclu. Cross-examination by a lawyer is "inappropriately favoring the accused"? Ensuring both parties have access to training materials and evidence?
Does the ACLU now adopt those positions more broadly?https://t.co/HCeQbt5HBf— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) November 16, 2018
So a mere accusation automatically strips a student of their constitutional rights? That's really not a position I'd expect you to take….
— Patsy Jones (@pjones59) November 16, 2018
"Due process for the accused is bad!" is an incredibly hot take to see coming from the ACLU.
— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) November 16, 2018
I do not have the words for the dismay in my heart that it is now a mainstream liberal position to dismiss the rights of the accused https://t.co/IbzEpiLeTw
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) November 16, 2018
NARRATOR: The ACLU is lying.
The proposed rule fixes a current imbalance infringing on the rights of the accused.
The ACLU used to be for equal rights. Now it's just leftist garbage. https://t.co/6profEPaVm
— RBe (@RBPundit) November 16, 2018
More on their lies from attorney Gabriel Malor:
Rep. Kennedy and NARAL are lying about proposed Title IX rule change.
The proposed rule (as leaked) does *NOT* require universities to allow accused rapists to cross-examine their accuser. The rule *allows* cross-examination by an attorney with the accused in a different room. https://t.co/NEg1qx1d4w
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 15, 2018
And, btw, this procedure—allowing the accuser and the accused to be separated, but allowing examination of both parties—has been all but mandated by the courts.
It's a due process issue, and one that requires sensitivity. Hence the reasonable separation of accuser and accused.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 15, 2018
Dumb question here… Why are universities trying criminal cases?
— crazy coach chuck (@chuck_crazy) November 15, 2018
This isn't that dumb of a question.
(1) Universities aren't trying criminal cases.
(2) Universities have a duty to their students to investigate and punish misconduct, including sexual assault.
(3) Entities receiving federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. https://t.co/pN7gPtAkBm— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 15, 2018
I'm just gonna pick up this thread where it was yesterday.
When writing about the Title IX rules, a few things to remember: the statutory issues arise in the context of a civil rights statute; the constitutional issues arise under the Fifth Amendment—not the Sixth.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
In that context, the new rules raise interesting and mostly unanswered questions about university sexual assault investigations.
Here's one: do students accused of sexual misconduct have a right to be represented by attorney in the *university's* investigation/proceedings?
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
And before you answer that question, remember we're talking about the Fifth Amendment's protected due process, not the Sixth Amendment's stricter requirements for criminal proceedings.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
And one more question: if students in university disciplinary proceedings do not have a due process right to have an attorney represent them, can they have a due process right to have an attorney or agent cross-examine their accuser or other witnesses?
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
Keep in mind here we're talking about constitutional minimums; that is, what *at a minimum* does the due process clause require. Next question: does Title IX itself require more than that constitutional minimum?
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
So the stakes are high. You could argue (badly) that Title IX does not require these things.
But providing for MORE notice, MORE review, MORE representation, and MORE clarity does not, contra the ACLU, offend the Fifth Amendment.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) November 16, 2018
It’s almost as if the ACLU doesn’t actually care about civil liberties anymore.
I never thought I'd see the ACLU say "unfairly favors the accused"
— Nikki Polansky (@nikkifaceful) November 16, 2018
Yep. I'm a vocal proponent. I've donated to them. This is disappointing.
— There are Some Who Call Me…Tim (@t_robic) November 16, 2018
Perahaps you should reconsider donating.
— After Sol (@Locus_of_Ctrl) November 16, 2018
Probably a good idea.
I've been cautious, and hesitant, and suspicious, when people have argued that the @ACLU is no longer recognizably the ACLU. Starting to thing I was wrong.https://t.co/ozrRk0eBPU
— WhatCouldGoWrongHat (@Popehat) November 16, 2018
I think it's pretty obvious now that the ACLU tweet calling for a ban on cat-calling was not a case of the young intern who accidentally did a tweet
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) November 16, 2018
This…. is not… an ACLU I recognize. ?
— Hugo Schwyzer (@mgcotax) November 16, 2018
You have abandoned your core principles and in the process lost goodwill and credibility from anyone but the most ardent left wing activists. This is a self-imposed error and will haunt you folks for a generation. We will all be worse off because the ACLU has lost credibility
— Mr.Glazebnik (@glazebnik) November 16, 2018
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member