“I think what I said in the tweet is the regulation permits students to rape and sexually harass with impunity. I think that the regulation has weakened the intent of the Title IX that Congress wrote.”
That was Biden nominee Catherine Lhamon in her confirmation hearing this week, answering a question about whether she would enforce the DeVos Education Department regulation requiring due process and the presumption of innocence in campus evaluations of sexual misconduct complains by female students. Remember this quote the next time you read one of those claims that Republicans or conservatives are existential threats to democracy and civil rights. What Lhamon is literally saying is that due process is a bad thing, because it allows those accused of crimes or misconduct to escape punishment when allegations against them can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what she means. And what she said means that she, those who think like her on the progressive side of the spectrum, and anyone who would give her power are existential threats to democracy and civil rights.
Lhamon was doubling down on this May 2020 tweet—
claiming that the Trump-era Title IX regulations allow students to “rape and sexually harass students with impunity.” It is much better, she believes, if accusers are accorded automatic superior credibility in the adjudication process, meaning that the American principle of justice should be turned upside down when “all” that is at stake is a young man’s education and reputation. He should have to prove himself innocent. Female accusers should be believed. In a “she said-he said” controversy, “she said” wins.
President Biden wants Catherine Lhamon to head the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the same agency she led during the Obama administration. Then she distorted Title IX, a 1972 law banning sex discrimination in federally-funded educational institutions, to broadly redefine sexual harassment while eliminating procedural rights for accused students. Using an extortionate “Dear Colleague” letter, she pressured schools to beef up their Title IX bureaucracies and adopt a “single investigator” model in which one person appointed by the school’s Title IX office collected evidence and determined guilt or innocence without a hearing or cross-examination of witnesses, and a constrained right to appeal. Even the usually supine and Left-enabling ACLU opposed these policies, because they are totalitarian in substance and spirit.
The issue isn’t whether this radical, anti-male, anti-due process, “ends justify the means” opponent of basic principles of justice should be rejected by the Senate; of course she should. The issue is how to make the apathetic and legally ignorant American public recognize what her nomination signifies: a willingness, indeed eagerness, to abandon Constitutional safeguards in pursuit of progressive objectives.
Ethics Alarms 
It’s amazing that anyone is even considering her. Even if you like all the ideas inherent to this particular abuse of title IX…. The results were devastating. Not just to the men, we’ve already recognized that in this scenario the proponents of this rule hate men, but to the schools: Hundreds of Title IX lawsuits have worked their way through the pipes. Heck, Obama’s Administration basically forged a new type of practice law: Prior to 2011, when the Letter was penned, there was an average of less than five title IX complaints a year, almost none of which had to do with sexual assault. There were 79 lawsuits in 2017 alone. Between 2013 and 2020 there were about 500, and better than half of them succeeded.
I have no idea what that means monetarily… The settlement amounts aren’t always public, but education isn’t cheap. There was a case in New Jersey in 2016 where they student got more than $900,000, and I have the impression that that’s probably closer to the rule than the exception. But lets say that average is much more conservative. Let’s say that the average is $100,000. With the cost of tuition being what it is, I can’t imagine it being less.
Conservatively: 250 cases at $100,000 over 8 years. At least three million dollars a year. That we could have not spent if we could find it in our hearts not to deprive male students of their rights. That worked out so amazingly last time…. Let’s do it again.
Bit by bit Biden and his handlers are destroying Constitutional protections and leading us to a fascist state. What if all men decided to file abuse charges after an encounter.
What is more concerning is Jen Psaki’s about working with FB to squelch what they deem misinformation whereby the WH flags what it considers misinformation. Layered upon that is the surgeon generals claim that what they determine as “disinformation” is an insidious and imminent threat to health and must be removed from the marketplace of ideas.
Talk about Orwellian. In my opinion the administration is violating their pledge to protect and defend the US Constitution.
Chris,
I agree with your assessment of Psaki’s misinformation campaign. Talk about the Stasi of East Germany. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the other internet/social media platforms simply agreed to do the Administration’s bidding. The Italian fascists co-opted the business sector to do the regimes’ bidding as did Nazis in Germany. The Soviet Union and Communist China did the same. It’s frightening and demoralizing.
I also want to complement and compliment your posts. You are always crystal clear in your argument and your writing style is wonderful. Nicely done, sir. Nicely done, indeed.
jvb
Thanks JVB.
This admission by Psaki’s, if I understand the Constitutional law correctly, would nullify FB argument that it is a private firm and its censorship of posts do not violate First amendment protections. As I understand it if the government partners with private actors to accomplish a goal the private actor becomes an arm of the government and any constitutional proscription inures to them as well. For example a police officer cannot enlist the aid of a private citizen to obtain documents that he could not get without showing probable cause to obtain a warrant.
I am not a constitutional scholar but that sounds right. There are limitations to the government’s police powers. Partnering with a private party to do the government’s bidding smacks of government overreach.
As the Cato Institute points out, “America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely.” See, https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/property-rights-constitution#.
The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Id. But, the law is unclear. Some courts have allowed workers on federal projects to be paid wages at the same rates as non-federal employees. Some courts have allowed private entities to exercise state licensing powers (ABA law school accreditation for eligibility to take a state bar exam).
Here, Facebook, et al, are being empowered to enforce NIH and other health agency rules or guidelines with impunity and, quite possibly, immunity. Perhaps the discussions around Section 230 of the communication laws will address whether their immunity from liability is extended now that they are enforcing government policy. They will be able to delete, flag, or deplatform pages that don’t support vaccines or mask-wearing, or question the efficacy of vaccines. Platform users, I am sure, have not consented to such regulation.
jvb
I said back after President Biden was elected that he wasn’t a moderate, that he was an empty suit progressive puppet and we should pay close attention to his actions over his words. Well I think President Biden has shown that I might have been incorrect about him being a progressive puppet and instead he appears to be a full blown progressive pushing progressive ideology hard and he’ll continue to peel off that false facade of being a moderate over the next year.
I think it’s simpler than that, Steve. It’s the third term of the Obama administration. They’re just putting all the Obama people back in charge. That Gina McCarthy woman is back in charge of the EPA. That’s what the 2020 election was all about. It’s back to the future. It’s the Restoration of all the Obamaites. And they’re a nasty crew. I’m sure David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes are lined up on the runway.
Agreed. I call this Administration the O’Biden Administration because it is really Obama 3.0.
jvb
I wonder how this policy works when its “She said–she said”?