The April 4th directive or what is commonly referred to as “The Dear Colleague Letter” was issued by the United States Department of Education. In it title IX legislation is expanded to include sexual harassment. What follows is exerts from this directive that was issued to all schools who receive federal funding, along with my commentary.
“Sexual violence, as that term is used in this letter, refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent due to the victim’s use of drugs or alcohol.”
This definition mirrors the FBI’s new definition of rape. In this new definition of rape it says that a woman who willingly consumes alcohol or takes drugs then engages in consensual sex can then later claim she was raped. This does not apply to a man because the FBI does not recognise that a woman can not rape a man with her vagina. The new definition of rape is penetration of a person body without their consent. So the only way a man can be raped by a woman is by penetrating him. This is just the first step in laying down a law that is bias against men.
“Although some examples contained in this letter are applicable only in the postsecondary context, sexual harassment and violence also are concerns for school districts. The Title IX obligations discussed in this letter apply equally to school districts unless otherwise noted.”
In other words, this directive applies to elementary schools, Jr high schools and high schools as well as colleges.
” Schools may have an obligation to respond to student-on-student sexual harassment that initially occurred off school grounds, outside a school’s education program or activity.”
This directive gives schools the authority to police their students anytime of the day or night regardless of their location.
” As discussed later in this letter, the school’s Title IX investigation is different from any law enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not relieve the school of its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct.”
The school is to operate independently of the police department. Infringing its rules despite the findings of police. The school isn’t required to recognise the finding of police investigators. If the police say that a crime didn’t occur the school can over ride the police.
“Grievance procedures generally may include voluntary informal mechanisms (e.g., mediation) for resolving some types of sexual harassment complaints. OCR has frequently advised recipients, however, that it is improper for a student who complains of harassment to be required to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator, and certainly not without appropriate involvement by the school (e.g., participation by a trained counselor, a trained mediator, or, if appropriate, a teacher or administrator).”
Recipient means a school who receives federal funding. When reading the above exert from the April 4th directive (Dear colleague letter) remember that this applies to all forms of sexual harassment. Not only is rape redefined as sexual harassment calling someone a name can also be seen as sexual harassment. Under this directive if a person calls another person a name ” it is improper for a student who complains of harassment to be required to work out the problem directly with the alleged perpetrator, and certainly not without appropriate involvement by the school.”
” Police investigations may be useful for fact-gathering; but because the standards for criminal investigations are different, police investigations or reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment or violence violates Title IX. Conduct may constitute unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX even if the police do not have sufficient evidence of a criminal violation. In addition, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably.”
I addressed this above.
” Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin their own Title IX investigation and, if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the student in the educational setting. For example, a school should not delay conducting its own investigation or taking steps to protect the complainant because it wants to see whether the alleged perpetrator will be found guilty of a crime. Any agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a local police department must allow the school to meet its Title IX obligation to resolve complaints promptly and equitably. Although a school may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while the police are gathering evidence, once notified that the police department has completed its gathering of evidence (not the ultimate outcome of the investigation or the filing of any charges), the school must promptly resume and complete its fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.25 Moreover, nothing in an MOU or the criminal investigation itself should prevent a school from notifying complainants of their Title IX rights and the school’s grievance procedures, or from taking interim steps to ensure the safety and well-being of the complainant and the school community while the law enforcement agency’s fact-gathering is in progress. OCR also recommends that a school’s MOU include clear policies on when a school will refer a matter to local law enforcement.As noted above, the Title IX regulation requires schools to provide equitable grievance procedures. As part of these procedures, schools generally conduct investigations and hearings to determine whether sexual harassment or violence occurred. In addressing complaints filed with OCR under Title IX, OCR reviews a school’s procedures to determine whether the school is using a preponderance of the evidence standard to evaluate complaints. The Supreme Court has applied a preponderance of the evidence standard in civil litigation involving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ”
Here again we see that this directive forces schools to take the law into their own hands.
The next part is very critical so I will repeat it here “In addressing complaints filed with OCR under Title IX, OCR reviews a school’s procedures to determine whether the school is using a preponderance of the evidence standard to evaluate complaints.”
The preponderance of evidence standard means you are 51% sure that the defendant is guilty. Versus the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal courts. This severely lowers the standard of proof necessary to get convicted. “Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn’t. I’m leaning more towards the maybe so he is guilty.”
“Thus, in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred). The “clear and convincing” standard (i.e., it is highly probable or reasonably certain that the sexual harassment or violence occurred), currently used by some schools, is a higher standard of proof. Grievance procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence.”
I addressed this above.
“OCR strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing. Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment.”
So not only is the standard of evidence lowered but you can’t ask your accuser questions. You can’t face your accuser in court because it might hurt their feelings.
“When a recipient does not come into compliance voluntarily, OCR may initiate proceedings to withdraw Federal funding by the Department or refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.”
Schools WILL go along with this directive that violates civil rights or we will close you down.
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Russlynn Ali is the feminist who wrote this directive.