• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

The Real Problem - "Dear Colleague Letter" US Dept Ed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tokyogriz

Well-known member
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

My main concern is the corrosion of the rights of students to be not guilty without any real evidence. In speaking to the legal department at UM they referred me to the "Dear Colleague Letter" which was put out by the US dept of Education last april. Link - http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was told the burden of proof went from a preponderance of evidence to simply a most likely scenario by the schools now. Well I was told this, even though in the FACT SHEET it says the standard used must still be a preponderance of evidence.

A school’s grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201104.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What standard is UM actually using?

The Federal goverment is forcing schools to simply decide which case sounds most plausible then punish the supposed offenders based on anything thrown at them. I would have to wonder is any lies, slander or circumstantial evidence is even punishible at these kangaroo courts the Universites are having now to decide the guilt of accused.

If someone lies or is convicted in this UM court then punished, afterwards it is found out the case was based on misleading, circumstantial or outright lies what is the actual punishment for destroying someones life? In a court of law it is clear what you would get for this punishment for the most part, but I am very concerned that now all you have to do is get a few people to go in on a lie with you then bam anyone you dislike will simply be found guilty in this Kangaroo court Universities will now have.

Accoding to what I was told at the UM legal office in mainhall today if its 50.01% or "more likely" that someone seems guilty based on any evidence wether admissable in a court of law or not they will be punished.

This is unacceptable in America. I dont have the money right now to take this on but I really hope someone will back JJ or someone in a similiar situation up. This will need to be taken up the court system until it is found to be the unconstitional piece of garbage this is.

I hope someone with the finances will back up JJ on this and take this to the highest level. Everyone man or woman deserves to be innocent until found guilty in a court of law and have the right to defend themselves accordingly. This is flat out wrong and against everything our founding fathers believed in.
 
While you guys discount Tokyo because of his recent strong posts in regards to the situation this Dear Colleague and what it implies is a big issue.

Also I think it could be found on Engstrom's president's page as well.
 
There is little difference between "perponderance of evidence" and "most likley scenario" the dear colleague letter is addressing prevention as much as anything, and making sure the "environment" is non discriminatory. Its how it is in the real world, might just as well get used to it. Sexual harrasement in ANY measure can (and often will) lead to immediate dismissal. It could be as simple as a social date between a supervisor and subordinate or even a "dirty joke"
 
BWahlberg said:
While you guys discount Tokyo because of his recent strong posts in regards to the situation this Dear Colleague and what it implies is a big issue.

Also I think it could be found on Engstrom's president's page as well.

Agreed.
 
A further problem is that UM didn't change its official policies and procedures, i.e. Student Conduct Code, until sometime after a Feb. 28, 2012 memo from UM's general counsel David Aronofsky. See below excerpts from the Aronofsky memo (the bold and underlining to show the changes were in the Aronofsky memo, which is linked below). Thus, it looks like UM is trying to impose changed policies and procedures on the JJ matter, which I believe occurred in mid-February, according to press reports. Talk about lack of due process and ex post facto issues, as well as fairness problems.

"Specific University Policy Change Recommendations Attached are suggested Student Conduct Code and Sexual Misconduct Policy changes. These include (1) clarifying when the Conduct Code applies to off-campus incidents, including but not limited to sexual assaults; (2) applying the new OCR Dear Colleague letter evidentiary standard; and (3) imposing mandatory sexual assault reporting by employees."

"B. Application of Student Conduct Code to Off-Campus Offenses In exceptional circumstances, Student Conduct Code charges may be initiated against a student who engages in conduct off-campus that allegedly constitutes a criminal offense under Montana or Federal criminal law or that otherwise and directly and seriously threatens the health and safety of members of the campus community."

"The section is not intended to extend University jurisdiction off-campus generally. However, notwithstanding any of the foregoing, alleged sexual and other assaults by students off campus will almost always subject the accused to Student Conduct Code proceedings regardless of whether and how these assaults are charged and disposed of in the criminal justice system."

}However, the accused student must receive due process, and the University has the burden of proof to establish a violation by clear and convincing evidence except for alleged violations of Sections V.A. 18 and 20 of the Student Conduct Code, which require the University to establish violations by a preponderance of evidence.

http://www.umt.edu/president/sexualassault/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Recommendations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
BWahlberg said:
While you guys discount Tokyo because of his recent strong posts in regards to the situation this Dear Colleague and what it implies is a big issue.

Also I think it could be found on Engstrom's president's page as well.

+1.
 
The lower preponderance standard is very controversial and has not yet been instituted by various colleges, including and some in the Ivies. See below linked article, as well as some excerpts from it.

"Lake said he anticipates a legal battle about the constitutionality of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which he thinks may violate accused students’ constitutional right of due process."

"Colleges and universities must face the question: “’Do I hold out and violate a federal mandate and face sanctions, or do I potentially violate the due process rights of students?’” Lake said. “That’s a heck of a choice.”

Lake is Peter F. Lake ‘81, a professor at Stetson University College of Law who specializes in higher education law



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/11/harvard-sexual-assault-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Princeton has come up with an interesting two-pronged approach, using "clear and persuasive" and "clear and convincing" standards, but not "preponderance of the evidence".

http://www.cotwa.info/2012/05/it-is-morally-imperative-that-colleges.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
AZGrizFan said:
Jesus Christ, dude....you are taking this stuff WAY too seriously.... :eek:

Toyko has concerns about violations of the US and state constitutions (as do I), and you think he's taking this too seriously? Jeez, the Constitution is very important and fundamental to our country.
 
PlayerRep said:
AZGrizFan said:
Jesus Christ, dude....you are taking this stuff WAY too seriously.... :eek:

Toyko has concerns about violations of the US and state constitutions (as do I), and you think he's taking this too seriously? Jeez, the Constitution is very important and fundamental to our country.

Aren't you the joker who is convinced that the DoJ investigation is nothing more than a political ploy?

Is it fair to say that you don't take rape seriously, in general? Based on your posts, I'd have to lean toward that school of thought.
 
Tokyogriz said:
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

I don't always agree with you. In fact I probably disagree more often than I agree. But the fact that you went to the office without the luxury of anonymity afforded in a message board to discuss your concerns is pretty cool.
 
tampa_griz said:
Tokyogriz said:
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

I don't always agree with you. In fact I probably disagree more often than I agree. But the fact that you went to the office without the luxury of anonymity afforded in a message board to discuss your concerns is pretty cool.

I was wondering who the guy was standing on the steps of main hall, waving the "Dear Colleague" letter in one hand, the US Constitution in the other, and trying to rally people to march with him to support Jordy Johnson, the alleged rapist.
 
NorthwestFresh said:
tampa_griz said:
Tokyogriz said:
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

I don't always agree with you. In fact I probably disagree more often than I agree. But the fact that you went to the office without the luxury of anonymity afforded in a message board to discuss your concerns is pretty cool.

I was wondering who the guy was standing on the steps of main hall, waving the "Dear Colleague" letter in one hand, the US Constitution in the other, and trying to rally people to march with him to support Jordy Johnson, the alleged rapist.

I know you're cracking a joke. And it made me laugh. But on a serious note, if two people were arguing different positions and one was doing it as himself and other was doing it anonymously, which person would you put more stock in?

Then again, I think Growler1's identity is known. I heard there's a video of him floating around somewhere.
 
You guys are little late to be waving the constitution in regards to student rights in disciplinary hearings. Its been discussed at great length in any number of court decisions. If anything the U of M has gone above and beyond. All the cases in this paper can be read at findlaw. but the few I checked some consistent with the claims in the paper:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_39/ai_n13620069/pg_2/?tag=content;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
NorthwestFresh said:
PlayerRep said:
AZGrizFan said:
Jesus Christ, dude....you are taking this stuff WAY too seriously.... :eek:

Toyko has concerns about violations of the US and state constitutions (as do I), and you think he's taking this too seriously? Jeez, the Constitution is very important and fundamental to our country.

Aren't you the joker who is convinced that the DoJ investigation is nothing more than a political ploy?

Is it fair to say that you don't take rape seriously, in general? Based on your posts, I'd have to lean toward that school of thought.

Are you the joker who doesn't believe in the importance of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I take rape very seriously. Have a UM grad daughter and a 22 year old daughter in college now. She takes rape very seriously. She also says that alot of girls lie about it.

Yes, I like many others believe the DOJ investigation is in large part politically motivated. Here are some blurbs from those who agree.

From article entitled: "Did Joe Biden Send the DOJ to Missoula?"
"My working theory is that the DoJ is in Missoula to bring attention to Joe Biden’s “Violence Against Women Act.” It is not abnormal for Attorney General Holder to use his office for political purposes (Fast and Furious),...."

http://newstalkkgvo.com/did-joe-biden-send-the-department-of-justice-to-missoula/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"It seems that the Department of Justice is going to launch a probe of rapes in that hotbed of crime, the campus of the University of Montana at Missoula. Attorney General Holder says he is disturbed by the incidence of rape and the way rape investigations have been handled (or not handled). But

Local authorities said the incidence of rape in Missoula, a western Montana city of 86,000 people, is on par with similarly sized college towns, and the county's chief prosecutor questioned the justice department's rationale for its inquiry.

The investigation comes in the midst of an election year in which women's issues have moved to the forefront as candidates seek to burnish their credentials among female voters."

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2012/05/over-criminalization-the-war-o.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"One of my colleagues suggested this could be part of the president’s response to the Republican War on Women. An unprecedented DOJ probe into civil rights abuses against women with lots of press could play well in the campaign."

http://www.missoulagov.org/Update%2020120502" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Bill argues, all too plausibly, that the real reason for the DOJ’s action is politics. The investigation ties in nicely with President Obama’s bogus “war on women” theme."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/holders-politicized-justice-department-strikes-again.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The investigation comes in the midst of an election year in which women's issues have moved to the forefront as candidates seek to burnish their credentials among female voters."

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=764736" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But the unprecedented scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice has others on both sides of the aisle wondering if the review is politically motivated in a presidential election year. Republican state lawmaker Champ Edmunds shared on social media a KGVO story questioning whether the probe is meant to highlight vice president Joe Biden’s Violence Against Women Act since it’s the first time the DOJ has probed a county attorney’s office."

http://m.missoulian.com/mobile/article_29f47650-9737-11e1-b863-0019bb2963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top