Stuart & I on the OCR's new, interim guidance; and the expected defiance from colleges & universities:http://www.weeklystandard.com/overruled/article/2009877 …
2: star athletes getting away with unquestionable (in retrospect) assaults bc of abuses of something that looked like due process ...
-
-
3: the Obama-era guidance is deeply flawed as this article points out, but articles like this (and lobbying for changes) would be ...
-
4/4: improved and more likely to succeed if they acknowledged those abuses and offered suggestions about how to avoid repeating them.
-
Def. several *high-profile* pre-11 cases involving athletes; but no evidence that these cases (as opposed to politics) justified O guidance.
-
Nothing in interim guidance changes requirement to investigate, just encouraged to do so more fairly (though few signs schools will do so).
-
Worth recalling that even pre-11, most students encountered procedures such as Duke's--hardly unfair to *accusers*: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/09/simply-extraordinary.html …
-
I followed that case, and you're of course right about it. But it's hardly true that sham due process wasn't worrying in early 2000s.
-
"most students" too broad; depends on characteristics like "star athletes", "legacy"
-
By Durham, a lot of colleges absorbed the mistakes of the early 2000s and were already starting to make new mistakes the mirror O-guidance
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.