FAIL: America's Top Universities Won't Grant Students This Basic Constitutional Right

The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit organization focused on protecting civil liberties in academics, surveyed 53 of America’s top universities and found a majority failed to provide students accused of a serious crime with due process protection.

FIRE’s Spotlight on Due Process 2017—the first survey of its kind—gave 85 percent of universities surveyed a failing D or F grade for due process protections, or lack thereof. Students accused of serious crimes are not even considered innocent until proven guilty at 39 of the 53 universities FIRE examined.

This report should not be shocking, with the numerous stories circulating about universities routinely violating the due process rights of students accused of sexual assault or rape. However, even to those versed on the subject of colleges gone crazy, it’s still hard to believe that a substantial majority of universities fail to afford students their basic constitutional rights.

These aren’t small schools nestled in the middle of nowhere, strapped for funding and personnel. It’s Columbia University, Harvard, New York University, and Pennsylvania State University that have failed to provide procedural safeguards like a right to counsel or a right to cross examine witnesses or the complainant, either by the accused or the accused’s counsel—among others.

“This report should be a huge red flag to students, parents, legislators, and the general public that an accused student’s academic and professional future often hinges on little more than the whim of college administrators,” said Samantha Harris, the Vice President of policy research at FIRE.

If a crime is serious enough, a student could face suspension or expulsion from their school, potentially ending their academic career. The failings of administrators have the potential to affect students everywhere.

FIRE’s due process reports comes around the same time as the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement that they will review the previous administration’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights determined during the Obama administration that sexual assault and sexual harassment are forms of gender inequality and must be investigated under Title IX.

The letter outlined how colleges must conduct investigations by using a preponderance of evidence standard. With this standard, Title IX investigators only need to be 51 percent certain of the accused’s guilt to enact punishment. OCR also instructed schools not to wait for a criminal investigation to conclude before starting their own Title IX investigation, and advises them not to allow cross examination of the complainant as it could further traumatize them. But this hesitance to thoroughly examine both parties makes it harder to discern who is at fault.

Some universities have separate sexual misconduct policies, which FIRE outlines in their report. Brandeis University, one of the schools listed, scored a D for failing to provide adequate due process protection in sexual misconduct cases. The university does not ensure the accused has a right to counsel and does not require an unanimous ruling to expel the accused. And the school’s grade appears to be appropriate as just last year a student sued the university after they violated his due process rights in a Title IX investigation.

Robby Soave, an associate editor at Reason, details the story in his article. “The accused, ‘John Doe,’ was found responsible for stolen kisses, suggestive touches, and a wandering eye—all within the context of an established sexual relationship,” Soave explained. “In January 2014, J.C. made a two-sentence accusation against Doe, who was not informed of the nature of the charges against him. He was also denied a lawyer, the opportunity to evaluate evidence against him, and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including his accuser.”

The Brandeis student ended up suing his university and a federal judge ruled his lawsuit should proceed, citing significant concerns about the lack of basic fairness in the investigation.

Pennsylvania State University, which received an F for both its sexual misconduct policy and its disciplinary policy has been rebuked twice by the same judge for its failure to ensure due process protections for the accused.

FIRE’s Samantha Harris published a piece in Reason about Penn State’s situation. A female student (Jane Doe) accused a male student (John Doe) of forcibly digitally penetrating her and causing her to bleed. The university found John Doe guilty and he was expelled, but he sued, saying his due process rights were violated during the investigation and hearing. The judge overseeing the Penn State student’s lawsuit ruled in his favor and ordered the university to reinstate him.

There are numerous stories like those at Penn State and Brandeis University, but the tides may be turning. It is long past time that universities learn how to handle accusations of rape without violating students’ constitutional rights.

Rape victims are not getting justice if their assailant is able to get a cash settlement because the university failed to provide a fair and balanced trial, nor is justice being served if innocent people have their reputation and academic careers ruined by campus kangaroo courts. Ensuring due process for everyone involved in a campus dispute is the best path forward for universities and their students.

Lindsay Marchello is a Young Voices Advocate and an Associate Editor with the Carolina Journal. Follow her on Twitter @LynnMarch007.

MORE FROM YOUNG VOICES

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Why is nobody talking about this?

Alabama law enforcement officials say that an illegal immigrant and an immigrant in the United States on a green card are responsible for the brutal murders of a grandmother and her 13-year-old special needs granddaughter in what investigators say is violence related to Mexican drug cartels.

The Purple Heart is reserved for those wounded or killed during battle. Awarded by the President, the medal has George Washington's image right there on the front of it. Make no mistake, it is reserved for heroes. True heroes. Men and women who've faced death and still persevered. Soldiers who fought in battle at the cost of their limbs, their lives, or their inner peace. John F. Kennedy earned a Purple Heart for his heroism as a gunboat pilot in 1944. John McCain received one for, well, we all know his horrific story. Colin Powell. Roughly one million Purple Heart medals have been awarded to veterans, all of whom were determined to have fought valiantly, with courage and heart.

RELATED: An FBI Agent Was Dismissed From the Mueller Probe. What Happened?

So it was a bit of a head-scratcher to hear comments from Democratic Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee and self-appointed "Leader in Effort to #ImpeachTrump." During a House Oversight Committee hearing questioning Peter Strzok, Cohen said, perplexingly, that Strzok deserves a Purple Heart. You know, because he's injured by all those mean text messages that HE sent?

As we've seen, other than Cohen's fanboy praise, Strzok hasn't gotten off easy. Thankfully. The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General wrote: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the [Anthony] Weiner laptop was free from bias."

Lack of confidence. I believe that's one of the criteria for a different medal. Not a Purple Heart, though. Sorry, Strzok, you'll have to get your trophy elsewhere.

Time mgazine is back at it again, reporting the real news, doing the proper journalism. One of their latest articles is sure to earn them a Pulitzer. Surely. The article is titled, "Women Are Buying Up Plan B Because They're Terrified of the Future Supreme Court."

Here's how the article opens:

Within hours of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement last month, Emily Hauser was standing at a drugstore counter asking a pharmacist for two packages of Plan B. At age 53, she didn't need the emergency contraception pills — in fact, she wasn't sure who would, or when. But Hauser bought them anyway.

RELATED: Observations of an Irishman: Lessons from the abortion referendum

I like that the article sets up Kennedy's retirement as an apocalyptic event. A recurring theme in the mainstream media, now that I think of it, especially lately. Here's the gist of it:

Across the country, Americans are stockpiling emergency contraception in light of Justice Kennedy's retirement and President Donald Trump's Monday nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. The nation's highest court is on its way to having a conservative majority, making threats against Roe v. Wade seem more dire than ever.

A good article includes backstory. History. The context. Here's what Time had to say about the sudden influx—some would say panic—in birth control:

To understand the interest in buying up Plan B, you need to brush up on Roe v. Wade. Some background: The court handed down the 7-2 decision in 1973, confirming that a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Progress has been rocky since then.

Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies.

Ah, yes. Of course they reduce the issue to a series of strawman fallacies. At this point, it's impossible for those inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and now Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome, to have a civil conversation. They certainly aren't going to budge in their opinion. Our main goal, obviously, is to connect to them as fellow human beings, living in the same chaotic world, and, hey, maybe along the way they'll admit that, maybe, they're a little more biased and deranged than they previously realized.

If all you knew about American politics came from The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, or MSNBC, you'd think that a "Blue wave" is about to swamp the country, with hip, millennial geniuses like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez surfing the crest of the wave. In fact, you would already think Ocasio-Cortez is the greatest hope for America since Barack Obama.

America is a very large country, and reality is usually more complex than the media lets on. But, since the media already has their narrative and superstar Ocasio-Cortez set for this November, there's no room for another young, minority, female, child of immigrants, political outsider, from the ultimate blue-wave state of California, named Elizabeth Heng. Well, there probably would be room for a story like that, except that she's a conservative.

RELATED: Democratic Socialism spun as 'innovative, millennial-friendly' — here's the reality

Thirty-two-year-old Elizabeth Heng is running for Congress against Democrat Jim Costa, in California's 16th district. It's been 40 years since a Republican won in that district.

In the early 1980s, Heng's parents fled the violence in Cambodia and immigrated to the U.S. In 2008, after graduating from Stanford where she was student-body president, Heng opened several cell-phone stores with her brothers in the central San Joaquin Valley. Running her own business and managing 75 employees opened her eyes to a not-so-dirty secret about capitalism trying to survive the virus of progressivism. She says, "I saw firsthand how government regulations impacted businesses negatively. I constantly felt that from Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, they were saying that I was everything wrong with our country, when all I was doing was creating jobs."

That's when she decided to venture to Washington, D.C., where she worked for six years learning the ins and outs of legislation and campaigning. She ended up working as a director for President Trump's inauguration ceremony, a job she managed while also finishing her MBA at Yale.

Fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone.

One of the biggest lessons she learned working in Washington became the platform she is now running for office on: fiscal responsibility. She says, "In a family or a business, we don't suddenly act surprised when a budget comes up for the year. We get it done."

What a concept.

Still, fiscal responsibility isn't quite as sexy-sounding as free college for everyone. So, don't expect Elizabeth Heng to replace Ocasio-Cortez as the media darling anytime soon.