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

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.