>But Obama didn't propose that accusations alone should be able to get someone expelled. He proposed applying the same preponderance standard that applies, and works just fine, in civil litigation.
You can't reduce civil litigation to just the preponderance standard.
Civil litigation has all sorts of rules and procedures, that ensure that the burden of persuasion rests on the plaintiff, that only fair evidence is admitted, that the accused has the benefit of his counsel. It has opportunities for dismissal, summary judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It has a fair judge and a jury of your peers (that you can shape through voir dire), not a panel of political college administrators. It allows you to question your accuser. It allows you to acquire evidence through discovery, and gives you the benefit of an inference if the other party destroys it.
>I pointed out that in the case of both false negatives and false positives, someone is denied the opportunity to pursue their education or their employment.
Except, again, this is not true. The third option is the status quo, that both persons may continue to pursue their education.
Title IX adjudication has rules and procedures. It's just that nobody thinks they're good enough. But more to the point: the result of a civil suit can include someone stripping you of your personal, material property by force of law. The stakes are higher than they are in Title IX.
Read the document I linked to see just how much of a joke those procedures were. That letter was signed by law professors ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, so there was nothing ideological about their conclusions.
The stakes in a Title IX suit are not really lower in reality, if they are in theory. First, a senior expelled from a private university in their fourth year has been deprived of 1) over $200,000 spent towards a diploma they will now never receive, 2) the opportunity cost of four years of their life, 3) enormous lost future income, as they are now excluded from most professional positions, and 4) other reputational damage resulting from an adjudication that they committed sexual assault. It is an extremely rare civil suit that can actually have such catastrophic consequences for someone's life.
I think that marcoperaza and tptacek/rayiner might actually be pretty close to being on the same page here.
I don't think(?) that marcoperaza is saying that Title IX courts should have the same rules and procedures as a criminal court. It's acceptable to have a lower standard of evidence and, to a degree, relaxes rules of procedure. Especially if these rule changes are paired with limitations on penalties: as rayiner suggests no punitive punishment, just expulsion (which I agree is serious) and sealed records.
Similarly I would bet that tptacek & rayiner would agree that in some cases Title IX courts got a little off the rails with their procedures: possibly lowering the standard of evidence below "preponderance of evidence" to just "some evidence at all" or maybe in some of the worst cases "just an accusation." In addition the methods of defense left to the accused were probably not sufficient in some cases. Their ability to view and present evidence and witnesses was overly curtailed and that needs to be fixed.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that Title IX went off the rails, right?
The dispute here seems, by my reading, to be between two prescriptions for moving forward:
(1: Rayiner): The problem with Title IX is one of matching scope with procedural rigor. We don't need to raise the level of rigor to that of a courtroom if we constrain the scope and thus the consequences of an adverse action under Title IX.
(2: marcoperaza): The problem with Title IX is a simply a lack of procedural rigor. Any adverse action, no matter how tightly scoped, is problematic without the protections provided to the accused by a courtroom.
I think there's a fundamental disagreement on the place of the presumption of innocence in the process as well. I'm arguing that it is of paramount importance, and that even though a preponderance standard as used in civil courts is defensible, that standard is hollow without the extremely important procedural safeguards (cross-examination, discovery, counsel, impartial judge, fair jury, etc.) surrounding it, and the understanding that the party seeking to change the status quo still bears ultimate the burden of persuasion.
I also think that colleges are hopelessly ill-equipped to handle most allegations of sexual assault, which are highly-politicized in the current climate and often boil down to he-said-she-said disputes. A judge is very aware of the kinds of reasoning that are unfair to the defendant, such as categorical claims about men or women, or appeals to political ideology.
And finally, I think there is disagreement as to how tolerable erroneous expulsions are. I would rather err on the side of under-"conviction". Rayiner is arguing that it is just as bad to deny the accuser the right to an education free from such hazards, so we should not favor one over the other. I think the right way of thinking about it is favoring the status quo, unless there is compelling evidence to change it.
You're restating what I just said. Presumption of innocence is a procedural control. Also: "presumption of innocence" is a term of art in criminal cases. In civil cases, what you have is the burden of proof (which is usually on the plaintiff). And, of course, at law, the word "proof" means something very different than it does on HN.
You can't reduce civil litigation to just the preponderance standard.
Civil litigation has all sorts of rules and procedures, that ensure that the burden of persuasion rests on the plaintiff, that only fair evidence is admitted, that the accused has the benefit of his counsel. It has opportunities for dismissal, summary judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It has a fair judge and a jury of your peers (that you can shape through voir dire), not a panel of political college administrators. It allows you to question your accuser. It allows you to acquire evidence through discovery, and gives you the benefit of an inference if the other party destroys it.
For what it's worth, here is what a bunch of professors at my law school had to say about Obama's Title IX policy: http://media.philly.com/documents/OpenLetter.pdf
>I pointed out that in the case of both false negatives and false positives, someone is denied the opportunity to pursue their education or their employment.
Except, again, this is not true. The third option is the status quo, that both persons may continue to pursue their education.