http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-scraps-free-speech-070000053.html

Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech

By Mona Charen

Two years ago, this column, along with others, raised an alarm about the Obama administration's decision radically to diminish the due process rights of those accused of sɛҳuąƖ harassment on American campuses. There's a new outrage today, but first, a recap:

In a 2011 letter to colleges, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) mandated that in cases of suspected sɛҳuąƖ harassment or sɛҳuąƖ assault, universities were to reduce the standard of proof to a more likely than not standard. The new standard requires that fact finders believe only that there is a 50.01 chance that the charges are true.

I warned at the time that students falsely accused could see their lives upended and possibly destroyed. Clearly, if a student has committed a crime or serious offense, the university has a duty to investigate. But serious charges, which can blight careers, require serious guarantees of the rights of the accused. In a court of law, a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to see any exculpatory evidence the state discovers, the right to be represented by counsel and the presumption of innocence. In felony cases, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

No such safeguards are available to accused college students. As self-described feminist Judith Grossman discovered to her horror when her son was falsely accused of "non-consensual sex" by a former girlfriend, "the Department of Education's OCR has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice." Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other docuмents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him. Thanks to Grossman's legal expertise and assistance, her son was eventually cleared. Other students are not so fortunate.

Following the Education Department's directive, the University of Hawaii announced that students may be evicted from dormitories after no more than an accusation. At Yale, an unsubstantiated charge of sɛҳuąƖ assault against a star football player was enough to deny him a Rhodes scholarship. At Xavier University, a student who was found not guilty of sɛҳuąƖ assault by a judge was nonetheless told by the university that he would be prohibited from participating in classes or extracurricular activities with his "victim." Caleb Warner was banned from the campuses of the University of North Dakota for three years. When police investigated the case, they issued an arrest warrant for his accuser, charging her with making a false rape charge. Only after repeated interventions on Warner's behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) did the university finally admit that the charges were without foundation.

Having virtually obliterated procedural protections for those accused of serious offenses and crimes, the Obama administration has now added a new insult — a restriction on free speech itself. For two decades, universities have struggled with the question of "speech codes," tempted by the left to enshrine political correctness at the expense of the First Amendment. Most campuses have resisted, but through the Obama administration, the censors have triumphed all at once and everywhere.

A letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice addressed to the University of Montana but explicitly intended as a "blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country," the government has altered the legal meaning of the term "sɛҳuąƖ harassment." The new rule directly contravenes Supreme Court decisions and previous rulings from OCR that harassment "must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive." The Supreme Court has ruled that to meet the test of sɛҳuąƖ harassment, behavior must be "severe, pervasive and objectively offensive." Note the word "objectively," meaning that a reasonable person similarly situated would be offended.

The reasonable person standard is now gone. The new definition of sɛҳuąƖ harassment decreed by the Obama administration is "any unwelcome conduct of a sɛҳuąƖ nature," including "verbal conduct." The purported victim now has the power to decide whether a young man or woman (but it's nearly always a man) is branded a sɛҳuąƖ harasser. It's entirely subjective.

Obama promised fundamental transformation. This is part of it. Freedom of speech is sacrificed, and a new army of sɛҳuąƖ harassment "specialists" will descend on America's campuses to enforce the new dispensation.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

Note: the date in the OP was missing:

Mona CharenBy Mona Charen | Mona Charen – Tue, May 14, 2013

We're watching the conversion of the American system of "innocent until
proven guilty" into its inverse:  "guilty until proven innocent."  

Pay attention, because the day may well come when you have to answer
your grandchildren's questions:  "How could this have happened?"

The partial solution to this dilemma is clear: avoid fornication.

What will prevent the accusation of rape, or other false accusations being made in marriage?  Since so many people now believe in "marital rape" - how is a man supposed to insulate himself?

One more thing: a man doesn't have to do anything at all to have false accusations made against him.

I don't think it's fair to blame paganism per se for this.  It's not mere infidelity or liberalism that is the problem here.  Rather it's feminism - more importantly - feminism among "conservative" and "religious" people, who act and speak under the pretense that "women don't lie." (or that "women don't lust" - we've heard that one here on cathinfo)

It's fine to say "avoid fornication" - that's not the solution to the legal problem.  The solution to the injustice requires restoring old legal safeguards against feminine lying.  That is to say, there has to be real evidence against a man, not just a woman's story.

Until "conservatives" start admitting young women often lie and are not often chaste angels then there is nothing to stop men being given the third degree.  Including men who are completely innocent.

Yes, men are victims of feminism.

It's part of feminism to say that women can be victims of men but to deny that men are victims of women.  And that's what the refusal of a fair trial and due process to men are about.

A woman says something demonstrably false and refuses to retract - and most people, including most conservatives go along with it or give it a pass.

When someone says men aren't victims of feminism, that's a flagrant falsehood, and the person saying it knows that it is.  The person who refuses to admit it's false shows the other aspect of feminism:

Women never admitting when they are dishonest.

And yet there are those that look at me as odd because I choose celibate bachelorhood

The problem isn't so much that the girls don't want Catholic marriage and motherhood, although that is probably true for many of them.

Rather, the problem is that their parents and the priests don't want it.  They want a sort of fem-centric hybrid of Catholic marriage with modern culture, because to do otherwise would be "degrading" for their daughters.

 They want a sort of fem-centric hybrid of Catholic marriage with modern culture, because to do otherwise would be "degrading" for their daughters.

You are much more clear and articulate than me but that is something I noticed with the SSPX sermons and some other trad or conservative sermons they seems to only reject parts of feminism. Women should stay at home with preschool aged children they teach but so much else of feminism they accept. From the little I've read with SSPX/ modern trad teaching it's  weird how so many of the sermons or teachings is encouraging stay at home moms but not other other things that would reject feminism.
I wonder if it has to do  (Mothers of young children being at home) because it's also practiced by those who are affluent Christian or not.

It's just like homeschooling or child bearing,  they have Christian values as long as everyone is half comfortable, when it means extreme hardship or just less than what they think should be a lifestyle, they have secular values.

Quote from: Santo Subito

No such safeguards are available to accused college students. As self-described feminist Judith Grossman discovered to her horror when her son was falsely accused of "non-consensual sex" by a former girlfriend, "the Department of Education's OCR has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice." Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other docuмents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him. Thanks to Grossman's legal expertise and assistance, her son was eventually cleared. Other students are not so fortunate.

First, I agree that this is ominous for men everywhere. I agree that this country has gotten out of control, especially as regards due process and the old policy of "innocent until proven guilty".

BUT one can do a few things to put himself at LESSER risk. The partial solution to a case like this (described in the OP) is clear: avoid fornication.

The charge of "non-consensual sex" is much more ridiculous if you've never been alone with a woman -- as the rules of Catholic courtship dictate.

But this man was probably sɛҳuąƖly active with his "girlfriend", which made the whole thing open for debate. Did she consent? Did she say no? Did she really mean "no"? etc.

Paganism leads to totalitarianism. In some respects, Catholics are going to be "along for the ride". But in other aspects, we can escape some of the horrors of our pagan world by living Catholic lives.

Matthew I posted to you in the anon thread the other day. The family court industry if full of evil and unscrupulous people can really harm another person, male or female.  I've experienced this is my own life, with my father hurting  my poor  mother and me all  within the system.

Due to the domestic violence movement it is very geared to favor unscrupulous women though.. they can do a great deal of harm to an innocent partner and their children. Even if you are honest, it takes extra effort not to be associated with the "victim advocates."
There have always been laws for civil divorce due to cruelty and adultery, we didn't need no fault divorce and VAWA like the feminist want others to believe.