2/3/2025 - Trump Orders Schools to Ease Sex Assault Rules
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-orders-schools-to-ease-sexual-misconduct-rules/Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-orders-schools-to-ease-sexual-misconduct-rules/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
149 replies
Trump is a rapist.
Conservatives don't see rape as a crime.
Sure they do, it just has to be done by someone not like them, or to them.
Handmaid's Tale incoming.
Diddy made a contribution? Or is it for gaetz?
Don’t forget Trump was good friends with Epstein and the both of “liked them young”.
Gotta protect Barron
Let’s not slag his kid for being a rapist until he is accused of rape
Barron is not a kid anymore, he’s an adult who has already dipped his toes into politics and is well on his way to becoming a dirt bag like the rest of his family. He’s beyond saving.
Ok but why wouldn't you defend a fellow rapist? You like raping people because your father was such a sack of shit. Ou must be a rapist.
Was the above fair to you? Would it be more or less fair to a neurodivergent 18 year old? He has no accusations of rape so why accuse him of it because you don't like his dad? Neither of us knows Barron.
He, does, however, have accusations of animal abuse. The sourcing isn't super reliable, but it's out there.
Yeah I don’t believe that “source” at all. Im not saying Barron is a great guy only that I don’t think we should be accusing him of anything in absence of an actual accusation.
Sure. He's just the child of a rapist until then.
And the crimes of his father aren’t relevant to his behavior.
Of course! I'm merely remarking on his impeccable pedigree and something about apples not falling far from....something something.
When you have to check every headline like this to see if it's the onion.
How do conservatives rationalise this?
Like they usually do: pick one thing that they like and ignore the rest.
They also do a version of the quote about law or fact being on your side, but with fairness or efficiency.
Yup, I asked a con about it and that was his literal reply. OK.
It is just some boys having a bit of fun.
(Speculation, but that was the rationale of the Judge in the Brock Turner case)
I guess Trump is planning a visit.
Of course it's horrible, but
The headline is clickbaitily (that's a word now) misleading.
Sure, let's have lawyers cross examine traumatized children. No way forcing them to go though that in a adversarial way could make the trauma worse or intimidate victims into silence.
Read what I wrote. Of course it's horrible.
The headline suggests that acts which are currently considered to be sexual assault are no longer going to be considered sexual assault. "Ease sex assault rules." Yes, the headline is "technically true," but it is purposely misleading.
Same as this one from the same source. "Trump Admin Emails Air Traffic Controllers: Quit Your Jobs". Yes, technically true, and still horrible, but it's the same email that all federal employees got. The administration didn't specially pick out ATC.
This is how propaganda works. Word things in such a way that they're true to a very careful reader, and whistle idly while most readers digest a misleading message.
I'm not bOtH sIdEsing this. A lot more propaganda has been put out by the fascists, for longer, and to a greater degree of falsehood. That doesn't make messages that you want to hear immune from being propagandized. These examples are small potatoes by comparison, sure, but if you want to make accurate judgments and ![email protected] fascists effectively, do so on the basis of actual facts, and point out propagandizing when you see it.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. This doesn't seem like propaganda to me, or "technically true." It just flat out is true. The headline doesn't say that only ATC were receiving the emails. The headline is just highlighting that specific subgroup, because that's the point of the article. Showing that while yes, all federal employees received those emails, one particular group received those emails, which were sent out shortly before 2 major incidents involving plane crashes.
The point isn't that only ATC received this email. It's about the consequences of sending this out to all federal federal employees across the board, and highlighting the risk of this using an example of consequences that have already happened. And most likely the buyouts aren't directly responsible for the crashes, the timeline seems too quick for that. But considering that ATC is already understaffed, this is only going to exacerbate the problem we're already seeing.
If I take a sledgehammer to all my walls, and knock down a load bearing wall in the process and cause the building to collapse, would you be upset about a headline reading "Man causes building collapse after knocking down load bearing wall"? Would you consider it propaganda because I wasn't only knocking down load bearing walls, I was knocking down all the walls. Or would you understand that the headline is highlighting the part of the story that is relevant to the article that is being written.
I do agree with you on the main headline though. If I'm understanding the article correctly, they're easing protections against gender and sexual orientation based protections, and increasing the hoops sexual assault victims have to jump through. So the headline is just blatantly misleading.
Yes, if you’re accusing someone of sexual assault or harassment that could result in the persons expulsion, they should have a lawyer present to argue for them.
As a foreigner not living in the US, it is amazing to me how left-right brained people in the US are.
So now, having due process before an accusation ruins a persons life is a bad thing, because it came from Trump.
Absolutely no discourse about the policy itself, just Trump policy = bad.
Of minors in a court setting. What better way to intimidate children into not coming forward than the idea of being put into a spectacle to relive your horror.
Yeah, imagine putting a 13-year-old girl on the stand, in front of reporters, judges, lawyers, potentially their rapist, and definitely their parents, and having them go blow-by-blow with a lawyer who's already adversarial in nature and out to catch them in a lie, or confuse them, and likely has been doing this work for years.
No, this couldn't possibly be a good reason for kids to shut the fuck up when a teacher or another kid molests them. Being a kid is already hard enough, going through a sexual assault is hard, so let's pile a huge media spectacle (that will likely make it onto everyone at school's social media feeds) on top of all that trauma AND force them to relive it in front of everyone for the express purpose of the defense lawyer trying to catch you in a gotcha.
Not the structure of these things. Presuming as media has been reporting Trump has basically just tossed the Biden changes (which were largely a reinstatement of Obama-era rules and reverting the 2018 Trump changes, barring some of the ones that lawsuits were lost over) and rolled back to the 2018 version, the way it works is more like this:
Most of these are pretty basic fairness and due process things.
I don't think you realize what Title IX guidelines were like under Obama, some of the shit that was allowed or expected. Like the accused having no guidance or representation through the process and in some cases explicitly not being allowed to have a lawyer. Not being allowed to know what evidence was being brought against them or even necessarily exactly what they were accused of until the hearing or very shortly before. Having faculty trained using training materials (which the accused was not allowed to see) that explicitly say that women never ever lie but that men will say whatever they need to, in a system where the margin to be found liable is slightly more likely than not (note I said men and women here and not accused or accuser, because the materials in question were explicitly gendered once the guy accused in one case sued to be allowed to see them). There was a case where a guy accused a girl, and after being informed of the accusation responded by accusing him so his accusation was deemed retaliatory and shut down while hers was allowed to proceed.
Hopefully, this is mostly about colleges. I really don't want to think that minors raping minors is a common issue in the US. ...Somehow, I am afraid to check now.
I am not saying it is ideal, but it is not an unmoderated spectacle either. There generally are protections for underage witnesses and witnesses in general even in courts, which this is not. Between that and just assuming a person is guilty, it is the lesser evil to have them testify.
In addition, the fact prosecutors repeatedly refused to prosecute for false accusations when those came to light clearly shows this policy was never done in good fate. Life destroying consequences for the accused with next to no recourse but no consequences for the accuser when they are caught lying is just ridiculous.
It is not.
You made me think for a moment it was only about K-12 since you left out the "and colleges" part.
Anyway, it is even shittier if they forced minors to face such serious accusations without a lawyer or other adequate representation.
Why are you here? You see people upset about Trump, and your first reaction is "these people are overreacting".
Then people explain to you why it's not an overreaction, and once you actually understand what's happening, you agree?
And yet you continue anyway?
I see you.
When did I say that?
Did I fucking say you said it?
There’s no “hopefully” or benefit of the doubt for this guy. He has been proven to be a rapist in court.
Who? Trump? Are you literally incapable of forming two sentences without talking about him?
Your comment reminds me of cars with Lets Go Brandon bumper stickers. Which all started with "impeach, the president and her husband too" bumper stickers during the Clinton administration. That's when people got so delusional. They started putting the opposition on their vehicle and letting them occupy space in their head full time.
And I know that's where you were going with your comment. The problem is in this particular situation you look like the person who is unhinged. The entire purpose of this group is about Trump. Every Post in it will be about Trump. Anybody replying to a post is replying about something Trump did. Any comment someone is replying to will be about Trump. This is like the one place where literally everyone has Trump on their mind because that's the entire reason for existing. So you comment just doesn't work. If someone wasn't thinking about Trump while commenting in here that means they've gotten off topic.
My point is more along these lines: https://lemmy.world/comment/14877800
That people are bashing on a policy that is IMO good or at least not that bad because of who put it in place.
It's bad because of what it is, it's gross because of who pushed it. You look like a child rapist apologist bud.
If that was your point you did a horrible job of making it because you didn't address their point at all. You talked about their mindset. That's a complete failure of communication.
Which would you rather have: more rapes, or more kids kicked out of school for false allegations?
If this is a hard question, then I hope you gain experiences that make it easier to decide. Learning is important.
Plus, the false allegation thing is kinda bunk. If it happens, then sue them for libel. Since there isn't a lot of that going on, I think it's less of an issue than, ya know, rape.
Anecdotally, I know four rape victims that didn't come forward. I know zero men who were falsely accused. I'm sure I'm not special in this regard.
It's a false dichotomy. There are other ways to prevent rape at schools without throwing away due process.
Yes, because common students routinely have 10s of thousands of $ to pay for lawyers to probably not even get back the same amount.
So you are saying throwing away due process did not even work to make them come forward in the first place, since this was repealed just now.
If there were other ways to prevent rape, they would be there already. So you're clearly wrong.
I agree we should provide free law services to people without money so they can get justice just like the rich people. Let's do that. And we can do that without endangering young girls.
There is no due process being thrown away. These people aren't going to jail. They're being kicked out of school. A school can kick out a child for literally anything that isn't a protected class. Rape allegations seems like a pretty good reason to kick someone out, especially compared to some other reasons people have been kicked out, like protesting.
Ah, my bad. I did not realize a good government healthcare is not possible because it is not already there.
Also a shame safer roads are impossible to build, otherwise they already would have. Or walkable cities. Mass transit.
Yeah, something good not already existing clearly means it is not possible. I will give up any attempt to improve anything at once. /s
Oh, my apologies. Did not know anything that does not put you in jail does not deserve due process. You must be so angry at Luigi and his fans since clearly rejecting insurance claims is also not putting you in jail and does not deserve any due process. It is just financial ruin, same as having student loans without a degree. Not an issue at all. /s
Ah yes, the "things are already bad so we should make them worse" argument. Also, its not even really true.
Seriously, what the fuck are these arguments of yours? You can't possibly believe them yourself. Are you just trying to retroactively come up with arguments for a policy you just insist on believing because the guy who said it had (D) after their name? Just making up arguments for others, without actually using them to shape your own opinions?
Ok, so you agree there aren't things in place to prevent rape. Only that there could one day be. Great. Go do that. The lack of its current existence makes it irrelevant to the conversation. That's my point.
Due process is very very clearly a legal term. Private institutions aren't required to follow anything like it. You need to differentiate between what IS and what you wish were the case.
I don't care who made the rule. Fuck the Democrats. I care that women who are raped are being silenced. It's literally that simple.
"Hopefully"? So you don't even know the details of this, and yet you came on here to berate people who understand it more than you and are against it?
Cool.
I did not look up the statistics for this specifically, because I never considered them relevant to this issue. If anything, minors would be even less able to defend themselves from accusations and need a lawyer.
Did you catch this part?
Where's the "due process" on the absolutely not-subtle overreach of authority that created this rule?
There is none, fuck that shit. I am by no means saying Trump's process, motivation and personality are not shit. They are and he should be impeached for his blatant disregard for the law. I just don't agree with the hate the actual policy gets.
Now someone that's LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
Doesn't say requires here. So the rich kids get their "full" representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
How so, do you imagine that being LGBTQ+ makes you more likely to accuse fellow students or faculty of sexual assault? Thus singling them out because they have to recount their accusation to a closed hearing, in a way that can be subject to questioning by a representative for the person they accused, but only questions approved by the faculty member functioning as a judge analog?
Rich kid gets a lawyer, poor kid gets a faculty advisor trained in the process. Process is not a courtroom and thus much of criminal law experience doesn't apply.
I suppose it would have been better under the Biden/Obama guidelines where the accused doesn't need to know what exactly they've been accused of or by who, what evidence will be brought against them, what the process is supposed to look like or how faculty have been trained to follow it and any lawyer they might have can explicitly be kept out of the process?
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from live hearings.
Hey, I would also prefer if it did. It's not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day. These changes happen to make it better than it was, though not perfect by any means.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Most people can scrape enough money for a lawyer when their future depends on it and expensive lawyer, while giving rich kids an advantage, does not usually decide the outcome like they do in TV shows. Trials are about finding the truth.
And here comes my original point. Being unable to discuss the policy on its merit rather than by who it was proposed by.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world.
My friend said it best when he brought up a point one day that “it’s scary to think that in court, it’s more about whoever can argue their case better that wins.” And I have to agree with him on that. (Not that it matters but he is a level-headed highly-educated doctor, not md but in biotech)
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
In that instance, getting by with an affordable lawyer would be better than none, but let’s not kid ourselves. Big corporations don’t shell out millions on attorneys to lose in court, so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Easy, I'll just remember the time that my director told me I was not allowed to discuss salary with coworkers. That is against federal law and workplace protections.
When I called the NLRB to report it, they basically said they could file the complaint and bring charges. They were honest but evasive regarding the chances of a complaint against a company this big going anywhere and as nice as they could be in telling me without telling me that whistleblower protections would not save my job.
And I'm not even in a marginalized group.
I don't disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn't perfect but better than any of the alternative.
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
Yeah, liars should be punished. There is however irony in that statement considering the current president…
Again, what the fuck.
Me: US people are incapable about talking about the actual policy without just bringing up who proposed it.
You: BuT tHe CuRrEnt PrEsIdEnT.
You are trying to pretend to some moral high ground with these comments, but what they boil down to is this:
"Everyone, please present to me fact based arguments that ignore the facts about the established goals and behavior about the person proposing these changes. THOSE facts are undesired."
And you are incapable of hearing criticism of Trump without firing off about it. It's relevant that the rich male rapist president is proposing changes that make it easier for rich male rapists to get away with it and trash their victims' reputations when they speak up. These are his kind of people. He gets them. He protects them. Girls and others who have been raped? No, he just wants them to suffer in silence, shut up or be humiliated in public.
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
I am not convinced that is true but let's say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.
You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn't be claiming that bringing that into the principal's office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.
The original Title IX didn't say anything about accusations of sexual assault, at all. It literally just sad that federally funded educational programs could not discriminate with respect to sex. The interpretation that that included sports programs or similar extracurriculars came later, the interpretation that that requires a parallel court-like system for adjudicating sexual assault allegations by students under a looser standard than actual courts came even later.
I'm pretty sure you're already allowed a lawyer. Repeating you can have a lawyer twice doesn't add anything, unless you can show their right to a lawyer was somehow being bypassed. Do we have cases of that?
Yes. Under the "Dear Colleague" Obama-era guidance which later became official policy before Devos changed policy in 2018, Biden changed it mostly back to the Obama-era policy and Trump is now rolling it back to 2018.
Under the Obama-era policy (changed by Devos in 2018 and restored by Biden) schools were under no obligation to allow you to have a lawyer present. If you don't believe me, here are two law offices selling their services pointing this out, written during the Biden admin:
https://www.jasonenglishlaw.com/title-ix-lawsuit-guide
https://www.binnall.com/title-ix-defense/what-to-expect-in-a-title-ix-proceeding/
The short version is that the Obama-era and Biden-era policy is aimed at maximizing the number of men found liable without it being an obvious and utter farce while the Devos guidelines are about establishing a due process that makes an attempt to be fair.
Kinda. You only have a recognized right to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.
This right was bypassed by forcing schools to have separate hearing regarding being expelled where you not only did not have a right to a lawyer, but often not even the right to confront witnesses or examine evidence.
So the right to a fair trial was bypassed by creating a new tribunal that could not send you to prison (therefore not triggering constitutional protections), but still completely fuck up your life since now you are expelled from your school, unable to get into another one and still probably settled with student loans.
Was there a case where someone tried to bring in a lawyer to one of those hearings and was turned away? At that point though, I'd expect it to go straight to litigation, so I'd say were they turned away and immediately expelled. I'd almost expect the hearing to end and lawsuits to start.
Person who hasn't read material in detail accusing other of bias CHECK.
This thread has it all!
not sure if agent provocateur, or just stupid 🤔🤔🤔
I mean, you make my point for me. No argument why a right to have a lawyer present and defending yourself when you are accused of a crime is a bad thing.
Just down votes and insults.
Idk if you are incapable of understanding that it is possible to agree with some of Trumps policies while understanding he is a racist fascist rapist or if you genuinely don't see that removing due process and just assuming an accused person is guilty is more Fascist than anything Trump did so far.
On here, anything that Trump does right is bad cause Trump. No nuance in life, only black and white.
Exactly my point.