A Massachusetts bill that is heading for Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk seeks to require the state’s colleges and universities to consult with a multitude of stakeholders when crafting new Title IX policies, none of whom support those accused of sexual misconduct.
As professor and author K.C. Johnson pointed out on Twitter, a section of the bill lists off various “internal and external entities” to consult with when crafting new policies. The bill says the list of potential groups to consult is “not limited to” those mentioned, but the overwhelming reliance on groups that aren’t due-process advocates is troubling.
The list includes “institutional administrators, personnel affiliated with on-campus or off-campus health care centers, personnel affiliated with on-campus, when available, or local, community-based rape crisis centers or domestic violence programs, confidential resource providers, residence life staff, students, the department of state police and the police department or district attorney having jurisdiction in the city or town in which the institution’s primary campus is located.”
No defense attorneys or civil liberties groups were included in the list, which is troubling considering how schools have treated the due-process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct over the past decade.
Other portions of the bill highlighted by Johnson raise concerns for accused students. The bill prohibits direct cross-examination by accused students and limits the ability of advisors to ask questions instead, meaning those accused will have little chance to directly question the evidence and witnesses against them.
The bill would require schools to apply the rules equally to both accusers and the accused, but it is the accused who suffers most from this, since colleges and universities have been quick to assume guilt based on little to no evidence and even when evidence of innocence exists. Schools with policies that are supposed to be applied equally have also treated the accused and accusers differently. Early last year, The Daily Wire reported the case of a male student who was accused after a woman he slept with found out he was dating her friend.
The student, referred to as John Doe, was not allowed the same opportunities during his hearing that his accuser, referred to as Jane Roe, was given. For example, Jane was allowed to personally ask questions of witnesses, even though the school limited who could ask questions to the hearing board, a Department of Safety representative, or through questions provided to the hearing board by the accusers and accused. Jane’s adviser was also allowed to give a list of questions to the hearing board to ask of John, another policy violation. John was not given these same opportunities and he also was not allowed to bring character witnesses, though Jane was allowed.
In another case, a famous one at Amherst College in Massachusetts, both students were allowed an adviser during the hearing, but the accuser’s adviser could be an advocate for her while the accused student’s adviser was prohibited from being an advocate for him.
Combined, the new bill seeks to cement the unfair practices already in place in schools across the country and would likely be used in lawsuits by accused students who were denied their constitutional rights.