In “Due Process Demands As Propaganda: The Rhetoric of Title IX Opposition,” published last month in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Boston-based lawyer Annaleigh E. Curtis argues that when professors and legal observers advocate for increased due process protections for students accused of sexual assault in campus investigations “such demands function as political rhetoric, specifically as a sort of propaganda.”
Curtis claims that “language and society have developed in tandem in ways that ultimately harm and exclude victims of sexual assault while also making it harder to achieve a genuinely fair process for all involved.” She asserts that due process demands are rooted in a pervasive rape culture, and that they “serve to exclude victims and their advocates from having a voice in the discussion by casting them as already being in control of the process…demanding an unfair adjudication…and benefiting from the anti-male bias of Universities (as several suits brought by accused students suggest).”
This is not the right approach to thinking about federally imposed adjudication standards for sexual misconduct allegations, Liz Wolfe explains.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2tq5Grx
via IFTTT