RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Stop Talking Right Now About the Threat of Climate Change. It's Here; It's Happening Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=19600"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 12 September 2017 13:52

McKibben writes: "For the sake of keeping things manageable, let's confine the discussion to a single continent and a single week: North America over the last seven days."

Bill McKibben. (photo: rightlivelihood.org)
Bill McKibben. (photo: rightlivelihood.org)


Stop Talking Right Now About the Threat of Climate Change. It's Here; It's Happening

By Bill McKibben, Guardian UK

12 September 17


Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, flash fires, droughts: all of them tell us one thing – we need to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and fast

or the sake of keeping things manageable, let’s confine the discussion to a single continent and a single week: North America over the last seven days.

In Houston they got down to the hard and unromantic work of recovery from what economists announced was probably the most expensive storm in US history, and which weather analysts confirmed was certainly the greatest rainfall event ever measured in the country – across much of its spread it was a once-in-25,000-years storm, meaning 12 times past the birth of Christ; in isolated spots it was a once-in-500,000-years storm, which means back when we lived in trees. Meanwhile, San Francisco not only beat its all-time high temperature record, it crushed it by 3F, which should be pretty much statistically impossible in a place with 150 years (that’s 55,000 days) of record-keeping.

That same hot weather broke records up and down the west coast, except in those places where a pall of smoke from immense forest fires kept the sun shaded – after a forest fire somehow managed to jump the mighty Columbia river from Oregon into Washington, residents of the Pacific Northwest reported that the ash was falling so thickly from the skies that it reminded them of the day Mount St Helens erupted in 1980.

That same heat, just a little farther inland, was causing a “flash drought” across the country’s wheat belt of North Dakota and Montana – the evaporation from record temperatures had shrivelled grain on the stalk to the point where some farmers weren’t bothering to harvest at all. In the Atlantic, of course, Irma was barrelling across the islands of the Caribbean (“It’s like someone with a lawnmower from the sky has gone over the island,” said one astounded resident of St Maarten). The storm, the first category five to hit Cuba in a hundred years, is currently battering the west coast of Florida after setting a record for the lowest barometric pressure ever measured in the Keys, and could easily break the 10-day-old record for economic catastrophe set by Harvey; it’s definitely changed the psychology of life in Florida for decades to come.

Oh, and while Irma spun, Hurricane Jose followed in its wake as a major hurricane, while in the Gulf of Mexico, Katia spun up into a frightening storm of her own, before crashing into the Mexican mainland almost directly across the peninsula from the spot where the strongest earthquake in 100 years had taken dozens of lives.

Leaving aside the earthquake, every one of these events jibes with what scientists and environmentalists have spent 30 fruitless years telling us to expect from global warming. (There’s actually fairly convincing evidence that climate change is triggering more seismic activity, but there’s no need to egg the pudding.)

That one long screed of news from one continent in one week (which could be written about many other continents and many other weeks – just check out the recent flooding in south Asia for instance) is a precise, pixelated portrait of a heating world. Because we have burned so much oil and gas and coal, we have put huge clouds of CO2 and methane in the air; because the structure of those molecules traps heat the planet has warmed; because the planet has warmed we can get heavier rainfalls, stronger winds, drier forests and fields. It’s not mysterious, not in any way. It’s not a run of bad luck. It’s not Donald Trump (though he’s obviously not helping). It’s not hellfire sent to punish us. It’s physics.

Maybe it was too much to expect that scientists’ warnings would really move people. (I mean, I wrote The End of Nature, the first book about all this 28 years ago this week, when I was 28 – and when my theory was still: “People will read my book, and then they will change.”) Maybe it’s like all the health warnings that you should eat fewer chips and drink less soda, which, to judge by belt-size, not many of us pay much mind. Until, maybe, you go to the doctor and he says: “Whoa, you’re in trouble.” Not “keep eating junk and some day you’ll be in trouble”, but: “You’re in trouble right now, today. As in, it looks to me like you’ve already had a small stroke or two.” Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are the equivalent of one of those transient ischaemic attacks – yeah, your face is drooping oddly on the left, but you can continue. Maybe. If you start taking your pills, eating right, exercising, getting your act together.

That’s the stage we’re at now – not the warning on the side of the pack, but the hacking cough that brings up blood. But what happens if you keep smoking? You get worse, till past a certain point you’re not continuing. We’ve increased the temperature of the Earth a little more than 1C so far, which has been enough extra heat to account for the horrors we’re currently witnessing. And with the momentum built into the system, we’re going to go somewhere near 2C, no matter what we do. That will be considerably worse than where we are now, but maybe it will be expensively endurable.

The problem is, our current business-as-usual trajectory takes us to a world that’s about 3.5C warmer. That is to say, even if we kept the promises we made at Paris (which Trump has already, of course, repudiated) we’re going to build a planet so hot that we can’t have civilisations. We have to seize the moment we’re in right now – the moment when we’re scared and vulnerable – and use it to dramatically reorient ourselves. The last three years have each broken the record for the hottest year ever measured – they’re a red flashing sign that says: “Snap out of it.” Not bend the trajectory somewhat, as the Paris accords envisioned, but simultaneously jam on the fossil fuel brakes and stand on the solar accelerator (and also find some metaphors that don’t rely on internal combustion).

We could do it. It’s not technologically impossible – study after study has shown we can get to 100% renewables at a manageable cost, more manageable all the time, since the price of solar panels and windmills keeps plummeting. Elon Musk is showing you can churn out electric cars with ever-lower sticker shock. In remote corners of Africa and Asia, peasants have begun leapfrogging past fossil fuel and going straight to the sun. The Danes just sold their last oil company and used the cash to build more windmills. There are just enough examples to make despair seem like the cowardly dodge it is. But everyone everywhere would have to move with similar speed, because this is in fact a race against time. Global warming is the first crisis that comes with a limit – solve it soon or don’t solve it. Winning slowly is just a different way of losing.

Winning fast enough to matter would mean, above all, standing up to the fossil fuel industry, so far the most powerful force on Earth. It would mean postponing other human enterprises and diverting other spending. That is, it would mean going on a war-like footing: not shooting at enemies, but focusing in the way that peoples and nations usually only focus when someone’s shooting at them. And something is. What do you think it means when your forests are on fire, your streets are underwater, and your buildings are collapsing?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46032"><span class="small">Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 12 September 2017 12:24

Sorkin writes: "Early last week, even as the United States military was scrambling to move resources ahead of Hurricane Irma, it was loading a surgical team onto a Navy C-40 jet, headed to the base at Guantanamo Bay to operate on a prisoner."

Sixteen years after the 9/11 attacks, the notorious prison at Guantánamo Bay is still occupied, trials continue to be delayed, and the costs keep mounting. (photo: Peter van Agtmael/Magnum)
Sixteen years after the 9/11 attacks, the notorious prison at Guantánamo Bay is still occupied, trials continue to be delayed, and the costs keep mounting. (photo: Peter van Agtmael/Magnum)


Another 9/11 Anniversary at Guantánamo, Amid Hurricane Irma

By Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker

12 September 17

 

arly last week, even as the United States military was scrambling to move resources ahead of Hurricane Irma, it was loading a surgical team onto a Navy C-40 jet, headed to the base at Guantánamo Bay to operate on a prisoner. The team, Carol Rosenberg, of the Miami Herald, reported, included “a neurosurgeon, a neuroradiologist, an operating room nurse and a pair of neurosurgical technicians,” with a couple of pallets of medical equipment in tow. Their patient, Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, who also goes by the name of Nashwan al Tamir, is an alleged Al Qaeda commander who is fifty-six years old and has been held at Guantánamo for ten years; according to the doctors his lawyers had consulted, his chronic spinal problems had flared up in a way that, if not treated, could leave him partly paralyzed. The base’s medical facilities are not equipped for such a procedure. Given that the commander was in the midst of battening down the facilities, it might have made practical sense to simply medevac Hadi to a military or prison hospital somewhere else. But that would have been against the law: in 2010, Congress passed legislation that made it practically impossible to bring any Guantánamo prisoner to the United States, even temporarily, even at the President’s order. And so the doctors and nurses and technicians got on a plane, and flew toward Irma.

In some ways, Hadi is an unusual prisoner. Of the forty-one people still held at Guantánamo—down from two hundred and forty-two when President Barack Obama was inaugurated—he is one of only seven who face charges before a “military commission.” The others are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted master planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; four of his co-conspirators; and Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, who is accused in the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, in waters near Yemen. Mohammed was captured in 2003—almost fifteen years ago—but his trial has yet to begin. In a series of hearings in recent weeks, the prosecution submitted a proposal to finally get things rolling in January of 2019. The defense and the military judge both indicated that even that date would be wildly ambitious. Last month, when President Trump announced his Afghanistan policy with the news that the United States would send another round of troops to fight there, he and others remarked on the widespread frustration about the length of the war. The Twin Towers fell sixteen years ago today, meaning that young Americans who were not even born then could soon be fighting in the Afghan war. The same could be said about the guards at Guantánamo. But a measure of the futility of the legal response to the attacks is that there will soon enough be young military officers, at least eligible to serve as the equivalent of jurors on the military commission, who were also born after 9/11.

In part, the delays are due to some of the same practical factors that led the military to fly a surgical team to Guantánamo when it had plenty else to worry about in the Caribbean: figuring out where to house the lawyers and other personnel, for example. And there is only one courtroom at what is known as the base’s Camp Justice that is equipped for proceedings using top-secret classified evidence, which is what both the 9/11 proceedings and the U.S.S. Cole trial, which a second judge, Colonel Vance Spath, is presiding over, would be. (Both are also death-penalty cases, which introduces another layer of complexity and, rightly, lawyering.) That courtroom was initially double-booked for several pre-trial hearings, with both cases pencilled in for the same dates in 2018. The idea was that this might be managed with a second shift. The Herald’s Rosenberg—who, often enough, is the only reporter at these proceedings, doing the work, on her own, that might be shared by dozens of journalists in a civilian courtroom—wrote that, when Judge Pohl learned of that plan, he didn’t react well. “This case will not be night court, O.K.?” Pohl said.

Rosenberg noted that it might not have to come to that. Given how often the military cancels hearings, the dates had an imaginary quality to begin with: you schedule two on a day and end up with neither happening. But Pohl was raising an important point about something else that the proceedings have lacked, namely dignity. There were supposed to be hearings for both the 9/11 and the Cole cases in July, but Pohl and Spath put them on hold because, for one reason or the other, the Navy didn’t want to provide a fast boat to take the judges and their staffs from the airstrip to the courthouse, saying that they should just get a ride with victims’ families and the prosecution and defense lawyers. The judges objected, saying that this threatened their independence and violated their rules against “co-mingling.” The resolution involved the transfer of three hundred dollars from the Pentagon to the Navy; it took about a month to work out that deal. For perspective, it costs about four hundred and forty million dollars a year to maintain Guantánamo prison, or more than ten million dollars per inmate.

But, as absurd as the boat dispute might sound, it illustrates not only the logistical complexities of holding what should be the trial of the century on an isolated offshore base but the fact that, even now, the legal procedures are largely improvised. The military commissions are neither traditional courts martial nor civilian courts but a system slapped together after 9/11, partly in reaction to Supreme Court rulings in favor of Guantánamo prisoners being denied basic rights. As William Finnegan laid out in a recent profile of Zainab Ahmad, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, America’s civilian courts actually have quite a good record prosecuting terrorists so far, with six hundred convictions just since 9/11. (Ahmad has won thirteen of those herself.) The military commissions have only produced eight convictions, most as the result of plea deals in connection with transfers to other countries, and four of those have been overturned, in whole or in part. (Three convicted prisoners remain at Guantánamo: two awaiting a sentence, and one serving one.) Civilian courts also have time-tested procedures for dealing with classified material. In contrast, the latest round of military-commission hearings came to a halt at one point when everyone realized that, although the prosecution and defense lawyers had been given clearance to see a certain document, Judge Pohl had not. While that was being sorted out, there was a rush to hide the evidence from the judge who was expected to rule on it.

Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and Nashiri are Guantánamo’s marquee names. Five other prisoners, though, have been cleared for release, a long process that includes multiple agencies determining that they pose no threat. These are people who probably never should have been sent to Guantánamo in the first place; in some cases, they were ordered released many years ago but are still being held. (One problem is figuring out where to send them.) There are also twenty-six people who are known as “forever prisoners,” meaning that the Obama Administration was too uncertain about their innocence to release them but too timid to file charges against them—whether this was out of fear of an acquittal or because something embarrassing to the government might have emerged, it is impossible to say without a trial. President Obama enshrined this hesitation in a process of “periodic reviews.” The status of these prisoners remains what it is: indefinite detention on no charge, a distinctly un-American condition. The day before Obama left office, he sent a letter to Congress complaining that “politics” had kept him from closing the base. That is true, to an extent: even though George W. Bush had transferred twice as many prisoners as Obama ever did, once Obama took office, the Republicans used the prison issue as a cudgel. When the Obama Administration put together a comprehensive analysis demonstrating, among other things, that supermax prisons did a good job of holding even the worst terrorists, Senator James Inhofe, the Republican of Oklahoma, said that the report was “simply giving cover to President Obama so that he can continue what he is already actively working towards, which is bringing terrorists onto U.S. soil.” But politics is not something that just descends on a President, like a hurricane. Even before Congress made it much harder, the Obama Administration had muddled its chances to close Guantánamo. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he would bring Mohammed to New York, to stand trial in federal court. This was the key moment; we might have had a trial years ago if the Administration had stuck to that decision. But, in the face of opposition from Republicans and local politicians, the Administration backed down.

What this means, in short, is that although Obama scaled Guantánamo down, and brought it a great distance from the days when prisoners were abused there, his successor, Donald Trump, could easily scale it up again. He has said that he wants to keep it open: during the campaign, he said, “We’re gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we’re gonna load it up.” That hasn’t happened yet, but, last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that the job of the State Department official assigned to work on closing Guantánamo would be eliminated. The retired general John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, oversaw Guantánamo when he led the military’s Southern Command, and has dismissed criticisms of the site as media exaggerations. Soon after the three-hundred-dollar boat-ride dispute, the Pentagon awarded a forty-three-million-dollar contract for a new fibre-optic system for the base. There are plans for a half billion dollars in construction projects, including a new hospital.

Meanwhile, the base made it through Irma relatively well, with downed power lines but few signs of damage, an officer told Rosenberg. There were, she reported, a few wet spots in the courtroom ceiling, which would need new tiles. The next time hurricane winds shift to Guantánamo, it might be better prepared. And the 9/11 trial, with its maddening mix of tragedy and absurdity, and its too-delayed promise of justice, might even be under way.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Beauty Is Truth and Truth Is Factual Print
Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:44

Keillor writes: "Truth begins with facts. Facts are solid, like bricks. You build a house out of facts, the wolf won’t blow it down. But you drop a fact on your foot, it hurts."

Garrison Keillor. (photo: A Prairie Home Companion)
Garrison Keillor. (photo: A Prairie Home Companion)


Beauty Is Truth and Truth Is Factual

By Garrison Keillor, Portland Press Herald

12 September 17


Facts have a tendency to bring us down a notch. Even presidents must yield to them.

ruth begins with facts. Facts are solid, like bricks. You build a house out of facts, the wolf won’t blow it down. But you drop a fact on your foot, it hurts.

I learned this as a boy, living near the Mississippi River in Minnesota when I discovered that where the Ohio River flows into the Mississippi near Cairo, Illinois, the Ohio is actually larger than the Mississippi. So it’s the Mississippi that flows into the Ohio. The Ohio is the big show. This fact was shocking to me. I was proud of the river, spent hours on the shore, skipped stones on it, and I felt diminished by the new information. To go from Father of Waters to a mere tributary is a definite fall.

Facts have that tendency to bring us down a notch. I’d been 6-foot-3 since I was in high school and now I’m a half-inch short of that. If people ask, I still say 6-3 but it’s not true and I know it. I’m shrinking.

Even presidents must yield to facts. The horse-faced William Henry Harrison lasted only a month in the White House. He was a military hero, having defeated the Shawnees at the Battle of Tippecanoe in Indiana, and he was anxious to show his intellectual acuity and so, having defeated Martin Van Buren in the 1840 election, Harrison composed a massive speech for his inauguration and stood and delivered it for two hours in a cold rain, a 68-year-old man, hatless, coatless, and then attended three inaugural balls. His wife had stayed home sick and wasn’t there to advise him. A couple weeks later, feeling very ill, he took to his bed. Pneumonia was the diagnosis, though it’s now believed he had a bacterial infection from drinking bad water, there being no sewers in Washington at the time. His doctor dosed him with opium and repeated enemas, and the treatment likely hastened his end.

He had written the speech himself and the first sentence gives you an idea of the style: “Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our government and what I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.”

In other words, “You elected me president and now I shall address you.”

As he lay in the White House, in an opioid stupor, with a hose up his rear end, W.H.H. might have dreamed of Tippecanoe when he rode around waving his sword at Tecumseh’s warriors, or maybe he revisited the debacle on the Capitol steps, the crowd standing glumly in the cold rain listening to 8,445 words of hogwash and horse feathers which, what with the rain and the lack of a megaphone, were incomprehensible to most onlookers, a faint murmurous croaking like a cricket in the weeds. In the space of one month, a hero became the butt of a joke – Longest Speech led to pneumonia which led to Shortest Term in Office.

Now it appears he died by drinking water that contained his own waste, the executive chamberpot having been emptied on ground near the White House well.

As the current occupant cuts his prime rib under the John Adams inscription on the dining room mantel (“May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof”), he seems impervious to reality. Like many real estate salesmen, the gentleman has a poetic imagination. Any man who comes away from a visit to Houston and says people there are happy is eating the wrong mushrooms. He has stood in a cold rain for seven months, pretending the sun is shining, winning the admiration of a shrinking bloc of barflies, bikers, and Baptists, and now he is drinking bad water, and eventually reality will catch up with him. It always does. He is headed for Harrisondom.

W.H.H. had a large vision of westward expansion but he should’ve thought about sanitation. The Romans had built a massive sewer, the Cloaca Maxima, back in Jeremiah’s day and a system of aqueducts by the time Jesus was in the third grade. Wake up and smell the excrement.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Do You Feel Deep Anxiety in the Pit of Your Stomach for a World in Tumult? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:38

Rather writes: "Do you wonder at the direction of our nation, and the larger world? I wonder too."

Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)
Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)


Do You Feel Deep Anxiety in the Pit of Your Stomach for a World in Tumult?

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

12 September 17

 

o you worry for all those in harm's way of Hurricane Irma, and those still suffering from the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey and the wildfires of the West? I worry too. All those people are very much in my thoughts

Do you wonder at the direction of our nation, and the larger world? I wonder too.

These are not easy times. Or peaceful times. Or fair times. We are hurting, and we are destined to hurt some more.

Sadly, I have seen more than my share of sadness, loss, and tragedy in my life. That is a reality of my chosen career. As a journalist, I have felt the deep worry of waking up and not knowing what new misfortune the day may bring.

As a boy, I remember listening to the Battle of Britain, worrying that England may fall to the Nazis. Shortly thereafter I was stricken with rheumatic fever and I remember my mother worrying, when she thought I was out of earshot, whether I might live.

I remember the dark days of the violent suppression of the civil rights movement, and the assassinations of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

I remember the jungle, delta, and highlands hell that was Vietnam.

I remember the dawning horror of the full scope of Watergate.

I remember the hostages in Iran, and the terror attacks, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Each of those difficult times, and so many others, brought their own measure of heartache and loss. They left lasting scars on individuals and the nation as a whole.

But somehow we were able to make it through - a resilient society on an imperfect path to greater justice. Sometimes, oftentimes, it does get better. Let us hope that it will again. I believe it will.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Betsy DeVos, Title IX, and the "Both Sides" Approach to Sexual Assault Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46091"><span class="small">Jeannie Suk Gersen, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:36

Gersen writes: "The Dear Colleague Letter has also become a powerful dual symbol: of support for sexual assault victims on the one hand, and of failures of campus due process on the other."

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)


Betsy DeVos, Title IX, and the "Both Sides" Approach to Sexual Assault

By Jeannie Suk Gersen, The New Yorker

12 September 17

 

ver the summer, anticipation over what the Education Department might do about campus sexual assault heightened as the Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, held high-profile meetings with groups advocating for the interests of universities, sexual-assault victims, and accused students—including one men’s-rights group accused of harassing women online. DeVos’s civil-rights head, Candace Jackson, alarmingly, told the Times that “90 percent” of campus accusations are over drunk or breakup sex.

As the new school year began in earnest, widespread fears of a “rollback” of Title IX enforcement accompanied DeVos’s long-awaited policy speech, which was delivered on Thursday, at George Mason University. Promising to continue to enforce Title IX and saying that “campus sexual misconduct must continue to be confronted head-on,” DeVos announced the launch of “a transparent notice-and-comment” process wherein the Education Department will receive comments from the public, “to incorporate the insights of all parties.” (This is the standard legal process for agencies making binding legal rules.) After the speech, DeVos explicitly told CBS News that, while the Obama Administration’s policies on sexual misconduct are not now being rescinded, the current process—which will take months, if not years—will eventually lead to legal rules that are intended to replace them.

Title IX requires schools that receive federal funds not to discriminate on the basis of sex. The law itself does not mention sexual violence, but its interpretation by courts and by the Education Department since the law’s passage, in 1972, has led to the common understanding that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination requires schools to address sexual violence among students.

Criticizing the previous Administration’s enforcement methods, DeVos said that “rather than engage the public on controversial issues, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights has issued letters from the desks of un-elected and un-accountable political appointees.” She was primarily referring to the “Dear Colleague Letter” issued by the Obama Administration in 2011, which provided instructions on how schools must investigate and adjudicate accusations of sexual violence. The letter itself stated that it could not create any new legal obligations, because it was issued without the process of public comment that is required to make an agency’s pronouncements legally binding. Yet the Education Department seemed to treat the letter as if it were law in investigations and enforcement proceedings against schools. The Dear Colleague Letter has also become a powerful dual symbol: of support for sexual assault victims on the one hand, and of failures of campus due process on the other.

The non-binding status of the Dear Colleague Letter meant that a new Administration could easily retract it with another letter, much in the same way that the Trump Administration retracted the guidance on transgender students earlier this year. But DeVos pointedly did not do this, declaring, “The era of ‘rule by letter’ is over.” Instead, she announced that the agency would engage in precisely the notice-and-comment rulemaking process that the Obama Administration chose to skip.

Judging by DeVos’s speech, what has been portrayed as a rollback of Title IX is really an embrace of a framework of compatibility: one in which Title IX seriously addresses sexual violence and also requires fairness to the accuser and the accused. (Disclosure: Last month, I joined three feminist law faculty at Harvard in submitting a comment to the Education Department urging policy revisions along these lines. I was also a signatory to an open letter from twenty-eight members of Harvard’s Law School faculty, published in 2014, that DeVos approvingly cited in Thursday’s speech.) DeVos drew on the stories of victims and accused students to reject the idea that the system could serve only one or the other. “Any school that refuses to take seriously a student who reports sexual misconduct is one that discriminates. And any school that uses a system biased toward finding a student responsible for sexual misconduct also commits discrimination.” Since 2011, dozens of courts have made clear that schools that do not give accused students a fair process may also be committing sex discrimination under Title IX.

The rejection of an either/or mentality—one in which the education system is either “for” or “against” victims of sexual violence—was striking also in DeVos’s nod to the growing phenomenon of female students who are accused of sexual misconduct on campus, underscoring that a respect for basic fairness and due process benefits both women and men. She pointed to a recent case in which the University of Southern California disbelieved a female student’s insistence that she had merely “roughhoused” with her boyfriend, and expelled him for his alleged abuse over her objection. Calling the “current reality” a “failed system” in which “everyone loses,” DeVos noted, “Survivors aren’t well-served when they are re-traumatized with appeal after appeal because the failed system failed the accused.” When schools use an unfair process to discipline students, she suggested, even guilty parties can be vindicated later in lawsuits in court. Sloppy campus processes lead to general lack of confidence in the results, and further undermine the interests of sexual-assault victims.

In short, DeVos appears to be proceeding exactly as an agency head should: give notice, take comments, and explain why a given policy is being adopted. But the intent to depart from an Obama-era policy, which itself did not go through those steps, will undoubtedly garner outrage and dismay. “We must continue to condemn the scourge of sexual misconduct on our campuses,” she said. “We can do a better job of making sure the handling of complaints is fair and accurate,” she also said. If these statements were made by a different official in a different Administration, they would seem rational, uncontroversial, and even banal. The idea that an adjudicatory process should be fair to both sides is about as basic as any facet of American law can be, even when it is articulated by an individual who is noncommittal on the basic educational rights of L.G.B.T.Q. students and students with disabilities, and who believes that guns belong in schools to protect against grizzly bears. But in these times, especially following the equivocal statements made by President Trump on the violence in Charlottesville, the very concept of “both sides” may approach moral peril (to say nothing of the fact that Trump himself has boasted of sexual assault).

In the period since the Obama Administration first brought sexual assault to the foreground of Title IX enforcement, the courts’ and the public’s views have developed to crystallize around the idea that Title IX protects the fair treatment of accusers and accused, women and men. What promises to emerge from the new rulemaking process—which will generate mountains of public input—is more, rather than less, regulation and enforcement of schools’ obligations to all parties under Title IX.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 Next > End >>

Page 1513 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN