Image 01 Image 03

U. Michigan Slammed for Requiring Students to Cross Examine Each Other in Campus Rape Cases

U. Michigan Slammed for Requiring Students to Cross Examine Each Other in Campus Rape Cases

“facing blowback from both pro-accuser and due-process advocates”

It’s astounding that they did this. It had bad idea written all over it.

The College Fix reports:

University under fire for requiring students to cross-examine each other in campus rape cases

When an appeals court told the University of Michigan last year that it must allow cross-examination in sexual-misconduct proceedings, the judges gave the taxpayer-funded institution two options.

It could let the student parties cross-examine each other, which would be cheaper but could subject students to “further harm or harassment.” Or it could let their “agents” handle cross-examination, most likely lawyers, and either pay for representation itself or let students hire their own lawyers.

The university chose the cheaper option.

UMich is facing blowback from both pro-accuser and due-process advocates for implementing an interim policy that is considered even worse than the process struck down by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The interim policy, now eight months old, only allows cross-examination in sexual-misconduct proceedings if it is performed by the accusing and accused student – a situation the 6th Circuit was reluctant to endorse.

The change caught the attention of the ACLU’s Michigan affiliate and its national Women’s Rights Project, which penned a joint letter to the university Thursday.

They called on administrators to change this process so that “trained representatives” can conduct cross-examination, instead of accusers and accused students themselves.

A spokesperson for UMich told The College Fix it was continuing to ban lawyers from representing students out of concern that the parties couldn’t afford the same level of representation.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The ACLU has forfeited any influence they might have had in this area because they came out AGAINST due process for college students.

I agree with the ACLU in this case, that representatives of the parties should be the ones doing the questioning. Still, the ACLU should stay out of this because they have abdicated their responsibility to stand up for fair hearings with due process.

Headline is misleading. The U is NOT requiring students to cross-examine each other; it is ALLOWING students to cross-examine.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Geologist. | September 12, 2019 at 8:29 am

    And can one or the other refuse without compromising their claim/defense?

    It’s still odd as implemented. Truthfully, schools are in a no-win situation. Repeal of title IX is the only way to fix this with a better solution.

They have a law school right? Why not have the legal clinic there provide pro-bono attorneys in training?

The only thing more dangerous than a 3rd year medical student is a first year law student. 😉

At what point in time did colleges and universities become constitutional finders of facts in criminal cases? I don’t believe that I can find any reference in the Constitution of the United States (or any stste constitution, for that matter) listing unelected college administrators as part of the Judicial branch of the Government.

Every “State” has laws on the books reguarding sexual assault, placing the responsibility for in investigating and prosecuting such crimes squarely in the government’s hands. So why are the ststes abdicating their constitutional responsibilities?

The ABA ‘temporarily’ tabled ‘resolution 114’ which would have made ‘affirmative consent’ a part of the criminal code, revoking men’s rights under The Constitution to presumption of innocence and due process. But don’t worry my friends, for feminists will simply work harder to destroy men through their cucked state husbandry. They’ve been amazingly successful so far. There’s no reason to think that’ll change. Men must be brought to heel.