CA Supreme Court Declares Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct Not Guaranteed Right to Cross Examine Accusers
“ruled in July that the state’s private universities are not obligated to allow students accused of intimate partner violence to cross-examine their accusers”
This decision will likely affect men more than women. Anyone surprised?
Campus Reform reports:
California Supreme Court declares students accused of sexual misconduct cannot cross-examine accusers
The Supreme Court of California ruled in July that the state’s private universities are not obligated to allow students accused of intimate partner violence to cross-examine their accusers.
Associate Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the Court’s opinion that while universities should be giving accused students opportunities to respond to allegations prior to disciplinary action is administered, colleges need to make sure that alleged victims are not “retraumatized.”
However, Ken Tashjy, a higher education attorney at Suffolk University and Campus Reform Higher Education Fellow, told Campus Reform that these possible effects can be minimized by permitting accused students to present their questions through the disciplinary hearing officer rather than directly to the alleged victim.
“Denying an accused student facing allegations of sexual violence any right to question his/her accuser is fundamentally unfair and smacks of a presumption of honesty on the part of the alleged victim and of guilt against the accused student,” he stated.
Tashjy also added that “Because a university’s disciplinary process is generally considered an administrative action, as opposed to a criminal prosecution, the due process rights afforded in higher education disciplinary proceedings are much less than those afforded or required in a criminal case.”
The Court’s opinion cites Title IX as part of its grounds for the decision—which comes just over a year after Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona proposed a regulatory plan that would broaden its effects.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Leave from that state, folks and under no circumstances allow your children to attend college there.
Um, this case was about a right that exists only in California. In no other state would this case even have come to court in the first place, because in no other state do you have any right to “fair procedure” when dealing with a private entity. It’s only in CA that you do have such a right, and the only question is how much does that require. It’s always been clear that this right is not as expansive as the right to due process that you have against government entities; now we know a little more about where the line is.
Due process? We don’t need no stinking due process!
There is NO right to due process when dealing with a private entity. That right does not exist. You are not entitled to due process when your boss wants to fire you, when a store wants to ban you, or when a school wants to expel you. Anywhere but CA you would have no rights at all; in CA you do have a right to “fair procedure”, which is why the court had to decide whether that includes the right to cross-examine witnesses. Now we know it doesn’t.
You are correct.
However, those entities are still subject to civil statutes, for better or worse. There is still grounds to sue these places if they screw it up, so they need to tread carefully.
I think 60% of the college population is already female. Decisions such as these might push the female percentage even higher.
American colleges aren’t going to be happy when companies who need competent engineers bypass their lightweight graduates and go directly to mikeroweWORKS.
“Because a university’s disciplinary process is generally considered an administrative action, as opposed to a criminal prosecution, the due process rights afforded in higher education disciplinary proceedings are much less than those afforded or required in a criminal case.”
So what avenue is there for a defendant to declare, “Fuck this clownshow, see you in actual court?”
On what grounds? But sure, if you have grounds to sue, perhaps for breach of contract or defamation, go for it. Nothing in this decision stops you. This was entirely about the right that CA law (and that of no other state) gives you to be treated fairly by private entities.
It’s not the same. I’ve participated in those kinds of hearings–the hearing officer can decide whether to ask the question or not, and if he or she doesn’t think it’s relevant, the question isn’t asked. It’s better than nothing, but not by much
Naturally, in California questions regarding a woman’s veracity are not relevant.
“The toxic male will remain silent or it gets the hose again.”
California. Of course. TY, Lord, that i don’t live there.
.
And yet CA is the only state that gives you some right to fair procedure from a private entity. Only in CA could this plaintiff have sued in the first place, and had some hope of winning.
What ever happened to fair trials?
Nothing happened to fair trials. This is not about a trial of any kind. This is about a private procedure that a business holds for its own internal purposes. It has no power to impose any criminal or civil penalty, all it can do is decide not to do business with you any more. Everywhere except CA, you have no rights whatsoever in such a proceeding. You aren’t even entitled to be notified that it is happening; you can simply be informed that the business has received allegations against you and has decided that it no longer wants you as a customer or employee. CA is the only state that gives you a right to “fair procedure”, which is why this person could sue and argue that the procedure he got wasn’t fair. The court decided that it was fair enough.
It has always been clear, ever since the CA courts created this right in the first place, that “fair procedure” is not the same as the “due process” that is required at criminal trials.