To promote due process, some college disciplinary systems recognize a strong presumption of innocence, requiring clear-and-convincing evidence of guilt for discipline. That practice is now called into question by a recent Education Department letter that ignores a Supreme Court decision and federal appeals court rulings to the contrary.
In an April 4 “Dear Colleague” letter, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) claims that schools cannot use a clear-and-convincing standard of proof typical in school disciplinary procedures for sexual harassment cases: “A school’s grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.” See Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence Background, Summary and Fast Facts. “Preponderance of the evidence” means that if a school thinks there is as little as a 50.001% chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must be disciplined.
To satisfy this OCR requirement, schools that have long used a clear-and-convincing standard in disciplinary cases would have to suddenly create a special exception for sexual harassment and discrimination cases, giving people accused of such offenses less due process than they would otherwise receive. This would be a major departure from existing practice for schools, like Harvard Law School. Harvard’s “Policy and Guidelines Related to Sexual Harassment,” adopted by faculty vote in April 1995, contains the following provision: “Burden of proof: Formal disciplinary sanctions shall be imposed only upon clear and convincing evidence.” The Education Department’s rule also conflicts with faculty collective bargaining agreements mandating a clear-and-convincing standard.
The Education Department’s claim that complainants have a right to demand discipline whenever the evidence ever-so-slightly favors them is at odds with the Supreme Court’s Davis decision, which spelled out when sexual harassment in the schools violates the federal civil rights statutes that OCR is charged with enforcing. (See Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).)
Pres. Obama has made expanding U.S. exports a centerpiece of his economic plan. In his January State of the Union Address, he noted that “95% of the world’s customers and fastest-growing markets are beyond our borders” and that export-related jobs “pay 15% more than average.” At a time when jobs are in short supply, he later said, “building exports is an imperative.”
So naturally, he’s done everything possible to ease passage of the Colombia Free Trade Pact, which the Bush Administration negotiated and the then-Democrat controlled Congress battled up. Right? Wrong.
As I write in Investor’s Business Daily, the Pact is lopsided towards the U.S. in that Colombia’s exports to us are already tariff-free, while our products sent there carry duties of up to 25 percent — an estimated $3.2 billion total since the agreement was reached.
Those tariffs would disappear and, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, expand opportunities for a broad array of U.S. sectors, increase our gross domestic product by about $2.5 billion, lower our massive trade deficit and create J-O-B-S.
CEI Weekly is a compilation of articles and blog posts from CEI’s fellows and associates sent out via e-mail every Friday. Also included in the weekly newsletter is a brief description of CEI’s weekly podcast and a feature on a major CEI breakthrough made during the week. To sign up for CEI Weekly, go to http://cei.org/newsletters. CEI Weekly April 8, 2011 >>Featured Story
Congressman Paul Ryan released his budget proposal on Tuesday morning, to mixed reviews. CEI Vice President Iain Murray praised Ryan for his proposed spending cuts, which would cut trillions from America’s budget; however, Murray pointed out that spending reform will only go so far toward cutting the cost of government if it isn’t accompanied by true and serious regulatory reform. Read Iain Murray’s blog post response to Paul Ryan’s budget here.
Federal Communications Commission passes new data roaming rule: “Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new data roaming rule Thursday for wireless broadband carriers designed to drive competition in a market that is currently dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless.”
Judge in Oracle-Google cases gets a lesson in Java: “Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave the judge overseeing their Java patent dispute a tutorial on Wednesday that underscored the complexity of the case between the two companies.”
FCC requires data-roaming agreements: “The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to require mobile carriers to enter into data-roaming agreements with competitors, despite objections that the agency doesn’t have the authority to enforce the pacts.”
Georgia woman cuts off web access to whole of Armenia: “An elderly Georgian woman was scavenging for copper to sell as scrap when she accidentally sliced through an underground cable and cut off internet services to all of neighbouring Armenia, it emerged on Wednesday.”
US to use Facebook, Twitter to issue terror alerts: “Terror alerts from the government will soon have just two levels of warnings — elevated and imminent — and those will be relayed to the public only under certain circumstances. Color codes are out; Facebook and Twitter will sometimes be in, according to a Homeland Security draft obtained by The Associated Press.”
Two weeks ago, I wrote a post blasting 17 Republican senators who voted last year for Dodd-Frank’s Durbin Amendment, which puts below-cost price controls on what credit unions and banks can charge retailers for processing debit card transactions.
Now it’s time for equal time. Here is my response to Thursday’s New York Timescolumn by Simon Johnson, a leading progressive economist, who I argue is not very progressive in defending big retailers’ statist and anti-consumer perogatives.
The good news is that prominent voices on the left and right are getting wise to this retailer ripoff. These include Dodd-Frank author Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has now called for this specific section to be repealed, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the incoming Democratic National Committee Chair. And on the center-right, leaders of 33 groups — from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Americans for Tax Reform to the Christian Coalition of America — have signed a letter supporting bipartisan bills to delay the Durbin Amendment. Smart figures on both sides are appalled by the government intervening with price controls that put more money in the pockets of big retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot at the cost of free checking and reward points for consumers.
For the second day in a row, I’m complaining about The Washington Post. Front page, center today — a giant color photo of a child at the National Zoo, gleeful about seeing Giant Pandas. “Shutdown Would Be Felt Far and Wide,” blares the headline beside the gratuitous photo. You must understand, people wielding machetes will be roaming the streets of America, locusts will plague every home, taxpayer-funded Blackberrys for government employees may be shut off!!! Well, the Blackberry part may be true. But that gets to my point. The Washington Post wants us to panic, I think.
The paper is freaking out over the prospects of, wait for it, a shutdown of the Washington Monument, the Cherry Blossom Parade, and national parks. Oh, and there’s the Blackberry conundrum and the possible closing of the historic Ford’s Theater. Now, I am not thrilled about the prospect of these inconveniences. I’m sure loads of tourists have travel plans to D.C. this month and will not be pleased, either. But, two sections over, over on the the WaPo Style section, there’s a helpful article about “10 Things Tourists Can Do — Without Their Uncle Sam.” Whew! Before reading the Style section, one might have thought life as we know it would come to an end. It turns out there are alternatives to ogling pandas at the zoo.
Pandora Mobile App Transmits Gobs Of Personal Data: “A popular free mobile application from online music service Pandora.com that is the subject of a Grand Jury investigation into loose data privacy practices in the mobile application market confirms that the application silently sends reams of sensitive data to advertisers.”
Google to revamp YouTube with ‘channels’: “Google Inc. is working on a major overhaul of YouTube as it tries to position itself for the rise of televisions that let people watch online video in their living rooms, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Georgia woman cuts off web access to whole of Armenia: “An elderly Georgian woman was scavenging for copper to sell as scrap when she accidentally sliced through an underground cable and cut off internet services to all of neighbouring Armenia, it emerged on Wednesday.”
A Washington Post reporter today heaped scorn on “Extreme Couponing,” a TLC show about people who go to great extremes to clip and use coupons. (See: In ‘Couponing,’ shoppers with a strange compulsion.) “Deeply disturbing,” Hank Stuever called it, and then went on a recurring sanctimonious rant about how amassing grocery store products at a discount, from food to household cleaners, offended him. What bearing does extreme couponing by other people have on Hank Steuver’s life? None that I can see. So what’s his problem?
“Repulsion may or may not be the show’s ultimate intent, but it stirs up unsettling and complex thoughts, not only about the sins of gluttony and pride, but also about the production and consumption of cheap, processed food. There’s also something to snack on for those of us fretting over an ever-widening wealth gap amid dwindling resources. “Extreme Couponing” — which has become a series after a successful special aired late last year — is a modern Cassandra’s sociological fever dream, a harbinger of how closely we teeter on the edge of economic anarchy.”
ReasonTV just produced an eye-opening video regarding how easily politicians can utilize rhetoric to create economically absurd policies. In the video below, Bernie Sanders works to make sure items sold in the Smithsonian Institution’s gift shop are made in America. Sanders clearly ignores the negative consequences of his ideas, or he doesn’t care. Either way, it is bad economically for all Americans as a whole. Enjoy the video below.
Nation: Wine shipping is once again being threatened by federal legislation threatening to overturn Supreme Court decisions that clearly made it illegal for states to discriminate against out-of-state alcohol producers. Last year’s Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act (CARE Act) is now going by HR 1161, the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act; if it passes, states will be allowed to ban or seriously affect wine producers’ ability to ship their product directly to their consumers.
Alaska: Republican Rep. Bob Lynn of Alaska is making the case that if men and women are old enough to join the military and risk their lives defending this country, then they ought to be respected as responsible enough adults to drink alcohol. If Lynn’s bill passes, anyone with a military I.D. will be legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the state. Currently, members of the military serving overseas are allowed to drink, depending on the minimum drink age in that country and if their leaders allow them. While many agree with Lynn’s basic idea, the proposal is a tough sell considering that the state would lose 10 percent of their federal highway funding (as stipulated by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984). For Alaska, that would amount to around $50 million a year.
Georgia: In Statesboro, GA, a small town (less than 30,000 residents) about an hour’s drive from Savannah, will be officially become “dry” on May 1. While the county was partially dry before, lawmakers this time around mean serious business — or rather serious lack of business; all bars in the town will close, all retail supplies of liquor will be disposed of, and all college dorm rooms “will be thoroughly inspected to be sure that all alcohol is out of the city.” Kids, it might be time to put in that transfer request (and by “kids,” I mean any resident of the city since everyone is being treated like children).
Hawaii: At a state House Finance Committee hearing, restaurant owners, distributors, and consumers packed the room to say “no mahalo” to a proposal to raise the tax on beer, wine, and spirits by 20 percent on Monday. During the hearing on Senate Bill 741, many testified that the increased costs would result in less economic activity and lost jobs, but the Aloha State is facing a $200 million budget deficit for the next year and more than a billion dollar deficit over two years.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 