breaking, Headlines, News, Opinion, Reason, syndicated

Fifty Years After Titicut Follies, Frederick Wiseman Collects an Oscar

The big news from the Oscars last night was the snafu at the evening’s end, when the presenters accidentally announced the wrong winner for Best Picture. But the night before that, at the Saturday ceremony where they handed out honorary Oscars, another moment worth noting slipped by: An Oscar statuette went to the man who directed the only movie in U.S. history to be banned for reasons other than obscenity or national security. The filmmaker in question was Frederick Wiseman, and the film that was banned is Titicut Follies, a 1967 documentary about an asylum for the criminally insane. The state of Massachusetts attempted to suppress the picture on the grounds that by exposing the inmates’ miserable conditions, Wiseman was violating the prisoners’ privacy.

Many of Wiseman’s best-known pictures look at life in intensely bureaucratic or hierarchical institutions—besides Titicut Follies, there’s High School, Hospital, Basic Training, Juvenile Court, and Welfare, among others—but he has also covered topics ranging from a small town in Maine to a department store. I interviewed him for Reason when Titicut turned 40, and we discussed both his free speech case and the career it kicked off. Here’s an excerpt:

Reason: There’s a recent trend toward documentaries in which the filmmaker makes himself a part of the action. Obviously that’s very different from your style. Sicko and Hospital are both about American health care, but their approaches are just poles apart.

Wiseman: Well, I haven’t seen Sicko, but generally speaking I’m not a fan of Michael Moore’s.

Reason: How come?

Wiseman: I think he’s an entertainer. I don’t think he’s interested in complexity.

I’m not against the filmmaker appearing in a film. I think some of the greatest documentaries I’ve ever seen have been made by a filmmaker who’s present in the film. I don’t know if you’ve seen any movies by Marcel Ophuls—The Sorrow and the Pity or Hotel Terminus. Ophuls is a great filmmaker because he’s a great interviewer and he has a very sharp and analytical mind. In the case of Michael Moore, I don’t see any particular filmmaking skills, and I think his point of view is extremely simplistic and self-serving.

One of my goals is always to deal with the ambiguity and complexity that I find in any subject. Even the simplest human act can be subject to multiple interpretations or have multiple causes. In Titicut Follies, for example, there are scenes where you see a guard or a doctor or a social worker being cruel to an inmate. But there are other situations where they’re being kind. Some of them are both kind and cruel, if not simultaneously then serially.

Reason: You’ve said Titicut Follies is more didactic than your later films. Are there sequences you wish you had done differently?

Wiseman: Yeah. The best example is the forced feeding. I show too heavy an editorial hand in that sequence. Instead of intercutting it with the guy being made up for his funeral, it would have been better if I’d shown the forced feeding as a separate sequence, and then had some intervening sequences, and then shown him being made up for his burial later and cutting it in such a way that you recognize that it’s the same person.

I think the way I did it forces the issue of whether the guy is treated better in death than in life. Whereas if I did it the way I just described, the viewer could have come to that conclusion instead of having it forced on him.

To read the whole interview, go here. If you just want to see the wrong movie get called for Best Picture, go here. (But really, doesn’t the wrong movie almost always win Best Picture? This time they were just a bit more upfront about it.)

Read More on Reason

Headlines, media, News, Politics, RT-USA, syndicated, World News, ximgx

Don’t blame Flynn leaks on Obama admin – Ex-CIA chief Brennan

Preview Former CIA Director John Brennan has denied he is the source of intelligence leaks about the Trump administration, and stressed the importance of a bipartisan investigation into reports of Trump’s ties to Russia.

Read Full Article at

Original Source Link:

breaking, Headlines, News, Opinion, Reason, syndicated

Foreign Policy Confusion in the Age of Trump

Two panels on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) dramatically underscore the tensions over foreign policy among conservatives in the Donald Trump era.

The first was conversation on foreign policy realism sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute (CKI) and the second was a panel on “China’s expansion.” There were a number of other panels and addresses related to foreign policy during the conservative conference, mostly focused on threats abroad, like North Korea, China, and Russia, and threats at home (from abroad), but rarely advocating constraint. (Disclosure: Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website, receives support from CKI and David Koch sits on its board of trustees).

Addressing the main hall earlier in the day on Friday, John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, defined a conservative foreign policy as one that addressed “foreign threats and ideologies and protecting American interests around the world.” The phrase “American interests” (or “national security interests”) in that statement, and statements like it, is doing a lot of work in the definition because it remains mostly undefined and therefore malleable to whatever particular agenda whoever is using it wants to advance.

At the CKI conversation, where American Conservative‘s Daniel McCarthy interviewed CKI Vice President of Research & Policy William Ruger, Ruger explained that within the context of foreign policy realism, national interests are “narrowly defined,” largely around territorial integrity. Ruger also explained that there wasn’t really such a thing as conservative foreign policy. Instead, “there are foreign policies that fit for a time, a place, a threat environment that make sense to secure a state.”

Ruger highlighted the compatibility between foreign policy realism and conservatism, saying that contemporary foreign policy suffered from Friedrich Hayek’s knowledge problem and and ignored constraints like human nature, balance of power, geography, and even unknown unknowns, relying instead on a hubris exemplified by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albrights’s statement that the U.S. stands taller and can “see further” than other countries (it can’t). “Conservatives should recognize those things,” Ruger told the audience. “because they’re fundamentally a part of realism and conservative principles.”

Ruger stressed that “isolationism and the foreign policy of the Weekly Standard” were not the only options. “There are many options between those two.” Ruger also rejected the idea that realist foreign policy was isolationist, pointing out that it relied on free trade, because of the understanding that economic power is tied to military power, and that realism would also “suggest certain views about grand strategy—the use of military power to secure our ends—but it does not say that we have to stick our head in the hands.”

“The United States should stand up in its diplomacy and rhetoric for values of democracy and liberties,” Ruger added. It should not, he explained, seek out monsters abroad to slay, pointing out that America’s founders recognized that foreign policies of meddling had the effect of threatening the experiment of liberty at home, in part by “giving up the advantages of the new world [and the constraint of geography] by getting embroiled in the old.” War, the founders understood, “would make us more like those old, corrupt European countries, and less the glorious city on a hill.”

“The United States used to have a more realist foreign policy,” Ruger explained, “From Washington’s farewell address to 1898 and the Spanish-American war, the U.S. pursued a very restrained, very realist, very prudentialist foreign policy. The United States eschewed general peacetime alliances, and did not intervene aggressively abroad, particularly for liberal causes.” He pointed out the U.S. declined to get involved in the European revolutions of the late 18th century, because its leaders “differentiated between those things that were necessary for America’s safety, and those that were unnecessary or even harmful.”

Interventionist foreign policy put “conservative principles at stake,” Ruger noted, stressing that it did not mean that any conservative should be “against all war period—the U.S. has to defend itself,” but that it was crucial to understand there are unintended consequences.

“Realism is about the use of military power and support for liberalization and free trade,” Ruger explained. “That’s very different from spreading democracy or liberalism through the bayonet or the sword. We aren’t even making the world safer for the people we say that we are helping.” Ruger pointed to Libya as a prime example of the U.S. intervening in a foreign country and leaving it far worse off than it was before, adding that the Iraq war was also a failure (Ruger, who served in Afghanistan, points to the 2001 invasion as an example of a war justified under a realist foreign policy because of the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban’s support for and sheltering of Al-Qaeda).

“The idealism you see in liberal internationalism and neoconservatism doesn’t take the world as it is,” Ruger pointed out, even though outside of foreign policy such a view is often a conservative one. Ruger pointed out that had President Reagan made the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing in today’s political climate, he would be called a surrenderer.

“War is the health of the state, war grows budgets, war grows government, war grows the surveillance state, war threatens liberty,” Ruger stressed. “We have to make sure it’s absolutely necessary for our safety.”

“7,000 Americans were killed since 9/11 in our wars, that’s a consequences, that’s a cost we have to work through,” Ruger said. “We have to be clear-eyed about what those costs (of war) are.”

Addressing the issue of NATO, the alliance President Trump questioned the fairness and usefulness of on the campaign trail, Ruger explained that one had to “look at alliances not in a kind of ideological fashion but in a sense of do these alliances help make us safer. Are they necessary for our security, relative to the costs (not just manpower and budgetary) but also the potential of being dragged into a war, or have an ally act in a way that provokes war?”

Ruger said he had a hard time seeing how NATO expansion makes America safer. “Sometimes you can stimulate conflicts you don’t intend.” Ruger acknowledged there were many reasons NATO made sense,. “Does it make sense now?” Ruger asked. “We ought to have a real conversation about that, because they commit us potentially to war.”

Ruger discussed illiberal regimes abroad, including Russia and China, and how the U.S. ought to relate to them. “U.S. foreign policy should be aimed at making America safer,” Ruger explained. “Sometimes that means that you have to tolerate other states doing things internally that we don’t love… because there’s nothing we can do about it.” The U.S. had to be “kind of hardheaded” about the limits of the power to effect regime change.

“A realist approach isn’t a naive or pacifist approach,” Ruger stressed. “We don’t have to love Russia or Putin… but what could the United States have done [over Crimea]? Were we supposed to fight a war to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine, which is not an ally of the United States?”

Ruger highlighted the importance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, and that it shouldn’t be undervalued. “That should give us some confidence that it would have to be a very, very foolhardy and irrational set of leaders in another country” to threaten the U.S. Ruger said it was important to talk about modernizing nuclear capabilities, including asking questions like whether all three legs of the nuclear trident were necessary. “Maybe not,” he offered, pointing out that China has an effective nuclear deterrent with a far smaller nuclear arsenal. The most important part, according to Ruger, was demonstrating that the U.S. has the capacity and the credibility on its nuclear arsenal, and that it has the commitments that “sends the signal to the world, if you do X, then this could happen to you.” Ruger pointed to the role of nuclear proliferation and deterrence in India and Pakistan had as a “pacifying effect in those relations.”

Asked about China’s expansion, a fear that ran through a number of the CPAC events, Ruger suggested that the U.S. should “try to command the global commons… what that means is that the United States should have a robust blue water navy, it should be able to do presence patrols in key areas in the world,” and make sure that sea lanes of vital trade routes are open. “We should be able to have protection of government systems from cyberattacks,” he added. “We should be sure we’re very alive to new challenges.”

Neverthless, given all that, Ruger continued that “in some cases, we don’t have to worry so much about China threatening our blue water capability. China is a rising power but still not a peer competitor, and certainly not a peer competitor in open water.”

“We have a lot of ability to cramp the style of China if it tried to break out,” Ruger explained, “there are also other powers in the region that want” to be a balance to China.

“It’s not as if China’s course is obvious,” Ruger continued. “The progress and the rate of change does not predict that it will go on forever. They’re not going to grow at the same economic rate forever.” Ruger recalled a line by President Calvin Coolidge that the thing to remember when looking to deal with 10 problems coming down the road is that “you don’t have to deal with all 10 at once—nine could end up in the ditch.”

“You don’t want to undermine our economy today,” Ruger warned, “in case China does become a peer competitor in the future.” Less government spending now, then, Ruger explained, could help make a necessary build up in the future possible. Ruger stressed that increased military spending did not mean increased defense, and told conservatives they ought to stop treating the military bureaucracy as an “honorary member of the private sector,” saying it was prone to the same problems any other part of the government is.

“Let’s try to spend the money we do allocate better before we spend more,” Ruger offered, suggesting that that was something the American people would support. He pointed to polling by CKI on military defense spending that showed the public in general underestimating how much the U.S. spends on defense but believing that that low-ball amount was sufficient. “We’re not, as conservatives, treating the Defense Department the way we treat other government spending,” Ruger noted. “Terrorism is a threat, it’s not the same kind of threat the Soviet Union posed during the Cold War.” Some of the best counterterrorism, Ruger explained, is “done through policing and police cooperation,” not regime change and/or large-footprint military excursions.

Ruger was also asked about Iran, another country whose threat ran through other events at CPAC. Bolton called on Trump to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal—the president was one of a few Republican candidates who declined to tear up the deal on day one of his administration, and his defense secretary, James Mattis, has expressed support in the U.S. continuing to make a good-faith effort to honor the deal so long as Iran does. The questioner pointed out Iran was a “theocratic regime,” and in his answer Ruger stressed that that “doesn’t necessarily matter for what the U.S. should do” because it “can’t just deal with countries that look like” the United States. “We shouldn’t think of the regime type of another state” to determine how to deal with that state, Ruger explained. “The American national interest is territorial integrity. That should be number one.”

Ruger warned about the “fatal conceit” in contemporary U.S. foreign policy that “you can control the world and achieve the results” you want, and pointed out that it was necessary in order to defend and protect the country.

“The United States is the greatest country in the world,” Ruger told the audience, “but it doesn’t mean we’re responsible for every good or bad thing that happens in the world.”

Earlier in the day, John Bolton boasted that the U.S. had created its “own world order,” saying the U.S. had to fight ISIS in a way that would not only destroy them but keep Iran from taking advantage of that. “Our worldview rests on the exceptionalism of America,” Bolton told the crowd in the main hall, “faced often with a hostile world that neither understands nor appreciates what makes America different. We are not looking to be a part of an international world order.” Bolton and his fellow-travelers just want to shape it. Ruger’s want to engage the countries of the world where it works, but avoid engagements that end up putting America’s homeland at greater risk. Bolton echoed another fear common at CPAC, about globalists looking to tell the U.S. want to do. But foreign policy realism—which focuses on America’s national interests in a narrow way and sees the rest of the world as full of potential partners—not as one giant playground for the U.S. to reshape in its image—is the surest way to protect the country from bulwarking. A world in which you don’t meddle will likely not be as interested in meddling with you.

Read More on Reason

breaking, Headlines, News, Opinion, Reason, syndicated

Sean Spicer Checking Cellphones for Leakers, Cockfighting Ring Busted in Newark, Moonlight Wins Best Picture: A.M. Links

  • President Trump is now expected to sign a new travel ban executive order on Wednesday. White House Press Secretary and Communications Director Sean Spicer is reportedly checking staffers’ cellphones in search of leakers. Philip Bilden withdrew from consideration as navy secretary. A White House spokesperson said it’s likely the president will honor a request for an investigation by the father of the Navy SEAL killed in an operation in Yemen.
  • Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and chose his opponent Michigan Rep. Keith Ellison as deputy. President Trump took to Twitter to call the race rigged.
  • The FBI interviewed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as part of a corruption probe.
  • Two men were charged in Newark after police busted a massive cockfighting ring.
  • Moonlight won Best Picture at the Academy Awards last night, with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty first mistakenly announced that La La Land won after receiving the wrong envelope. Host Jimmy Kimmel was upset President Trump didn’t livetweet the ceremony.
  • Producers of Dancing With the Stars reportedly pursued Hillary Clinton to appear on the show, as a dancing star.

Read More on Reason

breaking, Headlines, News, Opinion, Reason, syndicated

Sean Spicer Checking Cellphones for Leakers, Cockfighting Ring Busted in Newark, Moonlight Wins Best Picture: A.M. Links

  • President Trump is now expected to sign a new travel ban executive order on Wednesday. White House Press Secretary and Communications Director Sean Spicer is reportedly checking staffers’ cellphones in search of leakers. Philip Bilden withdrew from consideration as navy secretary. A White House spokesperson said it’s likely the president will honor a request for an investigation by the father of the Navy SEAL killed in an operation in Yemen.
  • Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and chose his opponent Michigan Rep. Keith Ellison as deputy. President Trump took to Twitter to call the race rigged.
  • The FBI interviewed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as part of a corruption probe.
  • Two men were charged in Newark after police busted a massive cockfighting ring.
  • Moonlight won Best Picture at the Academy Awards last night, with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty first mistakenly announced that La La Land won after receiving the wrong envelope. Host Jimmy Kimmel was upset President Trump didn’t livetweet the ceremony.
  • Producers of Dancing With the Stars reportedly pursued Hillary Clinton to appear on the show, as a dancing star.

Read More on Reason

breaking, Headlines, News, Opinion, Reason, syndicated

Interview: This Male Student Was Expelled for Raping His Girlfriend Even Though She Said He Did Nothing Wrong

NealThere was one moment during Colorado State University-Pueblo’s investigation into sophomore Grant Neal—an athlete accused, and eventually expelled, for sexually assaulting his girlfriend—that made Neal realized he was about to be railroaded.

Neal’s girlfriend, Jane Doe, never accused him of wrongdoing, and famously stated, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” But CSU-Pueblo initiated an inquiry into their forbidden relationship, which violated an informal rule about physical trainers dating athletes. The university prohibited them from contacting one another during the course of the investigation, but Doe paid little heed to the no-contact order and sent Neal several supportive messages.

Neal, though, was worried her messages could get him in even more trouble, so he promptly informed Roosevelt Wilson, the university official charged with investigating the matter under Title IX—the federal state prohibiting sex-based inequality at institutions of higher education.

“it really hit me after the second meeting I had with the Title IX officer, Roosevelt Wilson,” Neal recalled during an interview with Reason.

Neal asked Wilson what he should do about the fact that Doe was still texting him.

“I said, well, she’s snapchatted me, what do you want me to do? He told me to open [the snapchat messages] and take a screenshot and send them to him, so I did that.”

This turned out to be bad advice.

“[Roosevelt’s] email response back to me was, you could be potentially be in complication with your no contact order for opening the snapchats that she sent you.

In other words, the man in charge of investigating whether Neal had raped a woman—a woman who emphatically stated that Neal had not done so—first told Neal to open emails from his girlfriend, and later told him he could be disciplined for opening them.

“That’s when I immediately knew,” said Neal. “That’s when I really knew that the situation was above my control.”

This was just one of many injustices perpetrated against Neal by his university. After denying Neal any meaningful way to demonstrate his innocence, CSU-Pueblo effectively ended his career, cancelling out his scholarships and opportunities to play football and pursue a wrestling career.

“One day I woke up and I had all my dreams in front of me and I was doing very well academically and on the football field, and then I just got a wrestling scholarship, and for that to be yanked away from me for no justifiable reason… that’s hard to cope with,” said Neal.

More than a year after being expelled, Neal has finally achieved a victory of sorts: a magistrate ruled just last week that his pending lawsuit against CSU-Pueblo should not be dismissed. Neal has filed suit against the university and its board of regents, as well as the federal Education Department. His lawsuit argues that CSU-Pueblo violated his due process rights, in part because of Title IX guidance from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The magistrate was not persuaded that OCR was to blame for Neal’s situation and recommended dismissing his complaint against the feds. But the magistrate left room for him to amend this aspect of his lawsuit, and left intact his due process case against CSU-Pueblo.

When it comes to sexual assault allegations on college campuses, there are two sides to every story. Usually.

Neal’s case is unique in that Doe, the alleged, victim never made a complaint, and denied that Neal had done anything deserving of punishment.

Instead, a third party—who was an acquaintance of Doe’s—made the complaint. This person, a female student and trainer, spotted a hickey on Doe’s neck and surmised that she had been assaulted by Neal. Doe texted Neal to let him know he was likely to be questioned by university officials.

At the time, Neal had no idea his life was about to be made a living hell. In fact, he was worried Doe would be in trouble—for dating an athlete. When he went to meet up with Doe, he assumed he was going to “console” her.

“What happened then was she just seemed very visible upset so my immediate reaction was that she probably got kicked out of the athletic training program,” Neal says.

Instead, Doe began to explain to Neal that the other trainer had suggested to Dr. Richard Clark—director of the athletic training program—that Doe might have been assaulted by Clark. Clark immediately informed his wife, who was a CSU-Pueblo faculty member, and Wilson.

Doe attempted to put an end to the matter at once: Neal recorded her making the definitive statement, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped” to university officials. But no one cared. In the eyes of the university, it was not Doe’s place to determine whether she was a victim of sexual assault—that was Wilson’s job.

“I was just under the impression that there was a big mix-up and I didn’t understand the magnitude of the situation that I was really in at that time,” says Neal.

What followed was a mockery of due process. Roosevelt met with Neal and thrice accused him of raping Doe. At this point in time, no one had suggested to Doe that he should consult a lawyer, let alone inform him of the seriousness of his situation.

The investigation continued, even though Doe did not consider herself a victim of assault and was in fact interested in continuing her relationship with Neal. She even engaged in consensual sex with him the night after the Title IX investigation began.

Incidentally, this act was accidentally witnessed by one of Neal’s roommates, and he thought it should count as evidence in his favor. But Wilson declined to interview the roommate. Wilson went so far as to lecture Neal that it was his job—not Neal’s—to decide which witnesses were worth interviewing.

“[Wilson] would deem things evidence if he wanted to,” says Neal. “He didn’t allow me to call any witnesses in my favor.”

Since Wilson wasn’t interested in any opinion that contradicted his theory of what happened, his investigative report could reach only one conclusion, even if that report contradicted the opinions of both Neal and Doe. In early December of 2015, Wilson submitted his report to Jennifer DeLuna, CSU-Pueblo’s director of diversity and inclusion. Neal was given just 24 hours to make himself available to appear before DeLuna. This meeting was, in Neal’s view, a “sham.”

“It wasn’t actually a hearing at all,” says Neal. “I was allowed to have legal counsel there if I wanted to, but the legal counsel wasn’t allowed to counsel.”

This meeting represented Neal’s first opportunity to read the report and take stock of the charges against him, and the university’s evidence. He was not allowed to make a copy of the report—all he could do was try his best to commit it to memory.

Note that the report was not an exact transcript of Wilson’s conversations with relevant witnesses: it was merely Wilson’s recollection and summarization of those conversations. According to Neal, it contained numerous factual errors. For instance, the report cited the Clarks as claiming that Doe did not consent to sex with Neal. Neal says that’s a clear mistake: Doe did not consent to unprotected sex, but enthusiastically agreed to have sex with Neal after he put on a condom.

On December 18, DeLuna informed Neal that he would be suspended for sexual misconduct until Doe finished school. Neal’s lawsuit alleges that DeLuna’s decision contained further errors: it referred to Doe as the complainant, even though Doe never made any complaint against Neal.

Neal appealed the decision. His appeal was denied.

In the months that followed, it was difficult for Neal not to succumb to depression. He made several attempts to transfer schools, but was denied admission every time. His status as a sexual misconduct violator killed his chances.

“It’s one thing for someone to tell you that your dreams aren’t attainable but to have that written to you on multiple occasions and still have to apply and try, and still to keep going forward… I can’t even begin to describe the pain,” says Neal, beginning to choke up.

He became a nutrition specialist at GNC, and draws strength from his grandmother, who reminds him to “control the controllables.” He’s currently watching his friends prepare to graduate and pursue opportunities that are no longer available to him.

It’s an experience that would make anyone bitter, though Neal says he doesn’t hold Doe responsible. How could he, when she never complained?

“I blame Roosevelt Wilson for conducting a non-impartial investigation,” he says. “I blame the university for standing by and watch a miscarriage of justice happen. I blame Title IX and the Department of Education for profiling males in a certain manner, scaring universities into making decisions that aren’t necessarily just.”

Then there are the unsettling details. Neal, like so many male students disciplined as a result of Title IX investigations, is an athlete of color. And Doe, like so many alleged victims, is a white woman. Could racism have been a factor here? Neal doesn’t want to believe so—he hates to “assume the race card”—but finds it hard to ignore.

“I want to think that that’s not true but I wouldn’t put it past them,” he says. “It’s terrible, and black, white, Latino, I would not want this to happen to anybody. I wouldn’t wish this upon my worst enemy.”

Neal pauses.

“I wouldn’t wish this upon Roosevelt Wilson, who put me through this,” he says.”

Dozens of wrongfully punished students have brought lawsuits against universities. Neal’s is novel in that it seeks to hold the federal government responsible for eroding due process rights on campuses. At Reason and elsewhere, I have made the case that the Education Department’s Title IX guidance does not comport with basic principles of justice, and should be revised.

Unfortunately, it was this aspect of Neal’s lawsuit that the magistrate contested. The magistrate’s recommendation suggests that CSU-Pueblo’s treatment of Neal was so glaringly unfair, it might be a stretch to blame the government.

And yet OCR’s Title IX guidance is at the center of so much of the college war on due process. Universities are worried that they will lose federal funding if they do not obey the dictates of OCR, which requires the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard while discouraging cross-examination. This puts many accused students in a position where they are unable to prove their innocence, because they have been deprived of the means to do so.

“One rape on the campus is horrible and I will not stand for it whatsoever,” says Neal. “But then again, one false accusation does not solve the problem. I really feel like the Title IX proceedings and things like that are a band-aid solution to a bigger problem, and I feel like it’s not going to help anything.”

Read More on Reason

GuardianUK, Headlines, News, Politics, syndicated

Kansas shooting: Indian victim says attack does not reflect state’s ‘true spirit’

  • Alok Madasani says he wishes killing of his best friend was a dream
  • Tech worker deplores ‘senseless crime’ at vigil for Srinivas Kuchibotla

An Indian man who was shot and wounded at a bar in suburban Kansas City last week says he wished the killing of his best friend during the attack had all been a dream, but that the incident, apparently fueled by racism, “doesn’t reflect the true spirit of Kansas”.

Related: Kansas shooting: injured man says suspect asked victims about visas

Continue reading…

Original Source Link: