ACCORDING TO THE OCCASIONALLY HONEST New York Times – infamous for its “anonymous” op ed letters – Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is overhauling regulations governing Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
An analysis by the Education Department has found that its proposed new rules for handling allegations of sexual misconduct on campus would substantially decrease the number of investigations by colleges and school districts into complaints of sexual harassment, assault and rape, and save educational institutions millions of dollars over the next decade.
The analysis was conducted to study the effect of proposals drawn up by Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, to overhaul regulations governing Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
The proposed regulations, which have not been officially published but were previously reported on by The New York Times, seek to bolster the rights of students accused of sexual harassment, reduce liability for institutions and require schools to provide more support to victims.
According to the NY Times article, the approximately 6,000 universities and colleges in the U.S. would save about US$19 million by reducing the number of 1.18 sexual harassment investigations from 1.8 a year per college or university to 0.72 per year under the proposed rules.
The 17,000 U.S. elementary and secondary school districts could save US$54 million by reducing the number of investigations from 3.23 per year to 1.61 per school per year.
It’s all about money
The department officials believe the suggested modifications would drive down the bulk of the complaints, and generate savings to the tune of $19 million for colleges and universities and $54 million for school districts. The entire regulation, the department projected, would save $327.7 million to $408.9 million over the next decade.
But at what cost?
According to Elizabeth Hill, a spokeswoman for the department, the regulation “is still under development, and therefore it’s too early to speculate the cost of a new rule.”
That, unfortunately, is only the DOLLAR cost.
Apparently not worthy of consideration is the physical and mental health costs associated with sexual misconduct.
It costs local and state governments thousands of dollars a year just trying to remove drunk drivers from the streets – and judges regularly let the drunks off with a “Shame on you.” How many innocent people are maimed or murdered by these drunk drives, even counting only recidivists. Should police ignore drunk drivers to save a few dollars at the cost of lives?
The proposed rules would require a victim to file a formal complaint “with an authority figure” before the institution would be obliged to investigate an incident.
The proposal also would absolve schools – as perhaps it properly should – of activities off campus. Off campus complaints should, in my opinion, be taken to the police or district attorney.
Allowing the schools to determine if an incident can be resolved via an “informal” action – however that is defined – seems to be taking the crime out of a blatantly criminal action.
It seems to me that reducing school responsibilities only opens the school, its personnel, and the students to more frustrated, potentially dangerous reactions to ignored, or perceived as ignored, attacks on personal dignity.
Sources
1. http://tinyurl.com/y99laqze
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment