ACLU takes a stand for eliminating due process and for kangaroo courts

The ACLU is saying that requiring fair trails for men accused of sexual assaults would "inflict significant harm" on and "dramatically undermine" the rights of alleged victims.

Prior to Betsy DeVos's new regulations colleges could take a woman's complaint and not let the man defend himself. He couldn't ask the woman questions, he couldn't have a public hearing, and he couldn't introduce evidence in his own defense.

There is a lot of debate about just what fraction of rape accusations are false.  Many say that only a few percent, 10 at the most, of accusations of rape are false.

But that number is based on the fraction of accusations where it can be proved that the accuser is lying; the accused has an iron clad alibi for example.  But the very nature of sexual interactions, they usually occur in private, means that in the vast majority of cases they are the woman's word against the man's.

Hence to declare that only those cases where it can be proven that the man is innocent are cases where the woman is lying is basically assuming that women never lie; ie that in all the other cases the woman isn't lying.

Given how unlikely it is for the man to have an alibi--since many cases of alleged rape involve both the man and the woman agreeing that sex occurred but disagreeing about consent-- if we can show that say 10% of the allegations are false then the real number of false claims must be much higher.

In fact a not improbably number is 44.9%.  The study that showed a 2 to 10% rate of false accusations using the very stringent have to prove the woman was lying rule showed that 44.9% of cases didn't proceed because of lack of evidence, lack of cooperation by the alleged victim, or the incident wasn't an assault.

Whatever the number the point is that the current system, the one that the ACLU is suing to preserve, simply assumes that women never lie which is clearly not supported by the facts.

The ACLU is constantly working to get murderers, child rapists, and drug dealers off on technical violations of the law, a court clerk accidentally entered the wrong date on a search warrant, but now they're saying that men accused of sexual assault can be tried and punished by universities without being able to even defend themselves.

Clearly the ACLU doesn't really care about the rule of law or due process.

The ACLU also unintentionally announced that charges of discrimination based on race, country of origin, or disabilities are also unjust.  Ria Tobacco Mar the director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project said:

The suit, she said, challenges Title IX regulations that will redefine sexual misconduct in narrower terms — as misconduct "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive" that it "denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity." (The definition comports with how the Supreme Court regards sexual harassment.)

But Tabacco Mar argued that it creates a "double standard" for how schools must treat sexual discrimination complaints compared to how they handle allegations of racial, national origin and disability discrimination.

Clearly there's something wrong if we're declaring that racial discrimination is occurring when it doesn't deny equal access to what goes on at a college or university.

How can there be discrimination without any impact?

It would appear that the ACLU is arguing against free speech when that speech has no direct adverse impact on an individual.