Towards the end of the last election, the fake news machine unleashed a torrent of allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump; at least 10 women came forward to say they were attacked by Trump. Now, because we do have independent as well as mainstream media, a bit of investigation quickly revealed most of the claims to be blatantly false, with only a few not obviously false.
Because there was no evidence whatsoever, none of the claims could even make it to even our slightly legitimate court system.
On campus, however, if Trump were accused in the exact same way, he would have been convicted in short order every single time, and every punishment our administration in higher education could have been inflicted upon him would have been inflicted, no appeal possible.
The reason for this is campuses can address crime, and anything else, on campus in their own way. The primary way is to set up a kangaroo court. I’ve served on these courts, and I promise the gentle reader, the only time the corruption wasn’t overwhelming was when incompetence eclipsed it.
The basic way how these courts work is simple enough. If a crime is alleged, or even a simple quibble over policy is made, then a court will be convened. Admin appoints a committee of whoever they want—it takes no imagination to see why these courts tend to rule the way admin wants them to rule. Often these committees are composed of faculty, or mostly faculty, but sometimes it’s all administration. Even when the conflict of interest isn’t blatant (though it often is), faculty are subject to threats and intimidation by admin if they don’t rule the way admin desires.
The committee then conducts an investigation. “Due process,” a joke on campus even under normal situations, is tossed quickly in sex cases. The committee can do whatever it wants before making a ruling. I’ve seen the committee destroy evidence, and then cite lack of evidence as justification for their ruling…it really is nuts just how much leeway the committee has.
Sex crimes are difficult criminal cases, particularly when both involved are of adult age. In the real world, these often degrade into “he said, she said” cases. This isn’t a problem in the kangaroo court system.
Faculty: “Aren’t a lawyer? I assumed that was why you’re teaching the law courses.”
Sleazy Committee Leader: “Yes. I’ll have you know I’ve been called as an expert witness on legal matters.”
Faculty: “So after the defendant rest his case, you had the “prosecutor” come in and present secret testimony that the defendant knew nothing about. While we were threatened by the Dean not to talk to the defendant, you encouraged us to have a Q&A with the prosecutor about the new evidence and anything else we wanted to talk about. Then we had to give our decision right after that secret meeting.”
Sleazy Committee Leader: “Yes. And?”
Faculty: “I really don’t think this is how a court should work. Are you sure you’re a lawyer and know this stuff?”
Sleazy Committee Leader: “You’re not being collegial, and I’m reporting you.”
–Even when a written complaint was submitted to admin regarding how this court was conducted (in response to the complaint of non-collegiality), and admission by all that that this was an accurate description, nothing was done and, to the best of my knowledge, the “legal expert” is still running the fiefdom.
In a sex crime on campus, you can’t even count on a “he said, she said” situation. The committee, if it chooses, can decide to only hear the “she” side of the story. I did what I could to have these things run fairly but, it’s a lost cause, as administrative power is absolute on campus.
Because of this corruptible and thus corrupt system, we have long running sex crimes on campus, by predators that can do whatever they want if they have administrative favor. I’ve covered this before, and it’s not just Penn State where it happens.
Trump, as president, is actually in a position to do something about this ridiculous situation, and if he’s aware of what would have happened to him if our system of justice, terrible as it is, worked like it does on campus, he’d be quite motivated to do so. A recent article on Reason considers this possibility:
The bizarre manner in which sexual assault disputes are investigated on college campuses could be overhauled now that Donald Trump has been elected president instead of Hillary Clinton.
“…many victims’ advocates are concerned that Trump’s Education Department will roll back the Office for Civil Rights’ enforcement of Title IX, which is largely responsible for the proliferation on campus kangaroo courts that deny fundamental due process to accused students.”
The real fun of the article is an actual lawyer looks at how ridiculously unfair the system is and it’s clear the lawyer has a hard time believing the system is so unfair, much less keeping his temper at the sight of so many atrocities committed under it.
Much as I said, the lawyer agrees Trump would not have survived in the kangaroo system:
“…the OCR has been overreaching. And at who’s agenda, or at who’s behest? Because the public, the American people, elected a president who under any type of measure by which the OCR is acting right now, he would been found responsible of sexual misconduct, sexual assault, and would have likely been expelled from the university.”
–the OCR is the Office of Civil Rights.
The lawyer actually gets involved in these cases (sometimes admin allows lawyers, sometimes not), and summarizes in a specific example of just how bad it is:
“You know, I did a hearing last week in a New York school. It took about nine hours, there were 14 witnesses. There were a couple things wrong with it, so much so I had to take one of my blood pressure pills during. I’m not kidding, it made me crazy. So they allowed the complainant to make all sorts of outrageous statements. They allowed her to make statements like “I heard from so many of my friends that he’s done this to other people.” Things that in a real courtroom would compromise a jury, but here it didn’t. You had three panel members who clearly had no experience in this area and quite frankly were unimpressive intellectually,…”
Originally, the campus court system was supposed to be for, well, campus things. So, if there’s a concern about the data use in some paper, then a committee of relevant faculty would be formed (chosen by the department head, unless there was a conflict, in which case another head perhaps would be chosen to set up the committee), and that faculty committee would do what was necessary to make a decision, and then action would be taken.
Our campuses have been overrun by an administrative caste that knows nothing of campus things. They’ve granted power to themselves, and that includes control of the campus court system. They’ve completely perverted the system, so instead of appointing relevant people, admin just appoints sycophants.
Sleazy Committee Leader: “The committee feels that we cannot give you credit for this published mathematical research as one of your publications, because nobody on the committee can understand enough of it to even tell if it’s mathematics. Our ruling is final.”
Me: “So why the f**k didn’t you just get someone to help you read it?”
–I didn’t say that last line, but, yes, not only was the committee formed with no “peers” able to even make a decision despite their graduate degrees, the committee doesn’t have to ask for help even when it needs it, and can make a ruling as above. Admin assured me I would get no appeal. Granted, I suspect this was payback and not just everyday incompetence…but this really is how the kangaroo system is run.
So, yes, I can totally understand why the attorney was surprised that the “judges” in his case were, as he says, “unimpressive intellectually,” that’s actually quite common as my own experience can testify.
As president, Trump can actually change/weaken the enforcement of Title IX (the laws denoting how gender issues are treated on campus), but I have little hope of this. This isn’t a criticism of Trump, because there is so much corruption going on in the US right now that he has far bigger whales to fry than this relative minnow of madness.
No, if I were to ask Trump to intervene in higher ed, I would have but one request, and one request alone: end the student loan and grant scams. Without all the free money pouring onto campus, the higher education corruption on all levels would decrease dramatically. There were would still be the potential for kangaroo courts, and we’d still have them to be sure, but the loss of the student loan money would mean we’d lose half or more of our students, and half or more of the corrupt administrators that are the source of so much of the fraud in higher education.
If anyone knows a way to get his ear on this, feel free to use the contact form.