Columbia University recently decided it had a problem. All of the red tape that Americans come to expect when accused of serious crimes, such as the right to have a lawyer present, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to confront one’s accuser were getting in the way of the university dealing with alleged rapists and sexual harassers. Fortunately Columbia found a solution — get rid of all the mumbo jumbo about the rights of the accused and simply throw the book at the bastards.
Columbia’s new guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment and assault charges leave those accused of such transgressions almost no ability to defend themselves. Under its old policies, accused students had to be given at least 48 hours notice of any hearing along with a list of witnesses who would testify. Now their is no requirement that they notify students in advance, and are not required to inform the accused of the charge or the witnesses until immediately prior to the accused testifying. It goes without saying that contrary to long-established principles of Western jurisprudence, accused students are not allowed to attend their trial — they aren’t even allowed to be in the room when other witnesses testify. Instead they are forced to rely on “summaries” of any testimony made by the three personal panel administering the case.
Even that wasn’t enough for the feminists on Columbia’s campus who complained that red tape was letting too many sexual harassers and others off. Only students or faculty who have undergone “special training” in sexual harassment and sexual assault will be allowed to preside over such cases. Columbia claims that this will make their panels more objective, but of course it will do just the opposite. As The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted, whether it be the witchcraft trials in the 16th century or the special drug courts in America today, “judges and jurors in such ‘special’ courts assume that it is their mission to eliminate a widespread and specific social problem rather than to achieve justice for individuals.”
Columbia even went so far as to completely eliminate any standard of proof for charges of sexual harassment and/or assault. Under its old policy an allegation had to be proven by “clear and convincing evidence” and specified that the burden as on those making the accusation to prove their cases. The new policy simply omits any mention of standards of proof and who has the burden. As FIRE notes, “it is an invitation to trial by hysteria in a politically charged atmosphere.”
And Columbia certainly has a politically charged atmosphere. Law professor George Fletcher was warned by Law School Dean David Leebron that because one of his law exams included a question about case law that involves victims of violence who believe the net result of the violence against them benefited them that his exam was illegal and possibly constituted sexual harassment.
Columbia defended its policies in a letter saying that it was mandated by law to deal with sexual harassment, but if Columbia were a public university its sexual harassment police would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it is a private institution, it is free to simply throw out even minimal safeguards for students accused of sexual harassment or assault.
Sources:
Columbia public relations official makes false claims to defend a fatally flawed policy. Press release, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, October 25, 2000.
Back to the Middle Ages on campus. John Silber, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, November 3, 2000.
Higher ed. Norah Vincent, The Village Voice, October 25-31, 2000.
Hail Columbia?. Edwin Feulner, The Heritage Foundation, October 27, 2000.
Academic freedom under assault at Columbia Law School. Press release, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, September 29, 2000.