Here's the parts that raise my hackles by no small degree:
1. The proposed plan narrows the definition of sexual misconduct. This rings alarm bells for me, as it brings to mind attempts by Old White Men to claim that rape isn't rape because women want it (sorry for the paraphrasing. I can't bring myself to look up their actual attempt at logic at the moment). And I have zero faith in DeVos not to think along the same lines.
2. It allows assailants to cross-examine their accusers during mediation. Sexual assault is as much (if not more) about dominance than sexual gratification. It's difficult enough to get victims to report assault without the requirement that they be submitted to further intimidation and psychological assault by their abusers.
3. It only holds universities accountable for assaults that occur on campus. 87% of college students live off campus, and many Greek and athletic houses are off campus, as well. Under these rules, a college student raped 3 minutes from campus would be expected to continue to attend classes with their rapist, with no right to protection or consideration. It's as if the assault never happened.
4. It's endorsed by DeVos. What does that woman touch that doesn't have a poisonous agenda at its heart? That, alone, makes it deserving of suspicion. She wants to remove the current Title IX protections for the simple fact that they are an Obama legacy. If what she replaces them with is drek that protects abusers and universities' pocket books, so much the better.
but I gotta say: I'd strip universities of the power to investigate sexual assaults off campus, too. And on campus. Criminal acts should be investigated by real police and tried in real courts.
