The California Supreme Court has decided the most important part of a defendant’s right is to cross examine those that bring charges against them. Now in California, anyone can be creating sex charges on a college campus and NEVER have to respond under oath. That is how the justice system works in China and Russia—now on California college campuses.
“This summer, the Supreme Court in California ruled that students accused of sexual misconduct are not guaranteed a right to cross examine their accusers.
A higher education attorney argues that criminal matters should be addressed in court as opposed to university disciplinary hearings.
The Supreme Court of California ruled in July that the state’s private universities are not obligated to allow students accused of intimate partner violence to cross-examine their accusers.
The California supreme court has declared college campus part of a Fascist State—your kids are not safe in California.
California Supreme Court declares students accused of sexual misconduct cannot cross-examine accusers
Bill Biagini, Campus Reform, 8/28/23 https://campusreform.org/article?id=23844&utm_campaign=CampusWire&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=271967154&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9zknrMBMAb9Xo5IbnnPLbP0vW_29juWi5equh76qtkjdiw9OLn7SRS-CWr9wvfsLhcbpec3CqILqbK_wSXTg5jRZ0eFZs1OwuuPHRto9vjAbvIkjs&utm_content=271967154&utm_source=hs_email
This summer, the Supreme Court in California ruled that students accused of sexual misconduct are not guaranteed a right to cross examine their accusers.
A higher education attorney argues that criminal matters should be addressed in court as opposed to university disciplinary hearings.
The Supreme Court of California ruled in July that the state’s private universities are not obligated to allow students accused of intimate partner violence to cross-examine their accusers.
Associate Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the Court’s opinion that while universities should be giving accused students opportunities to respond to allegations prior to disciplinary action is administered, colleges need to make sure that alleged victims are not “retraumatized.”
However, Ken Tashjy, a higher education attorney at Suffolk University and Campus Reform Higher Education Fellow, told Campus Reform that these possible effects can be minimized by permitting accused students to present their questions through the disciplinary hearing officer rather than directly to the alleged victim.
“Denying an accused student facing allegations of sexual violence any right to question his/her accuser is fundamentally unfair and smacks of a presumption of honesty on the part of the alleged victim and of guilt against the accused student,” he stated.
Tashjy also added that “Because a university’s disciplinary process is generally considered an administrative action, as opposed to a criminal prosecution, the due process rights afforded in higher education disciplinary proceedings are much less than those afforded or required in a criminal case.”
The Court’s opinion cites Title IX as part of its grounds for the decision—which comes just over a year after Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona proposed a regulatory plan that would broaden its effects.
Cardona’s proposed draft mirrors the Court’s recent decision in that it aimed to abolish a requirement for universities to hold live hearings to analyze cases of sexual misconduct and intimate partner violence on and off campus.
Regarding his draft, Cardona said “I firmly reject efforts to politicize these protections and sow division in our schools.”
