Janice Fiamengo on the derailed reform of America's campus kangaroo courts

Bettina Arndt

I wrote to you a few weeks ago expressing my excitement that the Trump administration was finally introducing changes to the Title IX rules responsible for the kangaroo courts on American campuses. With universities having lost hundreds of legal cases and receiving widespread condemnation from judges for failure to protect the due process rights of the accused, we were very hopeful that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos would announce major reforms.

You’d certainly have the impression she’s done that, with feminists running around like headless chickens after the new regulations were released, and most mainstream media pushing their alarmist line. “Will the Trump Administration’s New Sexual Assault Rules Hurt Survivors?” asked a typical New York Times opinion piece.

What a joke. It was only when I listened to Janice Fiamengo who has spent the last two weeks wading through the 2000-page report released by DeVos, that I realised we’d been had.

I am sure most of you know Janice’s work. She’s one of the world’s best known and most admired advocates for men. Formerly a professor of English at Ottawa, Janice is now retired from academia and living in Vancouver. She’s been speaking out for many years about men’s issues, most importantly through her YouTube videos – The Fiamengo Files.

Her most recent videos have dissected the Title IX changes in detail, starting with the extraordinary speech given by DeVos to announce the new rules. DeVos talks about “campus scourge” of sexual assault – buying into feminist rhetoric about a rape crisis, ignoring the abundant data showing mercifully low figures for such crimes. How appalling to hear the Education Secretary pronouncing that “sexual offences are about power and control” – ludicrous ideological  claptrap which is all about shafting men and denying women’s role in the messy, often drunken sexual hook-ups that comprise so many of these cases.

All this after months of meetings and submissions where DeVos attracted flak for talking with men’s rights groups and accused men who had won law suits against universities. She claimed to have consulted all sides but in the end she sold out. 

DeVos’s speech was bad enough but, as Janice makes clear in her recent videos, the detail of the announced changes are hugely disappointing. 

This week I managed to have a lengthy talk with her on thinkspot. Here’s the link-

https://www.thinkspot.com/online_content/xQuMRO/detail?category=event&live=yes&t=watch

Here, in brief, are some of the points Janice makes about these pathetic “reforms”:

The new regulations still mandate schools to adjudicate sexual assault allegations rather than leaving such criminal matters to the courts.

The universities can still choose the “preponderance of evidence" standard, the lowest possible standard, meaning that a young man can be branded a rapist and expelled from college because in the mind of the adjudicator it seemed “more likely than not” that he did what his accuser claimed.

Title IX personnel are often ideologues steeped in ‘start by believing’ ideology, and not properly trained to investigate allegations of  criminal misconduct.

The Department is confident that bias can be combated through training materials that "require" investigators and adjudicators to be "impartial."

The accuser has the right to appeal a tribunal judgement with which she disagrees, meaning that an accused student may find himself being tried for the same alleged misconduct twice. Under the American justice system this “double jeopardy” is specifically prohibited - so why is it allowed in a campus tribunal where the results for the accused student are so grave? 

The new regulations offer supportive measures to complainants put in place prior to any investigation – but none to the accused. Such measures, which include counselling, academic accommodations, class schedule changes, and no contact orders, provide an incentive to students to make complaints and mean that there is no presumption of innocence. 

Yes, there are some positive changes. The accused now has a right to a lawyer, must be given a written statement of charges against him and the person who investigates the allegation is now separate from the person who makes the determination. Plus there is a new right to live hearings where accusers can be cross-examined by a third party.

But these are trivial given the bias and unfairness that will continue to pervade this tribunal system. And as Janice Fiamengo points out, the risk now is that the system will be perceived as providing fair treatment making it even harder for falsely accused young men to receive justice in the courts.

Email from bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






How Universities Inject Toxic Anti-Americanism Into Students

Behind the anti-American hate seen in the current rioting, arson, and looting is the long term undermining of America carried out systematically in our universities. Various social movements—the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, the feminist movement from the 1960s, the revival of Marxism in the 1970s, the race activists from the Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter, the gay liberation movement, the Palestinian anti-Israel movement—have been adopted and absorbed in universities in their most extreme and maximalist forms. Professors have ceased to see themselves as scholars striving for impartial and objective knowledge, choosing instead to be advocates of preferred groups and movements, and activists advancing “progressive” and far-left causes. Teaching has become largely political indoctrination, and administration includes ideological control and suppression of unwelcome opinions.

In the mid-20th century, most American colleges and universities had Western Civilization courses or programs. By the end of the century, most of these had been jettisoned. Western Civilization was no longer viewed as the font of great scientific and technological discoveries and achievements, of brilliant literary and artistic works, of advanced development of democratic institutions, of recognition of civil and human rights. Instead, Western Civilization was characterized as imperialistic, colonialistic, capitalist, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and Islamophobic, the work of evil white men who should be expunged from memory.

The work of evil white men was banned in favor of works by lesbians of color, indigenous natives, gays and transsexuals, Africans, Arabs, Indians, and East Asians. No more would students be sullied by the disgraceful works of the Jewish Bible, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, the Gospels, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Moliere, and, skipping over many, Yeats, Proust, Joyce, Kafka, and Camus.

The only Western author honored in contemporary American universities is Karl Marx. In fact, Marx’s class-conflict model of society has been adopted throughout the social sciences, humanities, education, social work, and law, ranging females against males, people of color against people of white, LGBT++ against heterosexuals, indigenous natives against “colonialists,” Muslims against Christians and Jews (as always throughout history), disabled against abled, poor against well off, and unsuccessful minorities against Asians. The goal is the socialist utopia run by females, people of color, and transsexuals.

In Defense of Reading Dead Rich White Guys … Like Shakespeare.
Universities celebrate non-Western authors who attack Western Civilization. Throughout the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the toast of universities, the recognized king of the new anti-American truth, was Edward Said, an immigrant from Egypt who claimed Palestinian ethnicity. Raised to a professorship at one of America’s elite universities, he used his platform to vilify Western Civilization. In his book Orientalism, assigned to millions of university students in social science and humanities courses as the latest version of God’s Truth, he became the most influential intellectual in American universities.

Said’s central argument was that Western understanding of the Middle East—the region’s tribalism, religious fanaticism, imperialism, slavery, and oppression of women—did not really have anything to do with the nature of the Middle East, but was a projection of Western sins on the Middle East, in order to justify Western imperialism and colonialism in the Middle East. This theory came to be known as “post-colonial theory.” It was widely adopted in American academia and believed to be a definitive debunking of Western approaches to non-Western lands and cultures.

Said never offered any alternative picture of the Middle East, of its tribalism, religious fanaticism, imperialism, slavery, and oppression of women; he offered no more than a debunking of the Western view. But he was ill-prepared to do what he claimed. Said was a professor of English and a specialist in the writings of Jane Austen. He had no background in the history or anthropology of the Middle East. About the Middle East he had nothing to offer beyond a crass pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel partisanship and activism. For serious students of the Middle East, his writings are useless.

Nor did Said have a historical background in Western Civilization beyond English literature. So, it is not surprising that he was incorrect about the Western view of foreign cultures; more than any other civilization, Western Civilization was more curious about, more systematic in investigating, and more careful in its portrayal of foreign cultures. Nonetheless, his superficial and biased work was and is welcomed and celebrated in American colleges and universities as a serious debunking of Western Civilization.

One further example is from American anthropology, which champions all other cultures in the world, but can never extend its understanding and sympathy to American culture (or Israel’s). A popular ethnographic study of Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa read over decades by literally millions of students in anthropology courses (including mine) was promoted to shame America, on the grounds that these hunters and gatherers, and indeed all hunters and gatherers, better than America exemplified American values of gender equality, the prominence of female contributions, peaceful resolution of conflict, and prosperity, even “affluence.” Feminists celebrated. This account seemed to be true, until the historical and ethnographic details were examined closely. The prominence of female contributions was exaggerated, as was gender equality. These folks were very peaceful, unless they had to eliminate a troublesome fellow or faced encroachment of others. As far as affluence goes, there was a lot of leisure in good years and a lot of starvation in bad ones. In short, it was all bunk. But it provided an excuse, however invalid, to shame American society and Western Civilization, and to advance the partisan interests of those who profit from undermining American culture.

It rather amazed me when I was teaching in an elite university how many of my colleagues proudly proclaimed that they were communists, offered North Korea as a model to be followed, championed Communist China, and how few found American culture and Western Civilization achievements to be proud of. In fact, they seem to take pride in undermining America and the West. Like the mainstream media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC—working furiously to paint America as negatively as possible, American colleges and universities (with the exception of STEM disciplines) are enemies of America and the American people. 

SOURCE 






Student suspended for criticising his university's China ties is banned from his own appeal hearing - as 'victim' speaks out in his defence

A student who was suspended from the University of Queensland for two years after criticising its links to China has been banned from attending his own appeal hearing.

Drew Pavlou was banned from completing his philosophy degree until 2022 on Friday after the university accused him of 11 cases of misconduct, which were detailed in a confidential 186-page document.

The 21-year-old revealed he had been banned from the proceedings to review the penalty on Friday, and his lawyer planned to include proof from an alleged victims that one of the complaints against him was 'manufactured'.

'Despite being an elected representative to the UQ Senate, I've been barred from attending a meeting reviewing my expulsion. Kangaroo court!' he Tweeted.

The UQ Senate is reviewing his suspension in an out-of-session meeting, and Mr Pavlou will be banned from accessing the minutes of the meeting as well, due to conflict of interest concerns.

UQ vice-chancellor Peter Hoj, who was referenced in the complaints against the activist, will not attend for the same reason.

'I don't understand why, as a democratically elected representative of UQ students on the senate, I'm being barred from this meeting,' Mr Pavlou told the ABC.

'They are taking all these steps to ensure there is as murky a process as possible, that the Australian public does not know how they are making these decisions.'

A spokewoman from the university told Daily Mail Australia that the meeting was to brief the Senate on the outcome of Mr Pavlou's disciplinary matter.   

'It would be inconsistent with standard conflict of interest procedures if Mr Pavlou or Senate members directly involved in the appeal process were to attend,' she said. 'The Vice Chancellor will also not attend.'

Mr Pavlou also revealed that his lawyer, Tony Morris QC, was contacted by one of students Mr Pavlou had allegedly 'harassed, bullied, threatened or abused' on social media.

The student wrote that not only had he not made a formal complaint nor felt 'distressed' as written in the complaint, he had not been contacted by UQ.

'Apparently the complaint mentions that I was "distressed" which is from my point of view laughable,' the student wrote in an email viewed by the ABC.

'While I think it was characteristically crass of him to write to a female friend the way he did I feel this complaint has been largely manufactured.' 

Over the weekend the Chinese Communist Party-controlled tabloid Global Times rubbed salt in the wound of Mr Pavlou's suspension, citing anonymous students celebrating it.

The article labelled Mr Pavlou an 'anti-Chinese rioter' while saying his peers were celebrating that 'justice finally came'.

Four anonymous Chinese and Australian students were quoted in the piece accusing him of inciting violence and racism while smearing Chinese students.

In response Mr Pavlou claimed Chinese state media had directed UQ to expel him, and said the university was dependent on income from Chinese students and donors.

'Chinese state media have just decided to go full mask off, endorsing my expulsion from UQ,' he wrote on Twitter.

'UQ relies on the Chinese market for 20 per cent of its income. Moral courage!'

A statement from University of Queensland confirmed fees from Chinese students make up about 20 per cent of revenue.

The campus has the fifth highest international student fee income in Australia, and about 18,000 of the 53,000 students enrolled are from overseas.

Nine thousand of those students are from China.

Mr Pavlou will be able to continue his studies until the verdict of the appeal.

He is due to complete his degree in six months, meaning he may graduate before his suspension begins.

The politics student believes his university caved to pressure from Chinese influence to suspend him.

He led a series of campus demonstrations last year, in support of Hong-Kong's pro-democracy movement.

The activist also posted messages to social media criticising China's authoritarian regime and denounced the university's close financial ties with the Communist Party

SOURCE