Good luck with that, lol.
As far as your points, let’s start with the last. Yes. Some men may be hostile to claims of sexual harrasment brought by a woman against a man. I don’t recall ever saying or intimating something different. And as I clearly stated in the post you quoted, this issue has less to do with gender than a person’s pre dispositions. To make the obvious point, if my son were unfortunate enough to be accused of sexual harrassment or assault, I would much rather have @momofthreeboys as the decision maker than @collegedad13.
But in the larger sense, what I am speaking of is the difference between you and I. Based on the exchanges we have had, I would be confident that you would treat a hearing with seriousness. That said, you appear by inclination to be someone who would lean toward believing the accuser over the accused when resolving close factual questions. Similarly, while I intellectually understand that some women can wait many months before reporting a sexual assault, I would find it hard to overcome the fact that she waited some 18 months before bringing her claim, and that her contemporaneous actions evinced an intent to maintain a sexual relationship with the guy. While some of this is the normal variation of biases we find in society, it is at issue here because of the burden of proof. Technically, even under a preponderance standard, if the only evidence presented is he said/she said, the accused should get off every time. But that is not what happens, because try as we lawyers might, humans are imperfect decision makers, and our preconceptions and biases always leak through.
So over centuries we have developed levels of proof society will stomach before depriving a person of liberty (reasonable doubt) or simply property (preponderance). We use the lower standard because it is more efficient, less costly and in the main the issues decided under the preponderance standard are of less societal import. But, we have also developed a hybrid standard of clear and convincing which for many many years applied to claims like those dealt with in tribunals - those which do not put liberty at risk but where an adverse ruling could carry severe societal sanction. One of the reasons that several schools fought to retain the clear and convincing standard in this context was because it is a strong reminder to those who have a general inclination to believe an accuser that proof is still required. This follows centuries of our legal tradition that holds that a person who asserts a fact must prove its truth. In other words and in this context, it is an instruction to those whose general inclination is to believe the accuser that something more than their general inclination to resolve factual issues in the accuser’s favor should be required to sustain a verdict, because the societal consequences suffered by the accused as a result of that verdict could be severe.
Turning to your other points, yes, an accused person has the right to object to a panelist, but as we both know from the Yale case and from the rest of the section you truncated, Yale reserves the right to decide whether to remove the panelist based on the objection. So what the objection is worth is dependant entirely on the provost’s subjective mindset, or more likely the person the provost tasks with dealing with such things. And the circle continues.
As to how panelists are chosen, how do you think people get nominated and selected? Do you think maybe that people who are not involved in this area get picked all that often? Do you think that a professor, managerial or professional employee who thinks poorly of the process is going to end up serving? You think that someone who the Title IX adminstrator feels is hostile is going to make their way through the system, even if they were masochistic enough to try? Yeah, me neither.
Also, what “training” is being provided, and who decides that? I would bet a dollar to a dime and a donut (which come to think of it probably costs more than a dollar) that a lot of the training has to do with “explaining” that no matter what actions a “survivor” takes after an event the panelist should not take that as inconsistent with the current claims. Do you think that the accused is offered the opportunity to provide similar “training” to the panel?
None of this stuff would fly in the legal system, and frankly it shouldn’t fly here either.
