because it doesn’t violate constitutional protections. Again, there are two issues. There is the issue of how the state treats a defendant and how a private institution handles a dispute. My understanding of Obama directive is that it says “Take this seriously.” It in no way precludes or substitutes for the actual legal proceedings. In fact, it was added to stop universities from just trying to make allegations go away without due process. Something which Devos seems to not realize was an issue at all (and frankly still is, because the regulations don’t go far enough).
So even if you argue that it’s “not perfect” the “so just blow it up” solution is essentially the same as “repeal Obamacare and we’ll figure out a replacement later.”
But worse, because the at least the “repeal and replace obamacare” people are attempting to address an actual problem… as opposed to a misunderstanding of the problem.
This is closer to when in the debates Trump’s handlers had told him to take a hardline ProLife stance, so when he was asked the question about what he would do about abortion he said “we’re going to arrest women who seek abortions” and suddenly the RNC was like “what? Holy shit?!?! NO!!! That’s not what we want!” and he had to walk it back. The only way what Devos actually said “helps” anyone, including the accused is if we interpret it as “just don’t look at sex crimes at all.” Any other interpretation is to read wishful thinking into it in order to match it up to a preferable viewpoint. You have to assume “well, she probably meant….” and I don’t think we can EVER assume that with her… because, you know… BEARS!