I’ve not read it all. But I was actually aware of all of those issues.
What I’m saying is three things.
1) Devos didn’t actually address them. She said that the current system was unfair to accused (and the accuser) because university personnel aren’t trained to deal with is… patently false. As I said, Danielle was literally in that training meeting today. If Devos understood the issue well enough to have addressed them, I’d actually be more inclined to being on your side here. It’s why I wouldn’t just outright agree with Samantha above. Like you’re totally doing a better job of being Secy.Ed. than Devos is by even bring that up.
2) Those things being true DOESN’T constitute an interference with the criminal proceedings. At least most of them don’t. One could argue that the part about not reporting if the accuser doesn’t want it reported could be argued to be hampering the investigation. But that’s a non-issue, because that’s true whether Devos’s changes happen or not… There’s just not really a case without the accuser backing you. All of the other issues constitute a different matter (adherence to school policy) than the criminal one (adherence to law). Which is why I brought up the academic integrity issue. The standards of proof for an in school plagiarism charge are WAY lower than the standards for legal copyright violation. That’s by design. And the two investigations can totally proceed simultaneously…. and even inform each other.
3) That said, making specific changes to the policy are completely reasonable. Like if you wanted to argue that schools were required to allow the accused to bring legal counsel before answering questions… I’d entertain that. I don’t know that I’d agree. But it’s a reasonable point. Again, this wouldn’t just be limited sex crime allegations though. Your point would stand for the plagiarism example too. We don’t do it… because we’re not a legal proceeding. But you at least have a point to be considered. Which again… means you’re putting more thought into this than what Devos actually SAID.
And that’s my real issue. I’m not saying the rules are perfect. They’re not. I’ve said a couple times they almost certainly don’t belong under Title IX no matter what since they’re honestly not really about discrimination… unless you squint REALLY HARD. But that’s not what I’m asking here. I’m saying can anyone defend HER specific argument… which even you’ve said, you don’t think she really understands what she’s saying.