Keep Track
Keeping Track of the 2nd Trump administration!
One thing Donald Trump and the extreme right were very good at doing is burying the track record of his first presidency from 2017 to 2021.
Keep Track is dedicated to literally keeping track, day by day, of the policy decisions made by the new Trump Administration.
That is not to say we're interested in the crazy things he says or tweets, he clocked over 30,000 lies the last time he was in office, I don't see how it's possible to track all of that. This is about POLICY. Nominees, executive orders, signed laws, and so on.
Subject line format should be {{date}} {{event}} so: "01-20-2025 - Trump is sworn in."
The international date format of 2025-01-20 is also acceptable!
Links should be to verifiable news sources, not social media or blog sites. So no Xitter/Truth/Youtube/Substack/etc. etc.
Project 2025 tracker here!
https://www.project2025.observer/
view the rest of the comments
...but no one tries to use them when calculating conviction rates, because they're vague estimates rather than any kind of hard number and everyone properly understands in every other case that law enforcement can't even hypothetically do anything about an unreported crime.
Are you college aged or older? Do you have student loans? Now, imagine you have all those student loans, but you have no degree and a dramatically harder time moving to another school (for which you'd have to take out further student loans if you manage to get in) because the previous school says why you were expelled when asked.
If it were just "go to another school" with that being the full extent of the consequences, that would be one thing but it's really not.
Also, under the Devos rules supporting actions can be taken to make things easier for the accuser in response to the accusation alone (before any hearing, finding or even investigation), but those actions cannot be unreasonable, punitive or deny access to education (for example changing class schedules for one or both, changing housing assignments, or other things to prevent contact between them).
So, no one can question or challenge any part of an accusation in any way? Or do you have some (likely media fueled) image in your mind that the guidelines allow for the accused or his lawyer to grill the accuser, shouting irrelevant questions at her until she breaks down and submits? Because what the Devos guidelines actually call for for cross-examination is that all questions have to be submitted to the judge-analog (typically Title IX coordinator, but can be delegated) who is supposed to decide if the question is relevant or not to the accusation and the question can only be asked if it's approved. If she's a slutty slut slut is unlikely to be considered relevant, as is what she was wearing unless an article of clothing is somehow central to the evidence.
Question: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it's reported (unless you don't think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment.
There's no need for that kind of language under any circumstances.
But that is in no uncertain terms what you mean by victim-shaming and I'm actively avoiding dancing around it. That is precisely the kind of question the Devos 2018 guidelines are specifically meant to avoid by requiring any questions asked in cross to be approved by the judge-analog and reducing contact between accuser and accused is specifically why the questions are actually asked by the lawyer or faculty advisor representing the accused.
I'd ask you again: In your ideal world, what would the process look like? Start from when it’s reported (unless you don’t think it should need to be reported, in which I want to know how the school is supposed to know) and go all the way through to a finding and punishment. What should it look like were the process fair, according to you?
No lawyers. School management. Done.
So you're otherwise OK with the DeVos process, so long as no one has an actual lawyer present?
The reason there's an option for a lawyer present for the accused is specifically so they can have someone who both understands what the process is supposed to look like and also is specifically there to support their defense and enforce their rights and can be trusted that that is their top priority. You could do this with a faculty advisor (and under the DeVos rules you are assigned one if you don't have a lawyer), but since such an advisor would be trained and supplied by the school you'd have to be very careful to avoid allowing the school to appoint someone insufficiently trained, incompetent, or actually opposed to you having a thorough and vigorous defense in order to avoid biasing the process.
But lawyers aside, there are a bunch of questions and details that have been challenged (with varying degrees of success) under the "Dear Colleague" rules. For example:
Between the hundreds of lawsuits challenging Title IX procedures since the "Dear Colleague" letter and the differences between that policy and the DeVos policy all of those have come up.
That's an awful lot of words for you want rich perpetrators to be able to get away with rape without even getting expelled from school.
That's not very many words to answer what you think policy should actually look like.
I suspect (but cannot prove) it's because your ideal version of policy would look something like "if any woman accuses a man, he's pulled in and questioned and if he can't prove he didn't do it beyond even the tiniest doubt on the spot he's expelled." With the gendering there being explicit, because I suspect you only even think about scenarios where it's a girl/woman accusing a boy/man.
I don't think I've seen a clearer case of amyone making a straw man argument tham this right here. Wow.
You refuse to engage with the question of what the policy should look like except to describe any time the topic of the accused defending themselves is mentioned as some variation of "letting rich men get away with it". I'm not sure what other conclusion I'm supposed to arrive at?
You yourself throughout the thread has always described the accuser as a girl and the accused as a man, you describe any mention of the accused mounting a defense as letting rich men get away with it and refuse to say anything about what policy should look like other than that the accused should not be allowed to have a lawyer.
That's yet another mischaracterisation. I absolutely didn't object to people defending themselves, it's letting expensive lawyers into a school discipline hearing (to giving rape victims a horrendous, harrowing experience where they're more on trial than the perpetrator and the rich rapists get away with it) that I object to, as you know perfectly well because I've said it so many times.
If you want to debate with me, why not discuss what I said instead of reinterpreting it to your exaggerated false version every time?
If you knew anything about it at all, you would know that rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and the vast majority of rape victims are female. I never tried to assert that it was exclusive, that was all you, as usual, and to be honest I'm surprised that someone like you spending so long defending trump's policy is objecting to the occasional (and it was occasional, and mostly when I was comparing the rich male rapists to the rich male rapist in chief, Donald J Trump) use of a non gender-neutral pronoun. But then consistency and fair mindedness has never been a characteristic of people who defend misogynists like Trump and their policies.
As I've said all along lawyers into school is all about making reporting rapid more harrowing for the victims and easier for the wealthy rapists to get away with it. That's how trump sees it, that's why he supports it, and if I'm to believe you, apparently he's more perceptive and intelligent than you on this topic.
Because your single biggest key points, repeated time and again are that the accused shouldn't be allowed to have a lawyer and that Trump is a rapist and therefore the policy is bad regardless of what the actual policy is.
OK, so the accused shouldn't be allowed to have a lawyer. Should the accused be allowed any kind of representative (such as a faculty rep), and what would you do to ensure that representative is both competent and acting in the best interest of the accused? I asked 14 questions previously about policy and what it should look like that you entirely ignored.
You can't help yourself but invent things I didn't say. Argue with what I said, not with what you wish I'd said.
What I said was that you'd have to be really, really, really, really, really gullible to believe that the Rapist in Chief, who uses expensive lawyers to silence his victims, is inviting lawyers into K12 exclusion meetings over rape for any other reason but to allow expensive lawyers to let rich rapists get away with it, just like him. Irrespective of who proposed it, it's a terrible idea and you and I know full well it will discourage rape victims from even telling a teacher of their attack because they know they'll have a horrendous experience.
I told you exactly what I think should happen, and as usual, you ignored it and made up your own version of what I said so you could argue with that instead.