ABC News sent out this Tweet about a story they covered on Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

Trump administration finalizing plan expected to limit scope of sexual assault inquiries by colleges and universities and make it easier for students accused of misconduct to push back. https://t.co/s1OgcYxRzv

— ABC News (@ABC) October 11, 2018

“[W]ould make it easier for college students accused of sexual misconduct to push back.”

That’s a hell of a way to rephrase “make it easier for college students accused of sexual misconduct to be protected by their Constitutional rights.”

So what did DeVos do that ABC has to be so biased against her?

The proposal, known as rules for Title IX — the civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination in a person’s education — is widely expected to limit the scope of inquiries by colleges and universities and make it easier for students accused of misconduct to push back.

The revised guidelines are being pushed by a small group of advocates who have told Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and other high-ranking government officials in private meetings that they believe male students are often falsely accused and face expulsion from colleges and universities with little due process.

That’s true.  The Mattress Girl fiasco was a national embarrassment.

Advocacy groups involved in the ongoing discussions said among the provisions they expect to see in the final draft is one that wouldn’t require schools to investigate incidents that occur off campus, even if it involves students.

Good.

Another provision would put schools on the hook to investigate allegations only if they’re made to certain designated authorities, such as the school’s Title IX coordinator.

Bad.

I have taught Chemistry and Metallurgy in college.  I know how to do that.  I don’t know anything about conducting a sex crime investigation.  Except for professors in Criminology, no professor is taught that part of their academic qualification.  Throw in the financial incentive of schools to obey Title IX or lose Federal Funding and it’s clear that schools have the ability and should not have the authority to investigate student sexual misconduct.

The only rule should be “the School must report it to the next highest law enforcement authority, i.e. city police, county sheriff, or state police, for investigation.”

And the new rules would likely allow for more thorough cross-examinations, possibly requiring that the person making the allegation sit in the same room as the accused.

Just like the Constitutions guarantees “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Cynthia P. Garrett, co-president of a group called “Families Advocating for Campus Equality,” said she’s been pushing for these changes because they give students accused of misconduct better opportunities to defend themselves.

“I don’t want to make it difficult for people who claim to be victims to come forward. But it shouldn’t be easy either,” she told ABC News. “I think there should be a threshold for evidence or proof before you ruin someone’s life.”

I have no issue with it being easier to make a report.  I do thing it’s a terrible idea to make it easier to convict.

This is now the post-Kavanaugh era, so this appeal to the rights of the accused, Constitutional protections, due process, and standards of evidence is now bringing about the Handmaid’s Tale.

Another person who has decided on Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt.  How about “give the innocent a fighting change to live the American dream!”  That seems more accurate.

Due process for the accused is legalized rape.  That isn’t a totally hysterical and unhinged response.

Here is where the truth really comes out.

It’s all about feelings.

We saw this through the entire Campus Carry fight from a year or two back.  The argument made by the students and professors who were against Campus Carry was that it made them feel afraid or intimidated.

No one actually threatened any of them with a gun.  They didn’t even know which students had guns on them.

They just felt that angry, racist/misogynist/sexist/phobic, Conservative students would shoot them for saying Liberal things in class and that their feelings were justification enough to strip others of their rights.

This was no different than the argument made by every Leftist student protesting a conservative speaker, or dean who didn’t want to police Halloween costumes.  They argued that seeing or hearing something offensive made the feel bad, and that mental stress hurt them, and that was equivalent to violence.  Therefore your right to free speech and expression must be shut down, because of their feelings.

They equate being pro gun rights as being pro gun violence and being pro rights of the accused to be pro rape.

There is absolutely no civil liberty you have that they cannot turn on its head and use to claim victim hood.

I guarantee sooner or later the Third Amendment is going to come under attach by these nut jobs because will want to force you to let Antifa squat in your homes.