A group of Democratic Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to express their concern that she was abandoning civil rights enforcement.
DeVos wrote back to say that she was “returning” the Office for Civil Rights to its role as a “neutral” investigative agency.
It is at a time like this that DeVos’s ignorance of education policy and history becomes embarrassing. OCR is the Office FOR Civil Rights. It was never a “neutral” agency. It led the way in the 1960s in forcing the integration of Southern schools. It didn’t just investigate. It threatened Southern districts that did not produce hard data about students and faculty integration. No integration, no federal funding.
One can’t be “neutral” about civil rights. The Office for Civil Rights is meant to enforce the law and protect the vulnerable–not to feign indifference.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Kind of like being neutral between creationism and the scientific method. She and her ilk love to create public confusion about the terms neutrality and fairness.
GregB: About “neutrality where civil rights are concerned” (???):
It’s more CODE: in this case, NEUTRAL means: **let’s put civil rights on the same political footing as racist-bigots, social elitists, wealthy snobs, and religious zealots.” But it’s not merely political footing–SHE is a PUBLIC SERVANT who is breaching the trust that WE THE PEOPLE have put in her.
In a more general sense, somehow, being FOR civil rights, public institutions, the common good, the freedoms and rights of the people written into the Bill of Rights, has become “branded” as equal-to, and so as mere political opposition for, corporate interests, the wealthy, and those who seek political power for its own sake.
To take a clear example, Mike Pence (for instance) cannot be FOR tobacco interests AND FOR the general health of “the people” at the same time without being involved in hypocrisy. But if “branded-away” from his democratic ground as a PUBLIC SERVANT, he is merely falling on one side or the other of a merely political opposition of EQUAL STANDING. In that case, his hypocrisy doesn’t matter. Nor can Betsy, as a PUBLIC and CIVIL SERVANT be FOR the civil rights of all students and be FOR neo-Jim Crowe private educational establishments who steal from the public coffers, however they CODE their nefarious intentions.
The general theme is this: Somehow, our political powers-that-be have unhinged themselves from their small-d democratic roots and place their arguments in a fictitious politics-only arena of discourse. The homegrown “DO YOUR JOB” speaks to that conflict of foundations. They ignore their own ground in that democracy when they take stands against the general health of the people, for instance, and public institutions that are genuinely for the PUBLIC (meaning EVERYONE who lives here) (like water, food, and air pollution regulations) as if their ground were not the democracy that identifies with those people’s lives.
And now, to pursue that breach of public trust, they fill the Constitution-bound government with the very people who reduce and brand everything that is, in fact, identified with those foundations as a mere political opponent to their corporate/personal/power interests–as with Betsy and neutralizing civil rights, there is nothing neutral about it. They took a stand when they signed on as a public servant–a stand that they are now in breach of.
This is really excellent, CBK: “In a more general sense, somehow, being FOR civil rights, public institutions, the common good, the freedoms and rights of the people written into the Bill of Rights, has become “branded” as equal-to, and so as mere political opposition for, corporate interests, the wealthy, and those who seek political power for its own sake.”
bethree5 The rhetorical trick of claiming “neutrality” allows people like DeVos to ignore their commitment to their oath of office, because that oath ties them to that “more general sense of being . . . FOR civil rights, public institutions, the common good, the freedoms and rights of the people written into the Bill of Rights.” If DeVos and others are, rather, committed to “corporate interests, the wealthy, and those who seek political power for its own sake” they are, on principle, breaking trust with their oath and with the American people whose trust they wrongly enjoy.
In terms of civil rights, Betsy gives new life to the “snake under the table” at the signing of the Constitution.
“neutral” = “toothless”
“neutered”
New troll
“New troll Role”
The OCR will be
Reformed for all to see
To bring about the goal
Of worthy new troll role
The troll will wait in schools
Enforce the New Troll Rules
Ensure that schools for whites
Enjoy their civil rights
Besty is also promoting a RAPE culture starting with K – graduate school.
Diane FYI This morning “Democracy Now!” aired an interview with Randi Weingarten, a snippet is below, but the whole interview can be seen at 24 minutes into today’s program, or click into “Watch Now” on the right section of the screen where you see DeVos’ picture):
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2017/7/17?autostart=true
Oops–here’s the snippet from this morning’s Democracy Now! “Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, joins us to discuss recent developments with billionaire Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a longtime backer of charter schools and vouchers for private and religious schools. DeVos said earlier this month that she wanted to return the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights ‘to its role as a neutral, impartial, investigative agency.’ An official with the office came under fire last week after she said that most campus rape claims amount to two young people who are ‘both drunk.’ Meanwhile, attorneys general in 18 states are suing DeVos and the Department of Education over a rule to protect student loan borrowers that was set to go into effect on July 1, until DeVos announced a ‘reset’ of the rule, known as ‘borrower defense to repayment.’
In defense of DeVos and company, I disagree that they’re feigning indifference to civil rights. I’d argue that they are sincerely indifferent.
I would venture taking it a step further into the realm of hostility to civil rights.
Arthur Goldstein I hear your ironic point–but see my note above about what NEUTRAL is code for.
Who knows? She speaks in some strange lobbyist lingo. I would need a translator.
Maybe she means “neutral” in the same way she means “agnostic”- where she travels the country bashing public schools and promoting charter and private schools and then inserts the word “agnostic” in the press release.
Words mean what she says they mean. “Neutral” could mean anything.
Neutral means that she shows equal concern for the victim and the perpetrator.
Actually, I think she’s more concerned for the perpetrator. Victims have way too much power, y’know.
Thanks. I know you feel strongly about this but I DO feel the Obama Administration went too far.
Colleges shouldn’t be conducting these sort of quasi criminal proceedings in-house. There aren’t enough due process protections for the accused. These are serious charges. The accused needs process and colleges shouldn’t be inventing one and acting as judge and jury.
Is it hard for victims, the criminal justice system? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean you just dispense with process.
I feel as if the Obama Administration blurred the line too much between what should be an administrative policy scheme and what should be a crim justice frame. The accused DOES have rights. The cases DO have to move quickly or a wrongly accused person will get hurt with it hanging over them.
It’s hard to balance alleged perp v victim as far as process but that doesn’t mean you just invent it on the fly.
Every organization has the power to handle disciplinary matters in-house. Companies can fire people. They can refuse service (provided it’s not on discriminatory grounds). Schools can expel students who break their conduct requirements. None of those things requires a criminal trial. If we were talking about universities having the right to lock up accused students without trial, I’d agree with you completely. But we’re not. We’re talking about the ability to attend a university, which is a privilege, not a right. Privileges can be (and frequently are) lost when someone breaks the rules even in the absence of a criminal trial.
And again, the overwhelming problem has not been universities kicking students out to hastily following allegations of sexual misconduct. The overwhelming problem has been universities trying to silence accusers while not intervening with the accused at all. As is well known on this blog, I’m not in the habit of defending the Obama administration, but trying to correct that imbalance is one of the few things they did right, especially when it comes to education.
I agree with both Chiara and Dienne here. I think the implementation of Obama’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter went a step too far, but I completely agree w/Dienne that schools can expel students who break their conduct rules without a criminal trial. Perhaps what’s needed is a campus regimen which is structured to more fairly represent both sides in the determination of whether campus conduct rules were broken. Tho I remain uncomfortable with the fed having a role in campus decisions, I can see a role for them reviewing the campus method for determining whether conduct rules have been broken.
There shouldn’t BE any problems with US colleges. After all, it’s a “choice” system where the money follows the student.
Colleges should have cured racism, sexism, and income inequality by now. US colleges actually follow the ed reform recipe for K-12. Higher ed should be a perfectly equitable and efficient system by now- 100% “great schools!”.
Maybe someone should ask DeVos that- if “choice” and “money follows the student” creates shangri la why hasn’t that happened in higher ed?
Chiara I think the rape thing, with all its real ambiguities in tow, is a red herring to draw attention away from the real education issues at the heart of DeVos intentions?
CBK,
It is indicative of how she and Candace Jackson will withdraw from all civil rights issues by claiming neutrality.
By the way, the Washington Post editorial board called on Candace Jackson to resign for her insensitive remarks about rape victims
Diane thanks for responding. I think the big question is whether a good number of U. S. citizens can think their way past the rhetoric that prostitutes authentic language to undemocratic ideas: like choice, freedom, and now neutrality. As long as “we” continue to trust without evidence (accountability), and as long as we vote against our own democratic interests, as if the rhetoric were not corrupt, that question is already answered: NO.
What I love about ed reform is how completely incoherent it is:
“Parents need to have information on how their child is doing,” Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently said at the Brookings Institution. “That is, I think, the first form and the best form of accountability. That information needs to be more broadly shared with those who would consider a choice for their child.”
Yet this vision — of families empowered with information — might contrast with DeVos’s push to expand tax credit scholarship programs, which offer tax breaks to individuals or corporations that donate money to fund private school scholarships.
An analysis by The 74 found that the majority of school choice tax credit scholarship initiatives — 12 of 21 — do not require participating private schools to administer any sort of standardized exam, potentially leaving families in the dark about how their students are progressing academically. In the handful of programs that do require some form of test, it is rarely the state exam, making comparisons to public schools difficult or impossible.”
Forget everything they said about “accountability”! Just scratch that. No longer works with the voucher marketing effort!
20 years of strutting around and scolding public schools on “accountability!” and now they’re all promoting private schools, where none of that applies.
Not that it matters. DeVos will just say one thing to public school parents and another thing to “choice” parents and the “movement” will roll on as if this is some kind of “theory” when really it’s a collection of political factions.
It is easy to find out how your child is doing….ask his/her teacher. They are, after all, the trained professionals in the conversation, aren’t they?
In post-secondary ed, parents don’t ‘need’ squat re: accountability, per the vision since ’90’s that 18-yo’s are adults as college students. Students are taking out the loans and ostensibly bear all responsibility for their ed decisions and ed performance: college reports of ed-results are addressed to student; any and all transactions on campus are private, shared w/parents only if their kids sign off on some form.
All of which makes some kind of sense if 100% of school costs are borne by students via loan. But in many (most mid & upper-middle-class) families, the brunt of college expenses are paid by parents. Often w/much cash upfront, & then thro FAFSA loans which– tho approved only via parental income & assets– somehow end up w/student as named debtor.
In the ’70’s, if a kid wanted to go to college but his parents didn’t want to pay, the kid could file to be ’emancipated’ & take on loan resp. Today, parents can pay the full ride but students are automatically ’emancipated’ by virtue of being 18+, owing no accountability to the bill-payer.
Why? Because the student is viewed as the ‘consumer’ of the ed service, regardless whose $ paid for it. Those who pd for the service are owed nothing in terms of accountability.
Look at that paradigm accepted by mainstream for 3 decades, & tell me it has nothing to do w/today’s voucher theory that the K-12 student-consumer is central, & those who pay for students’ ed are owed nothing by eay of accountability for funds expended.
“neutral” = “neutered” But what can one expect from the ‘Scamway’ crime family (and I include Erik Prince of Blackwater in that criminal.
Richard,
Good ONE … NEUTERED.
Yvonne Siu-Runyan: Yes. But DeVos has in fact tried to neuter her connection as a PUBLIC servant to the principles embodied in the U. S. Constitution and the institutions that support the survival and thriving of the democracy she took an oath to uphold–like education. Plainly, she wants to neuter the mutually-supportive connection of education (and civil rights, etc.) to the democracy that gives education its power and strength. Education and democracy work together in that sense, both of which she continues to disconnected herself from.
If we put a Betsy DeVos definition to the word “neutral”, we will find out that she was thinking of “neutered (castrated)”.
Many rights for sped Ed kids were won through the courts. I predict more expensive litigation.
I have said years ago it appears a huge part of the reform movement is to eliminate special education. This just affirms my belief.
One day, at least in my Quixotic Quest world, standardized testing and the sorting, separating and ranking function that using the results of said tests will be adjudicated to be the state sponsored discrimination that it is. That discrimination is no different discrimination via, gender, race, eye color, etc. . . that has been adjudicated to be constitutionally deficient as discriminating via innate, out of control of the individual mental capabilities is still discrimination where some are rewarded and others denied opportunities they may wish to pursue.
One day, one day. . . . !
dienne77
July 17, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Every organization has the power to handle disciplinary matters in-house. Companies can fire people. They can refuse service (provided it’s not on discriminatory grounds).
But these aren’t just disciplinary matters. Some of them are assaults- depending on the state law the allegations could be “rape”.
You have to decide. Is this about behavior that is criminal or just “bad”? If the allegation is assault or rape it goes to a prosecutor, not a “board”.
“dienne77
July 17, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Every organization has the power to handle disciplinary matters in-house. Companies can fire people. They can refuse service (provided it’s not on discriminatory grounds).”
But this is an allegation of a crime:
“For me, I was raped in my own dorm bed and since then it’s become fraught and I feel like I’ve carried the weight with me everywhere since then,” Sulkowicz, explained in a video by the Columbia Spectator in September.”
So if it goes to the criminal justice system and the alleged perpetrator isn’t convicted then what? Then we change tracks and say it’s bad behavior, not a crime, and the university should somehow discipline? The accused would say “wait a minute- I was alleged to have committed a crime and now it’s just bad or discriminatory behavior – which is it?”
“But this is an allegation of a crime:”
Right. What the university has power over is in-house discipline – whether or not to sanction or expel a student. If the alleged victim wants the alleged perpetrator tried as a criminal, that’s the criminal court.
It’s no different than if you assault someone inside a store. The store has every right to bar you as a customer – that’s their in-house right. If the alleged victim of this alleged assault wants you fined, jailed, imprisoned, etc., they have to press criminal charges against you, and then it’s a matter for the courts and you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the store doesn’t need a guilty verdict before they can deprive you of the privilege of shopping there. If the case goes to court and you’re found not guilty, the store may decide to issue you an apology and try to get your business back, or they may decide that, verdict notwithstanding, your behavior merited their original decision of throwing you out.
If one student accuses another student of rape, the university has to investigate the matter far enough to decide how likely it is that the alleged behavior actually occurred and whether it merits a suspension, expulsion, or other disciplinary action (throwing the alleged perpetrator off an athletic team, for instance). If the alleged victim wants the alleged perpetrator tried as a criminal, she has to press charges and try her luck with the criminal justice system. But even if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty criminally, the university may still feel that his behavior warranted expulsion or other disciplinary action.
“So if it goes to the criminal justice system and the alleged perpetrator isn’t convicted then what? Then we change tracks and say it’s bad behavior, not a crime, and the university should somehow discipline? The accused would say “wait a minute- I was alleged to have committed a crime and now it’s just bad or discriminatory behavior – which is it?””
This is the difference between OJ’s criminal murder trial and his civil wrongful death trial.
I think that DeVos has no understanding of the legal difference between civil rights and civil liberties, but is convinced of her own brand of righteousness. She will not support investigations of civil rights violations.
“It is at a time like this that DeVos’s ignorance of education policy and history becomes embarrassing.”
Sorry, Diane, but you are stopping short here. It is EVERY TIME that DeVos speaks that shows her ignorance of education policy and history, starting with her confirmation hearings. And the ignorance extends to those that voted to confirm her – not to mention the “Orange Cheat-o” that nominated her.
You are right, Brian.
Every time she speaks, she displays her ignorance.
Sometimes it matters more, like claiming she will return Office FOR Civil Rights to its original role as neutral, which it never was
Let’s face it. Slicing and dicing everything she does or says is an academic exercise. Since she was nominated, every single thing that has emanated from her is cringe inducing in all of us. Like the eviceration of the Dept of State, dismantling the EPA, HUD…cannot bear to consider the destruction of our country, DeVos is just another category 5 hurricane leveling the US.