One of the core beliefs of trauma-informed ideology is "don't re-victimize the victim." Which means, don't ask any questions that might make the complainant feel a tad uncomfortable. So any implausible statements or inconsistencies in her testimony are explained away as irrefutable proof of the life-threatening "trauma" that she allegedly experienced.

This cancerous notion is now affecting all phases of campus adjudications.

Last week the Seventh Circuit Court handed down a major decision on a lawsuit filed by an accused student against Purdue University in Indiana. The judge highlighted these flaws in the university's procedures:

1. Didn't share the investigative report with the accused student
2. Two members of the panel admitted that they had not read the investigative report.
3. The third panelist who did read the report asked the accused student leading questions that assumed his guilt.
4. HERE'S THE BEST PART: The panel never heard from the accuser, either in person or in writing. (After all, we don't want to re-victimize the victim with any unpleasant questions, do we?)

The judge didn't mince words, calling the hearing a "sham" and “fundamentally unfair.” 

Bottom line, trauma-informed investigations and adjudications represent a violation of a person's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

You can read more about the decision here: https://www.thefire.org/seventh-circuit-upholds-accused-students-due-process-sex-discrimination-claims/?fbclid=IwAR2MfLarKkkCWWxI2kzzp5oAMrrdfqqloEK2PvXXXN6jROrluqqlY6g_8Ks 

++++++++++++++

2,905 signers. Let's keep it rolling!