Pass Fun Forum

The Department does not believe this requirement will negatively influence a final decision-maker's incentive to effectively exclude concerns beneath this provision's rape shield protections. Further, we have revised § 106.45(b)(1)(iii) to have to have final decision-makers (and investigators) to be trained in issues of relevance, together with how to apply the rape shield protections in these ultimate regulations. Requiring the final decision-maker to demonstrate relevance decisions during the listening to only reinforces the conclusion-maker's obligation to accurately figure out relevance, such as the irrelevance of details barred less than the rape protect language. Commenters argued that a respondent might refuse to post to cross-assessment in a Title IX listening to when prison prices are also pending towards the respondent because of to worries about self-incrimination and that this provision should really reduce a final decision-maker from drawing any adverse inferences from a respondent based mostly on a respondent's refusal to post to cross-examination since a decision by an accused not to testify has no probative value and is irrelevant to the concern of culpability.