Candice Jackson and Campus Title IX Madness

William L. Jackson reports:

When Candice Jackson was appointed as a deputy director in the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, I knew she would be a lightning rod for her libertarian views – and she was. That most people on the left hate libertarianism (or any kind of civil liberties at all – a far cry from the leftists of yesteryear) was driven home to me when Annie Waldman of Pro Publica and Edwin Rios of Mother Jones contacted me for interviews – and I accepted.

More than a decade ago, Jackson and I co-authored a number of articles and academic papers dealing with federal criminal law and how the feds have subverted justice by destroying the rights of the accused – all with the aid of a Congress that does not care about individual rights or the U.S. Constitution. (Here is a sample piece that appeared in Reason in 2004.) From the RICO statutes to the conviction and imprisonment of Martha Stewart, we documented how federal criminal law has become so malleable that it makes felons out of nearly all of us, making us vulnerable to politically-motivated federal prosecutors looking for a scalp. She and I coined the term “Derivative Crimes” to describe how federal criminal law works.

(The actual charges are fictitious, such as “racketeering,” which actually are derived from other acts, mostly alleged violations of state laws committed by the accused. However, the prosecution does not have to prove any of the individual acts beyond a reasonable doubt, which de facto lower the standards for criminal proof to something closer to the civil “preponderance of the evidence.”)

The Candice Jackson I always have known is someone concerned with right and wrong and has a heart for people whom state authorities have victimized. In the years she and I wrote together, she was uncompromising on this point, and I knew I never would have to worry about her moral compass. Her writing was on-point, professional, and our work blended well together. (We used to remark that it was difficult for one to see where one of us left off and the other began.) I was (and am) passionate about the rights of the accused and due process of law and she shared that passion with me.

An article worth your time.