Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you are advocating for it a system where professors can do anything they want and them simply blackball the student who makes a legitimate complaint and have all their professor friends do the same. No. I hear that you had bad experiences. That said, the right to challenge one's accuser dates back hundreds of years. It has survived as a foundational principle across millions of legal cases across all domains a…
You hit the nail on the head but you did not actually say it. The current system is NOT part of the legal system. We are not arguing about the legal system. We are arguing about the administrative system these administrators/professors put in the place. The exact ones ruining students lives on a whim. If you want to say the professors/admins get the right to challenge ones accuser then they can no longer be involved…
If the legislation survives for 50 years (it's not quite halfway there today), I'll accept it has passed the test of time. Until then, I'll likely continue to view it as a mistake but likely not for the reasons you expect.
Quoting from the Wikipedia page[0]:
> Between 1994 and 2010, the court had ruled for whistleblowers in only three of 203 cases decided on their merits, GAP's analysis found.
3 cases out of 204 means the court upheld 1.5% of Whistleblower claims. I find it extremely unlikely only 1.5% of claims had merit, or that only 1.5% would have succeeded in more conventional proceedings.
Anyone who throws away centuries of legal precedent in order to introduce a new legal concept to "improve things" and then produces a result that almost certainly provides worse outcomes for those it is supposed to protect was not, in my opinion, the once in a millenium legal mind that individual believed themself to be.
Given the high bar it needed to achieve to justify overturning centuries of precedent and the low bar it actually achieved, I think the Whistleblower legislation, as implemented, is an empirical failure.