This is a terribly tragic story of discrimination and what bystander intervention really looks like. A TIX sexual assault complaint was filed by a nosy 3rd party female…Doe attempted to put an end to the matter at once: Grant Neal (the accused) recorded her making the definitive statement, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped” to university officials. But no one cared. In the eyes of the university, it was not Doe’s place to determine whether she was a victim of sexual assault—that was the investigators job. The man in charge of investigating whether Grant Neal had raped Doe first told Neal to open emails from Doe his girlfriend, and then later told him he could be disciplined for opening them. “That’s when I immediately knew,” said Neal. “That’s when I really knew that the situation was above my control.”.. After denying Neal any meaningful way to demonstrate his innocence, CSU-Pueblo effectively ended his career, cancelling out his scholarships and opportunities to play football and pursue a wrestling career. Read Mr. Neal’s interview below.
reason By Robby Soave
Monthly Archives: February 2017
A lawsuit against Williams was delayed until the accused student exhausted his appeals at the college.The result is an amended complaint which raises four new areas of concern with how Williams handled this case: (1) Credibility issues don’t matter, at least when the accuser’s credibility is in question. (2) Playing fast and loose with sexual assault definitions. (3) Limiting information. (4) Reports from a Williams whistleblower don’t inspire confidence.
Georgia state representative Earl Ehrhart has won committee approval for legislation that would remove the adjudication of felony sexual assault from campus administrators and return it to law enforcement. Ehrhart’s bill HB51 would go a long way toward establishing a system that could produce real justice. watchdog By Ashe Schow
Here’s a video of the bill’s discussion. SOS is very grateful to Attorney Charles Jones for supporting HB51 and for speaking out (in the midst of jeers) on behalf of the falsely accused who must remain silent due to college settlement agreements.
San Diego State University violated “procedural fairness” by refusing to let a student accused of rape have an advocate “with the same or substantially similar skills, training and experience” as his accuser’s advocate, ruled California Judge Wohlfeil. Wohlfeil also denounced the university’s “well-intentioned, but deeply flawed, administrative system to investigate and review complaints of student misconduct,” which stacks the deck against accused students. “The disparity of these circumstances is enough to shock the Court’s conscience,” the judge wrote.
“Procedures that most colleges and universities use in sexual assault cases are so structurally unfair to accused students- it calls into question the schools’ commitment to pursuing the truth.” “The lower threshold as articulated in guidance in 2011 by the Office for Civil Rights provides the foundation for a likely outcome of responsibility”… “It’s not about finding the truth, or administering justice. The purpose of the guidance is to make it more likely that accused students are found responsible, whether or not they have done anything wrong.” Excerpts from ‘The Campus Rape Frenzy: Attack on Due Process at American Universities’
washingtonpost.com By Johnson and Taylor
Earlier, I wrote about how the Trump administration should end the Obama-era micromanagement of college discipline by the Dept. of Ed. But I overlooked one form of federal meddling that needs to be fixed…that colleges not allow students or faculty accused of sexual harassment to appeal findings of guilt unless they also allowed complainants to appeal not-guilty findings -a position that some critics viewed as akin to double jeopardy. This demand ignored OCR’s own past agency rulings to the contrary, even though “unexplained departures from precedent” violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and are arbitrary and capricious.
libertyunyielding.com By Hans Bader
One of the strongest critics of the disciplinary process in the sexual misconduct case involving soccer player Ciaran McKenna has been Duke law professor James Coleman, Jr. Throughout the process, Coleman has made statements arguing that McKenna has been mistreated by the University’s disciplinary process. “I seriously doubt that the Office of Civil Rights, which I once advised as Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Education, would agree with the process that is being contemplated,” he wrote. “I hope the University will step in to avert this unfairness.” (The University did not step in to stop the unjust treatment of McKenna.)
dukechronicle.com By Gautam Hathi
The student, identified as John Doe, alleges that he attempted to present evidence that made it clear his accuser was only angry because they were no longer speaking and wanted him expelled out of spite. He says this evidence and witness testimony was ignored by Allegheny. John also claims information was withheld from him during the investigation, and that investigators attempted to “coerce a statement from him in response to allegations that had not been fully disclosed to him.”
watchdog.org By Ashe Schow
Males, get out of Mississippi. Leave and don’t look back. A bill in the Mississippi Legislature could codify a controversial federal mandate that could reduce due process rights for those accused of sex assaults at the state’s public universities and community colleges. The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Democrat Angela Cockerham, would require the state institutions of higher learning to implement a comprehensive policy toward allegations of sexual violence, domestic violence and stalking that goes a step beyond one proposed by the federal government in 2011.
watchdog.org By Ashe Schow and Steve Wilson
A judge has ruled that Cornell acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by refusing to follow its own anti-discrimination policy, which caused the male accused student “actual harm.” Even though both students’ claims should have been investigated per Cornell policy, only Jane’s was looked into. John alleged in his complaint against Cornell that the investigator looking into Jane’s claims showed a clear bias against him. For example, the investigator asked “misleading, prejudicial and slanted questions only of John Doe,” and refused to require Jane and her witnesses to preserve and produce text messages that could have helped John’s complaint against Jane.
watchdog.org By Ashe Schow