The facts revolve around a drunken hookup between two students and the woman’s subsequent efforts at covering up her willing participation by blaming the male student and accusing him of assault. Amherst’s administration was equally complicit, pronouncing the man guilty on flimsy and incomplete evidence, then refusing to reconsider once evidence that the woman had fabricated her story came to light. And the dark force driving the school to make an example of the student is Obama’s OCR… Although several elements of Doe’s complaint did not survive Amherst’s motion to dismiss, that’s irrelevant. What matters is that his central claims did and now the school can either settle or face trial.
www.jamesgmartin.center By George Leef
A boy and a girl at Univ. of Michigan were drinking. They danced and had sex. He says the sex was consensual. She had morning after regret and Title IX’d him. The male was expelled. Attorney Deborah Gordon, who is representing the male student, posed a question a jury will ultimately have to answer: If the female student had been voluntarily drinking, are there legal grounds for a suit against the male student? And if there is grounds for a suit, how much is the female student responsible for what happened.
www.abc10.com By David Jesse
A Yale male became a Title IX ‘person of interest’ after writing a class essay in which he condemned rape. According to his complaint a university panel found in 2014 that ‘John Doe’ had engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent. Doe alleges that the woman expressly consented and on that evening she harassed him. He adds that Yale’s disciplinary procedures were stacked against him and administered by biased officials who presumed his guilt. Doe insists that Title IX must protect men as well as women. In punishing him for sexual assault on the basis of allegations that were either unfounded or refuted by facts to which both sides of the dispute agreed, the lawsuit argues, Yale discriminated against him on the basis of his sex in violation of Title IX.
E. Everett Bartlett, Ph. D., President of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), an organization dedicated to working for policy reform to protect all victims and stop false allegations, talks about sex…Two young adults are students at the same college. They flirt and drink alcohol. They kiss while dancing and then go looking for a more private space. They wake up together in a room and come to the realization that they had sex the night before. One of them is encouraged by friends and family to report the encounter as a rape, regrets the encounter and now feels that the label “rape victim” fits. The other feels fine about the encounter, until being accused of rape. Without any intervention from the legal system, the one accused is expelled from school…For all the feminists screaming for “true equality” they want a protection for women that is not granted to men. They want to eschew responsibility for their own actions, consume alcohol in large quantities, engage in sexual activity, and then be permitted (even encouraged) to call it “rape” if they regret it afterwards.
The most terrifying book you will read this year isn’t written by Stephen King. It’s written by a lawyer and a history professor, and it will blow your hair back. The book is The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities, by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. I cannot recommend it highly enough. There are too many things to praise about this book, so I think I’ll just focus on my favorite part – what it does to the faulty, yet oft-repeated, statistics in this area…The book is much more than statistics, of course. Johnson and Taylor do a terrific job highlighting the terrible abuses of due process on college campuses across the country, the find-guilt-at-all-costs mentality of many Title IX coordinators, and the sheer hypocrisy of liberals who once claimed to care about due process.
abovethelaw.com By Justin Dillon
More than 150 lawsuits brought by students accused of sexual misconduct who allege they were denied basic fairness in campus proceedings have been filed since 2011. Two recent rulings illustrate how malleable and susceptible to varying interpretations the law in this area is, leading to a mixed bag of results for plaintiffs. Some judges are deeply reluctant to interfere in universities’ internal disciplinary systems and will defer to universities even when the circumstances would likely strike most people as outrageous. Other judges are more willing to allow accused students’ lawsuits to move forward, at least beyond the initial pleadings and into the discovery phase. Today, we will look at one of each of those cases.
www.thefire.org Samantha Harris
Northwestern University announced last month that female students had “potentially” been drugged and raped at the Sigma Alpha Epsilon house. It later said another student might have been drugged and raped at a different, unnamed fraternity. Who reported these horrific crimes? No one knows. They were done anonymously. Northwestern launched a witch hunt against two fraternities, intentionally naming one, without even knowing who the alleged victims were. And now the university that cried “wolf” is closing its investigation with no punishments…TIX rape accusations are becoming so trendy that I bet pretty soon designer wear will be created to go along with these trendy TIX false rape claims. (SOS)
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
For the past six years, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has threatened to revoke federal funding from colleges that don’t use the “preponderance of evidence” standard, which requires only 50.01 percent certainty that a student committed rape. That is too low for the American College of Trial Lawyers. In a report highlighting failures of due process in Title IX investigations, the group calls for use of the “clear and convincing” standard. The report examines multiple areas where colleges are depriving students of common protections in judicial proceedings. They include the right to be accompanied by counsel, ability to cross-examine complainants and witnesses, access to evidence, consideration of partiality, and provision of a written summation of facts and conclusion.
thecollegefix.com By Brian Bensimon
A former University of Maryland student opposed a motion from campus administrators to dismiss his complaint in a federal lawsuit seeking $5 million. The ex-student and plaintiff, John Doe claimed in his Sept. 30 complaint that he was wrongfully expelled. Doe alleged he was not given due process or advised of his rights during this university’s sexual misconduct investigation and was not given proper notice of investigation procedures. University officials also “filtered through the police report” and didn’t let Doe tell his side of the story while ignoring certain details of the incident. Doe seeks reinstatement to this university and for all files related to the investigation to be removed from his record. At the time of his expulsion, he was three credits shy of graduation.
dbknews.com By Jessica Campisi
On Friday Manhattan federal judge Gregory Woods said Nungesser could not prove he was harassed based on his gender and tossed the lawsuit “with prejudice” To win, Nungesser would have had to prove that Columbia knew he was being harassed based on his gender. But Nungesser himself argued in his lawsuit that “Sulkowicz’s conduct was motivated by her anger at his rejection of her as well as her anger at his having been found ‘not responsible’” for the rape. Nungesser’s lawyer said his client intends to keep fighting. “We think we have a good appeal. We’re going to have to go to to the Second Circuit (Court of Appeals) and get it done right.”
nypost.com By Kaja Whitehouse