Since 2011 Obama’s Department of Education, instructed universities to get involved in any and all sexual conduct between students. Obama’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter presented universities with an ultimatum: create Title IX kangaroo courts to adjudicate claims of campus sexual assault, or face an end to all federal funding. Universities were encouraged to abandon in their systems the protections Americans enjoy in the court system when accused of criminal acts, including the right to effective counsel, cross-examination of witnesses, object to false or prejudicial evidence, and a high standard of proof. The schools complied. Today hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by the falsely accused for due process violations etc., and as the courts continue to find that the Obama era 2011 sex rules are indeed unconstitutional, universities continue to be inflexible. If President Trump wants to reverse the damage done by the letter, he’ll have to do more than simply revoke the letter.
A male student expelled from Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI, has commenced suit in federal court in Massachusetts, claiming he was unlawfully held responsible and expelled after an unfair, prejudged internal judicial process that violated not only ordinary norms of fairness, but also the university’s own guidelines… The more cases of campus sexual assault adjudications we cover, the more we see patterns. There frequently is an ongoing consensual sexual relationship in which only some of the interactions were claimed to be non-consensual; a delay in reporting the alleged assault; a process in which the accused is left uncertain as to the charges against him; an inability to be represented by counsel, a university investigation under pressure to “believe” the accuser; the inability to call key witnesses, the issue of whether there was sufficient affirmative consent (there being no claim that the female said “No”), and of course, the use of alcohol in varying degrees.
legalinsurrection.com By William A. Jacobson
Yale University has settled a lawsuit by a former student, John Doe, who says he was wrongly and unfairly expelled over a false sexual assault allegation in 2012. Doe says he and a female, who are both Native Americans, had consensual sex in January 2012 and she filed bogus sexual assault allegations in a strange plot to take control of Yale’s Native American Cultural Center. The lawsuit says Doe and the center’s former director both identify as Lakota Sioux, while the accuser and her friends identify as Navajo. The accuser and others wanted to oust the director and Doe and take control of the center to benefit Navajo students on campus. Doe accused the university of discriminating against Native American students, and said he was the “whipping boy” Yale needed to demonstrate a new zero-tolerance sexual misconduct policy.
boston.com By Dave Collins
JUDGE APPROVES ‘Title IX Retaliation’ Claims Against University that Fired Father of Accused Student
Tom Rossley accused the university he served for 23 years of “Title IX retaliation” when it fired him in 2016, following his unsuccessful pleas for his son, a disabled student accused of sexual assault. Now a federal judge has allowed the former trustee’s lawsuit against both Drake University and his former colleagues to go forward, saying Rossley’s allegations fit a precedent on “third-party retaliation” under federal discrimination law. The judge said the father’s allegations were “novel,” …but noted that not only does the ADA allow for “associational claims,” but that it prohibits retaliation against those who “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner” in an investigation implicated by the ADA.
thecollegefix.com By Jeremiah Poff
The woman who accused Liam Allan said he had raped her, and that she did not enjoy sex with him. Thousands of her text messages said otherwise…What happened to Allan is happening on college campuses across America. The most famous example occurred at Amherst College. A blacked out male student received oral sex from his girlfriend’s roommate, who turned around two years later and accused him of sexual assault. After he was expelled, his attorney discovered text messages from the accuser making clear she knew she had done something wrong that night and her roommate would be mad about it. With “victim-centered” training for college investigators and campus police, incidents like this will be more common. Victim centered training insists investigators believe accusers and that any shifty behavior or lies they tell are the result of trauma. In other words, no matter what they do, they’re telling the truth.
thefederalist.com By Ashe Schow
Two students at SUNY Plattsburgh were drinking and had sex three times in seven hours. So what then made this a sexual assault? The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, majority was not going to delve into the explicit, lurid details of the sexual encounter between the accuser and accused. But look to NY Gov. Cuomo’s Enough is Enough Law, (which imposed upon public colleges in NY a regime separate from Title IX) and SUNY’s Title IX coordinator, Butterfly Blaise to find answers… The appellate court’s 3-2 majority reversed and remanded for a new hearing based upon Butterfly’s errors. And while it was a win of sorts for the petitioner, it demonstrated a glaring due process failure in Cuomo’s Enough is Enough law.
blog.simplejustice.us By Scott H. Greenfield
The fight for due process has never really gone away. Today, the most serious attack on our right to be treated fairly under the law is executed outside of the realm of politics and the courtroom, in the kangaroo court of moral-panic feminism and on the more intolerant sections of social media… The point about due process is that it treats people like human beings. It recognizes that no matter how important it might be to ‘speak out’ about sexual violence, the fact is that at the heart of an allegation there is both the accuser and the accused, and both deserve fair treatment. The rise of hashtag justice speaks to a society that is moving away from its humanity. If you do not consider people to be worthy of a fair hearing, you are unlikely to consider them to be capable of redemption.
spiked-online.com By Luke Gittos
Princeton’s Title IX proceedings offer less procedural fairness and fewer due process protections than the Honor system does. The Honor Committee utilizes a higher burden of proof to determine if a violation has occurred than does the Title IX panel. The Honor Committee also requires that a higher percentage of its members vote to find a student responsible for the student to be convicted than does Title IX. FIRE recently issued a report on due process that gave Princeton a ‘D’ rating for the lack of due process and fairness in its handling of sexual misconduct cases. For all of the same arguments about fairness, justice, and the possibility of disparate impacts on different University populations that students made in favor of Honor Code reform, the fundamental unfairness of Princeton’s Title IX proceedings is deeply troubling.
EXTRA EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! Judge Approves Groundbreaking Title IX Retaliation Lawsuit Against Drake
Press Release: In a first-of-its-kind Title IX retaliation case, a former 23 year member of the Board of Trustees of Drake University won the ability to move forward in his lawsuit against Drake University and its Board of Trustees for retaliating against him after he spoke out against the University’s improper conduct, including the wrongful sexual assault investigation of his disabled son.
Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger for the Southern District of Iowa last week allowed the case to move forward with the following charges against Drake University and its Board of Trustees: violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, breach of fiduciary responsibilities, breach of contract, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, the case is also proceeding under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
According to the complaint, Drake University openly discriminated against and targeted its disabled students and, together with its Board of Trustees, instituted a concerted attack on all those who dared speak out for the rights of Drake University’s students, including the plaintiff, Tom Rossley. The lawsuit describes how Mr. Rossley experienced first-hand Drake University’s wrongful treatment of disabled students when the school maliciously withheld necessary accommodations from his disabled son. As a result of his advocacy for his son and Drake University students, the Board, with the support of the University President, removed Mr. Rossley from the Board of Trustees.
“Drake University and its Board of Trustees will not succeed in silencing Tom Rossley in his advocacy for his son and other Drake students,” said Rossley’s attorney Andrew Miltenberg. “We are gratified by the judge’s decision and we will continue to pursue justice for this family, whose lives have been irreparably harmed by the unlawful, discriminatory actions of Drake University and its Board of Trustees.”
The plaintiff’s son also filed a lawsuit against Drake University in federal court in December of 2016, charging that the school violated Title IX equal protection clause, his rights to due process, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case state’s that the University wrongfully expelled the student and refused to investigate his simultaneous charge that his female accuser sexually assaulted him on the same night of the alleged incident—even considering her own admission that she initiated in sexual conduct without his consent.
Additionally, the University failed to properly accommodate the student’s ADHD, anxiety, and language-based learning disabilities during the disciplinary process, despite the fact that Drake University is home to the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, which lists advocacy for people with disabilities as one of its primary areas of focus. According to the lawsuit, officials at Drake University took advantage of the student’s language-based disability in order to railroad him out of the University. The student’s lawsuit was upheld by the same federal judge in August and is moving forward with discovery.
Questions? Contact Jeanette Hoffman (908) 418-0859
L.A. Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue said she is leaning toward denying former USC kicker Matt Boermeester’s petition for reinstatement to USC in the face of a Title IX domestic violence allegation involving his girlfriend, Zoe Katz. Boermeester’s lawyer, Mark Hathaway said a surveillance video of the encounter exonerated his client, and said Katz repeatedly denied making the statements attributed to her and that she and his client walked away from the incident holding hands. He described both Boermeester and Katz as two athletes at the top of their game who are strong physically and mentally.