Monthly Archives: February 2019

TWO FEMALE Purdue Students Were Suspended For Falsely Accusing. Now They’re Suing.

, , , /

TWO FEMALE Purdue Students Were Suspended For Falsely Accusing. Now They’re Suing.

Two former Purdue University students are suing their university after they were initially expelled for allegedly fabricating accusations of sexual assault. The university claimed, according to the women’s lawsuit, that one of the accusers fabricated her claim and the other was malicious in her reporting. Each was expelled from the university, but had her sentence lowered to a two-year suspension after an appeal. They filed a lawsuit together in November, and now Purdue is trying to separate their claims since each accused a different male student, at different times, and were punished separately. Purdue has filed a motion to dismiss, as all universities do when confronted with lawsuits. It’s hard to believe that the women would actually be punished for false accusations, given their claims in the lawsuit and the university’s fear of bad publicity from going against an accuser. In 2017, the school suspended a male student and expelled him from its ROTC program after his ex-girlfriend accused him of snugglingher without her consent. As the College Fix’s Greg Piper reported at the time, she only made the accusation after the two broke up.

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUDGE RULES for Due Process in UTSW Medical School Suit. Accuser Elinor Rowan Lied & Doctored Audio Files To Ruin Male.

, , /

JUDGE RULES for Due Process in UTSW Medical School Suit. Accuser Elinor Rowan Lied & Doctored Audio Files To Ruin Male.

THIS IS A STORY about two engaged college students. One a pill popping addict and one who tries to help, and a discerning judge in Texas… The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School (UTSW) expelled a medical student, Plaintiff Jacob Oliver, for violating the school’s student misconduct policies based on a physical altercation that allegedly occurred between Oliver and his former fiancée, Elinor Rowan. Mr. Oliver now brings suit against UTSW and two UTSW personnel involved in the disciplinary process. Oliver alleges that throughout their relationship Ms. Rowan engaged in reckless driving causing her license to be revoked; drove under the influence; was a heavy drinker and took prescription-strength medicine, such as Adderall, without a prescription; and would lie about her work and school history.  Because of these and other incidents, Oliver told Rowan that if she did not stop drinking he could no longer be in a relationship with her. The couple split up and Rowan moved out. Oliver asked for his apartment key back. She returned the key, but Oliver still suspected that she had another copy of the key because on April 30, 2016, Oliver realized that his Adderall prescription along with any available refills were missing from his apartment. Oliver reported the prescription drugs missing to his doctor since it was a “schedule 2 controlled substance…

May 8th: Rowan was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, her car was searched, and the police found Oliver’s Adderall prescription in her car, and charged her with possession of a controlled substance. Oliver alleges that Rowan tried to get him to provide a false affidavit to corroborate the story she told the police—which was that Oliver had left the pills in the car—to get her off the charges. Oliver refused, so he alleges that with the aid of her parents Rowan bought a “spy ware” device in order to surreptitiously record Oliver admitting that the pills were his and that she had not stolen them. To accomplish this alleged scheme, Rowan began sending text messages to Oliver requesting to move back in with him, that she loved him, and that her parents kicked her out of the house so she needed a place to stay. [Unfortunately] Oliver obliged and allowed her to stay in the second bedroom as a guest if she would not drink. Rowan agreed. Shortly after moving back in, Oliver and Rowan had two separate altercations which form the basis of Rowan’s assault allegations and led to Oliver being expelled from UTSW.

May 17th. Oliver communicated with Rowan’s criminal defense attorney regarding him potentially signing a false affidavit that would help Rowan’s case. Ultimately, Oliver told Rowan and her attorney that day that he would not be able to do so because it would put his career at risk. Rowan returned to the apartment around midnight, highly intoxicated and on prescription drugs, and the two began having a verbal altercation. While intoxicated, Rowan stated she was going to leave and refused to give Oliver her car keys. Fearing what might happen to her or others if she drove in a drunken state, Oliver then partially deflated Rowan’s right rear tire.

May 18th. Rowan again returned from work around midnight in an intoxicated state and the couple began arguing.  Rowan allegedly “yanked” Oliver’s computer off the desk while he was working on it and attempted to leave the apartment with it.  Rowan tripped a few times. During the altercation, Oliver was puzzled that Rowan asked him to hit her and kept on saying to “stop” or that he was hurting her.  Oliver later learned that Rowan had been secretly recording the conversations and believes that is why she made those remarks. Oliver claims that besides trying to pull the computer from her, he did not hit Rowan.

Following his expulsion, the criminal charges investigated by UTSWPD proceeded.  Through that investigation, Oliver’s defense attorney hired an expert to examine the audio recording device Rowan used, which ultimately revealed that Rowan’s audio recordings were doctored to support her claim that Oliver assaulted her.  Upon the recovery of the deleted audio files, the district attorney agreed to drop the charges against Oliver on condition that he complete an “anger management” course. Also, related civil proceedings regarding a protective order Rowan filed against Oliver resulted in the revelation of colored photographs of her bruises, which were also inconsistent with the alleged time or cause of the injury.

Excerpt from Judge’s Ruling: “The Court finds that by not disclosing the incriminating evidence to Oliver before the hearing, combined with the lack of live testimony by Rowan or opportunity to cross-examination her, there was a substantial risk of erroneously depriving Oliver’s interests through the procedures used, and the probable value of disclosing that evidence or having Rowan testify is clearly shown. Specifically, Oliver argues that had he been given that evidence in advance or had the opportunity to cross-examine Rowan, he could have shown that the audio tape was doctored and incomplete and that Rowan’s bruises were from an injury at work that occurred a few days earlier, which ultimately is what was found to be true in the related criminal and civil proceedings that followed his expulsion. Thus, having considered the minimum procedural due-process required in previous cases, as well as weighing the Mathews factors in light of this case’s unique circumstances, the Court finds that Oliver has pled enough facts to show that Mihalic and Williamson, acting in both their official and individual capacities, deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to respond and defend the accusations made against him, which ultimately violated his right to procedural due process…The remaining claims in this suit are Oliver’s (1) procedural due process claims against Mihalic and Williamson in their official and individual capacities; and (2) Title IX gender discrimination claim against UTSW. All other claims are dismissed.” Judge Jane J. Boyle Oliver  v University of Texas Southwestern Medical

-Usually I don’t focus on female accusers and their heartless actions, but ungrateful college females are increasingly ramping up their manipulative and dishonest schemes when they are not satisfied.  Young college males need to be on guard and walk away if a female is in distress. Seriously, your concern for her could cost you your career, your reputation.-Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT. Good News for John Doe! Miami University Settles.

, /

SETTLEMENT. Good News for John Doe! Miami University Settles.

A three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower court’s dismissal of several claims against Miami University and school officials, but found that the student presented enough factual allegations to support a “reasonable inference” of discrimination. The student, identified in court documents as “John Doe,” said most of Miami’s sexual misconduct cases are against males who are then ruled responsible without fair hearings. He was suspended for a 2014 consensual encounter with a female acquaintance.

Miami University has now settled with John Doe.
Background: 2018 John Doe’s win in Appellate Court before his case settled in 2019

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
8th CIRCUIT Warns Colleges They Can be Sued if They Deny Accused Students Due Process

, , /

8th CIRCUIT Warns Colleges They Can be Sued if They Deny Accused Students Due Process

A common practice in campus sex misconduct proceedings is to treat accused students as if they were guilty from the start. This can include making them change dorms, drop classes or even leave campus to keep them away from their accusers – all before the university has even reviewed the evidence against them, much less found them responsible. Iowa State University refused to take this guilty-until-proven-innocent approach when Melissa Maher accused Patrick Whetstone of sexual assault five years ago. Though it imposed a no-contact order between the parties, it refused Maher’s demand to move Whetstone to a dorm further from hers. Instead it offered Maher “at least two alternative housing arrangements,” both of which she declined.

”Does that refusal to judge first and ask questions later count as deliberate indifference? A trial court rejected Maher’s argument, and last week the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling dismissing the lawsuit against ISU.  Under the court’s own precedent, Maher had to show that ISU was “deliberately indifferent … to known acts of discrimination … which occurr[ed] under its control.” Rather, all she argued was that she didn’t like the alternative housing options it offered her. By her own argument, the appeals court said, Maher acknowledged that ISU was not deliberately indifferent until “it admitted” Whetstone was guilty – once its investigation was complete.

ISU acted appropriately “in light of the known circumstances” by respecting Whetstone’s procedural due process rights, according to the court. It could have exposed itself to “constitutional or statutory claims” had it imposed discipline on Whetstone – a forced room change – before concluding the proceeding.  Universities are not granted license to treat all accused students as guilty simply because some will eventually be judged guilty. Even the Title IX consultant S. Daniel Carter acknowledges this, telling Inside Higher Ed that the 8th Circuit ruling matches Supreme Court precedent.

thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ACCUSED MALE SUES Fairfield. Jesuit University Pocketed $300K Grant to Treat Accused as Guilty

, , , /

ACCUSED MALE SUES Fairfield. Jesuit University Pocketed $300K Grant to Treat Accused as Guilty

John Doe is a Jesuit with ADHD. He was an outstanding student and a compassionate senior at Fairfield University who played sports and volunteered often at a literacy center that serves low-income women and children, when Jane Roe attempted to falsify her medical records, and alter time stamped emails, in an effort to support her lie about being assaulted.  Jane Roe with the guidance of Fairfield- a Jesuit based University-continually and purposefully engaged in unlawful methods denying John Doe a presumption of innocence, thereby symbolically crucifying Doe for engaging in sex. Sex that evidence shows is consensual.

Fairfield University claims they prepare students for success and focus on developing the ‘whole person’. What Fairfield actually engages in, is the lucrative business of securing Title IX grant money to hire more staff, and increase guilt presuming investigations of males accused.  One would hope that Fairfield’s Jesuit foundation would support due process and the presumption of innocence while developing the ‘whole person’ but alas, the temptation of money is too seductive for Fairfield University. In my reading of John Doe’s court filing it’s clear that Fairfield sought out grant money to enhance ‘victim’ safety, and to ‘demonstrate to every student that these crimes will not be tolerated’. That ‘perpetrators will face serious consequences.’ For Fairfield University specifically, there has been financial gain to open Title IX investigations and find against the accused. ‘Significantly, in 2018, Fairfield received a $299,954 federal grant to “Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking on Campus” from the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (“OVW”). This was close to the maximum amount ($300,000) which could be awarded to an individual institution.’

According to the filing: John Doe & Jane Roe met in 2016. On three separate occasions Jane invited John to sleep over. John initially refused because Jane had a boyfriend. However after Jane told John that she broke up with her boyfriend, the two engaged in consensual oral sexual activity. A week later Jane invited John to join her and her friends at a local bar. Later John invited Jane to his room, which Jane accepted. The two continued kissing, while John & Jane both undressed themselves. John asked Jane “do you want to have sex?” as she was grabbing his penis. Jane verbally agreed and they had sex.  Two months later, Jane filed a report against John for alleged sexual misconduct. Notably, Jane made this allegation after John started dating a mutual friend. 

John Doe filed eight separate complaints against Jane Roe which were not investigated: 1. Complaints of Jane harassing and defaming John 2. Jane requesting a University employee to change medical documentation 3. Jane asking third parties to publicly accuse John of rape 4. Jane failing to divulge a personal relationship with a Hearing Board member who clearly possesses bias against John 5. Jane contacting John’s housemates with threats in violation of the no-contact order 6. Jane admitting to lying to University personnel 7. Jane creating a hostile environment that went ignored by the University.

This is how a TIX hearing proceeds when a school receives a $300K grant to ‘hold offenders accountable’. During the first hearing, Jane was allowed to ask questions of witnesses herself.  Jane’s advisor handed a list of questions to the hearing board for them to ask of John. Both acts violated Fairfield’s policy. John Doe was not allowed to do the same. Jane presented witnesses who were not actual first-hand witnesses, but instead character witnesses. This act violated Fairfield’s policy. John was not allowed to bring in character witnesses. Witnesses came into the first hearing that were not on the list given to John prior to the hearing. This act violated Fairfield’s original policy.  John was barred from asking questions or submitting questions that witnesses could ask him. John was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or Jane at any point in the adjudicative process. John Doe appealed the first hearing on multiple grounds, and Fairfield acknowledged the violations that occurred during the hearing.

John had a new second hearing. John Doe expressed concern before the 2nd hearing that the time stamps of the documents Jane submitted were incorrect. In particular, Jane Roe submitted emails between herself and her friends, and those emails had questionable time stamps and blacked out portions of conversation. However, no action was taken by Defendant Fairfield in response to these concerns… Notably, Jane Roe did not submit her medical records to the hearing board. Around December 2017, after filing her complaint against John, Jane returned to the clinic and requested that her records be changed to state that she had reported being sexually assaulted on her previous visit – essentially asking the health clinic to falsify records. The Second hearing was conducted under a new student handbook. In addition to the conflicting information about the New Policy, Fairfield failed to follow its new policies. During the 2nd hearing, Jane threatened John by publicly stating, “if my dad knew about this, he would kill you.” Neither Defendant Fairfield nor the Department of Public Safety followed up on this threat nor took action against Jane Roe until John Doe’s parents got involved. During the 2nd hearing, John Doe endured being referred to as a “rapist” and threatened to be killed. All the while, John was barred from being able to defend himself, in clear violation of the Original Policy’s ”Right of Respondent” which states that a respondent has the right “to present one’s case and to rebut unfavorable inferences that may be drawn.”

In March 2018 John Doe was found Responsible for non-consensual sexual intercourse. John appealed the Decision and Sanction. President Nemec denied John Doe’s appeal. John then sought special accommodations with regard to his classes and was denied the academic accommodations which is recognized and protected under the ADA. Defendant Fairfield has created an environment in which an accused male student is effectively denied fundamental due process by being prosecuted through the conduct process under the cloud of a presumption of guilt.

…After reading my summary of Doe’s court filing, perhaps the reader can understand why so many parents like me fight the many injustices that are perpetrated upon innocent decent loving and respectful college males. You can read the full court filing below-Alice

Doe v Fairfield U, Philip Lane, Karen Donoghue, Christine Brown & Colby Lemieux 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , , /

NEW BRIEFS Filed in $3 Million Lawsuit Against Boston College

The $3 million lawsuit filed against Boston College advanced another step toward trial this past week, as the plaintiff’s lawyer filed briefs on Friday to the Massachusetts District Court arguing that the scope of the civil suit should be wide-ranging.  It should be noted that when the alleged incident occurred, the plaintiff, John Doe was on assignment for The Heights. In 2012 Doe was accused of groping a female student on a crowded dance floor on a cruise ship. The college refused to wait for a completed analysis of forensic evidence that Doe said would clear him, including “swab tests” and surveillance video from the ship. The investigation into the 2012 incident led to Doe being charged by the University for assault rather than sexual assault and a three-semester suspension. Shortly after his suspension was issued, the criminal charges pending against him were dropped after exculpatory video evidence was found by the police. Doe’s two appeals of his University suspension fell on deaf ears, leading to his lawsuit against BC.

The briefs filed by the plaintiff’s side last week argue more specifically in regard to how evidence in the case will be handled. The University is arguing that the scope of the trial take into account only two pieces of evidence, both pertaining to allegedly improper communication between Hughes and Chebator. The plaintiff’s side said that far more should be taken into account in order to make the case comprehensible to the jury. The plaintiff’s side is also citing Doe v. Amherst College, 2017 in its argument, where that plaintiff  “John Doe” won a lawsuit against Amherst for wrongly expelling him without fairly evaluating his defense. The parallel to the BC case is that BC’s John Doe is trying to prove he made an “exculpatory and complete defense,” as the brief puts it—which would potentially provide a precedent for the judge and jury to follow. Doe is also requesting to submit evidence based on “basic fairness,” an argument that hinges on “source of duty” and “the standard of basic fairness in the context of higher education discipline.”

John Doe is asking for both $3 million and expungement of his disciplinary record due to emotional distress, expenses incurred during his three-semester-long suspension, lost earnings as a result of his delayed graduation, diminished earning potential, and reputation cost.

bcheights.com By Jack Goldman

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
IN HIS OWN WORDS. From a Student Accused, Expelled, & Vindicated in Appellate Court

, , , /

IN HIS OWN WORDS. From a Student Accused, Expelled, & Vindicated in Appellate Court

Before I tell my story, I would just like to say something to everybody else who is going through what I am going through. Don’t let them win. These schools, these girls, these lawyers, EVERYONE will try to beat you down into submission. They want you to quit on life and give up. If you sit there, take it, and don’t fight for yourself and your future, your life really will be over.

…Recently, I found out that I had won my lawsuit against my old college and gotten my expulsion removed from my permanent record. It was the day that I have dreamed about every single day since I was expelled for sexual assault four years ago. My life was over, or so I thought. I learned a lot about myself in the past four years, however. I learned that I am much stronger than I ever imagined. Most importantly, though, I learned that I have fantastic parents who would fight to the death for me, and for that I am eternally grateful.

In high school, I was a 4.0 student with a 2300 on my SATs. I was on top of the world and I had my whole life ahead of me. I went off to college excited for the best four years of my life. Instead, I was kicking off the worst four years of my life…Like most other kids in this situation, my story begins with a drunken hookup. I left a party because a girl asked me to take her somewhere more private. I got her verbal consent and we had sex. A month later she claimed she did not remember the events in question and I was being investigated for sexual assault. I thought that because I received consent and she had initiated the encounter, I was in the clear. Boy, was I wrong. Every single thing that I said was distorted by the investigator into victim-blaming. (Even after I won in court, it was still said that I never proved any bias. The investigator was a female rape crisis counselor, who had a master’s degree in women’s studies proudly displayed in her office. You tell me if you think there was any bias there.) Unsurprisingly, I was found to have committed a sexual assault and was expelled from school. My life was over and I had no clue how I was going to put myself back together again.  I had no school, no direction, and no future. I thought that I would never be able to move past this.

After I got expelled, my parents did everything they could to try and get me into a new school. Eventually, we decided that community college was the best (only) option at this point, and I picked a school two hours away from my hometown, because I was too ashamed to even chance running into somebody that I knew. My parents sat me down and told me that the only thing I had to worry about was my grades.  They said that if I kept my head down and got good grades, at least I would have a chance. That was the only thing that I still had control over in my life.

While I was going to school, my dad took on the legal fight as a second job and my mom became my dad’s therapist, since they did not want to talk about this with anyone else.  My dad worked tirelessly with our lawyer taking it through three or four different courts. Each time, we lost and appealed, only to also lose that appeal. Finally, my case ended up in front of the [REDACTED] Court of Appeals. A panel of judges agreed that the Title IX investigation was a kangaroo court.  They said that it is “fundamentally flawed” to have one investigator act as the prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. This was an irreversible decision. These judges gave me my life back. I will never forget this moment for as long as I live.

Although I will never get the past four years back, I have options again for the first time since I was in high school. Yes, the degree I’m getting is from a school that is not that great. However, I actually have the option now to get a master’s degree and make up for it.  The future is bright again. I couldn’t have made it through this without my parents.

So, for any parents out there reading this, please don’t let your son give up.  This is going to be harder than you can even imagine for both you and your son, but you can’t just lie down and take it. You have to be strong for your son until he can be strong for himself again. Even if you don’t win in court, or can’t afford to keep fighting it, you can still offer the support and guidance that only parents can. He needs it now more than ever.

And for any guys going through what I’m going through, I have some advice, too. If you just recently got accused, you need to understand that you have to take this very seriously. It’s no joke; this is life-altering. If you’re already out of school, you can’t just sit around. Go to community college.  Even if you never get into another four-year school, you can at least get a degree of some kind. With that being said, you can still find schools that will accept you. You just have to work hard and put yourself in the best position you can. It’s easier for schools to look past this stuff if you have good grades. I hate to say this, but your life is never going to be normal again. You have to come to grips with that and realize that you still have options, even if you think you don’t. I don’t have all of the answers, but what I do know is that you can’t just spend the rest of your life moping around your parents’ house. Even though your life seems like it’s over, you still have another 60+ years left to live. And 50-year-old you will never forgive 20-year-old you for quitting. READ John Doe’s detailed story @ titleixforall.com

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
COMPLICATED LAWSUIT: If you Drink & Have Consent Sex Today, A MeToo Activist Could Ruin You 14 Years Later Claiming Regret Rape

, , , /

COMPLICATED LAWSUIT: If you Drink & Have Consent Sex Today, A MeToo Activist Could Ruin You 14 Years Later Claiming Regret Rape

A lawsuit is stemming from a drunken encounter at Dartmouth College almost 14 years ago. It is also pitting a Dartmouth alumna inspired by the #MeToo movement against a Tuck School of Business graduate trying to protect his reputation in the internet age…Monica Morrison, the plaintiff, was a 19-year-old sophomore in May 2005 when, she alleges, she was sexually assaulted by Robert Langrick, then 29.  Morrison, now a 33-year-old freelance writer living in New York City, left a voice message for Langrick.  Langrick, now a 42-year-old executive working in New York City, says in his court filing they had consensual sex, noting that Hanover police investigated and didn’t charge him with any sex crime, in part because of testimony from witnesses. He also has made counterclaims of libel and slander. In her Nov. 1 lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York, Morrison seeks legal protection to speak and write publicly without fear of defamation charges against her from Langrick.

The undisputed facts in the case, filed in the Eastern District of New York in November, include that Morrison met Langrick while playing beer pong, a drinking game involving ping pong balls and cups of beer, at a fraternity party in May 2005. The two later found themselves back at the School Street group house belonging to an undergraduate society called Panarchy, where Morrison was living at the time. At the center of their dispute is whether what happened at Panarchy was a crime or consensual. Morrison claims that Langrick sexually assaulted her while she was “dead drunk.”  Langrick insists they had consensual intercourse in Panarchy’s cupola.

Langrick, who is married and the father of two children, in his court filing seeks to have Morrison’s complaint dismissed, require her to remove “defamatory” posts on the internet, and require that she refrain from making similar such statements in the future. In her filing, Morrison said her calls [to Langrick] reflected her “reawakening” to the trauma she experienced related to the 2005 incident.  His filing describes her actions as “meritless allegations of sexual assault for self-aggrandizement and financial gain that represent a disturbing and unfortunate perversion of the otherwise laudable #metoo movement.” He seeks damages in excess of $75,000, and asks that the court require Morrison to remove the allegedly libelous posts and refrain from “similarly defaming” Langrick in the future.

vnews.com By Nora Doyle-Burr

 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GREAT NEWS. CA Court Ruling Affirms the Rights of Students Accused of Sex Misconduct. Must Include Hearing & X-Examination

, , , , /

GREAT NEWS. CA Court Ruling Affirms the Rights of Students Accused of Sex Misconduct. Must Include Hearing & X-Examination

Colleges and universities across California are scrambling to revise the way they handle sexual misconduct cases after a state appellate court ruled that “fundamental fairness” requires that accused students have a right to a hearing and to cross-examine their accusers. The decision last month came in a USC case but applies to all California public and private colleges, and prompted many to immediately halt Title IX investigations while they reshape their procedures.

The case that triggered the ruling involved Bryce Dixon, a former USC football player who was accused of sexually assaulting a female student in 2014. In a Jan. 4 decision, a three-member panel in the Second Appellate District unanimously found that Dixon was denied a fair hearing. (The ruling called Dixon “John Doe,” but his attorney, Hathaway, confirmed his identity.) The appeals court reversed a trial court ruling that Dixon had violated the student code of conduct and USC did not appeal. The court ruled that in cases where students are facing “serious discipline,” such as a suspension or expulsion, and the credibility of witnesses is key, a university must permit cross-examination of “adverse witnesses” at a hearing either in person or via such means as videoconferencing.

Students accused of sexual misconduct have filed scores of lawsuits arguing that campuses denied them fair hearings. They have won cases in states including California, Ohio, Michigan, Mississippi and New Mexico. California campuses must immediately comply with the appellate court decision, which has sparked a wide range of reactions. “It will protect millions of college students in California from losing their education in a process that’s arbitrary,” said Mark Hathaway, a Los Angeles attorney who has pioneered much of the litigation on behalf of accused students.

latimes.com By T. Watanabe and S. Hussain

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
HIGHER EDUCATION Discriminates Against Men, But Title IX Complaints May Change That

, /

HIGHER EDUCATION Discriminates Against Men, But Title IX Complaints May Change That

Higher education has a gender problem: With a surplus of women and a shortage of male students, colleges are becoming more and more gender unbalanced. Part of the problem, of course, is that our K-12 system, staffed overwhelmingly by women whom research shows tend to favor girls, leaves a lot of boys demoralized and uninterested in further education. But another big part of the problem is that college has become an anti-male space.

At today’s universities, masculinity is almost never discussed except in negative terms, usually with the word “toxic” attached. When girls and women are discussed, the question is always about how to help them do better. When boys and men are mentioned, it’s almost always as some sort of a problem.

The anti-sex-discrimination education law, Title IX, is supposed to promote sexual equality, but in fact it has been turned into a club with which to beat male students. Universities treat accusations of sexual misconduct against male students (disproportionately, though they don’t like to admit it, minority male students) as presumptively true. Now people are starting to fight back. The irony is that these complaints and lawsuits might have the effect of saving higher education from itself. If college stops being an anti-male space, perhaps more men will want to attend, and save higher education from its ongoing self-marginalization.

usatoday.com By Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2 3 4