What do you do when ASU Professor Sarah Viren is about to land your dream job teaching creative writing at the University of Michigan? If you’re a gay Professor living in Texas, (the villain of a terrific, horrifying story in the New York Times) you file a series of anonymous, false sexual misconduct allegations against Sarah Viren and her wife, Marta Tecedor, a pair of professors at Arizona State University. And then you trust that Title IX’s byzantine investigative process and the accompanying rumors will sabotage their career and make you the next job candidate in line.

SOS readers are aware that many Title IX accusations made against college males are misguided, false and outright lies. So it is not surprising to learn that the serial accusations made against Sarah and Marta are also outright lies… “Sarah and Marta had never done any of the things they were accused of doing, but the emails were authored under fake names, and it was thus extremely exhausting for them to prove their innocence. Moreover, the Title IX investigator, Melanie, was only tangentially interested in whether the accusations were false.” Melanie said, “If we find out that the information is false, for our purposes that’s not really our end goal; we’re just trying to determine whether or not there’s a policy violation.” 

In the end, Sarah and Marta had to do much of the detective work themselves, finally deducing J.’s (gay Prof.) identity and building a convincing enough case that they were found not responsible for violating Title IX. By then, however, it was too late, and the pair lost out on their dream move to Michigan. 

From the NY Times Sarah writes “In the case of our story, I quickly realized that we would never persuade anyone of what we knew to be true, that the accusations were invented…As Melanie explained during that first interview, her investigation would end with what is called a “determination letter.” And that letter could offer only two story lines: Either Marta had violated a policy – or there was “insufficient evidence” that Marta had violated a policy, and we could presumably go back to the way things were before.” “For us this is purely administrative.” In other words, Title IX investigations are not criminal, even if they feel that way. This is why Marta wasn’t allowed to have a lawyer present during her interview, even as she was told that any of her answers could be used against her. And it’s the reason that even if we could prove that someone was targeting Marta, Melanie could never compel that person to talk to her if they weren’t part of our university. But also, that person would never face consequences for what they were doing. The only way to accomplish that, a defamation lawyer told us, was if we pursued that person ourselves…At the end of July, we settled our lawsuit. Per that agreement, we can write or say anything we want about what happened. We can tell the whole story, using any and all of the facts. But we made one major concession: We cannot use J.’s real name. At the time, the concession seemed worth it if it meant ending a story we needed to stop. But in the weeks and months since, I’ve wondered if we made a mistake. 

 Robby Soave has written numerous stories about students, administrators, and professors using the Title IX process to exact vengeance on their enemies. Take the most recent cases of University of New Mexico Professor Nick Flor, or former Michigan State medical student Dev.

The ordeals suffered by academics and students are just part of the reason that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was absolutely right to revise the federal government’s Title IX guidance to colleges and universities.

Read Robby Soave’s in depth story about Sarah and Marta. A Crazed Academic Weaponized Title IX Against a Rival Professor Whose Job He Wanted.

Share this: