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
