There are many excellent colleges and universities for males to attend where the male will be treated as an equal, with respect and dignity. Claremont McKenna College is not one of those colleges. Males should consider attending a different college if they value the presumption of innocence. SOS says this due to the numerous lawsuits filed by males against CMC for their aggressive strident illegal actions towards Title IX males accused. Case in point is when Claremont McKenna fought nasty and lost in California’s appellate court.  Then the CA Supreme Court denied CMC’s petition for review, thereby securing John Doe a precedent setting win for all California males accused.

Perhaps this is the reason why Claremont McKenna recently settled. Because colleges demand settlement secrecy we will never know the rewards for John Doe. But SOS is always extremely pleased when an innocent accused male finds justice through a settlement agreement.

Share this:

In yet another ruling against a college or university over how it handles accusations of sexual assault, an appellate panel in California determined Westmont College failed to provide an accused student a fair hearing. The student, referred to as John Doe in a lawsuit filed over the accusation, was accused by a fellow Westmont student, referred to in court documents as Jane Roe. Jane was not the person who reported the alleged sexual assault – it was her mother. Jane gave varying accounts of the night in question to her friends and roommates, and Westmont chose to use only the testimony that corroborated her account and made John look like a rapist. One of Jane’s roommates said Jane “started blaming what happened on her having mental health issues.” While Jane told school investigators she didn’t drink, her roommates said she did. John told Westmont investigator Stu Cleek he believed Jane made up the claim after he ignored a text from her asking to hook up. Despite her roommates referring to her as a “compulsive liar,” Westmont found John responsible. Westmont also “withheld its notes concerning panel questions and witness responses,” a trial court earlier ruled. This kept John from being able to question witness testimony.

Associate Justice Martin Tangeman wrote the ruling, with which all three appellate judges agreed, that claimed Westmont failed to follow its own policies when adjudicating Jane’s claims. “The Panel did not hear testimony from critical witnesses, yet relied on these witnesses’ prior statements to corroborate Jane’s account or to impeach John’s credibility,” Tangeman wrote. “The Panel withheld material evidence from John, which its policies required it to turn over. As a result, John was denied a meaningful opportunity to pose questions to Jane and other witnesses on material disputed facts.” Students who didn’t testify before the panel were given more credibility than those who did, which confused the appeals court. Tangeman accused Westmont of using a “seemingly arbitrary method” to determine who was credible in this case.

dailywire- Ashe Schow

Share this:

In a college sexual assault case where witnesses give contradicting testimonies, the investigator cannot withhold information from the accused student without compromising the fairness of the hearing. A California appeals court faulted a Christian college for doing just that, violating its own policies in the process. In a ruling last week written by Associate Justice Martin Tangeman, the three-judge panel found that Westmont College improperly denied an accused student the ability to ask questions to both his accuser and relevant witnesses.

Westmont, an evangelical liberal arts school, was criticized by the court for deeming “nontestifying witnesses more credible than their testifying counterparts” without any explanation. It also selectively picked through the written statements by nontestifying witnesses, citing portions that put Doe in a bad light. The appeals court was particularly concerned by the Westmont panel’s pattern of picking and choosing which parts of testimonies to credit, when the witnesses made drastically different claims. Westmont got tripped up by its failure to follow “its own policies and procedures” and give Doe “the opportunity to fully respond to the evidence against him,” Tangeman wrote for the appeals court. The ruling also frowned upon Cleek’s dual roles as an “investigator and adjudicator,” which increased the judges’ concerns about the panel’s “credibility determinations.” The panel appeared to have “simply approve[d] the credibility” of one member, Cleek, who was also the investigator.  Cleek’s practices came in for scrutiny. Though Westmont policies required Cleek to turn over his interview notes – Doe must be given access to “all evidence” – the investigator “omitted some of his questions and the witnesses’ answers” from his reports, which limited the “scope of questions” Doe could propose for witnesses, Tangeman’s ruling said. Because the panel refused to give Doe its notes from witnesses’ responses to panel questions, his “information deficit grew” and he had to live with “less detailed” oral summaries. A fair hearing does not allow an adjudicatory body to “rely on evidence that has never been revealed to the accused,” the judges said. Finally, the appeals court found Doe was denied the right to pose questions “even if indirectly” and to “challenge the discrepancies he saw” in witness responses to panel questions.

Westmont must let Doe “access Cleek’s notes,” as required by policies and procedures, in a new proceeding. It must also give him notes regarding panel questions and witness answers, and permit Doe to submit questions for witnesses, the appeals court ruled. The appeals court largely affirmed the trial court ruling against Westmont, except that it allowed Cleek to participate again as an adjudicator.

thecollegefix – Ethan Berman  Read Court Ruling: Doe v Westmont

Share this: