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:

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: