CURRENT News

, , , /

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
‘FEMINISM is a Regressive Form of Tribalism’ Dividing Males & Females, Creating an Illusion of a Campus Rape Culture

, , /

‘FEMINISM is a Regressive Form of Tribalism’ Dividing Males & Females, Creating an Illusion of a Campus Rape Culture

A college male meets a college female, they get along well, and the male attempts to kiss the female. She pushes him away, saying it is too soon. A few days later they have sex, but his first attempt to kiss the woman would be regarded by some feminist observers as “sexual assault.”  Central to the discussion of sexual violence are two issues: incidence of sexual violence on campus, and the “culture” of sexual violence, or “rape culture,” on campus and in the wider society. The facts are highly contested. The incidence of rape and sexual assault on campus is less than one percent, according to the U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. These figures are challenged by feminists…Great efforts have been made by feminists to expand the boundaries of the categories of rape and sexual assault. The object is to maximize the appearance of victimization of females by males and there are many ways in which the categories are expanded. “Sexual assault” itself is a catch-all category that includes “the male gaze,” an accidental bump, a touch on a shoulder, an unwanted invitation, an attempted kiss, hugging, groping, and touching of sexual areas. Many feminists have advocated the view that if a female feels regret after having sexual relations with a man, then those sexual relations were rape.

Feminist professors have made “rape culture” and “toxic masculinity” central pillars of their teaching and “research.” Feminist professors explain the alleged high level of sexual assault on “rape culture,” which they believe is a primary ideology of Western societies. Most female students appear to believe that they live in a “rape culture.” Even female anthropologists, who should know what “culture” is, hold the same counterfactual belief. The feminist reasoning appears to be: There are lots of rapes and sexual assaults. But since we do not believe in biology-based behavior, and we believe that all social roles are socially constructed, there must be a rape culture that instructs men to rape and rewards them for doing so. This feminist argument is nonsense, and I am ashamed that female anthropologists advance this theory. In Western society, we do not encourage men to rape; we do not teach men how to rape; we do not reward men who rape; we do not regard rape as a positive act; we have outlawed rape and put into place severe penalties for rape. We do not have a “rape culture.”  Third wave feminism faced a decline in support due to success in reaching feminist political, educational, and employment goals. Young women benefiting from access to the wider society and not feeling restricted did not see the need for feminist militancy. Faced with the loss of group solidarity, what could feminists do? The answer is as old as politics: find a threatening enemy to scare members back into the fold.

Feminist encouragement of rape hysteria has led to a flood of rape accusations on campuses, mostly by females against males, both students, and professors. Accusations have been encouraged by universities, which have been led to believe that there are gazillions of unreported rapes, and which have been pressed by government officials to press charges and punish males. In a multitude of cases, lawsuits by male victims of university punishments have led to rebukes by the courts of the universities, and forced settlements have been imposed, while in other cases universities have settled. Feminists say that no rape accusations are false. But false accusations of rape to the police, calculated by one study to be five percent, are five times higher than false allegations about other crimes. Other estimates by law enforcement experts are considerably higher. Cases of false rape accusations, such as here, here, here, here, and here, have been dealt with by police and courts, and some false accusers have been given jail sentences.

The fourth wave feminist attack on men, equality, and judicial principles has been viewed with equanimity by most men. Happily for feminists, they are able to recruit the male tendency to protect females and turn it against other men. Men have not awakened to the costs of the feminist anti-male campaign for themselves and their sons. School teachers trained in radical left feminist faculties of education not surprisingly favor females in their classrooms. Boys are unwelcome and drop out of school at increasing rates. Feminist professors have undermined education and legal processes, and, in so doing, have undermined Western values, democracy, and human rights as specified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Feminism is an illiberal, regressive form of tribalism that divides all of the people in the world into two categories, celebrating half of the people in the world and vilifying the other half.

mindingthecampus.org By Phillip Carl Salzman

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LIKELY WIN for John Doe at Reed College

, , /

LIKELY WIN for John Doe at Reed College

When colleges handle sexual misconduct complaints there is often a great deal of deceit and secrecy by the staff of the college to cover their actions.  Administrators will engage in witnesses tampering, or attack witnesses who support an accused student.  So, many times, when an accused student arrives at a resolution favorable to him, colleges cower under a cloak of secrecy, while SOS and others read between the lines to make an educated guess about the fate of a John Doe…KC Johnson is usually spot on with his educated guess. -Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
FOUR REASONS to Support the Department of Education’s Title IX Rewrite

, , /

FOUR REASONS to Support the Department of Education’s Title IX Rewrite

A huge number of comments has greeted Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s proposed rewrite of the unfair Title IX Obama-era regulations often used in hearings against men on campus. Four comments are unusually important.

Cross-Examination: The first, prepared by Patricia Hamill (who has handled many lawsuits from accused students, including the cases that yielded the powerful Brandeis and Notre Dame opinions) and Penn Law professor David Rudovsky, drew signatures from several lawyers who also have handled lawsuits filed by accused students. The comment strongly defended the need for cross-examinations to adjudicate Title IX cases. They noted the importance of the rule’s recognition that unfair processes could constitute gender discrimination against either party—an “essential corrective to the view that Title IX allows (or should even be interpreted to require) procedures that are biased in favor of ‘victims.’” The comment highlighted the dangers of “trauma-informed” training—which, in too many cases, has prompted adjudicators to essentially presume guilt. It is important that training not create ‘presumptions’ that the alleged conduct occurred or that a complainant’s account of the incident must be true.”

All the Evidence, Please: FIRE, a longtime critic of the one-sided Obama-era procedures, issued a lengthy, thoughtful comment —As with the Hamill/Rudovsky comment, FIRE stressed the importance of the regulations’ cross-examination provision, but also urged the department not to limit the participation of students’ advisors just to the questioning process:  “Active participation of advisors [throughout the investigation and hearing] is crucial because the stakes during campus proceedings are extremely high.”

The Harvard Law Plan: Few academics have more credibility on Title IX issues than Harvard Law professors Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nancy Gertner, and Janet Halley. The Suk/Gertner/Halley comment criticized the proposed regulations on definitional questions, but strongly endorsed the need for the government to mandate a fair process for both sides. The Harvard Law professors did urge the Education Department to mandate the Harvard Law School model rather than attorney-directed cross-examination.

The ACLU Flip Flop: The final noteworthy comment came from the ACLU. While the ACLU’s comment was very critical of DeVos in many respects, the organization abandoned some of the ‘believe survivors’ tweet thread’s approach by mostly embracing the need for a fair Title IX process. Departing from the position embraced by Democratic attorneys general and legislators, the comment unequivocally endorsed a hearing with cross-examination: “Cross-examination is an essential pillar of fair process.”

There was a broad area of disagreement between the FIRE and Hamill/Rudovsky comments on the one hand and the ACLU/Harvard Law comments on the other. The former two comments largely supported the definitional elements of the regulations (definition of harassment, safe harbor provisions, limiting language about college responsibility for adjudicating some types of off-campus activity). The latter two comments were strongly critical of DeVos’ efforts on these issues. The regulations’ key elements, in short, come in the procedural rather than the definitional realm; and on those questions, these four comments are mostly in agreement in the need for more robust procedural protections for accused students.

mindingthecampus.org By KC Johnson

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JOHN DOE Sues Stony Brook University for Sex Discrimination & Denied Due Process

, , /

JOHN DOE Sues Stony Brook University for Sex Discrimination & Denied Due Process

A male student at Stony Brook University is suing the school and two SUNY employees for gender discrimination and for violating his due process rights. The plaintiff,  “John Doe,” claims that due to several missteps in the Title IX process, he was unjustly found responsible for sexual misconduct despite the fact that he himself was a victim. The plaintiff also claims that “BG” (the female accuser as named in the suit) was given preferential treatment by Title IX officials on the basis of gender. For instance, the suit states that officials turned a blind eye when BG violated certain procedural rules. According to the suit, John Doe states that shortly after BG filed her complaint, she posted his name and photo to social media with a caption describing him as her rapist and inciting her followers to “beat [Plaintiff] up.”  The suit also states that some of the evidence submitted by BG appeared to either be fabricated, coerced or unverifiable. Ultimately, the university’s Title IX office did not find BG guilty of any misconduct. The plaintiff, on the other hand, was found responsible for violating the Student Code of Responsibility. He was suspended from the university, placed on disciplinary probation, stripped of his scholarship and had his transcript permanently marked to show that he committed a sexual misconduct violation, according to the suit.

“The Review Panel’s determination that Plaintiff was ‘Responsible’ for sexual misconduct is not supported by any credible evidence much less a preponderance of the evidence as the Review Panel’s Disposition and Hearing transcript plainly demonstrate.” The plaintiff is seeking damages as well as injunctive relief which would restore his scholarship and clear any wrongdoing from his transcript.

sbstatesman.com By Rebecca Liebson

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
RECENT CA Court Win Forces all CA State Universities to Pause TIX Investigations

, , , /

RECENT CA Court Win Forces all CA State Universities to Pause TIX Investigations

The California State University (CSU) system mandated campuses to halt all current and appeal-pending Title IX sexual misconduct investigations while the CSU adopts a new investigative model.  A ruling made by the California Court of Appeal on a case involving a University of Southern California student who was accused of sexual misconduct, set precedent that required an immediate shift to the live hearing cross-examination model for Title IX cases in California universities. The new model, now required by California law, will guarantee students accused of sexual misconduct the right to cross-examine their accuser, potentially during a live hearing through an advocate. This is a significant change in CSU policy and a timeline of its implementation is unknown.  In past policy, written questions and answers between the the respondent (student accused of sexual misconduct) and complainant (student who reported misconduct) was allowed. Now, this information gathering period will more closely resemble a court-like proceeding, with the due process rights for party advisors to separately question the involved students during a public hearing.

Until this model is implemented, no Title IX case at Cal Poly or any CSU campus can proceed past the Investigative Report, a summary of investigative findings that does not include recommended factual findings (the investigator deciding if the accused student is in violation or not), or recommended university action. Pending cases that have proceeded past the Investigative Report will have to redo the fact-finding process under the new model. This includes all cases where an investigative outcome has already been reached based primarily on witness testimony, but an appeal is in process or the deadline to file an appeal has not passed.

mustangnews.net By Ashley Ladin

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 45 46 47 48 49 >»