CURRENT News

LAWSUIT: Male Sues MSU. Denied a Hearing. Says MSU ‘Rubber-Stamped’ Accuser’s Desired Punishment.

, , /

LAWSUIT: Male Sues MSU. Denied a Hearing. Says MSU ‘Rubber-Stamped’ Accuser’s Desired Punishment.

An MSU sophomore and fraternity member, claims he was falsely accused, unfairly treated and harshly punished during his Title IX investigation. The student, identified as John Doe, was suspended for two years from MSU. He alleges in the lawsuit that the university sided with the woman simply to “avoid further bad publicity” amid harsh criticism for its handling of sexual assault cases. The lawsuit claims that investigators ignored inconsistencies and physical impossibilities in the accuser’s story. Throughout the investigation, the lawsuit says Doe was never offered an in-person hearing or an opportunity to cross-examine the female or her witnesses. Doe’s lawyers say the investigation was flawed for several reasons, including:
• One of the lead investigators has a background as a sex crime prosecutor and he approached the case from a prosecutorial stance rather than as a neutral fact-finder.
• Investigators did not give the man adequate notice and details about the case, indicating the investigation was tainted by the outset by gender bias and a presumption of his guilt.
• The man was not offered a live hearing or an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged victim or witnesses.
• Investigators did not properly vet the woman’s witnesses.
• With no witnesses to the actual alleged assault itself, the resolution was just a “credibility contest” between the man and the woman.
• The man lost that contest due to “gender bias on the part of the investigator and intense pressure at Michigan State to convict the males accused of sexual assault.”

Since being suspended, the complaint states, Doe has been labeled a rapist and says the suspension makes it difficult for him to transfer to another university. He has instead been attending a community college. The man also claims his suspension limits his ability to get a job, pursue graduate school, and has made him feel depressed and socially isolated. No criminal charges were filed against Doe.

wilx.com By Nik Siddall lansingstatejournal By Kara Berg

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: MIZZOU’S Vice Chancellor Cathy Scroggs Claims Tall Black Male Asking Out Short White Female is Sex Misconduct

, /

LAWSUIT: MIZZOU’S Vice Chancellor Cathy Scroggs Claims Tall Black Male Asking Out Short White Female is Sex Misconduct

Getting up the courage to ask someone out on a date can already be nerve-racking, but now that college campuses have completely gone off the deep end, that fear will be intensified.  When a Mizzou (University of Missouri) official was questioned regarding a case where a black male Ph.D. candidate at the school asked out a white female fitness trainer, she bizarrely suggested that the fact that the male student was larger than the female student gave him “power over her” and violated school policy…Cathy Scroggs, who was Mizzou’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs when the incident involving John and Jane occurred, was asked during a recent deposition if the accusation against John satisfied the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another. Scroggs responded, “I think he was perceived as having power over her.”  John was suspended for his interactions with Jane and sued, feeling the punishment was far too severe for the situation. Mizzou has attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, but much of John’s lawsuit was upheld.

dailywire By Ashe Schow Mizzou-Doe-Summary-Judgment-Motion

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SPOTLIGHT On Due Process. 73% of Top 53 Schools DO NOT Guarantee Presumption of Innocence. MIT, Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Pepperdine, Rice, RPI, Vanderbilt = F

, , , /

SPOTLIGHT On Due Process. 73% of Top 53 Schools DO NOT Guarantee Presumption of Innocence. MIT, Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Pepperdine, Rice, RPI, Vanderbilt = F

Colleges and universities across the country are failing to afford their students due process and fundamental fairness in their disciplinary proceedings. In 2017, for the first time, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) rated the top 53 universities in the country based on 10 fundamental elements of due process. Our findings were troubling. This year, 2018, we assessed the same institutions. Like last year, the findings are dire:

  • Nearly three quarters (73.6%) of America’s top 53 universities do not guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  • Only slightly more than half of schools (52.8%) require that fact-finders—the institution’s version of judge and/or jury—be impartial.
  • Fewer than one third of institutions (30.2%) guarantee a meaningful hearing, where each party may see and hear the evidence being presented to fact-finders by the opposing party.
  • 47 out of the 53 universities studied receive a D or F grade from FIRE for at least one disciplinary policy, meaning that they fully provide no more than 4 of the 10 elements of a fair procedure that FIRE rated.
  • Most institutions have one set of standards for adjudicating charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic charges. 86.8% of rated universities receive a D or F for protecting the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct.
  • Of the 104 policies rated at the 53 schools in the report, not a single policy receives an A grade.

thefire.org Executive Summary

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
INSIDER’S VIEW: CSU Board of Trustees’ Litigation Report Shows Impact of Due Process Lawsuits

, , , /

INSIDER’S VIEW: CSU Board of Trustees’ Litigation Report Shows Impact of Due Process Lawsuits

Like numerous schools, California State University posts their Board of Trustees meeting records online. After reading the report, I’ve concluded that CSU is on a mission to get sued by male students at least once every 3-year cycle from each of their 23 campuses for due process/Title IX violations. I’m being a bit hyperbolic, of course, but if litigation trends continue it may not be unrealistic.

Litigation against the CSU system has nearly doubled in the last six years, jumping from ~60 lawsuits to 106. Looking at the graph, we observe that this trend started at the same time the Obama-era Department of Education released its April 4, 2011 “Dear Colleague” guidance letter, which severely infringed upon the due process rights of accused students.

As of 2017, the CSU system enrolled nearly 500,000 students across its 23 campuses, making it the largest four-year university system in the country. It was inevitable that they would be sued, as in our litigious age it’s more a question of when, not if larger institutions are sued. But CSU is also located in a state whose politics are not known for its empathy for men as a group, which increases its likelihood of being sued in this manner considerably. Their Litigation Report provides us with some useful graphs. Let’s unpack the report…

titleixforall  By Jonathan Taylor

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
WIN for John Doe. Judge Says GW Appeal Panel is ‘Divorced from the Evidence’

, , /

WIN for John Doe. Judge Says GW Appeal Panel is ‘Divorced from the Evidence’

“Fourth and finally, the Appeals Panel addressed newly-discovered text messages between Ms. Roe and A.C. According to the texts, A.C. had no recollection of talking to Ms. Roe either during the Uber ride or in the bathroom of the dorm after Ms. Roe returned. Without explanation, the Appeals Panel found that this evidence “generally corroborate[d]” Ms. Roe’s statements that she had spoken with someone on the phone during the Uber ride and that she had spoken to A.C. about the assault when she got back to the dorm.  This conclusion is divorced from the evidence and not explained by GW. To put a finer point on the matter, the Code required two determinations: (1) Ms. Roe did not have the capacity to consent; and (2) Mr. Doe should reasonably have known that she was incapacitated. The Appeals Panel was presented with direct contradictions in the evidence and appears to have strained to overlook such contradictions, leaving no trail of reasoning.” Judge Collyer

“GW’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Doe’s claims for disparate treatment under Title IX  and the DCHRA and his claim for breach of contract due to denial of his appeal will be allowed to proceed to discovery. All other claims will be dismissed.” Judge Collyer

Doe v GW: Judge’s Opionion

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
REPORT: As Changes to Title IX Enforcement Loom, America’s top Universities Overwhelmingly Fail to Guarantee Fair Hearings

, , , , /

REPORT: As Changes to Title IX Enforcement Loom, America’s top Universities Overwhelmingly Fail to Guarantee Fair Hearings

  • 3 in 4 top universities do not guarantee presumption of innocence in campus proceedings.
  • 9 in 10 top universities do not guarantee meaningful cross-examination in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
  • None of the surveyed institutions guarantee all the due process protections required under the new, proposed Title IX regulations.
  • Polling shows students overwhelmingly want due process protections, but universities fail to deliver.

    READ THE REPORT: SPOTLIGHT ON DUE PROCESS 2018 | AUDIO CLIPS FOR MEDIA USE

    “Students accused of serious campus offenses routinely face life-altering punishment without a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves,” said FIRE’s Susan Kruth, lead author of the report. “Universities need to provide basic procedural protections that help ensure accurate outcomes, and right now they overwhelmingly do not.”

    FIRE examined policies at the top 53 universities in the country to see how many of 10 fundamental procedural safeguards they guarantee students, including the presumption of innocence, the right to impartial fact-finders, and the right to appeal. Of the 53 universities studied, 47 receive a D or F grade, meaning that they guarantee no more than 4 of the 10 elements rated.

    Most institutions maintain one set of policies for charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic misconduct, such as theft or physical assault. Notably, of the 15 institutions that received an F rating for their sexual misconduct policies, 11 have been sued by accused students over the lack of fair procedure.

    thefire.org

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
NEW TITLE IX Rules Provide Protections for the Accused but They do Even More for Accusers

, , /

NEW TITLE IX Rules Provide Protections for the Accused but They do Even More for Accusers

According to most news analyses, the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed rule changes for handling sexual misconduct and harassment on college campuses strengthen the rights of the accused at the expense of the victim. But those headlines ignore the substantial powers the new rules grant to survivors. Not only do those rules prove that the rights of both parties are not mutually exclusive, but they also assume that survivors still deserve to be treated as functional human beings. Under the Obama-era guidelines, students who had been sexually assaulted or harassed were denied substantial decision-making processes. First, students had no choice in whether or not to report a case of nonconsensual sex or unwelcome sexual advances. Second, their judicial options were limited to a Title IX disciplinary panel. Third, the definition of sexual harassment privileged their fears over adult communication.

In contrast the proposed changes…

Require only one employee to coordinate and comply with the regulations, freeing faculty and staff members to provide support without triggering an investigation. This new rule will allow students to talk with others before deciding to initiate a complaint.

Allow colleges and universities to experiment with alternative forms of justice, such as mediation or restorative justice conferences. For some harmed students, a restorative justice conference, in which they have a chance to speak directly to the harming student, offers more healing than a highly regulated proceeding in front of a panel.

Under the previous guidelines, sexual harassment was defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” The person who determined whether or not the conduct was unwelcome was the person allegedly being harassed. That person’s subjective response drove the whole investigation. As long as the complainant felt ill at ease, the Title IX panel should find for the aggrieved party. Under the recent proposed changes, sexual harassment is any “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to [the college’s] education program or activity.” Under this definition, it won’t be enough merely to claim one’s discomfort. The action must be offensive enough that other people will also find it objectionable. The benefit for survivors? This change in the definition will mean colleges will have to do a better job of clarifying collective norms. Instead of relying on individuals to police offensive encounters, the new guidelines will require campuses to adopt objective standards of decency, standards that will make it easier for aggrieved parties to voice their unease.

All three elements of Obama era Title IX rules made it harder for survivors to heal. So, yes, the new rules provide more protections for the accused, but they do even more for survivors. By treating survivors as capable decision makers and requiring communities to clarify social norms, students who have been harmed by the sexual advances of others will have a much greater chance of healing and getting on with their education.

insidehighered  By Meg Mott

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
MALES FILE Title IX Complaints of Discrimination. Data Shows More Females (56.5%) in College. DoED is Listening.

, , , /

MALES FILE Title IX Complaints of Discrimination. Data Shows More Females (56.5%) in College. DoED is Listening.

Over the past 15 months, Kursat Pekgoz,  a doctoral student in English literature at USC, has filed federal Title IX complaints against three universities, and drafted complaints against three more, alleging that efforts to support female students are no longer necessary and amount to discrimination against male students. Once outnumbered, women now make up about 56.5 percent of students at American universities.  Since October 2017, the department’s Office of Civil Rights has received eight complaints from Pekgoz and others alleging that women-only and women-focused scholarships, are inherently prejudicial against male students — and thus violate Title IX, a federal provision that prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex.

Pekgoz told NBC News that he began thinking about anti-male discrimination on campus after reading  “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrell, which disputes the notion that men hold disproportionate power in society. After being accepted to USC, and looking into scholarship opportunities, Pekgoz said he was irritated to discover funding earmarked solely for women.

In 1948, women made up just 28.9 percent of post-secondary students in America. By 1981, women were earning more bachelor’s degrees than men, and they have every year since, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Last year, women also earned 53 percent of Ph.D.s. “A lot of the things we put in place to say, ‘We really have to help women feel more comfortable and more secure’ — the rationale for some of those things has disappeared,” said R. Shep Melnick, professor of American politics at Boston College and author of “The Transformation of Title IX.” “So now, when you look at who is not doing well in education, it’s the guys.”

nbcnews.com By Katie Engelhart

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , /

LAWSUIT Against Uof Arkansas. Judge Rules That Former Student can Continue as John Doe

A judge’s order Monday allows a lawsuit filed by “John Doe” to continue without using the name of the former student alleging the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville wrongly sanctioned him for sexual misconduct and violated his right to due process. The student had earlier filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym, stating that using his name “would result in the public association of John Doe’s name with false allegations of sexual conduct,” which would be “causing or exacerbating the severe reputational harm that the suit seeks to avoid.”

U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III in his order stated that the university did not object to the use of “John Doe.” The use of a pseudonym is allowable “in limited circumstances,” Holmes wrote in the order, stating that courts “have consistently held that litigation involving pleadings and supporting documents detailing private sexual acts between two young college students are ‘truly intimate matters.'” …”Use of pseudonym conveys to the court ‘this is so serious I can’t even use my real name’ which I think helps bolster their argument that a severe reputational injury is at stake,” said law professor Erin Buzuvis.

nwaonline By Jaime Adame

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 51 52 53 54 55 >»