Appalachian State University lost a motion to dismiss, and reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiff. Usually there is a non disclosure agreement with the student, effectively silencing the innocent accused student from speaking publicly.
The Title IX report was filed over a “private interaction” that occurred in May 2017 in Shanghai, China, involving Doe and a nonstudent complainant, according to the petition for writ of mandamus petitioned by Doe and his legal team. Doe was participating in a UC Education Abroad Program at the time of the incident. The petition argues that Doe has been “improperly excluded” from graduation ceremonies, because the Title IX findings were “not supported by any evidence” and they were not given a hearing. The writ of mandamus – an order from a court used to compel an agency to correct an abuse of discretion or properly fulfill its official duties – addresses the accusation of sexual misconduct. The purpose of this petition for writ of mandamus is to change the administrative action of the campus to permit graduation attendance.
www.dailycal.org By Shelby Mayes
A year and a half after a federal judge let a due-process lawsuit continue against Ohio State University officials, one of them may face personal ruin for her decisions during a Title IX proceeding. “A reasonable jury could find that Natalie Spiert,” sexual violence support coordinator and advocate for “Jane Roe” during the proceeding, “knew or should have known that Jane Roe lied or misled the disciplinary board” and did not correct the record, U.S. District Judge James Graham ruled. A reasonable jury could find that Jane Roe lied when she said the academic committee had already decided to permit her to repeat the first year of medical school for the third time and that she had nothing to gain by reporting the assault and no motive to lie…Roe blamed her academic failure on the alleged rape and told the committee she would “officially” report the incident if they let her continue in medical school.
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
An Illinois State University student is suing his school because even though they found him not responsible for sexual assault, a premature suspension caused him to fail his courses for one semester and kept him from enrolling for the next, effectively punishing him even though he was innocent…John* received an email saying he would be suspended prior to any hearing taking place. He was also told he could be arrested if he violated the no-contact and no-trespassing orders. This action was taken before John had even been able to fully learn the allegations against him. John was still suspended. He was ultimately found not responsible for both accusations, but was essentially given a nearly one-year suspension based on the university’s severe interim measures. He was also, according to his lawsuit, harassed by fellow students after rumors labeled him a sex offender. (Jane Doe likely made the accusation against John because she had a boyfriend at the time.) John is suing for damages relating to lost money spent on tuition, legal fees, and suffering. He is currently in counseling for panic attacks, anxiety, nightmares, and emotional distress, his lawsuit says. Brendan Bukalski, an attorney for John, said they wanted “an admission by Illinois State University that they acted improperly” and for it to reform its sexual misconduct policies.
thefederalist.com By Ashe Schow
Until a few months ago, Oberlin, was bound by the 2011 Obama-era “Dear Colleague” letter. The letter recommended that to combat sexual misconduct, schools use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard – which states that the accusation is viable if the evidence is anywhere over 50 percent provable. The standard also enables accusers to appeal decisions and encourages schools to allow accusers to forgo cross-examination. In some cases, accusers can even forgo their own attendance at proceedings. Good intentions led to bad outcomes, however. The letter also created a system that a California Appeals Court Justice called a “kangaroo court,” and what a federal district court judge appointed by President Clinton called “a practice of railroading accused students.” Further, the interpretation was also made without a public announcement or a comment-and-response period, during which schools could offer feedback. The Obama administration’s sudden and drastic changes even prompted legal scholars of all political affiliations to wonder if such a system is actually constitutional in the United States. Not only did the interpretation mandate that schools adopt overly broad definitions of harassment, but the Department of Education had seemingly taken White-Out to the Bill of Rights. What scares me is that Oberlin’s current policies are similar, if not identical, to those at schools with these “kangaroo courts.” Oberlin’s Title IX regulations should be devised with the primary goal of finding the truth, not of finding the accused guilty.
oberlinreview.org By Duncan Reid
Administrators in California public colleges should sit up and take notice of a new ruling out of the state Superior Court against the University of California regents. Not only were they ordered to pay $31,000 to an accused student in a Title IX proceeding, but Judge Tara Desautels specifically faulted the “trauma informed” training that was used in the University of California-Santa Barbara’s proceeding against “John Doe.” This approach to investigating sexual violence, commonly used in Title IX proceedings nationwide and increasingly in police investigations, has come under fire from neuroscience researchers and legal experts as unscientific and biased against accused people. It essentially tells investigators and adjudicators to view inconsistent and shifting explanations by accusers as evidence they were victimized.
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
You may associate the “Start by Believing” movement with campus Title IX offices, but it was actually the underlying assumption in criminal prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales until recently. Four rape cases collapsed in two months because police failed to disclose evidence, and they sound an awful lot like the botched Title IX proceedings we come across regularly in U.S. litigation. This matters in the U.S. because our government is already moving in this direction with the upcoming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, with scrutiny of the law’s more questionable assumptions and results being largely ignored on a bipartisan basis. One of the law’s biggest critics, the Coalition to End Domestic Violence, was blocked from testifying by Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley. “[T]here was no mention, even in passing, of the fundamental concepts of due process, constitutional protections, or the presumption of innocence, on campus or beyond.” Objections and questions about the act are met with a backlash that demonizes the source as anti-victim or rape apologists.
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
Pomona College has been accused of mishandling a sexual misconduct case and is being asked to pay at least $255,672.50 in attorneys fees for a defendant who sued the school because he believes he wasn’t given a fair hearing. The charges stem from a Title IX case that began in 2015, in which the respondent – John Doe* was accused of sexual misconduct. Pomona initially found Doe responsible for sexual misconduct, but Los Angeles Judge Mary Strobel ordered Pomona to set aside their findings because of alleged mistakes in the hearing process. Pomona did not require the complainant – Jane Roe* to attend the TIX disciplinary hearing. Now, Pomona is being ordered by Judge Strobel to cover the defendant’s legal fees because the defendant’s victory was deemed “an important right affecting the public interest.”
tsl.news By Laney Pope
Two University of Central Florida students drinking at a party went back to the male’s off-campus apartment, where they had sex. She says she can’t remember. He says it was consensual and when he asked her if she was sure, she said “yes.” Though the male completed his degree in December 2017 and walked in his graduation ceremony, the school added a line to his transcript in January saying he had been expelled. The expelled male is suing UCF. He says UCF denied him due process and the university’s decision wasn’t based on substantial evidence. He asked the Orange County court to overturn the expulsion, which was handed down after his graduation…Since late 2015, at least four other Central Florida students have sued their schools after facing sanctions for sexual misconduct allegations, though most were unsuccessful.
orlandosentinel.com By Annie Martin
Ohio State University has made Title IX history: It’s apparently the first school on the losing end of a due-process challenge by an accused female student. U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus blocked the public university from expelling a female student accused of fondling and kissing a drunk student and, later, having a nonconsensual threesome. Citing binding precedent from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last fall, the judge said that Ohio State had unconstitutionally deprived “Jane Roe” of her right to “cross-examine adverse witnesses” in a proceeding that hinged on credibility.
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper