Newly obtained evidence in Title IX-related litigation against George Washington University suggests that the school does not understand that a rideshare vehicle does not pick you up the instant you book the ride. The key question in GW’s investigation into Jane Roe’s allegations against John Doe, and the resulting due-process lawsuit filed by Doe, was how intoxicated Roe was as they returned to his room in an Uber trip. In a filing last week, ahead of Wednesday’s scheduled hearing on summary judgment motions, Doe said the university’s newly provided evidence of Roe’s own phone records reveals its “spectacular misreading” of those records. “Ms. Roe’s phone records confirm in stunning detail everything that Mr. Doe has said from the beginning and erase whatever residual doubt there might be about whether Ms. Roe was incapacitated and whether she has told the truth about that night,” the reply brief states. The school’s response to Doe’s claims that his appeal was wrongly rejected also revealed that GWU has been judging appeals by the wrong standard for “at least six years.”  The years of errors by the appellate officer suggest that if the court rules in Doe’s favor, “the judge will need to provide clear guidance on how GWU should proceed, since the university can’t be counted on to follow its own rules,” Prof. KC Johnson said.  GW also did not ask for the phone records during Doe’s hearing and only used them after Doe filed suit, according to the brief. “GW’s desperation here is palpable,” the brief states. “No school produces a declaration affirming that it has processed six years’ worth of appeals contrary to a federal judge’s reading of its code, or goes hunting for phone records that undermine the accuser in the process it is defending, unless it has no other choice.”

See KC Johnson’s @GWtweets case (a) GW appeals officer has consistently used wrong standard (b) GW had access to even more exculpatory evidence (c) GW’s new evidence confirms accuser/key witness lied.

gwhatchet.com By D.Grace  thecollegefix.com By M.Keller

 

Share this:

This is a story of a rape accusation that would not die and a misshapen version of college justice. Let’s begin with two Michigan State students looking to hook up, mess around and perhaps have sex. Soon after, the woman accuses the man, Keith Mumphery, who would become a pro football receiver, of sexual assault. The police investigate. The accuser does not return calls. They decline to prosecute. Michigan State’s Title IX office, which investigates accusations of sexual assault and adheres to a significantly looser standard of evidence than in criminal cases, clears him. The woman appeals that finding. (Unlike in criminal cases, where acquitted defendants cannot be retried, in Title IX cases, accusers may appeal.) This time, Michigan State holds him responsible for relationship violence and sexual misconduct. Now we turn to the consequences. Mumphery, a receiver for the Houston Texans and a graduate student at Michigan State, was expelled by the university because of a sexual assault. Two days later, the Texans’ coach tells Keith, this case is a problem and we’re letting you go. Mumphery  wonders what has become of his life. ..I can’t say what happened in that dorm room on that early evening in March 2015. I know only this. A prosecutor decided not to bring charges, and a university investigation found Mumphery was not responsible. The only investigation that found him guilty did so apparently without his knowledge and without his offering a defense.

That’s not a good definition of liberty.

nytimes.com By Michael Powell

Share this:

Lawyers with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have asked the State Supreme Court to delay a unanimous order by appeals court judges last month to release records of students disciplined for sexual misconduct. University proceedings only determine whether students have violated code of conduct policies, not criminal law – and they do so at a lower standard of proof. By releasing names when the university finds students responsible for sexual assault, UNC lawyers wrote they’ll “forever be publicly branded as sex offenders. In additional to reputational consequences and lost future opportunities, responsible students who are named publicly can be subject to severe harassment and retribution,” the filing said.  It’s now up to the North Carolina Supreme Court to decide to hear the case, which will undoubtedly impact how similar disciplinary records are handled at all of the state’s public university campuses.

wral.com By Tyler Dukes,

Share this: