OBERLIN’S ANTI-MALE Bias in Title IX Proceedings is Obvious, Expelled Male Tells Appeals Court
Can colleges openly discriminate against male students accused of sexual misconduct, “so long as they masked their bias in any particular proceeding”? That’s the question at stake in a Title IX lawsuit against Oberlin College, now before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the accused student, “John Doe.” The liberal arts college found John responsible for sexual assault based only on his sex partner allegedly saying “I am not sober,” then expelled him.
The judge found that John failed to show that the allegedly incorrect finding against him was the result of gender bias. John’s brief to the 6th Circuit argues that this is not a credible reading of his evidence, particularly the comments of then-Title IX Coordinator Meredith Raimondo, who is now the dean of students.
In a YouTube video that John found after he initially filed suit, Raimondo shares her view that it’s anti-woman to say there can be “grey areas” in sexual disputes such as John’s. (Raimondo’s comments and actions also played a pivotal role in the Gibson’s Bakery ruling against Oberlin.) The judge was also wrong to dismiss the “state law claims where Mr. Doe separately pled diversity jurisdiction,” the brief argues. That means the federal court has jurisdiction to hear those claims because John no longer lives in Ohio, where Oberlin is based. John is counting on the 6th Circuit to supplement its rulings on due process in Title IX proceedings with a new ruling that makes it easier to demonstrate gender bias in those proceedings.
thecollegefix-Lexi Lonas
