TITLE IX RIGHTS and The Innocent John Doe
Andrew Miltenberg won another big decision against Syracuse University. His client was John Doe. They’re always John Doe, and the accuser is Jane Doe, no relation. There are two things about this win that stand out. The first is that Judge David Hurd of the Northern District of New York recognized the inherent bias in “trauma-informed” interrogation. The use of the “trauma informed” approach is pervasive on campus, compelling Title IX investigators, already indoctrinated to the “believe the woman” cause, to rationalize their anti-male bias and find the accuser credible no matter what the evidence shows. In this case, evidence that Jane fabricated her accusation was, to be blunt, almost impossible to ignore, except for the trauma-informed Syracuse Title IX investigator, Bernerd Jacobson, whose super power was never letting facts get in the way of finding the male guilty… But it was Jane Doe who blew her accusation by constantly changing her story, reinventing what sex was consensual and what was not, what sex happened and what did not. There was strong evidence of John Doe’s innocence, and Judge Hurd’s strong decision of bias and impropriety stands on that foundation.
If the “trauma informed” investigation is inherently biased, leading investigators to invariably rationalize away all flaws in a woman’s accusation, is it any less biased if the evidence of innocence or fabrication is less clear? Even when the man, a college kid left to his own devices without someone to explain to him that his grasp of consent is skewed by the indoctrination rammed down his throat by colleges fudging the law at their introductory lectures for new students, concedes his guilt, does that make the deprivation of due process harmless? If the process by which males are investigated, prosecuted and convicted on college campuses is fundamentally flawed and biased, then it’s the same for the male student who presents “strong evidence of innocence” as well as the student for whom proof in the negative is lacking. Indeed, it’s quite fortunate when someone has any evidence of innocence, no less strong evidence, and that leaves a huge potential for innocent male students to be found responsible not because they are, but for lack of proof of innocence. In this case, had Jane Doe kept her story straight, would Judge Hurd have seen the impropriety of Syracuse’s “trauma informed” investigation so clearly? It was mere kismet that Jane Doe was a lousy liar. Had she been a better liar, would the plaintiff have been a less innocent John?
blog.simplejustice.us– S. H. Greenfield
