Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has continued her reign as one of the most hypocritical alleged feminists in all of politics.
During a recent interview with radio host Evan Dawson, Gillibrand was asked about the differences between the allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and those against de facto Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Gillibrand offered an answer full of misrepresentations about the allegations against Kavanaugh.
“There were multiple allegations against Brett Kavanaugh in various circumstances. Not only Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegations but several from his college days. Um, there was a similarity in the multiple allegations against him,” she told Dawson, who hosts a program called “Connections.” “Um, and he had a terrible record on supporting women and I opposed him based on his actual record and I did not believe his statements and so I think they’re very different. Also, Brett Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court Justice nominee for a lifetime appointment and my responsibility was to vote up or down and I voted against him on the merits of him not being qualified for that job.”
That’s a lot to unpack. There were multiple allegations against Kavanaugh, but they were all dubious. Some were flat out false. Ford couldn’t even remember the year the alleged sexual assault happened. She said she was in high school at the time, so it should have been easy to narrow down the year, yet she never could, alternating between the mid 80s to the early 80s. The people she named as being witnesses either couldn’t recall the event or denied it ever happened. Her own best friend said she couldn’t remember ever meeting Kavanaugh. Ford and her legal team then set the media on the old friend, accusing her of mental problems.
And there were not “several” allegations from Kavanaugh’s college days. There was one, which was also dubious. The woman didn’t even come to believe Kavanaugh was the one who exposed his penis to her at a dorm-room party until after she talked to Democrat lawyers. Another allegation from Kavanaugh’s college days came not from someone claiming to be a victim, but someone who claimed to have seen someone else push Kavanaugh’s penis toward a woman. That woman said she didn’t recall any such event.
There was also no similarity in the allegations. Gillibrand is an attorney, she should know what it takes for allegations to be considered similar. One allegation alleged Kavanaugh pushed a woman on a bed and groped her. Another said he dropped his pants and exposed his penis to a woman. Another said his penis was put into another woman’s hand by a third party. One of the false accusations said he organized teenage gang-rape parties. Another false accusation said he raped someone in a van.
Gillibrand’s claim about Kavanaugh not supporting women is purely political. He doesn’t support women the way she thinks he should, but her statement also makes it seem like it’s okay to sexually assault women so long as you adequately “support” them in their career. This applies to her endorsement of Biden. He may have been accused, but he’s passed policies that Gillibrand likes, so he can’t possibly be guilty. Never mind the fact there’s actual evidence that Biden met his accuser while there is exactly zero evidence Kavanaugh ever met Ford.
Gillibrand then claimed she actually voted against Kavanaugh because she didn’t think he was qualified for the job, but here’s what she said during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing:
“Do we value women in this country? Do we listen to women when they tell us about sexual trauma? Do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? Do we take their claims seriously? Or do we just disbelieve them as a matter of course?”
Of course, Gillibrand only meant those words as they applied to Kavanaugh, as Lara Trump – wife of President Donald Trump’s son Eric – <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-top-dem-women-slammed-kavanaugh-back-biden-lara-trump.amp?__twitter_impression=true">noted</a>, the New York senator now thinks differently.
“She has come forward, she has spoken, and they have done an investigation in several outlets. Those investigations, Vice President Biden has called for himself,” Gillibrand said. “Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations and I support Vice President Biden.”
Gillibrand was next asked about policies from the Department of Education that would provide college students with basic due process protections in cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
Naturally, Gillibrand trashed the policies, instantly going back to favoring allegations over evidence.
“Well, I think Betsy DeVos has been a disastrous Secretary of Education and she has intended since the minute she had that position to roll back protections for students on campus and to roll back Title IX protections. She has undermined the ability for anyone to get fair justice or a fair review on any college campus and I think it’s a big mistake. Um, so I look forward to when Betsy DeVos is no longer our Ed. Secretary,” Gillibrand said.
More to unpack.
First, DeVos didn’t enter the position wanting to “roll back protections.” She learned of the due process problems after she was confirmed and was so moved by the issue that she decided to act. She listened to accusers and accused students and determined the current policies on campus are inadequate. Gillibrand and her ilk claim that these policies “roll back protections” but they don’t. They add constitutional protections for accused students that were missing in the ”believe women” movement adopted by college campuses. Giving accused students the ability to see the evidence against them and cross-examine their accuser and witnesses – basic tenants of the American justice system – does not “roll back protections” for accusers.
It is Gillibrand who “undermined the ability for anyone to get fair justice or a fair review” in these cases. She nurtured a culture where women were told to believe that non-criminal activity amounted to sexual assault and to see themselves as victims. She made sure colleges ignored due process and evidence of innocence out of fear they would receive an onslaught of negative publicity if they didn’t throw out an accused student. Look at the case of “Mattress Girl” Emma Sulkowitz, who had no evidence to support her claims of rape and actually had evidence to the contrary – that the sex was consensual – yet became a national heroine to the media for claiming her “rapist” wasn’t removed from campus.
Accused students couldn’t get “fair justice or a fair review” when colleges actively dismissed exculpatory evidence and allowed accusers to avoid having to produce evidence of their claims. In the end, findings of responsibility ended up not being believed – something that harmed accusers as well.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Kirsten Gillibrand

Kirsten Gillibrand Asked About Biden Allegations, Trashes Education Department And Due Process

Education

false accusations

Sexual Assault

Title IX

For years, accused students have been at a disadvantage due to the hiding of materials used to train Title IX adjudicators. During lawsuits, accused students are rarely able to obtain the training materials that would show supposedly neutral investigators were actually trained to believe accusers and not the accused.
When those materials were obtained, they showed that Title IX investigators tasked with looking into claims of student-on-student sexual assault were trained to believe that women rarely, if ever, lie about sexual assault. Training materials include the misleading and biased statistic that just 2% of sexual assault allegations are false, which would naturally give investigators the idea that they would be wise to believe the accusation no matter what the evidence suggests, because more than nine times out of 10, they would be right.
As I have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lies-damned-lies-and-campus-sexual-assault-ashe-schow">reported</a> numerous times, the statistic that very few sexual assault allegations are false is simply incorrect. The truth is that we don’t know how many are really false. The 2% to 10% figure only refers to allegations that were proven false and classified by police as such. Using this same logic, one could say just 2% to 3% are true, since that’s how many allegations lead to an arrest, trial, and guilty verdict.
Further, the statistic applies to police reports. College campuses have a much lower bar and a far higher incentive to find for the accuser no matter the evidence, meaning false accusations are likely to be he higher, since they can be used to get a man kicked off campus quite easily.
Title IX training materials that have been released also show schools using the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/junk-science-behind-trauma-informed-investigations-ashe-schow">scientifically unsound</a> “trauma-informed” technique, which teaches adjudicators that classic signs of lying are actually signs of trauma and the truth. For example, trauma-informed training says that women who change their stories about their allegations, or who continue to send friendly and loving messages to their alleged attacker are actually traumatized and trying to process what happened to them.
The training materials and policies developed for the University of Texas System, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/victim-centered-sex-assault-investigations-designed-to-railroad-accused">for example</a>, told investigators to “anticipate” and “counter” defense strategies, rather than simply investigate the facts of the case. School police officers were instructed not to write down detailed reports from multiple interviews with accusers and witnesses, so that the defending student can’t point to inconsistencies in the claims.
When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos introduced new Title IX rules for schools that required them to provide much needed due process to students, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA), which produces most of the training materials used by colleges (for a hefty price) instructed schools not to post those materials, citing copyright laws.
DeVos has now published the official Title IX guidance, and has altered the section about training materials:
<ul>
<li>All materials used to train Title IX personnel:
<ul>
<li>Must not rely on sex stereotypes,</li>
<li>Must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment,</li>
<li>Must be maintained by the school for at least 7 years,</li>
<li>Must be publicly available on the school’s website; if the school does not maintain a website the school must make the training materials available upon request for inspection by members of the public.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Schools must post their training materials. Not doing so would run afoul of the federal government (though many schools will likely flout the new regulations anyway without any political consequences due to media support and the #MeToo movement). Schools will no longer be able to use copyrighted training materials if they can’t post them on their website.
Accused students still have a long road ahead of them before schools and the culture accepts that just because someone is accused doesn’t mean they’re guilty. We’re now taught that accusations are fact (unless you accuse a Democrat) and that if schools don’t punish the accused, even if evidence suggests he is innocent, bad publicity will surely follow.
DeVos’ rules, however, take a big step toward correcting this injustice.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Betsy Devos

Education Department Says Schools Must Post Previously Hidden Title IX Training Materials

Betsy DeVos

Students who were dubiously accused of sexual assault through the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s kangaroo court system – even more than a decade ago – will soon have their names made public, along with the offense of which they were accused, and the punishment they received if found responsible.
Noticeably absent from the information will be the details of the allegation, which would help to explain whether the student was wrongly found responsible and to what extent UNC-CH went to find them responsible anyway.
The information release was ordered by the North Carolina Supreme Court last week in response to a lawsuit filed by four news organizations: The Daily Tar Heel campus newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, the Herald-Sun and Capitol Broadcasting, <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article242437976.html">according to the News &amp; Observer</a>. UNC-CH, had previously denied the papers access to the information, saying it would violate the federal student privacy law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). UNC-CH continued to oppose the lawsuit up to the NC Supreme Court, but it now must release the information to the news outlets, who will no doubt make it public. The information request dates back more than a decade, meaning students who managed to graduate after being accused and have gone on to build productive lives without any additional issues will soon have their lives and careers upended by news outlets trying to prove their alma mater doesn’t take allegations of sexual assault seriously.
UNC-CH has been one of the top targeted schools for this claim, despite numerous stories and lawsuits from accused students who were denied basic due process rights and punished over dubious claims.
One such allegation – which I <a href="https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/09/27/campus_rape_investigation.html">detailed extensively</a> for Real Clear Investigations back in 2017 – involved a he said/she said situation in which friends of the female accuser said she did not appear drunk yet she still reported to police and campus authorities that she had been raped. She and her feminist attorney would eventually hold a press conference to display what appears to be a digitally altered photograph of the accuser’s neck that made obvious hickeys appear as bruises from choking. UNC-CH eventually found the accused student not responsible based on a preponderance of the evidence, under the new NC Supreme Court ruling, the entire incident could be reported as: [Accused student’s name], the allegation of rape, and the finding of not responsible. Without the details of the allegation, this information will surely be used to claim UNC-CH doesn’t take sexual assault seriously.
The school is also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/education-department-will-review-anti-male-bias-ashe-schow">being investigated</a> by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights over allegations of anti-male bias in its policies. An allegation that their Title IX processes were biased against male students would not be investigated.
Accused students typically struggle to clear their name in court due to the overwhelming costs of fighting their schools. Lawsuits against universities for denying constitutional due process rights can cost more than 100,000, meaning low-income students are the most vulnerable to an unfairly ruined reputation. Further, schools refuse to release evidence and documents relating to an accused student’s case, citing FERPA. The schools say that releasing the information violates the accuser’s FERPA rights.
But the NC Supreme Court ruled that FERPA make an exception for such disciplinary records.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Teenage boy sleeping in class

University Of North Carolina Ordered To Release Names Of Any Student Ever Found Responsible For Sexual Misconduct In Kangaroo Courts

North Carolina

It’s a foregone conclusion at this point that former Vice President Joe Biden would be labeled some kind of sexual predator if he were a male college student today. Even without the sexual assault allegations from Tara Reade, Biden’s documented history of standing too close to women, sniffing their hair, and rubbing their shoulders (as they look uncomfortable) would be enough under his own campus rules to get him expelled or suspended.
Yet with Reade’s allegations that Biden pinned her to a wall, groped her, and digitally penetrated her, Biden has demanded a separate set of rules for himself than those he has advocated for college students over the past decade. Biden wants the presumption of evidence and to be believed when he said he didn’t sexually assault Reade. He also now claims to want Reade not to simply be believed, as he has demanded of all women, but for her to be heard and for her allegations to be rigorously investigated for their truthfulness.
At the same time, Biden is pledging to rescind new Education Department rules that would provide some of these and other basic due process rights for students accused of sexual assault. On Wednesday, Biden released a statement calling the new rules – which require accused students to be presented with the specific allegations against them and to have access to evidence 10 days before a live hearing that includes cross-examination to determine their responsibility – “wrong.”
“And, it will be put to a quick end in January 2021, because as president, I’ll be right where I always have been throughout my career — on the side of survivors, who deserve to have their voices heard, their claims taken seriously and investigated, and their rights upheld,” Biden said.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/college-students-just-received-free-speech-protections-due-process-rights-thanks-to-the-trump-administration">reported</a>, the new rules, issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos,  require schools to inform students of the specific allegations against them, presume innocence for the accused, require a live hearing with cross-examination (and a transcript be kept of said hearing), as well as requiring the people who investigate and determine guilt to be different. Also, schools can no longer go against an accuser’s wishes by investigated something they don’t want investigated.
Biden doesn’t want college students to have any of those rights, apparently.
Erin Perrine, Principal Deputy Communications Director for President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign, said in a statement that Biden wants to hold students and others to a different set of standards than himself.
“Before Tara Reade’s assault accusations, Biden was unwavering in a presumption of guilt for the accused including Brett Kavanaugh,&#8221; said Perrine, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496518-biden-says-hell-reverse-devos-rule-to-bolster-protections-for-those-accused">according to The Hill</a>. &#8220;That presumption of guilt included the disastrous Title IX regulations under the Obama-Biden administration, making it more difficult on college campuses for the accused to receive a fair hearing and their due process rights. Does Joe still stand by his presumption of guilt for the accused – or has he set a new standard for himself in the face of his own sexual assault accusations from a former staffer?”
Biden purposefully, erroneously joined activists in claiming the new rules allow schools to ignore sexual assault and would hurt “survivors,” even though he has deemed them as such based solely on an allegation without evidence.
“It lets colleges off the hook for protecting students, by permitting them to choose to investigate only more extreme acts of violence and harassment and requiring them to investigate in a way that dissuades survivors from coming forward,” Biden said. “Survivors deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced. Today, Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump published a rule that flies in the face of that belief and guarantees that college campuses will be less safe for our nation’s young people.”
Biden does not appear to see the rank hypocrisy between the standard he wants for himself and for college students.

Biden

Biden: Due Process Rights For Me, But Not For Thee

Joe Biden

For nearly a decade, college students have had their constitutional rights infringed simply by stepping onto campus. On Wednesday, however, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released new Title IX guidelines that seek to restore those rights to students.
The new guidelines help restore truth and fairness in college Title IX proceedings, which adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. The Obama administration in 2011 issued guidelines that required schools to use a preponderance of evidence standard (50% plus a feather) to determine whether an accusation is truthful, and later discouraged the use of cross-examination to determine the truth. The Obama administration also fostered a climate where schools were forced to “believe all women” for fear of bad publicity should a woman claim she was a victim and the man she accused not be kicked off campus. The most famous example of this was Emma Sulkowicz, also known as “Mattress Girl,” who received national attention even though her allegations <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columbia-student-found-not-responsible-of-rape-finally-tells-his-side-of-the-story">were dubious</a>.
One of the most sorely needed new rule requires schools to actually inform accused students that an allegation has been made against them and the specific details of that allegation. Previously, many schools required accused students to give a statement in their defense before even learning the allegations against them.
The new regulations also include the presumption of innocence for accused students, which does not, contrary to what activists say, mean the school begins by disbelieving accusers. It means, just as it does in the American legal system, that both sides are believed until evidence suggests otherwise.
The new rules also abolish the single-investigator model praised by the Obama administration, which allowed one individual to act as investigator, judge, jury, and executioner in Title IX cases. Almost exclusively, these individuals were trained to believe accusers and were given sole discretion on what evidence to consider – with predictably <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-such-thing-as-evidence-of-innocence-in-campus-sexual-assault-hearings">disastrous results</a>. Given, even schools that provided hearings to students and allowed others to judge ignored exculpatory evidence.
The new rules require the person who makes the final decision in whether an accused student is responsible to be different from the person who served as the investigator. Further, a finding of responsibility can only come after a hearing is held and a representative for the accused is allowed to ask questions of the accuser. In the justice system, this is known as cross-examination, but on college campuses, it is either strongly hampered or completely disallowed. In many cases, an accused student submits questions to the hearing panel to ask the accuser, but the hearing panel ignores the most important questions that would show discrepancies in an accuser’s story.
Evidence must also be made available 10 days prior to the hearing, allowing both accusers and the accused time to examine it. A transcript of the hearing must also be kept, something that has not happened, which hurts any student coming forward to claim unfairness.
Beyond the sexual assault aspects, the new Title IX rules also help free speech by limiting what can be investigated as a violation of Title IX. The Obama administration’s definition of sexual harassment was simply “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” while DeVos’ rules align the definition closer to the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis vs. Monroe County Board of Education, which held that harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” This definition would cut most allegations of sexual harassment.
The DeVos rules insist sexual harassment must be severe, pervasive, and offensive to a reasonable person.
&#8220;This new rule strikes a powerful blow against campus censorship,&#8221; an Education Department spokesperson said. &#8220;Campus free speech must not be sacrificed in the misguided pursuit of any other value.&#8221;
The new rules also ensure that schools won’t investigate potential Title IX violations if the accuser does not want them investigated. Previously, any school official made aware of any possible violation had to report it to the Title IX office, which would then be required to investigate whether the accuser asked or not. DeVos’ rules still require potential violations to be reported to the Title IX office, but limits what that office can do in response. Instead of immediately launching an investigation, the office will now reach out to the accusers and offer support, but it cannot adjudicate unless the accuser or their parents/guardians lodge a formal complaint. This means schools can no longer go against accusers who don’t want their claims investigated.
Predictably, so-called women’s rights groups are misrepresenting the new rules as an assault on “survivor’s rights,” without explaining what exactly those “rights” are. One wonders whether these groups think due process should be abolished in this country, making way for pitchfork justice.
Attorney Andrew Miltenberg, who has represented numerous high-profile students accused of sexual misconduct, including the man accused by Sulkowicz, explained what happened to students under the Obama-era rules.
“Since 2011, for men accused of sexual harassment or nonconsensual sexual activity, college campuses had come to resemble a circle of hell in Dante’s Inferno. All it took was for someone to point a finger, anonymously or otherwise, and a male student would find themselves caught up in a system that was, at best Orwellian,” Miltenberg told The Daily Wire. “The specifics of the charges were illusive; access to evidence was severely limited, the investigation was borderline incompetent or meant to limit the accused from defending themselves, and the hearing was nothing short of a North Korean show trial. Findings of responsibility all too often came with little or no reasoning as hearing panels and investigators engineered the process to achieve a certain result. The sanctions that followed that result were punitive at best and could easily derail an education and be a bar to any number of career choices.”
Justin Dillon, another attorney who has represented students accused of sexual misconduct, praised the new rules to Reason’s Robby Soave.
&#8220;Nothing Betsy DeVos has done since she took office will have a more lasting effect on people&#8217;s lives than this,&#8221; Dillon said. &#8220;It&#8217;s frankly inspiring to see how hard she and her staff have worked to get these regulations done and get them right.&#8221;
DeVos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines more than two years ago, and was met with <a href="https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/10/26/devos.html">obstinance from college administrators</a>. It is likely that schools will continue to oppose the new rules and insist on adhering to the old “guilty until proven innocent, but even then still guilty,” standard of the Obama administration.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

College Students Just Received Free Speech Protections, Due Process Rights Thanks To The Trump Administration

A female student at the University of Michigan who accused a male student of sexual assault backed out of her claims after a judge ruled the accused student would be allowed to cross-examine his accuser.
The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/accuser-backs-out-of-title-ix-proceeding-after-court-orders-umich-to-allow-cross-examination/">reported</a> that the development came after the judge ordered UM to provide the accused student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, a “live hearing” and the ability to cross-examine his accuser, referred to as “Claimant” (The Daily Wire will refer to her as Jane Roe). UM appealed the ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the accused student’s attorney, Deborah Gordon, filed a motion on Monday saying the appeal was moot because UM dropped the Title IX charges against her client.
University policy allowed the school to continue investigating and adjudicating an accused student even if the accuser refuses to participate, but UM took the opportunity to close the case after the accuser said she “no longer wants to proceed or participate in the investigative resolution process.”
An earlier court ruling found UM violated John’s Title IX rights during its investigation of Jane’s claims.
The Fix reported that UM scheduled John’s original hearing for April 22 – the week before final exams. John couldn’t attend the hearing in person as he had returned to California because the school had closed due to the coronavirus. John and Jane were both supposed to graduate in May. When John tried to get the hearing rescheduled until after his exams, the school made “several false representations” for why it couldn’t postpone, Gordon claimed in a court filing. “A day ahead of a court hearing on John’s emergency motion to postpone his Title IX proceeding, the university ‘revealed the true reason’ for the rush: It wanted to hold his degree,” the Fix reported.
Less than an hour before UM had to file its brief in court, the school notified Gordon that it was closing the case against John without finding the student responsible or not responsible. Despite dropping its case against John, UM refused to drop its appeal to the 6th Circuit. Gordon said the university’s “position is legally unsupportable and may be sanctionable.”
Professor and author K.C. Johnson speculated on Twitter that UM was refusing to drop its appeal in an effort to avoid paying John’s legal fees, as records show the university has already spent $1.2 million fighting just this one case.
The accusation arises from a sexual encounter on November 11, 2017. Jane had texted John that night asking if she could go to his dorm room, because earlier in the day the two had discussed meeting up and John suggested hanging out in his room. The two “watched movies and engaged in sexual intercourse,” according to court documents. Jane would later tell her roommate about having sex with John, and his lawsuit states that Jane “did not say it was without consent” at that time. Unlike most allegations of sexual assault on college campuses, this one didn’t involve alcohol or drugs.
Following their encounter, Jane continued to message John and “chatted pleasantly” with him in the school’s dining hall after she asked to have dinner with him. John suspected that Jane decided to accuse him of sexual assault after he declined to have sex with her again or a relationship. Jane had texted John asking to have sex with him again in his room, but he said no.
“In another one of Claimant’s texts to Plaintiff she asked him what it meant to their relationship now that they had engaged in sex. Plaintiff responded that all he could offer was friendship,” John’s lawsuit said.
Jane wouldn’t make her accusation until months later, and UM wouldn’t notify John that a complaint had been filed against him un April 2, 2018. John said in his lawsuit that when he was interviewed by UM Title IX investigators on April 3, he was not given the details of the allegation against him or provide him a summary of any witness statements who were interviewed at later dates.
A no-contact order was also placed against only John, forbidding him to have even “incidental” contact with Jane. Jane would later falsely accuse John of violating the order, though John, luckily, was able to use his university card-swipe data to prove he was not in the dining hall when Jane claimed he broke the order. UM, however, took no action against Jane and it is unclear whether that lie would have been used to determine her credibility and whether it would have made a difference in the case against John.
John sued the university, for withholding his degree and transcript, as he had already been accepted into the university’s College of Engineering master’s degree program but was now barred from registering for classes or getting a job.
Months after John sued UM for putting an “indefinite hold” on his transcript and degree without finishing the proceedings, a decision in a different lawsuit against the university demanded the school provide cross-examination.
Cross-examination had been discouraged by activists and the Obama administration, who claimed it would “re-traumatize” accusers by forcing them to provide evidence of their claims and potentially be challenged by the men they were accusing. Suddenly, one of the tenets of the American justice system was demonized – but just in cases of sexual assault.
UM tried to claim in court that John was responsible for the case’s ongoing adjudication, saying the accuser had waited two years while John “and the district court prevent the University from completing its investigation into her allegations of rape and from conducting a hearing,” and tried to claim that Jane dropping out of the “fitful process” should serve as a reason for courts to stay out of “an ongoing process.”
Gordon, John’s attorney, responded by saying UM was “solely responsible for the trajectory of these events,” and that John was the victim here, having his life disrupted and continuing to live with a “significant cloud over him.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Depressed woman

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault But Stopped Participating In School Investigation After Being Told Her Claims Would Be Challenged

University of Michigan

A male Transylvania University student sued his school alleging that once a female student lodged a complaint against him, he was removed from his dorm and placed into “a moldy apartment” and told he could not have any visitors unless the school’s Title IX office approved them.
The male student, identified only as John Doe in court documents, argues in his lawsuit that it was actually the female student who initiated all sexual contact, which included kissing, <a href="https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article241839106.html">reported</a> the Lexington Herald-Leader. John accused the university of discriminating against him based on his gender, which is prohibited by Title IX.
Last December, John and the female student, referred to only as Jane Roe, returned to John’s dorm room after a party, according to the lawsuit. As John tells it, Jane started kissing him, but he “did not consent to the kissing.”
“At one point, Doe told the female student to leave, but she failed to do so,” John continues.
The next day, however, the university received an anonymous complaint from a resident adviser about the incident. Jane would then tell university investigators that John kissed and touched her without her consent. She also claimed “the lights were off in Doe’s dorm room, and that Doe had removed all of his clothing,” according to John’s lawsuit.
But John contends in his lawsuit that video evidence shows otherwise – that the lights were on in his room and that his roommate, who came into John’s room right after Jane left, said the lights were on and John was fully clothed.
Without anything more than Jane’s allegation, John says the university removed him from his dorm and put him into “solitary confinement.”
“Immediately after the female student stated she wanted to pursue an investigation, the university evicted Doe from his dorm room based on nothing more than a meritless allegation, and without providing Doe any due process . . . and the opportunity to be heard,” John says in his lawsuit. “Furthermore, Doe was placed in solitary confinement in a moldy apartment, and was informed that he could not have any visitors without approval from the Title IX office.”
John also says the apartment the university put him in didn’t even have internet access or a place to do laundry.
John says in his lawsuit that once school investigators began looking into Jane’s claims, he filed his own complaint alleging that she was the real aggressor and one who initiated the kissing, which he did not want. But even though John had just as much evidence to suggest he was the victim (perhaps more so with the video evidence from his dorm room), Transylvania only “investigated” his claim for two weeks before dismissing it. The school investigated Jane’s claims for two months, and a hearing was set for her complaint in mid-April, but John’s attorneys have filed an injunction to force Transylvania to abandon the hearing.
John is also asking for compensatory and emotional damages. Schools typically refuse to comment on ongoing litigation, and Transylvania declined to comment to the Herald-Leader.
&nbsp;

Invisible man

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Even Though He Says SHE Initiated. University Puts Him In ‘Solitary Confinement.’

Indiana Wesleyan University (IWU) refuses to make a simple phone call to a female student who accused a male student of sexual assault in order to ask for verification that she is, indeed, HIV-positive, as she claimed to a school investigator.
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-he-raped-her-and-gave-her-hiv-he-wasnt-hiv-positive-before-their-encounter-and-is-now-afraid-for-his-life">reported</a> that the woman, referred to in court documents as Jane Roe, accused a male student referred to only as John Doe of sexually assaulting her in late 2019. She made the allegations as she tried to get failing grades changed to incomplete. During a December 11 conversation with the single school investigator who not only “investigated” the case but also made the sole determination of the male student’s guilt, the woman claimed she had been tested for STDs and was found to be HIV-positive.
It appears from John’s eventual lawsuit against the university that IWU assumed he was HIV-positive, knew it, and infected Jane. A “note from IWU Associate Professor Anneke Stasson included in the Incident Reporting From said, “It makes me really worried to think that the guy who gave her HIV is still on this campus.”
John was never told about Jane’s HIV claim. In fact, he only found out about it after a judge granted him expedited discovery in his lawsuit claiming his rights were violated by IWU and his life was put in danger. It was during discovery that John’s attorneys uncovered the claim. John said he had been tested for STDs before and was never told he was HIV-positive, now fearing that he caught it from Jane. Of course, as is often the case with school accusations, the accuser doesn’t have to prove her claims, and in this case, Jane was never asked to provide documentation that she was HIV-positive.
John and his attorneys filed an emergency temporary restraining order to compel IWU to reach out to Jane and have her provide documentation proving her HIV claim. If the university doesn’t comply, John would be forced to break quarantine and travel to a doctor’s office to get himself tested in the midst of a global pandemic. John has a seizure disorder and contends that he would be at risk were he to contract the coronavirus. All IWU would have to do is call the accuser and ask for documentation.
IWU refused to do so in an email to John and his attorneys that John should just order a test on line, wait for it to arrive, take it, and then send it in for analysis. And again, this is already four months after Jane made her claim, meaning John has wasted valuable time to receive treatment if he is actually HIV positive. John’s attorneys called IWU’s refusal “offensive and insensitive, particularly when this dilemma was created by IWU’s callous and deliberate indifference.”
IWU has now responded to John’s request for a temporary restraining order, unwittingly admitting that that it never bothered to consider whether Jane was telling the truth about being HIV-positive. She may very well have lied about it and John was expelled over a false allegation. He also contends the sexual activity with Jane was consensual.
In its response, IWU claims John’s request would require the school to “be responsible for contacting a former student over whom it has no authority or control to ask her sensitive information about her medical history and for medical documentation to prove it. Notably, to the extent Roe does not already have medical documentation concerning her current HIV status, IWU would be asking her to bear the same risk that Doe fears – ‘breaking quarantine to seek medical attention in the midst of a nation-wide crises [sic] where medical facilities are overwhelmed and vulnerable to COVID-19 infection,’” IWU’s attorneys wrote.
If Jane had indeed taken the test, however, it would be in her medical files and could be sent to her or scanned without her having to go to the doctor and get tested again. Since she claimed to have contracted HIV months ago, she would also presumably be on medication already and have a prescription pill bottle around for verification. There is no true hardship for her if she’s telling the truth.
As author and professor K.C. Johnson noted on Twitter that the “University&#8217;s argument that accuser might not have this medical info is particularly bizarre,” adding that “If, in fact, she wasn&#8217;t tested, that would mean she lied on a critical matter when filing her complaint.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
University&#8217;s argument that accuser might not have this medical info is particularly bizarre. If, in fact, she wasn&#8217;t tested, that would mean she lied on a critical matter when filing her complaint.
— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1247277426037620736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Update: John risked a coronavirus infection to get himself tested for HIV Monday night. The results came back negative, calling into question the veracity of his accuser&#8217;s claims. He and his attorneys have withdrawn their emergency temporary restraining order since it is no longer necessary.

HIV test

University Refuses To Verify Claims Of Woman Who Claimed To Get HIV From Male Student

Last year, a male Indiana Wesleyan University student was accused of rape by a woman who was trying to get incomplete grades for her fall semester. On December 11, 2019, while making her claim and trying to change her grades, she said she had been tested for STDs and found out she was HIV-positive.
A note from IWU Associate Professor Anneke Stasson included in the Incident Reporting From said, “It makes me really worried to think that the guy who gave her HIV is still on this campus.”
Thus began an ordeal that violated the male accused student’s due process rights and expelled him from campus with allowing him to defend himself. The male student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, sued IWU and was granted expedited discovery for the case. During that discovery phase, John learned of his accuser’s (referred to as Jane Roe) HIV claim. John and his attorneys filed a request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to force IWU to contact Jane and verify whether her claim about being HIV-positive was true, because if it is, John is in serious risk.
John’s attorneys said they were unaware of Jane’s assertion until a few days before they filed the April 3 TRO request, even though IWU knew that it was possible that Jane had exposed John to HIV months before discovery.
“Despite requests by John’s counsel, IWU refuses to contact Jane to require her to verify her HIV status. Absent a temporary restraining order directing IWU to do so, John will be forced to break quarantine to seek medical testing, potentially exposing himself to the novel coronavirus. With a serious preexisting health condition, John is especially vulnerable and will face irreparable harm if forced to seek medical attention in the midst of a pandemic. IWU can avoid this by simply contacting Jane and requiring her to verify her HIV status,” wrote John’s attorneys, Susan Stone and Peter J. Agostino.
John’s TRO requests stated that IWU was well aware that John has an underlying medical condition that causes him seizures and puts him at risk for contracting the coronavirus and serious complications from HIV, yet he contends that IWU was more interested in showing they take sexual assault allegations seriously than the truth of those allegations or an accused student’s life.
After John’s attorneys contacted IWU’s attorneys to demand Jane prove her allegations about being HIV-positive in an effort to spare John from leaving quarantine and exposing himself to the coronavirus by going to a doctor to obtain an HIV test. An email from IWU’s attorney, Amanda Shelby, shows little regard for John’s concern and suggests he order an HIV test online, take it at home, and then send it in for analysis.
John’s attorneys contend this is a flippant disregard for his health, calling it “offensive and insensitive, particularly when this dilemma was created by IWU’s callous and deliberate indifference.”
“In this situation, every moment counts, and there is no time to wait for a test to arrive and then wait to receive results. Nor is it a reasonable alternative for John to seek in-person medical attention when doing so would potentially expose him to the coronavirus, an equally dangerous and life-threatening virus. The simple solution is for this Court to compel IWU to contact Jane immediately and require her to verify her HIV-status through medical documentation. Otherwise, IWU’s inaction will continue to place John at risk of imminent, irreparable, life-threatening harm,” John’s attorneys wrote.
The attorneys argue that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh in John’s favor, since there would be next to no harm for IWU to simply ask Jane to prove she tested positive for HIV. John, however, faces great risk in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak and as a medically compromised person to determine whether he is HIV positive and begin treatment.
John’s previous motion for a preliminary injunction resulted in a ruling that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his Title IX violation claims, basic fairness violations, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. John’s attorneys claim this new evidence makes it even more likely his lawsuit against IWU would succeed.
They write that John was “denied the chance to present a case, cross-examine witnesses, and full appeal rights.” Even though IWU dean Andrew Parker, who was the sole investigator and decisionmaker in John’s case, was aware of Jane’s HIV claim, he did not mention it to John when they spoke on December 12. Further, John contends IWU violated its own handbook by allowing “the highest levels of IWU leadership” to directly intervene in John’s case and “order that his request for a Case Appeal be denied.”
It appears IWU just took Jane’s allegations about HIV at face value, assuming from the start that John was HIV-positive – must know it – and knowingly infected Jane. Since John says he was not HIV-positive before his encounter with Jane, it brings up the possibility that a) Jane is lying about testing positive to further her claims in order to get leniency for failing her semester, b) someone else raped her, or c) she got HIV from someone else and is pinning it on John, knowingly or unknowingly. If she lied about being HIV-positive or that John was responsible, then her credibility is at stake – yet IWU didn’t attempt to confirm her claims.
John’s attorneys previously contended that John did not rape Jane, and that the process used to expel him for at least one year was biased and unfair. His attorneys previously wrote that the single investigator took just seven working days to find John responsible despite evidence he was innocent. Jane, the attorneys contended, also broke multiple campus rules and was never punished.
The two engaged in sexual activity that John insists was consensual, while Jane claims it was not. John told investigators that Jane’s body language, participation, and her following John to his bedroom and continuing the sexual activity indicated she did consent. Jane also claimed she told John “no” and to “stop,” but he says she never gave any indication she wanted the activity to cease. Jane also stayed with John in his dorm room talking after the encounter and then went to his roommate’s room to talk and was overheard laughing. At that time, she also texted John while he was in the other room. That night and the next day, Jane continued texting with John normally without any indication something was wrong. The two had hooked up prior to this encounter as well.
The report that found John responsible focused on the agreements between John and Jane – the fact that sexual activity took place – while omitting key information from John’s side of the story. IWU used its rule that consent cannot be assumed from silence, the lack of a “no,” or prior sexual history as its basis to expel John until Jane was no longer a student.
If what John says is true – that Jane willingly participated in the sexual activity – then it is further evidence that such consent rules are meaningless because any accuser can claim they were violated without having to provide evidence of such.

Woman in bed

She Claimed He Raped Her And Gave Her HIV. He Wasn’t HIV-Positive Before Their Encounter And Is Now Afraid For His Life.

Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.
Of course, that’s not how the senators worded <a href="https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/033120_LTRDeVosTitleIX%20v.2.pdf">their letter</a> to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.
Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”
“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”
The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.
In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-colorado-settles-with-student-accused-of-sexual-assault">punish men</a> <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/11/allegheny-college-settles-student-peer-says-falsely-accused-assault-revenge-not-dating-girl-slept/">who rejected them</a>, avoid <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-rules-ohio-state-title-ix-official-can-be-personally-liable-for-helping-rape-accuser-lie/">getting kicked out of school</a>, or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-lied-about-being-raped-now-men-she-accused-are-ashe-schow">for sympathy</a>. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.
In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”
Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple. <a href="https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC">https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC</a>
— Samantha Harris (@samk_harris) <a href="https://twitter.com/samk_harris/status/1245116948964429827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1245112636305559552">H/t K.C. Johnson</a>

Warren

Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

Elizabeth Warren

The University of Michigan is embroiled in <a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/section/community-affairs/university-neglects-numerous-sexual-misconduct-claims-against-famous-voice">a sex scandal</a> involving a prominent tenured opera professor who was accused by multiple men of sexual assault and harassment.
UM President Mark Schlissel <a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/section/administration/schlissel-interview-0">was asked</a> by reporters at student newspaper The Michigan Daily about the scandal. He claimed during the interview that he was “a huge believer in due process and allowing the accused to defend themselves, to see the evidence against themselves and allowing an investigation to be thorough and complete, and then going through each of the specified faculty policies and procedures when it comes to a disciplinary action that threatens the removal of tenure.”
His remarks on this run counter to how his school’s policies work for students accused of sexual misconduct.
In 2018, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Doe v. Baum that universities must allow some form of cross-examination during allegations of sexual misconduct when the case comes down to the credibility of one person or the other. This ruling pertained to nearly all campus sexual misconduct cases, which often involve no witnesses and are a he said/she said situation where one party (almost exclusively the man) says the sexual encounter was consensual and the other (almost exclusively the woman) says it was not.
Even with the ruling, schools under the 6th Circuit and across the country continue to deny due process rights to men accused of sexual misconduct out of fear that they will receive bad press and be sued by a female accuser who will have the full backing of the media and feminist movement behind her if she claims the school didn’t take her claims seriously. Taking claims “seriously” has resulted in schools automatically believing accusers and tilting the process against the accused no matter the evidence.
UM has been no different. After the Baum ruling, President Schlissel <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/ingrid-jacques/2020/03/27/jacques-university-michigan-cant-ignore-students-rights/2916115001/">said</a> the “6th Circuit got it wrong,” and defending the school’s unfair practices.
The case that led to the ruling involved a male and female student who met while drinking, had sex, and then recounted the night differently. The female student accused the male student of sexual assault, and since there were no witnesses to the actual event and no evidence for either side, the school found the male student “not responsible.” The school interviewed 23 witnesses who provided no clarity. Some confirmed the male student’s account that the accuser wasn’t drunk and others said she seemed drunk and that she was upset after the encounter.
Because college campuses allow either side to appeal – effectively allowing double jeopardy – the female student appealed and without any additional evidence provided, the school reversed its earlier decision and found the male student responsible. He sued the school, leading to the Sixth Circuit opinion.
UM did not change its ways after the Baum decision, leading to another ruling in Doe v. University of Michigan, which found the university was up to its anti-fairness ways. Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/03/28/how-do-you-stop-a-problem-like-university-of-michigan/">wrote</a> on his blog Simple Justice that this isn’t surprising, given that court rulings are often ignored and the only way for a student to remedy that fact is to sue. Many accused students are minority and foreign students who don’t have such resources.
“As more suits are brought, more rulings obtained, holding that campus sex tribunals involve unconstitutional deprivations of due process to accused male students, some colleges will comply, but others will simply resist, firm in their belief that they are on the right side of history and, even if courts don’t agree, are doing what they have to, what they should, do to protect women. They are, in essence, challenging the courts by saying ‘make me,’ and the reality is that the &#8216;least dangerous branch&#8217; doesn’t have any really good magic to do so,” Greenfield wrote.

Judge

College President Says He Believes In Due Process. His School’s Handling Of Sexual Assault Allegations Says Otherwise.

Lawsuit

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth circuit outlined the numerous ways in which the University of Denver (DU) railroaded an accused student. Campus activists, however, claim the school doesn’t do enough for accusing students.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/court-outlines-how-school-railroaded-accused-male-student-but-upholds-his-expulsion">reported</a>, a student referred to as John Doe was accused by a student referred to as Jane Roe of sexual assault in 2014 six months after the two shared a sexual encounter their freshmen year. John was expelled following a lop-sided campus kangaroo court and sued. A panel of three judges outlined exactly how DU deprived John of his constitutional rights, calling the process “a railroading,” yet amazingly upheld the school’s decision to expel him:
<ul>
<li>refused to follow leads that were potentially exculpatory;</li>
<li>disbelieved Plaintiff from the outset due to the “innate motive” respondents have to lie about wrongdoing, while failing to consider obvious motives Jane might have to lie about the extent to which she initiated or invited the sexual encounter with Plaintiff, such as her new boyfriend’s insistence that she report the incident as well as his presence at her initial reporting and subsequent interviews; 
• selectively determined which post-encounter evidence they would consider relevant (e.g., considering Jane’s allegation that Plaintiff offered her Aderall after the encounter in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility but not considering Jane’s inconsistent statements on whether the two saw each other after the encounter in assessing her credibility); 
• allowed Jane’s boyfriend to act both as Jane’s support person who was present at her interviews and as a fact witness who provided information in the proceeding to corroborate Jane’s story and to impeach the testimony of witnesses who contradicted her story, in violation of DU’s policies; 
• selectively viewed Jane as “heavily intoxicated,” implicitly rejecting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statements that Jane exhibited no indication of intoxication in order to support a finding that Plaintiff coerced Jane into sex but then accepting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statement in order to find that Jane’s intoxication had little effect on her ability to accurately recollect the encounter that night; 
• faulted Plaintiff for making corrections to his summary statement and used it to attack his credibility, despite expressly inviting Plaintiff to make such corrections and apparently violating DU’s informal policy allowing interviewees to correct summary statements in order to accurately reflect their testimony; 
• emphasized inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s story while disregarding numerous inconsistencies in the versions of the story told by Jane and her friend; 
• suggested Plaintiff’s failure to recollect details was indicative of deception and guilt while suggesting Jane’s failure to recollect details was the result of intoxication; 
• viewed Plaintiff’s roommate’s statements corroborating Plaintiff’s story as tainted by Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s prior conferral regarding the events of that night, while not applying this same logic to the statements of Jane’s friend who corroborated Jane’s story, even though Jane called her friend specifically to relate to him “her portrayal of the night” and to tell him “that it was rape”; 
• attacked Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s credibility on the grounds they seemed overly eager to offer consistent denials of any on-campus alcohol use, without applying the same logic to the vague and inconsistent stories provided by Jane and her friend regarding their own on-campus alcohol use, even though DU offers amnesty to complainants who admit to on-campus drug and alcohol use, but not to respondents.</li>
</ul>
Despite this flagrant abuse of an accused student (who are almost exclusively male), advocates at DU claimed the school wasn’t doing enough to help women who made accusations, whom they always refer to as “victims” or “survivors” based solely on an allegation.
Naturally, DU leadership agreed to make their policies even more slanted against accused students, who are usually accused after a drunken hookup in which each party, according to school policies, should be considered a victim. It never works this way, however, since college women are now taught to see themselves as victims and men as perpetrators. Women are encouraged to accuse men, while men are not encouraged to see themselves as victims, unless they’re gay. This results in many male students being sexually assaulted (according to broad modern definitions that include any form of touching to be sexual assault unless asked specifically for permission beforehand by someone who hasn’t had a sip of alcohol) but not seeing themselves as victims and reporting women.
DU introduced <a href="http://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20200305/34/df/3a/4a/c657091108ddce2730008f71/response.actionitems.03.04.2020_1_.pdf">a plan</a> that will guarantee every accusation results in suspension or expulsion for a male accused student. The school is instituting “trauma-informed investigation” methods, a new concept that assumes every accusation to be true no matter what. Supporters insist it is backed up by scientific evidence, but decades long research on trauma and memory do not support the techniques. For example, “trauma-informed” techniques insist that a woman is telling the truth about being raped even if she lies to police, because lies are simply a result of trauma. The techniques also encourage allegedly neutral “fact finders” to ignore exculpatory evidence and not interview the accuser multiple times so that accused students can’t point to inconsistencies in their stories.
DU will also start teaching four years of gender-based violence education for undergraduate students. DU makes clear that all sexual assault policies are biased against men by specifically mentioning masculinity as something to be fixed.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to release new federal guidelines for how schools should investigate allegations of sexual assault, mandating that schools include accused students’ due process rights in the proceedings. Around 200 students – that we know of – have sued their college or university, and more than 100 rulings from judges have pointed out how schools have denied likely innocent students the ability to defend themselves from false accusations.

Guilt concept

University Called Out By Judge For ‘Railroading’ Accused Student. Activists Claim School Isn’t Pro-Accuser Enough.

Denver

A male student at Syracuse University is trying to clear his name after the school’s investigation into sexual assault allegations failed to allow him to properly defend himself.
The student, whom The Daily Wire will call John Doe, was previously accused of raping a female student, who will be called Jane Roe. Both were Syracuse students. The two attended a party in 2017 co-hosted by John’s fraternity and Jane’s sorority. Surveillance footage from that night showed the two students enter John’s room at about 12:30 in the morning. The two, according to court documents, awoke in the same bed the next morning – fully clothed – and had no memory of what occurred the night before, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-he-raped-her-a-medical-examination-showed-no-sex-he-was-expelled-and-is-suing-her-for-defamation">reported</a>.
After John was expelled, he filed a lawsuit against the school alleging his due process and Title IX rights were violated. He also sued his accuser for defamation because she called him a rapist online and to his friends even though there was no evidence the two even had sex. Jane tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but a judge denied her motion.
Syracuse, likewise, is trying to get John’s lawsuit against the school dismissed. The Daily Wire was provided a copy of John’s legal response to Syracuse’s motion to dismiss, which outlines the ways the university violated John’s rights.
For starters, the man assigned to investigate the allegations, Bernerd Jacobson, was a victim’s advocate, not an impartial observer, and, according to John and his attorneys, acted as an advocate. John’s attorney argues that by the time Jacobson spoke to Jane for the first time, she had changed her story multiple times. She initially said she thought she was drugged – though a test showed no drugs other than caffeine and marijuana in her system. She also repeatedly said she didn’t remember what happened that night in the months before meeting with Jacobson. Yet months after the alleged incident, and only after going to therapy for her alleged trauma, did Jane start to “remember” things, including sexual intercourse with John. Such memories are not accurate and bring to mind the “recovered memories” of the 1980s Satanic daycare panic.
Jacobson, according to John’s lawsuit “blatantly disregarded objective facts and failed to collect highly relevant evidence – which Defendant Jacobson knew existed – that exonerated Doe and pointed to the implausibly of Roe’s sexual assault claims.”
For instance, Jacobson didn’t speak to a veteran sex crimes prosecutor who said there was no evidence sex even occurred between the two students, the detective whom Jane repeatedly told she didn’t remember what happened that night, the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) who found no evidence of sex, or the representative who helped Jane fill out a Family Court Petition against John.
Jacobson didn’t even obtain a copy of the SANE report or Jane’s clothes from the night in question. Instead, Jacobson alleged that a finding in the SANE report regarding two tears in Jane’s labia was enough evidence of sexual assault, even though that isn’t evidence of anything. Even with the tears, the examination found no “abrasions to vaginal walls and she had smooth hymen edges,” according to Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf’s summary of the case contained in her <a href="https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GoldmanvReddington.pdf">ruling</a>. Also, a DNA analysis of Jane’s vagina found no male DNA.
John maintained throughout the proceedings that he didn’t remember the night in question. Jane initially said she didn’t remember either, but later changed her story months later. Jacobson, however, found ways to dismiss issues with Jane’s story. Even though a toxicology report found Jane was not drugged, Jacobson noted that “it was not implausible” that Jane was drugged, according to John’s lawsuit. Jacobson even dismissed police detective works, saying “well you know how detectives are, they’re great, but they write down what they think they heard.” Further, Jacobson dismissed Jane’s claim in her Family Court Petition that John raped her with a foreign object by claiming it was Jane’s claim, but an exaggeration written in by the representative who helped her. He made this determination without speaking with this representative.
With all the deficiencies, Jacobson concluded that Jane was credible, but that John’s version of events was also “plausible.” Somehow that translated into finding John responsible for sexual assault even though there was no evidence of sex.
John was not provided the evidence against him and was not allowed to cross-examine Jane or any witnesses. He also didn’t have access to the exculpatory evidence, since Jacobson didn’t obtain it. A Syracuse Conduct Board found John responsible despite finding both students were credible and didn’t remember what happened.
Syracuse, in its motion to dismiss, claimed that because Jacobson briefly mentioned the inconsistencies in Jane’s story, it meant he wasn’t biased. The Conduct Board, however, wrote off those inconsistencies, which John’s lawyers maintain further proves the school’s bias. The Conduct Board also had no access to the SANE report, just the conclusion about the tears to Jane’s labia. The Board tried to claim that because it used a lower standard of proof (a preponderance of evidence, or 50% plus a feather), it could ignore the Assistant District Attorney’s assessment that “[t]here is no credible proof of any sexual conduct in this case, consensual or non-consensual.” As John’s lawsuit notes, this is a “red herring.”
“ADA Barry concluded there was no proof of any sexual contact whatsoever – thus any debate surrounding the standard of proof required in a criminal action is irrelevant to the allegations presented to the Conduct Board.,” the lawsuit states.
John claims in this lawsuit that Syracuse ignored the forensic evidence and findings of veteran law enforcement officials in order to find John responsible. In an email to The Daily Wire, John’s attorney, Seth Zuckerman, blasted not only Syracuse, but also the accuser for their actions:
<blockquote>Syracuse is no longer a safe place for male students. While claiming to protect its female students, the university’s extreme policies discriminate against males accused of sexual assault, regardless of the lack of evidence, as they are treated as guilty from the outset. Syracuse has gone overboard, trampled on the rights of male students, and created a dangerous environment for these young men. Our client was expelled as a result of a false allegation and the school’s bogus and biased investigation which denied our client due process while completely ignoring the police and district attorney’s office determination that there was no sexual assault. The school’s investigator intentionally failed to gather critical evidence. Following his unjustified expulsion, our client has been left to pick up the pieces of his life. The so-called victim has celebrated on social media our client’s expulsion and branded him a rapist and intentionally went out of her way to contact his employer to get him fired. He will never get his undergraduate life back, nor the social media anonymity, he had before these false allegations were made.</blockquote>

Couple in ed

A Male Student Expelled Even Though There Was No Evidence Of Sex Is Fighting To Clear His Name

Syracuse University

Two professors anonymously accused of sexual harassment. Two university’s investigating the claims. An administrator who states flat out that the truth isn’t the priority. And two careers hampered by one person’s jealous vendetta. The only way to get justice was to pay tens of thousands of dollars.
The story above was told in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/magazine/title-ix-sexual-harassment-accusations.html">The New York Times</a> by Sarah Viren, one of the falsely accused women. Sarah and her wife, Marta, were doing well professionally: Both had tenure-track jobs at Arizona State University and thought they would soon be making a desired move to Michigan to further their careers.
Sarah had interviewed for her dream job at University of Michigan, where she would help develop a creative-nonfiction program. She was told an offer letter would arrive soon and that the university would work to find a place for Marta as well.
But the offer letter didn’t come as the weeks went by. To distract themselves, Sarah and Marta attended a party for a friend who had just obtained her Ph.D. Between drinks and conversation, Marta received an anonymous email claiming someone on Reddit was posting about her sexually harassing graduate students. At first, she and Sarah thought the email was spam. Hours later, they looked at it again and saw it included a screenshot of the Reddit post, which read: “If you, like me, have been harassed by Dr. Marta, please contact the anonymous email line with A.S.U.’s Title IX Office.” Ten minutes later, Sarah wrote, another post went up, claiming: “I attended a party at Marta’s house one night, where she got several graduate students drunk and then asked me to her bedroom. When I tried to leave she inappropriately touched me and I dropped her as my graduate adviser.”
Sarah wrote that the email was sent in 2019. She wrote that those first two posts were quickly removed, but two more went up in the following days. The first one, posted the day after the party, said: “Lesbian professors, too, are capable of harassing students despite common narratives.” The second one, Sarah wrote, scared her: “Hi y’all. I’m looking for advice. My linguistics professor has offered me wine several times in her office and acted inappropriately when I see her in various queer spaces in Tempe or Phoenix.”
Sarah wrote that this email was the one that really convinced her the allegations were false.
“Marta almost never used her office; she met students at coffee shops or via Zoom. And she rarely drank wine. Or went to any “queer spaces” that I knew of,” Sarah wrote. “The use of ‘y’all,’ though, made me stop. We were in Arizona. No one says y’all here.”
She realized someone outside the university must be trying to take Marta down, but she didn’t know who or why.
On the Monday after the party, Sarah checked in at the University of Michigan and was told the deans “hope to wrap this up by the end of this week,” as if some problem were about to be solved. Marta also received an email from UM asking her to call the next day. The phone call was not about a job, but about the university having been sent accusations that Marta sexually harassed her grad students. Marta told Sarah the administrator told her the school had “credible information that I’m under a Title IX investigation.”
A Title IX investigation refers to a college or university’s pseudo-legal adjudication process of sexual assault or harassment allegations. Starting in 2011, the Obama administration sent guidelines to colleges and universities telling them they needed to investigate allegations. This, combined with an insistence there was an “epidemic” of campus sexual assault, and the Obama administration’s constant claims to “believe all women,” led to schools eviscerating due process for accused students and faculty.
Sarah maintains throughout her Times article that she agrees with the Obama administration and how schools should handle allegations – yet her story makes clear the way schools handle allegations is wrong and unfair. For Sarah and Marta, an anonymous person who wasn’t even associated with the school was able to cast suspicion on the couple and keep them from moving to their dream city and taking dream jobs. And the only way to completely free themselves of the stigma was to take the false accuser to court, which would have cost tens of thousands of dollars and is a luxury most accused – especially students – don’t have.
Sarah and Marta were forced to prove their innocence, rather than the anonymous accuser having to prove their allegations.
The first anonymous allegation was sent on March 14, 2019, by someone claiming their name was “Rebecca James,” who said she was a graduate student in Marta’s department.
“I have had two undergrads come to me and one fellow graduate student regarding Dr. Marta Cabrero,” the accuser wrote. “Dr. Cabrero has put these students in sexually compromising situations. Inviting them to meet her in her office late at night — when the building is mostly empty — she has offered to help their careers (grad student) or grades and standing in the department (undergrad) in exchange for sexual favors.”
There were multiple errors that were immediately obvious to Sarah and Marta. For starters, Marta is from Spain and has two last names – Tecedor and Cabrero. As Sarah wrote, the first last name would be the primary name, so she would have been called Dr. Tecedor in her department, or just Marta, which was her preference.
The discrepancy didn’t seem to phase the administrator assigned to investigate the claim, Melanie. She said it was “relevant to point that out” but immediately began asking leading questions of Marta, such as whether she met with students at night or offered them alcohol or asked for sexual favors.
Marta said she didn’t know anyone named Rebecca James and Melanie admitted she couldn’t find anyone with that name in Marta’s department, but dismissed the issue by claiming the person could have used an alias. Melanie claimed the allegation was “credible,” even though it provided no specifics and was merely a written allegation.
When Melanie spoke with Sarah separately, she admitted that the true goal of Title IX investigations isn’t to find the truth, but to show the federal government they are investigating everything just to get more funding.
Sarah had asked if the case would be dropped if Melanie discovered the allegation was from an outsider pretending to be a student. Melanie responded by saying: “Because of the funding that we receive through Title IX, we’re required to investigate everything. And with that we want to really run everything to the ground.”
Sarah recorded her conversation with Melanie, which is where the quotes came from.
Melanie then dropped the bombshell those who have been demanding due process for accused students have always known but politicians and schools denied: “If we find out that — and Marta asked the question — if we find out that the information is false, for our purposes that’s not really our end goal; we’re just trying to determine whether or not there’s a policy violation.”
Get that? The truth – the falsity – of the allegations doesn’t really matter to schools; all they care about is that government funding – and that government funding is based upon find accused students and faculty responsible, let the accuser (almost always a woman) go to the media to claim she was mistreated because her allegation didn’t result in the accused being removed from campus. It never matters whether the accused actually did what was alleged, it only matters what an accuser claims.
Marta couldn’t have a lawyer present during the investigation, even though she was told that what she said could be used against her. UM would also not have the ability to compel the anonymous false accuser to talk and could not hold that person accountable.
A defamation lawyer told the couple the only way to hold the false accuser accountable was with a lawsuit, but they needed to know who was behind the lies.
Sarah finally had an idea about who might be behind the allegations. A couple weeks after she was offered the job at UM, an acquaintance – referred to only by a fake initial, J – texted her asking if she was going to take the job. Sarah said she knew J was also a finalist for the job, and seemed to imply that if Sarah turned the job down, he would get it. Sarah texted J back – against Marta’s wishes – to tell him that she wanted to take the job but needed Marta to be offered a spousal hire. She told J she would let him know if she learned more.
J kept texting, saying he hoped negotiations with UM were progressing and keeping Sarah updated on what he was doing. In mid-March, around the time the first anonymous email was sent to ASU, J texted Sarah: “Any news? I’ve been thinking of y’all.”
At the end of the month, J texted “WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO US” hours before the first Reddit posts were written.
Sarah now believed J was behind the false allegations, but neither she nor Marta knew how to prove it. Sarah watched J’s social media posts to find clues she could use to prove it was him. A friend reached out to say J had been complaining to him about Sarah getting the job and was telling people about the investigation into Marta, which he shouldn’t have known about.
Sarah and Marta told Melanie about their suspicions. Melanie then asked to meet with them a second time, saying she received “some new information yesterday.” When they met, Melanie said she received another anonymous complaint, this time from some saying her name was “Jessica P. Newman.” Jessica claimed to be one of Marta’s graduate students and claimed she was sexually harassed by Marta and Sarah.
“One night,” the anonymous accuser wrote, “Marta and her wife Sarah had a party for queer students and faculty at their house, and offered me glass of wine after glass of wine and eventually shots of whiskey. When most of the others had left, Marta asked to show me a painting in her bedroom, and when we entered, Sarah was on the bed, topless, and asked us to join her. I said I would be calling an Uber now, but before I could leave the room, Marta took my hand and placed it on her wife’s bare chest.”
Sarah said there was never a party like the one described in the email. She said she and Marta had hosted two dinners for Marta’s graduate-seminar students, but that Sarah left both dinners to put their two kids to bed and no one ever went near the bedrooms. Sarah couldn’t even remember if they had a painting in the bedroom. After some thought, she remembered she did have her favorite painting on a wall, which she had bought years earlier in Florida. While this fact didn’t mean the allegation was true (there’s a good chance one could claim anyone has a painting in their bedroom). Still, the fact that one thing in the email rang true made Sarah uneasy.
Melanie asked the name of the person Sarah thought was behind the lies, and Sarah cooperated. After that, she and Marta hired a lawyer who helped them file a lawsuit to learn identifying information about the emails that had sent the anonymous emails to the universities. Sarah also blocked J on social media.
During a weekend in the mountains, Sarah received a text from a friend saying J was stalking her on social media and was trying to find out if she blocked just him or closed her accounts. He then texted her.
“I’m genuinely sorry if communicating with you made you uncomfortable,” he wrote. “I had hoped admitting to the awkwardness of the situation would make everything OK. I guess I was wrong, and I apologize.”
When they returned, Melanie asked to meet with them again. This time she said she had spoken to UM and was sent all the emails the other university had received. She also said she was talking to Sarah and Marta’s students and colleagues and that “Jessica” had agreed to an in-person interview.
Melanie provided the women with a stack of emails that had been printed out alleging sexual harassment. Issues became immediately apparent. The same email that sent the accusation supposedly from Rebecca James sent another email claiming to be Marta’s colleague R. Orlich. Orlich, a real person, was asked about the allegations and said she hadn’t sent any emails to Michigan.
Emails from “Jessica” were sent to the department chair Sarah was talking to about the job and referred to Marta incorrectly as “Dr. Cabrero.” Jessica claimed Marta’s colleagues had discussed in an email about Marta being removed from a dissertation committee (this never happened) and also claimed The New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education were working on articles about Marta.
Another email from Jessica claimed she was going to the authorities. She presented a screenshot of an alleged conversation between herself and Marta, which showed Marta threatening to ruin Jessica’s career: “We will ruin your career. I will make sure you never get a job once your dissertation is done. My wife and I are well-connected.”
Melanie said she had already checked some facts from the email, including the conversation with the real Orlich and the fact that there were no ASU grad students named Rebecca James or Jessica P. Newman. Still, Melanie couldn’t close the investigation because “Jessica” had agreed to talk.
Melanie called a few days later to say that “Jessica” claimed Marta showed up at her house to threaten her. Sarah used Marta’s phone GPS data to show that she was at home when this alleged incident occurred. Melanie also sent another email from Jessica, which included a screenshot of an email purporting to be from Marta claiming, “You wanted to sleep with us, or at least that is what your body was saying. In Spain this would never happen. People understand their bodies and desires there.”
When J eventually learned about the lawsuit, he started claiming he was being trolled online and said homophobic comments were being posted about him. He went so far as to give a presentation on this alleged harassment at his university.
Sarah wrote to ASU’s president about what was going on, and closed by saying: “We are strong believers in the importance of Title IX protections, but we also feel like there has to be a system in place to protect faculty and students from outsiders who might use that system to defame and harass.”
In other words, justice for me but not for thee. Schools don’t just have to worry about outsiders taking advantage of the Title IX system – plenty of students use the system to get accommodations – such as delaying an exam – or to avoid being dropped from a program <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-rules-ohio-state-title-ix-official-can-be-personally-liable-for-helping-rape-accuser-lie/">due to poor grades</a>. All accused students or faculty need the kind of system that keeps bad actors from making false accusations.
Melanie eventually told the women that starting now, ASU would fact check anonymous accusations before opening investigations, which makes one wonder: Why was it deemed “credible” before it was even fact checked?
It was now two and a half months after Sarah was first offered the job at UM when she finally received the offer letter and a phone call telling her the university was looking for a job for Marta. The two prepared to move to Michigan. While packing, they received an email from their law firm disclosing the phone number linked to the email account claiming to be both Rebecca James and R. Orlich. The phone number matched J’s.
The women thought their lives could carry on, but as with most false accusations, that is not possible. After a month and a half, UM said it couldn’t find a job for Marta. Sarah had to turn down the job.
They decided to sue J. Once he was named in their lawsuit, he started claiming he was receiving anonymous emails from someone, conveniently, taking credit for the whole situation with Sarah and Marta.
“i began trolling you online, sent death threats, broke into your house when you were gone,” this email allegedly said. “i tried to [expletive] up your job applications by getting into your [work] email, i trolled a friend of yours in arizona…”
He then told police at his university that this “stalker” threw a rock through his car window. All this made it possible for J to claim he hadn’t been the one to attack Sarah and Marta, even though the evidence pointed to him.
The problem for the women was that taking J to court would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, and the end, they weren’t willing to pay. They did eventually settle, and were allowed to write or say whatever they wanted about the case, but they couldn’t use J’s real name, even though that meant he could hurt more people.

Hacker

She And Her Wife Were Anonymously Accused Of Sexual Harassment. Their Wild Story Highlights The Dangers Of Campus Adjudication.

Arizona

Sexual Harassment

In a shocking ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit outlined numerous ways in which the University of Denver (DU) railroaded an accused student despite serious deficiencies in the accuser’s story, but didn’t overturn his expulsion because it claimed the due process violations weren’t related to the accused student’s gender.
The accused student, known in court documents as John Doe, was a freshman at DU in the fall of 2014. In October of that year, he had a sexual encounter with a female freshman in his dorm room. Six months later, the woman – at the insistence of her then-boyfriend – accused John of sexual assault. John was expelled, and filed a lawsuit like many wrongly accused students who were denied due process but are able to afford an attorney to try and get their life back.
For John, however, a panel of three judges upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Title IX claims, but dismissed without prejudice Joh’s state-law claims and claim for declaratory relief. In a footnote to the ruling, the judges included a long list of ways DU violated John’s due process rights, writing that school investigators:
<ul>
<li>refused to follow leads that were potentially exculpatory;</li>
<li>disbelieved Plaintiff from the outset due to the “innate motive” respondents have to lie about wrongdoing, while failing to consider obvious motives Jane might have to lie about the extent to which she initiated or invited the sexual encounter with Plaintiff, such as her new boyfriend’s insistence that she report the incident as well as his presence at her initial reporting and subsequent interviews; 
• selectively determined which post-encounter evidence they would consider relevant (e.g., considering Jane’s allegation that Plaintiff offered her Aderall after the encounter in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility but not considering Jane’s inconsistent statements on whether the two saw each other after the encounter in assessing her credibility); 
• allowed Jane’s boyfriend to act both as Jane’s support person who was present at her interviews and as a fact witness who provided information in the proceeding to corroborate Jane’s story and to impeach the testimony of witnesses who contradicted her story, in violation of DU’s policies; 
• selectively viewed Jane as “heavily intoxicated,” implicitly rejecting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statements that Jane exhibited no indication of intoxication in order to support a finding that Plaintiff coerced Jane into sex but then accepting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statement in order to find that Jane’s intoxication had little effect on her ability to accurately recollect the encounter that night; 
• faulted Plaintiff for making corrections to his summary statement and used it to attack his credibility, despite expressly inviting Plaintiff to make such corrections and apparently violating DU’s informal policy allowing interviewees to correct summary statements in order to accurately reflect their testimony; 
• emphasized inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s story while disregarding numerous inconsistencies in the versions of the story told by Jane and her friend; 
• suggested Plaintiff’s failure to recollect details was indicative of deception and guilt while suggesting Jane’s failure to recollect details was the result of intoxication; 
• viewed Plaintiff’s roommate’s statements corroborating Plaintiff’s story as tainted by Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s prior conferral regarding the events of that night, while not applying this same logic to the statements of Jane’s friend who corroborated Jane’s story, even though Jane called her friend specifically to relate to him “her portrayal of the night” and to tell him “that it was rape”; 
• attacked Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s credibility on the grounds they seemed overly eager to offer consistent denials of any on-campus alcohol use, without applying the same logic to the vague and inconsistent stories provided by Jane and her friend regarding their own on-campus alcohol use, even though DU offers amnesty to complainants who admit to on-campus drug and alcohol use, but not to respondents.</li>
</ul>
The judges themselves called what happened to John “a railroading.”
“But an accumulation of irregularities all disfavoring the respondent becomes deeply troubling because benign, stochastic explanations for the errors become implausible. Instead, it looks more like a railroading,” they wrote.
Even after all this, the judges decided John hadn’t proven his claims to their satisfaction. Specifically, they wrote that even though 35 of 36 accusers at DU between 2011 and 2016 were female and all accused students were male, there was not enough evidence to suggest the school had an anti-male bias. Instead, they said it was simply an anti-accused bias.
This is a common claim that only works in court. On campus, women use Title IX to claim gender discrimination because they say they are the majority of sexual assault victims. Then it would seem it would be gender bias to railroad accused students since they are the majority of the accused. But we don’t live in a fair world.

Kangaroos

Court Outlines How School Railroaded Accused Male Student, But Upholds His Expulsion

A recent ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has drastic consequences for students accused of sexual assault, putting a fear in colleges that if they don’t suspend or expel an accused student, they could be held liable for anything that student may or may not do in the future.
Criminal Defense attorney Scott Greenfield <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/03/13/6th-circuit-suspend-first-or-else/">explains</a> what happened. A female student at the University of Michigan (UM) said she was sexually harassed by a fellow male classmate in the university’s Michigan Ross School of Business executive MBA program in Los Angeles, California. UM instituted a no-contact and no-retaliation order against the accused student while it investigated the woman’s complaint. The woman later sued the university, arguing that it didn’t adequately respond to the accused student breaking those orders. For the record, the accused student in this case blocked the accuser in doorways, texted her, wrote threats on Facebook and detailed her Title IX allegations in emails to fellow students. When the accuser told the school about these incidents, UM banned the accused student from a class and didn’t allow him to attend commencement events. He was eventually arrested for showing up at a commencement event anyway.
The Sixth Circuit ruled that UM’s remedies for the accused student’s continued harassment of the accuser were not enough to say the school wasn’t “deliberately indifferent.”
“In other words,” Greenfield wrote, “even though the school took deliberate action, it could still be liable for deliberate indifference if the court, in retrospect, deemed the action inadequate.”
Greenfield pointed to another ruling from a different panel of the Sixth Circuit that made clear that the mere presence of an accused student on campus was not enough for an accuser to sue the school and claim they created a hostile environment. This new ruling, even though it involves an accused student that continued to harass a female student, will have consequences for all accused students going forward, even those who likely didn’t commit the underlying assault and who followed the no-contact order. Greenfield explained:
<blockquote>What’s a college to do? As much as Judge Batchelder’s opinion concluded that the mere sight of an accused male student didn’t constitute harassment, such that the university was under no duty to suspend or expel every male accused lest it be liable under Title IX if the female student complained, the liability is contingent not on the university’s deliberate response to the complaint, but hinges on the male student’s compliance, the female student’s subjective satisfaction with the remedy and, of course, the validity of the subsequent complaints that the male student continued to engage in conduct that the female student felt was harassment.
The only safe way for a college to avoid Title IX liability, then, is to suspend or expel the male student, since they can’t be positive that the male student left on campus won’t engage in conduct that either is, or could be deemed, harassment. Indeed, even if the male student tries his best to comply with the school’s directives, there is no assurance that the students won’t cross paths at times, particularly when they’re both in the same educational program. And there is never an assurance that the sensitivity of the accuser won’t give rise to exaggerated claims of trauma and suffering by otherwise benign and harmless action.</blockquote>

Students

Court Rules Colleges Can Be Held Liable For Gender Discrimination If An Accused Student Isn’t Removed From Campus

A reminder to college students &#8212; especially male students &#8212; that one drunken night can ruin your entire life.
This particular example comes from the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University (MSU). A male student, known only as Dev, attended a yearly event on April 23, 2016, known as the Med Ball. Before the main event, Dev met up with a few people he had met a few weeks earlier during a service trip to Cuba. They are being referred to as Harry, who hosted a pre-party to the Med Ball; Jillian, who had recently broken up with her boyfriend and had begun a friends-with-benefits relationship with Harry; and Valerie, who attended the Med Ball with Lucas, her husband she was about to divorce. The story has been <a href="https://reason.com/2020/03/09/michigan-state-university-title-ix-debt-sex-medical/">reported</a> at length by Reason’s Robby Soave.
“Dev&#8217;s lawsuit is ongoing. The elements of his case resemble many others: a night of drunken sex that one party claims was consensual and another party remembers differently; a significant passage of time; an insinuation that eventually becomes a formal accusation; a fraught effort to mount a defense; a life-derailing finding of guilt. But with one court decision already against him, he&#8217;s in a tough spot. He&#8217;s financially ruined as well, and he can&#8217;t afford the caliber of lawyer he needs,” Soave wrote.
Dev, whose parents are Sri Lankan, moved to Michigan when he was young. A bright student, Dev would go on to graduate from Harvard in 2014 with multiple degrees. He then returned to Michigan for medical school. The Med Ball in question occurred during his first year of medical school.
At the pre-party, Dev spoke with Jillian and Valerie. While everyone was drinking, everyone agreed no one was too drunk before the pre-party ended. Valerie fought with her husband throughout the night. At the Med Ball, Dev taught Jillian how to waltz and to the cha-cha. In a lawsuit he would later file against MSU, he said that he and Jillian began grinding on the dance floor and that Jillian told him “I guess you’re my date.”
While Dev was dancing with Jillian, Valerie and her husband had one last major fight. Her husband, referred to as Lucas, demanded a divorce and left the event. Jillian ran after Valerie when she went to the bathroom to try and cheer her up.
At some point Valerie disappeared so Jillian went to find her. Jillian soon found her &#8212; outside the restaurant where the Med Ball was taking place and kissing Harry, with whom Jillian had a sexual relationship. Jillian fled up a flight of stairs and texted Valerie, “Just done. Don&#8217;t expect me to be ur friend anymore.&#8221;
Dev found Jillian “upset, fairly drunk, and crying,” a judicial opinion would later state. Jillian told Dev about her and Harry. Dev comforted her and eventually the two began kissing and groping each other. The two found a stairwell. Dev says Jillian removed her own dress and got down on her hands and knees &#8212; even asking for his jacket for cushion. Dev was too drunk to engage in penetrative sex, so they gave up.
&#8220;Everything was reciprocated,&#8221; Dev would later tell MSU investigators. &#8220;There was no hesitation. If anything, there was eagerness.&#8221;
Jillian would later claim that she was too drunk to consent and she had “shut down” during the sexual encounter as “a reaction to the hurt she felt from seeing [Valerie and Harry] kissing.&#8221; She told investigators she never explicitly agreed to the encounter but also never said “no.”
The group then went to a nightclub. Dev left the area momentarily. Harry apologized to Jillian for kissing Valerie. Jillian told him about her sexual encounter with Dev. Outside, Valerie couldn’t get in at first because Harry had her ID. When she entered the club, she found Harry and Jillian together.
Valerie would later tell investigators she didn’t remember dancing with Dev at the nightclub. Dev says they danced while Harry and Jillian talked. Valerie, according to Dev’s lawsuit, insisted Dev and Jillian would be good together and Dev at that point thought it was a possibility. Valerie then started kissing Dev, his lawsuit states.
They left the club and returned to Harry’s house. Jillian went to bed but Dev, Harry, and Valerie kept talking. Dev said he left the room and returned to find Harry and Valerie having sex.
Dev said he then went to sleep in Harry’s bed and found Jillian already in it. Both were fully clothed. Dev said he tried to kiss Jillian but she wanted to sleep. Jillian even acknowledged that nothing else happened after that.
Harry would later say he found Dev cuddling Jillian, so he kicked him out of the room and spoke to Jillian. Harry was upset with her.
Dev went to the living room and laid down on a large couch next to Valerie. Dev says Valerie was awake and made room for him on the couch, allowing him to touch her. Valerie later said she was asleep and awoke to Dev touching her sexually. She claims she said “no” and he left the couch.
Dev drove home in the morning, while Harry and Jillian went to brunch with another couple. That couple would tell investigators that when they saw the group of four at the Med Ball they all seemed unhappy. Harry and Jillian were unhappy at brunch as well, since Harry was mad at Jillian for her encounter with Dev.
For two years, Dev continued to study at MSU and had little interaction with Harry, Jillian, or Valerie. Dev wanted to try and spark up a relationship with Jillian, but she wanted to be with Harry.
Harry and Jillian didn’t last, and Jillian two years later requested that she not be placed in clinical rotation with Harry or Dev, claiming it would “significantly negatively affect my learning and well-being.&#8221; Valerie around that time also requested not to be placed with Dev. Because two people made a similar request about the same person, MSU met with the women and eventually opened a sexual misconduct into Dev. Jillian had gone to therapy in the two years since that fateful Med Ball, and now considered her brief encounter with Dev as sexual assault. She claimed it caused her to struggle in school. Valerie made a similar claim.
Dev was informed of Valerie’s allegation on April 17, 2018. He was not told about Jillian’s allegation until July 31. Jillian had initially said she didn’t want to cooperate with MSU’s investigation, but when she was interviewed about Valerie’s claim, she decided to move forward with her own claim.
“Valerie had a month to prepare for her interview with the investigators. Dev was given three days. His interview was scheduled for April 20—the same day as his internal medicine shelf exam, one of the toughest tests for doctors in training,” Soave reported. “Dev failed it—in large part, he claims, because of the pending investigation. ‘It affected my academic performance, to say the least,’ says Dev.”
Dev spoke with investigators, having no idea just how serious the situation was. He didn’t know at the time that the meeting would be his only chance to defend himself. Dev was suspended from MSU and expelled from the College of Medicine. He appealed and lost.
Dev sued the school, but a judge claimed that because the ulterior motives of the women were allegedly considered by MSU’s investigator, the accuracy of the proceedings could not be questioned. The judge didn’t seem to care that Dev couldn’t effectively cross-examine his accuser or the discrepancy between investigator reports regarding Jillian’s alcohol level and ability to consent.
Dev’s attorney abandoned his case, saying an appeal wasn’t realistic.
When Dev was expelled, he was $283, 000 in debt from Harvard and medical school. Had he become a doctor, he would have been able to pay off the debt, but he now believes he will never be able to graduate or become a doctor.
&#8220;I&#8217;m done,&#8221; Dev tells Reason. &#8220;I dedicated 8 to 12 years of studying for this. That was my life.&#8221;

Crowd of people

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Two Years After Their Drunken Hookup. Now He’s Destitute.

Michigan State University

On October 24, 2015, a young woman left the Orange Crate Bar in Syracuse, New York around 1:00 a.m. She later said a black man followed her had been staring at her in the bar, followed her out, grabbed her and pulled her into an alley, and then proceeded to sexually assault her by trying to kiss her and shove his hands down her pants to digitally penetrate her. A woman passing by grabbed Jane and pulled her away from the man.
The woman, referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire as Jane Roe, reported the incident to police, describing her alleged attacker as a “dark-skinned male” about 5’9” tall, and “heavy set with black dreadlock style hair.” The man allegedly had dreadlocks down to his shoulders, spoke with a deep voice, and was wearing a black T-shirt and dark pants. Jane could not remember anything else as she was heavily intoxicated the night of the incident. Police took her report but could not locate the alleged attacker.
On December 11, 2015, Jane was shown a photo array but she could not identify anyone as the man she said attacked her two months earlier.
The matter seemed to go away until January 24, 2016, when Jane told Syracuse police to say she saw a person in a bar that resembled the man she believed attacked her. Two other men with that person identified him. In court documents he is referred to by a pseudonym, John Noakes. Police then showed Jane another photo array, which now included a photo of Noakes, the man she had just seen at a bar. She identified him as her assailant.
John, in his lawsuit against Syracuse over the school’s investigation into him, said he “only vaguely” fit the description of Jane’s attacker. He is 5’8” and about 250 pounds.
In a telling sign, Jane told Syracuse police she didn’t want John criminally charged and that she preferred to have Syracuse University’s Title IX office handle her claims. Had police handled the investigation, they would have likely discovered that John was not Jane’s attacker, but by going through the school process, where poorly trained bureaucrats believe just about every accusation for fear of being labeled rape apologists, John would likely be expelled for a crime evidence says he didn’t commit. No matter, though, Jane believed John was the man who assaulted her, so he needed to be punished.
Jane formally reported the incident to Syracuse on March 10, 2016. John said in his lawsuit that Syracuse never told him “exactly when it became aware of the alleged sexual assault . . . or when John Noakes was identified as a suspect.”
Documents show Syracuse formerly opened an investigation into John on the day Jane reported the incident to them, but on March 4, John received a letter from the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, who is also the Director of the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. That letter informed John that he had been accused of sexually assaulting another Syracuse student. John was immediately placed on an interim suspension. The letter told John it was worthless to try to appeal the interim punishment because he “should anticipate that this interim suspension will continue at least until this matter is resolved in full through the University Conduct System.’”
On March 7 (still three days before Jane formerly reported her claims to Syracuse) John was informed the university would hear his appeal over his interim suspension on March 9. He was issued a no contact order that placed restrictions on John that made it difficult for him to investigate the charges against him. The university found John had likely sexually assaulted Jane and upheld his interim suspension.
The evidence used against John was the fact that he had also been at the same popular bar as Jane the night of the alleged incident and that Jane had identified him in that photo lineup after seeing him at another bar. The university appeals board concluded John was “not completely credible” and claimed he didn’t give a factual statement regarding the incident. John, in his lawsuit, disputes the claim, saying he denied assaulting Jane and had provided Syracuse with evidence from his phone showing he was on his phone with friends at the time he was allegedly attacking Jane.
His lawsuit concluded that Syracuse rejected this evidence, claiming the text messages he provided were not an “official phone record” and didn’t “support or refute whether the alleged incident occurred.”
Syracuse collected statements from eight witnesses. Just one of those people claimed to see Jane’s alleged attacker, whom she later identified as John based on a Facebook photo. All other witnesses explained when they had seen either Jane or John that night. Several of John’s friends confirmed that they left the bar around 12:50 a.m. to go get pizza. John apparently forgot something at the bar, so he “ran back” with a friend to get it, but no one saw him attack any woman.
John says Syracuse discouraged him from seeking advice from an advisor. The school also found Jane credible despite different versions of the night in question and her admitted intoxication. Syracuse, according to John’s lawsuit, chose one of Jane’s version of events and stuck with it, going so far as to call conflicting statements in her police report “inaccurate.”
That is not to say Jane made up the incident. She was drunk and didn’t remember much about what happened. That shouldn’t be used to suggest the event didn’t happen, but it shouldn’t be ignored when discussing the educational future of another student. This is not a case of two people who knew each other hooking up and regretting it, this is a case where one student says a stranger assaulted her, and the alleged stranger said it wasn’t him and provided phone evidence to support his claim.
Jane didn’t testify at John’s hearing, so he couldn’t cross-examine her and the school hearing board couldn’t adequately “assess [her] credibility.”
The woman who identified John as the attacker through a Facebook photo admitted during the hearing that she only saw Jane’s attacker “through the corner of [her] eye.”
John said he was never alone on the night of the alleged incident and had never seen Jane. Both Jane and the woman who later identified John described Jane’s attacker as wearing dark pants, yet John was wearing khakis the night of the incident.
Even though the hearing board never even heard from Jane, they deemed her testimony “mostly credible” and ruled that John “more likely than not” assaulted Jane.
John was suspended. He sued Syracuse, which tried to dismiss the lawsuit. A judge denied their motion to dismiss, and on February 26, 2020 – more than four years after the alleged incident – John and Syracuse agreed to an undisclosed settlement, as <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1232857737031188481/photo/1">reported</a> by author and professor K.C. Johnson.
This is one of those cases that really highlights how inept schools are at adjudicating claims of sexual assault. John maintained his innocence and provided credible evidence he was not the attacker, yet the school went forward based on the accuser’s word. This means that the real perpetrator got away with what he did and is still walking the streets.

dark alley

She Accused Him Of Sexually Assaulting Her In An Alley. Syracuse Ignored Evidence That He Didn’t Do It.

Two Christian students, each struggling with their sexual desires and faith, engage in sexual activity on three separate occasions. Each occasion proceeds the same way, yet the woman would later claim – after a professor suggest she do so – that the final encounter was sexual assault. Her story would then change and evolve over time, something the “trauma-informed” school officials claimed made her more credible, not less.
The case involves a Syracuse University student referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire as John Doe and a female student referred to only as RP. The two students met through church and began spending time together when they both went to Syracuse. John’s lawsuit stated that neither he nor RP had “extensive sexual experience,” and they were each in a committed relationship when their sexual activity began.
John&#8217;s lawsuit insisted that RP gave “affirmative consent at every stage” of each sexual encounter, even though she would later deny this to administrators in an ever-evolving story of sexual assault. On the first encounter, John asked RP to “hang out.” RP responded by saying her boyfriend had just broken up with her. The two had dinner and returned to John’s apartment. They began kissing, which progressed to “mutual fondling,” before the two moved into John’s bedroom. They removed each other’s clothing and attempted vaginal intercourse but could not due to their inexperience. After the encounter, the two struggled with how it violated their Christian values. John also felt extreme guilt for cheating on his girlfriend. He felt “such emotional anguish” that RP even “offered to take him to the hospital,” John’s lawsuit said, but he refused. Instead, John sought counseling from a Christian professional.
The second encounter progressed similarly: The two struggled with their feelings, suggested they avoid each other so as not to be tempted, met up anyway (RP voluntarily drove to John’s apartment), engaged in similar sexual contact, and then again worried about violating their Christian beliefs.
The third encounter was similar as well. After saying they would avoid each other, the two saw each other in church. RP said she didn’t have money for lunch, so John invited her to his apartment to eat. RP would later claim she didn’t want to go to John’s apartment, but she voluntarily drove her own car there. The two started kissing once inside the apartment, which escalated again into John’s bedroom, where the two removed each other’s clothes and engaged in mutual fondling. John said he was aware they would both likely regret the encounter, but RP told him not to worry and that it didn’t bother her, according to John’s lawsuit. During this encounter, the two succeeded in vaginal intercourse. Afterward, the two again discussed their guilty feelings about violating their faith. RP was also upset because she planned to recommit to her previous boyfriend and was no longer a virgin.
Two days later, RP told one of her professors about her sexual encounters. This professor allegedly told her to rethink the consensual events as non-consensual, according to John’s lawsuit. Syracuse never investigated the professor’s role in RP bringing forth sexual assault allegations against John, nor did it seek to determine whether what she told the professor was different than what she would later tell police and administrators. RP also at this time deleted all text messages between herself and John in order to eliminate evidence of their “consensual contact and communications,” John’s lawsuit said.
RP reported John to the Syracuse Department of Public Safety (DPS), who referred her to the Syracuse Police Department (SPD). RP told an officer at this time that she did not consent to any of the sexual relations with John on their third encounter. She would later say she consented to kissing.
DPS issued a no-contact order but did not inform John about it. RP was not informed that John wasn’t told about the order, leading her to make additional claims that he violated the no-contact order. John left a voicemail for RP on November 27, 2016. RP complained a week later but admitted that John had not been inappropriate, and she was not fearful of him. John wasn’t informed of the no-contact order until December 1, 2016.
On December 6, RP changed her story and talked about the struggle with her religious beliefs. It was at this time that she admitted to consensually kissing John on their third sexual encounter. She had also originally told the officer that things never progressed past digital penetration or “hand jobs” during any of their encounters, but now said she faced a pregnancy scare after their second encounter because they had attempted sexual intercourse. She also had previously said their first and second encounters were completely consensual, but now said the attempted intercourse on the second attempt was not consensual. As to their third encounter, she did not reveal that the two engaged in mutual oral sex, and described her involvement passively, including suggesting she “ended up on top of Plaintiff,” and “remained on top of him for a few minutes.”
She also told police she didn’t want John prosecuted for further investigated, yet the school went ahead anyway. Syracuse initiated the complaint against John, and investigated him using “trauma-informed” techniques. As The Daily Wire has previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/junk-science-behind-trauma-informed-investigations-ashe-schow">reported</a>, current “trauma-informed” techniques involve teaching campus investigators that evidence of lying is actually evidence of trauma, meaning there is absolutely no way an accused student can be found not responsible. As John wrote in his lawsuit, “Inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account thereby becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma,” while consistency in the accused male student’s account becomes “evidence that he is a premeditated and experienced sex offender.”
RP never sought trauma counseling, that Syracuse assumed she was traumatized based on its poor, unscientific, training materials.
During his hearing, John alleged in his lawsuit that Syracuse used “archaic stereotypes of male sexual desire” to determine him only “partially credible” because he admitted to his desires for RP. The hearing board found RP “credible” even though her account constantly changed. At the hearing, RP suddenly alleged for the first time she was “fearful of leaving” John’s apartment before the sexual encounter. The hearing board simply disregarded the fact that RP had originally said she had never been fearful or upset of John.
This same hearing board ignored actual evidence that John was traumatized by the encounters, including his counseling.
Naturally, John was expelled from Syracuse for sexual assault. He sued, and on Friday, Judge Brenda Sannes, an Obama appointee, denied Syracuse’s motion to dismiss John’s lawsuit. Sannes cited in her opinion the fact that Syracuse didn’t even provide John with a copy of RP’s accusations against him.
Further, and what can now be seen as a big win for opponents of so-called trauma-informed investigations, Sannes cited Syracuse training as being deficient and leading to her allowing John’s lawsuit to move forward.
“Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the investigation relied on ‘trauma informed techniques’ that ‘turn unreliable evidence into its opposite, such that inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account . . . becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful,’” Sannes wrote. “Plaintiff, on the other hand, was found by the Board to be ‘lacking in credibility’ because he, inter alia, acknowledged his sexual desire for RP and acknowledged that he ‘was still ‘horny’ after she withdrew consent for kissing.’”

Regretful woman

Christian Student Regrets Sexual Encounter, Accuses Male Student Of Sexual Assault. School Uses ‘Trauma-Informed’ Training To Find Him Guilty.

A male student at the University of Connecticut will get a new campus hearing – with strict instructions for fairness – after the school punished him even though evidence suggested his accuser was not credible.
The student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, will receive a new hearing that will allow him to actually present evidence in his defense. John was accused by a female student referred to only as Jane Roe several months after the two engaged in sexual intercourse in April 2019.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-he-sexually-assaulted-her-the-school-ignored-witnesses-that-challenged-her-credibility">reported</a>, Jane and her friend began talking to John. Jane later expressed interest in him and left with him and several other students after the party to get food:
<blockquote>When the party ended, a group of six students piled into a car to get food. Jane sat on John’s lap, but later claimed she was forced to. John said he didn’t ask her or force her to sit on his lap. The student in the front passenger seat later said he felt Jane’s knees against the back of the seat and he could tell she was moving around on John’s lap. Another student in the back seat said he had to look away from the two because Jane was gyrating her hips on John’s lap. Jane later claimed she did not do this, and the multiple witnesses disputing her story were kept out of the campus investigator’s report on the allegations. The fact that Jane had at least two instances of claiming one thing while multiple witnesses disputed her should have made UConn skeptical of her allegations, yet the school ignored them and expelled John, later reducing his punishment to a two-year suspension.</blockquote>
The other instance of Jane claiming one thing while witnesses said another was when she said John was “falling over” drunk. Multiple other witnesses, including one of Jane’s friends, said otherwise.
John said he fully intended to go home alone that night and was even dropped off in front of his dorm, but Jane kept calling for him to get back in the car and go home with her. She would later claim she didn’t invite John back, and then change her story to say she did invite him back, but just to watch TV and eat pizza. Multiple witnesses disputed both of her claims.
Still, campus investigators ignored all this evidence and took Jane’s allegations as fact. John explained how Jane gave him “unambiguous” consent for sexual activity, but because Jane denied this, UConn investigators found John responsible.
John petitioned the court to stop UConn from implementing his two-year suspension and the court agreed, finding that the school ignoring Jane’s history of inconsistent statements and her lack of credibility to determine John responsible violated his due process rights.
Now the school and John have agreed to a new hearing, as author and professor K.C. Johnson noted on Twitter.
“After [temporary restraining order], pending settlement in <a href="https://twitter.com/UConn">@UConn</a> due process case. Guilty finding w/drawn, student gets new hearings w/new rights: to call witnesses, to have relevant questions asked through panel, to have credibilty [sic] determination made in context of events of entire night.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After TRO, pending settlement in <a href="https://twitter.com/UConn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UConn</a> due process case. Guilty finding w/drawn, student gets new hearings w/new rights: to call witnesses, to have relevant questions asked through panel, to have credibilty determination made in context of events of entire night. <a href="https://t.co/K3swaZ5YrN">pic.twitter.com/K3swaZ5YrN</a>
— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1226966759229546496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Indeed, the court listed 12 demands of the new hearing, including documentation of its rationale behind its future finding of John, and the requirement that evidence and witnesses presented at the hearing must be made available to both parties prior to the hearing.

Menu