Robert Frodeman was a tenured philosophy professor at the University of North Texas, where he also chaired the Department of Philosophy and Religion. He is yet another professor caught up in cancel culture, forced to resign by a university seemingly hellbent on destroying his career.
He is not a conservative by any means, though his questioning on certain philosophical dogma probably made him seem like one to his colleagues. In <a href="https://quillette.com/2020/08/13/ordeal-by-title-ix/">a lengthy article</a> for Quillette, Frodeman, whose inquisition by Title IX does not appear to have received the same media attention as other accused professors, details his downfall, which began in June 2018. At that time, he was contacted by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity and told someone had filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. An interview on the matter was conducted over the phone:
<blockquote>The interviewer began by asking if I had invited a newly hired departmental lecturer to a local coffee shop? Yes, I had. Why? To welcome her to the department, as senior people are supposed to do with new colleagues. The interviewer wanted to know if she had asked how she came to be hired in the department, and if I had replied “I have no idea.” Yes, I had. What had I meant by that statement? I told the interviewer what I had told her—that I hadn’t been on the search committee, or looked at the candidate’s files, and was not part of the deliberations. And some months later, had I asked this same lecturer for recommendations for readings in feminist approaches to film noir? I had. I was teaching a class in aesthetics and wanted feminist perspectives on Double Indemnity. She had recommended two and I had used one of them in class. The interviewer had nine such questions. Innocuous interactions were now fraught with innuendo. I recalled warnings from male colleagues that they would never invite a female colleague out for a cup of coffee, much less a beer, and how I had ridiculed their excessive caution.</blockquote>
It wasn’t until August that Frodeman heard back from the OEO and learned he had been cleared, yet he still worried that the allegation was still on his record. Frodeman would later learn that three allegations had been lodged against him, all filed within days of each other in May 2018, all stemming from incidents a decade or so earlier. He wasn’t even informed of the other two complaints until months later, after the university hired an outside law firm to investigate him a second time.
“One of these complaints involved one of the new faculty members. She claimed that I had made her feel ‘potentially unsafe,’ even though we had only met a couple of times, and then at faculty meetings. Her reason? A year and a half earlier, at the faculty dinner for her on-campus job interview, I had asked what her husband did for a living and how her parents were employed. The third complaint had been filed by a male colleague after another faculty member informed him of inappropriate conduct that was supposed to have occurred back in March of 2006. He told me later that he felt compelled to turn in a report lest he be fired for overlooking an allegation of sexual harassment,” Frodeman wrote.
As Frodeman noted, even though the allegations were dismissed, they “implied a pattern of harassment.” The notion that it was “an organized campaign to damage” his reputation for reasons other than sexual harassment was of course not considered.
On September 17, barely a month after being found not responsible, Frodeman was informed in a letter from the university that he was the subject of a Title IX investigation, meaning he had been accused of some form of sexual misconduct. He was told an anonymous complaint from faculty members prompted the investigation but said nothing about disciplinary action. The letter said that he had been accused of having “an alleged inappropriate relationship with former graduate student beginning in approximately 2006.”
Frodeman said the letter was riddled with errors.
Twelve days after receiving the letter, on September 29, 2018, the dean of his department called him to say he was being removed from his classes and no longer allowed on campus, nor was he allowed to contact any other faculty, staff, or students. If he did, he would be fired. He wasn’t told at that time why this had happened and couldn’t defend himself.
“The process was <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/analyzing-the-department-of-educations-final-title-ix-rules-on-sexual-misconduct/">shambolic</a>, dishonest, and lacked accountability. Rules were applied without explanation and then changed without warning. Every step of the proceedings—including that first letter of September 17th—was filled with distortions. The allegations changed over time to fit a predetermined end. I was kept in the dark about the charges and the investigation for months. And the safeguards I thought would offer protection, of due process and unbiased inquiry (not to mention tenure), were swept away,” Frodeman wrote of his ordeal.
Frodeman was forced through a Title IX inquisition under Obama administration rules, which did not require schools to provide the accused with even the detailed allegations against them. The allegations against him were anonymous and from a decade earlier – and he wasn’t allowed to see the evidence the school allegedly had against him.
Frodeman believed the inquisition against him came because of various questions he asked at department meetings that went against the preferred narrative. For example, at one meeting, his department chair said they needed to fill two open faculty positions with women or they would “be in deep s***.” Frodeman said that diversity was important for the department and for the students, but it shouldn’t be the sole criteria with which to evaluate candidates. He said he was given looks that “made it clear that these remarks had not been well received.” In another discussion, he asked if it was legal to hold a workshop on feminism only available to women.
“Inconvenient inquiries like these have traditionally been central to the philosopher’s trade. Questioning ought to be non-denominational, and I ask equally pointed questions in conversation with liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists. My colleagues, however, now viewed matters differently. A growing list of issues was no longer open to debate, and my questions stamped me as a defender of repudiated points of view,” Frodeman wrote.
After being informed that a second investigation had been opened against him, Frodeman realized the predicament in which he found himself:
<blockquote>The challenge I faced was to prove a negative from 12 years earlier when I did not even know the specifics of the charges. I would have no information about the allegations until being interviewed by the lawyers. During the six weeks until then I was unable to contact or reply to colleagues and students—leaving projects hanging, student questions ignored, and letters of recommendation unwritten. I was forbidden to even tell people that I could not communicate with them under threat of being fired.</blockquote>
On October 30, Frodeman was interviewed by a law firm hired by the university to investigate him. The lawyers told him they were just trying to figure out the truth, yet their very first question was whether Frodeman had been charged with sexual misconduct at previous universities.
“I had not, but how was this relevant to allegations concerning my time at this University? I was asked questions about my marriage: Did your wife know about your relationship with a graduate student? This was a complex question that assumed something that had not yet been established. I was interrogated about my entire professional life—relationships with colleagues, undergraduates, graduates, and staff, from the beginning of my career to that morning. This was not an interview. It was an inquisition,” Frodeman wrote.
The former professor said that the lawyers eventually focused on a relationship with one graduate student and events from March 2006. Frodeman and this grad student were at a conference. He was there to run a workshop. The discussions lasted three days and meetings “ran nonstop from morning into the evening,” Frodeman wrote.
The graduate student was there as a research assistant because she was the only one who showed interest in looking “at environmental disasters from an interdisciplinary point of view.” The attorneys who grilled him about this conference asked if he shared a hotel room with his assistant, whether he held her hand during a meeting, and whether he had a sexual relationship with the student during the conference. He answered “no” to all the questions. He wrote that all the allegations were false but he couldn’t provide times or witnesses to back up his denials since he hadn’t been provided the details of the allegation ahead of time.
Questions surrounding the graduate student moved from the events of March 2006 to 2007 and further – after the student had graduated.
Prior to the interview, Frodeman had repeatedly asked for the details of the allegations against him. He continued asking even after the interview. It was not until the law firm he hired to represent him, Nesenoff &amp; Miltenberg LLP, reached out to the University’s general counsel did he receive a response – one that made no sense. The school claimed there wasn’t even a complainant, writing:
<blockquote>The current investigation in which you are a Respondent was initiated by the University in response to information collected during the investigation of a separate matter. As such, there is no complainant, nor is there a specific person who identified you as a Respondent. Title IX requires postsecondary institutions to promptly investigate incidences of suspected sexual harassment. The University therefore initiated this investigation without a complainant.</blockquote>
“Set to one side that this is an inaccurate account of the original (redacted) letter, which I would later discover had made specific claims about me. I was charged with sexual harassment, but no one was doing the charging, for there was no one claiming that they had been harassed. The investigation was generated by hearsay: Someone was claiming that someone else had been harassed by me 12 years earlier. I was removed from the classroom and campus and suffered irreparable professional harm on the basis of an anonymous surmise made about someone else’s experience more than a decade before,” Frodeman wrote.
Frodeman was interviewed a second time, on December 6, 2018. At the first interview, he focused solely on denying a relationship with the woman while she was a graduate student. At the second interview, he admitted he had an affair with her – “after she had finished her thesis, left town, and begun a PhD program in another state.”
He said he didn’t mention this in the first interview because his personal life had nothing to do with the university. He provided the lawyers with a letter written by the woman to her parents, explaining the relationship began in October 2007 and nothing happened between the two while she was a student at the University of North Texas. The attorneys contacted the woman and she confirmed the letter.
On December 30, he happened to check his campus email to find a message from the university’s Title IX officer, informing him the law firm finished its draft report and he had until January 2, 2019 to say if he wanted to respond. As Frodeman noted, the timing seemed to be an effort to keep him from responding.
“Of course I wanted to respond,” Frodeman wrote. “The Title IX officer said that I would have to come to her office to see the draft. I was out of town for the break. She refused to send me the draft, but after some haggling she said that the report would be made available to me on a secured website for 24 hours. I asked why I was not being given a copy of the draft, and why I had only a limited amount of time to review it. I was told that I was being belligerent. When I asked if the provost and other university officials would also be similarly constrained in their viewing the Title IX officer hung up on me.”
After finally seeing the nine-page, single-spaced report, Frodeman learned that some of the allegations came from a fellow faculty member with whom Frodeman had previous difficulties. He had invited her to the workshop in 2006 to try to mend fences, but was unsuccessful. Others in the department seemed to have issues with her as well.
The draft report, according to Frodeman, obscured the fact that no evidence existed to support the allegations against him, including the fact that the alleged victim said he had never acted inappropriately toward her while she was a student at the university.
Instead, the report relied on anonymous, unrelated allegations of Frodeman’s general demeanor:
<blockquote>Combative, abusive, harassing, and generally difficult to work with. Although these additional allegations do not rise to the level of sexual harassment and are not the subject of this investigation, we felt it important to communicate in this Report that many of the Respondent’s colleagues share these concerns…</blockquote>
As Frodeman wrote, faculty members who spoke highly of him were not included in the report. The final report buried the fact that he had been cleared of sexual harassment.
Frodeman’s ordeal still was not over, even though he had been investigated twice and twice cleared.
In March 2019 he was informed by the dean that the university was not beginning its own internal investigation to determine whether Frodeman violated campus policy regarding consensual relations. Since Frodeman’s affair with the graduate student began after she left the university, he felt the investigation would end as the others had.
Not so. The letter from the dean accusing him of having an affair with the student claimed he did so while he oversaw her work at the university.
“He was in error,” Frodeman wrote. “The student’s degree plan (the final document recording that all work had been completed for the masters) had been turned in before the relationship began. But eventually the real point became clear. Even though Jane Doe had moved out of town in May, only returning to successfully defend the masters one morning in July, had matriculated in a PhD program at another university in August (only possible because she had completed her masters), and had turned in her revised thesis and degree plan to the graduate school in September, the chair still considered her a University student because she had not walked across the stage to receive her diploma. And this, apparently, was a ‘violation’ worthy of termination.”
When Frodeman explained this to his department chair, he was told he wasn’t taking the allegations seriously. Frodeman tried to express remorse for not paying closer attention to the guidelines and tried to point out how marginal his alleged infraction was – and that no other incident had occurred in the 12 years since.
It didn’t work, the department chair recommended to the dean and provost that he be fired. The dean wrote a letter suggesting Frodeman should not be fired but have a $5,000 salary reduction, get no merit increase for a year, and be barred from teaching or working with graduate students for three years. Frodeman responded by pointing out that the students would be punished (some chose the university specifically to work with him) for something that happened a decade earlier.
The provost then provided a letter to Frodeman saying she wanted him fired. He met with her and provided documents to prove that his relationship began with the graduate student after he or anyone else had a say over her degree. Undeterred, the provost still recommended he be fired.
Frodeman asked the faculty senate for a grievance hearing, thinking they were biased toward protecting faculty. The hearing was held in June. Prior to that, Frodeman was told he had to submit the presentations he would use to defend himself. The provost was supposed to do the same, but Frodeman was told she had no prepared remarks. Of course, at the hearing, she read from prepared remarks and clearly based her arguments on the defense materials he provided. Even her argument changed from the previous allegations. She now claimed it was wrong for Frodeman to attend a field class in Chile in May 2008 – long after the graduate student in question “walked.” The provost claimed Frodeman’s presence made other faculty uncomfortable but provided no evidence. She didn’t even bother to explain how this violated campus policy.
The provost called one of the attorneys from the law firm that previously investigated Frodeman and asked if he hear “any other rumors” about Frodeman that weren’t included in the report. The lawyer answered by providing gossip.
Frodeman provided the evidence in his defense – that the affair happened after the student left the university and was done with her course work and that it was a marginal infraction that occurred 12 years earlier.
Two days later, the committee agreed to revoke his tenure and fire him.
Rather than attempting a last appeal to the Board of Regents, Frodeman resigned, hoping he might still be hired elsewhere in the future. He does not appear to be currently employed.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Business man or boss in silhouette interview

Philosophy Professor Accused Of Vague Sexual Harassment Violations. His University Investigated Him Repeatedly Until He Resigned.

Education

false accusations

Sexual Harassment

Title IX

A judge in Washington, D.C., has denied an attempt by 17 Blue State Attorneys General as well as the District of Columbia to delay implementation of new Education Department rules requiring colleges and universities provide students accused of sexual misconduct with basic due process rights.
Judge Carl J. Nichols – a President Donald Trump appointee – denied the AGs motion to block the new Title IX regulations. The AGs made numerous arguments against the new regulations, including the fact that the new regulations provide due process to accused students. As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/blue-state-ags-want-to-limit-college-students-due-process-rights-red-state-ags-are-fighting-back">reported</a>, the lawsuit filed by the AGs claimed the new rules would “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education,” ignoring the fact that denying due process makes it easier for false accusations to limit access to education and does nothing to stop actual sexual harassment.
The AGs also took issue with the fact that the new regulations limit who can make an accusation (the new rules state the accuser must be a student of the school), are unfair. The whole point of Title IX wading into sexual harassment and assault was to claim accusers had their educational opportunities limited by a college that ignored their sexual assault claims. If the accuser isn’t even a student, their educational opportunities can’t be limited by a school they don’t attend.
Judge Nichols denied these claims and others in <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.218699/gov.uscourts.dcd.218699.97.0.pdf">his ruling</a>, published Wednesday. At various points in Nichols’ ruling, he scolds the AGs for attempting to supplant their views with that of the Education Department. For example, the AGs argued schools should be responsible for adjudicating sexual assaults that occurred off-campus, such as at apartment buildings. The Education Department, however, adopted a more narrow view of what situations fall under the purview of the college, explaining that the assault was under the school’s discretion if it occurred at a place or event where “the recipient exercised substantial control over both the respondent and the context in which the sexual harassment occurs.”
As Nichols ruled, “the Final Rule is rooted in the text of Title IX itself, and the Court cannot supplant the Department’s view of its own authority with Plaintiffs’ preference for a broader one.”
As author and professor K.C. Johnson <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1293590910496919552">noted</a>, Nichols dismissed “blue-states&#8217; lengthy complaints about fair grievance procedures in one paragraph, implies they weren&#8217;t serious,” and suggests it was “Hard to imagine any court arguing that x-examination is some sort of unfair or gender-biased procedure.”
Nichols pointed to several concerns he had with the regulations, but ultimately said he could not rule simply on his own beliefs that differed from the Education Department. Further, Nichols was less enthusiastic about the new Title IX guidelines in his ruling that U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl was in his ruling last week. Koeltl was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
One of the Blue State AGs’ arguments was that schools did not have enough time to comply with the new Title IX rules, even though drafts of the new rules have been available for two years and the final rule was released in early May. Judge Nichols even pointed out that the AGs waited more than a month after the final rule was published to file their motion to block implementation. He also noted that many schools have already managed to update their policies to comply with the new rules.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Stamp Rejected

Judge Denies Blue State AG’s Attempts To Deny College Students Due Process

As soon as the U.S. Department of Education revealed its final guidelines on how colleges and universities should adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, Democrats kicked into high gear to try and stop the rules from going into effect.
At issue is the fact that the new rules require schools to provide accused students some basic due process rights – like the specific allegations against them, the ability to cross-examine the evidence and witnesses against them, and access to the evidence against them prior to the hearing – which modern activists claim hurt victims. These same activists, including prominent Democrats such as presumptive 2020 nominee Joe Biden, claim we must “believe women” – except those who accuse Democrats.
When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos revealed the final rules in May, the attorneys general in numerous Blue States filed a lawsuit against the Department in an attempt to block the new rules from being implemented in the hopes that Biden wins the election and will stop the rules altogether. Should this happen, colleges and universities will continue to deny accused students constitutional due process rights, destroying futures and inviting hundreds more lawsuits.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/blue-state-ags-want-to-limit-college-students-due-process-rights-red-state-ags-are-fighting-back">reported</a>, Red State attorneys general filed their own brief defending the new regulations. The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.”
Last week, a federal judge in New York denied a move by state school boards who tried to block the new rules. U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl wrote that the new rules don’t harm accusers.
“Rather than harming students, the Rule has the potential to benefit both complainants and respondents by providing procedural guidance for grievance procedures,” Koeltl wrote. “This process helps not only respondents but also complainants who are given greater assurance that if they prevail in the grievance proceeding, that result will not be overturned because the process did not comply with due process.”
The new rules still face other lawsuits – including the one from Blue State AGs – attempting to block them in the hopes Biden will drop them outright when he takes office. Koeltl’s decision, however, may inform other judge’s deciding such cases.
On August 10, legal researcher Jake G. <a href="https://twitter.com/JakeHigherEdLaw/status/1292953299692527619">tweeted</a> that the Education Department requested a 15-day extension to file their response to the AG’s lawsuit. The extension would move the due date from August 14 to August 30, but would not affect the date the new rules would take effect, which would still be August 14. As Jake explained, “the only foreseeable scenario where the August 14th effective date would be pushed back is if the DC court handling the AG v [DeVos] case issued the requested Preliminary Injunction.”
The AGs argued that schools did not have time to implement and comply with the new rules due to the coronavirus pandemic, yet numerous colleges and universities, including some Ivy League schools, have announced they had updated their rules in time despite the outbreak.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Scales Of Justice

Democrat Efforts To Delay Education Rules Requiring Due Process For Accused Students Are Failing

Betsy DeVos

Lawsuit

Sexual Assault

One aspect that is often overlooked in matters of campus sexual assault is the prevalence of white women accusing black men. As America battles with allegations of systemic racism, somehow these campus cases are ignored, even though the men involved receive almost no due process to defend themselves.
A recent example of this comes from Purdue University, which recently settled with a black football player who had been accused of sexual assault and denied an opportunity to defend himself. The student will be referred to as John.
John filed a lawsuit against Purdue in early 2019, two years after he was expelled from the university after an adjudication process that he says didn’t even follow the school’s outlined policies. Further, John argued racial and gender bias played a role in his expulsion.
The allegations stem from an encounter that began the evening of October 13, 2016. John and two of his football teammates were hanging out at an off-campus house watching television. John, in his lawsuit, said he considered the two other football players friends even though he didn’t know that much about them and had only known them for two months.
Three white women, who will be referred to as Jane, Rachel, and Diana, joined the three football players later that evening. The three women were friends with John’s teammates. John says he did not know any of the three women prior to that night.
As the six individuals began discussing their plans for the evening, John alleges the women said they were looking to drink alcohol that night. Jane and Rachel, John alleges in his lawsuit, “informed the gathering that they were interested in having sexual intercourse with one or more of the male individuals present.” The women specifically mentioned interest in a “threesome” or intercourse with multiple partners. John alleges that Jane and Rachel were “extremely forward with their comments regarding sexual intercourse,” openly declaring their interest.
The three women eventually left the house to attend a party elsewhere. The three football players stayed behind. Jane and Rachel would later say they drank wine and liqueur at the party. The two women sent text messages to John’s friends continuing to say they wanted to have sex with them, mentioning the word “threesome.” Jane “specifically requested permission to return to the off campus house to engage in sexual activity with multiple partners,” John says in his lawsuit.
The lawsuit states that a witness saw Jane “making sexual advances” on someone at the party before she and her friends returned to the house where John and his friends were watching television.
Shortly after the three women returned to the off-campus house, Diana left, leaving Jane and Rachel with the three football players. John’s lawsuit alleges that after Diana left, Jane sat on one of the football player’s laps and again stated her intent for a threesome. Jane, according to John’s lawsuit, made this statement in front of all five students who were present. Later, after the sexual assault allegations were made, all remaining witnesses stated that Jane made such a comment and Jane did not deny it, according to John’s lawsuit.
One of John’s friends and the two women then entered one of the bedrooms at the house while John and his other friend kept watching television. At some point, the football player who had entered the bedroom with the women returned and told John that Jane wanted to have sex with him. John entered the bedroom to find Jane and Rachel sitting on the bed. Jane, according to the lawsuit, “immediately” approached John and said, “come here,” before pulling down his shorts and underwear. She began performing oral sex on John, according to his lawsuit.
During this time, Rachel and one of John’s friends engaged in sexual activity. The two women, according to the lawsuit, made comments that they were enjoying themselves and that “this is the best thing we’ve ever done.”
After John ejaculated from the oral sex, he says, Jane took off her pants and underwear and told him to have sex with her. John wrote in his lawsuit that he “had become uneasy and did not wish to further engage in any sexual contact” with either of the women, so he left the room to clean himself and return to the main room to watch television. After he left, he alleges, the two women had sexual intercourse with his friend.
John’s other friend eventually entered the bedroom to engage in some kind of sexual activity with the women. John says he did not return to the bedroom.
At some point, everyone returned to the main room and talked about the events of that evening, with the women allegedly claiming it was a “sorority goal” and again saying it was “the best thing we have ever done.” At that time, John alleges, neither woman expressed any concern about the group sex.
The next day, however, on October 14, 2016, both women contacted the West Lafayette Police Department to claim they had been sexually assaulted. During her interview, according to John’s lawsuit, Jane told a detective that she was not intoxicated and was capable of giving consent. She also stated she consented to sex with men at the house but said she did not consent to all of the sexual contact. She did not elaborate on which sexual contact to which she did not consent. Rachel’s statement to the police was similar, according to the lawsuit.
Jane even stated to police that she had talked about having group sex and voluntarily engaged in it.
John was contacted later that day by the detective to give a statement. He explained what happened and the detective said the women gave similar statements. The detective allegedly told John he had “nothing to worry about.” The detective presented the information he had to the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor’s office, which declined to charge any of the men involved.
Four days later, however, on October 18, 2016, John received a letter from Purdue’s dean of students informing him he had been accused of sexually assaulting Jane. John was informed that he would be immediately suspended from Purdue. John denied the allegations against him and requested an appeal of his interim suspension. On October 26, John met with the dean of students to appeal his suspension, which was granted.
On November 4, John attended a meeting with two investigators for the school who, according to John’s lawsuit, “had no relevant experience in investigating allegations of this nature nor had they received adequate training on the due process rights of the accused.” At both meetings with Purdue officials, John was told he could bring a “support person” but that the person could not speak on his behalf.
The investigators told John they were still investigating and would issue a final investigative report within two weeks. Two weeks later, however, the investigation was granted an extension without explanation. At least two more extensions were granted without explanation. It wasn’t until February 8, 2017, that John was told a hearing would be held the following week. Again, John was told he could bring a “support person” but told that person was forbidden from acting as “legal counsel.” John was also told he could not present any evidence at the hearing.
On February 28, 2017, John was informed he was found responsible for sexual assault. He was told the dean of students found Jane “more credible,” but did not explain why. John alleges in his lawsuit that he was not allowed to present any evidence that would undermine Jane’s credibility. John was expelled but appealed. His appeal, however, could not contain new evidence and had to rely only on the evidence presented in the school’s investigative report, which was so heavily redacted “as to render the document nearly illegible,” John’s lawsuit says. John was also not allowed to review transcripts of interviews or anything else that informed the report.
John’s lawsuit says that he “submitted a written appeal on March 9, 2019 alleging that the evidence in the report did not support the committee’s findings, that his expulsion was grossly disproportionate to the allegations against him, and that the University had failed to follow its own policies and procedures, noting that the Final Determination letter was required to be issued 10 days after the committee hearing, but was in fact issued 13 days after the hearing.”
John’s appeal was denied, with Purdue officials claiming the numerous delays in the adjudication was not prejudicial. The denial also referenced evidence that John had never been able to see, like recording of police interviews.
John was expelled, removed from the football team, and lost his scholarship. John couldn’t even join another football team because Purdue refused to release him.
So, John sued, and on July 17, 2020, Purdue filed a notice of settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The details of the settlement are not public, but students in similar situations have received monetary payments that range from a few thousand dollars to nearly one million dollars. Most public settlements have resulted in the disciplinary charges being overturned and removed from the student’s record.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Male and female arms of different colours

Two White Women Allegedly Propositioned Three Black Football Players For Sex, Then Accused Them Of Sexual Assault. The School Just Settled With One Player.

A group of 18 Blue State attorneys general filed a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos earlier this month to try and block new regulations that would provide much needed due process to college students accused of sexual assault.
The lawsuit is meant to delay the final rule’s implementation at least until after the November election, with filers hoping former Vice President Joe Biden will become president and cancel the rule all together.
As Inside Higher Ed <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/05/attorneys-general-sue-devos-education-department-over-title-ix-rule">reported</a> earlier this month, the lawsuit claims the new rules would “reverse decades of effort to end the corrosive effects of sexual harassment on equal access to education,” ignoring the fact that denying due process makes it easier for false accusations to limit access to education and does nothing to stop actual sexual harassment.
The AGs also took issue with the fact that the new regulations limit who can make an accusation (the new rules state the accuser must be a student of the school), are unfair. The whole point of Title IX wading into sexual harassment and assault was to claim accusers had their educational opportunities limited by a college that ignored their sexual assault claims. If the accuser isn’t even a student, their educational opportunities can’t be limited by a school they don’t attend.
The AGs that filed the lawsuit were all from Democrat states: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Last week, a coalition of Red State AGs filed a brief defending the new regulations.
The new rule, the AGs wrote, “requires educational institutions to investigate and, where proved, punish allegations of sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sexual harassment. It also provides a needed framework, consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent, that protects the foundational constitutional rights of due process and speech.”
The AGs take particular issue with the notion that because the adjudications can’t result in jail time (at least the schools can’t impose such a punishment, they can and do send information gathered to police in order to circumvent students’ constitutional due process rights), then due process isn’t necessary or can be severely limited.
“The need for procedural due process only increases in the context of sexual harassment and misconduct. Although not a criminal proceeding outright, the underlying act at issue in a harassment-related disciplinary hearing overlaps with illegal conduct. A finding of guilt attaches a special stigma to the accused party that will stay with them well after they exit campus,” the AGs wrote.
They also quoted a ruling against Brandeis University from an accused student. The judge in that case wrote, “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”
The AGs writing in support of the final rule are from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Justice

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back.

A male student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) is suing after the school expelled him for sexual misconduct even after evidence was presented that showed he was the victim.
The student, referred to as John Doe in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire, says in his lawsuit that he informed ERAU that he was too intoxicated to engage in sexual activity and witness statements back him up, yet the school relied on antiquated gender stereotypes about male sexuality to say his claim wasn’t credible.
The lawsuit stems from an encounter between John and a student referred to only as Jane Roe that took place on October 26, 2019 following a Halloween party at John’s home. John and Jane, according to the lawsuit, had been exchanging text messages for weeks prior to the party and had gone on several dates, though John no longer has the messages.
John says he had about 15 alcoholic drinks the night of the incident, and witnesses stated he was “drunk” while others said Jane appeared fine.
The two students ended up in John’s room and began making out. John says Jane initiated the sexual activity by saying she wanted to kiss him. The two then engaged in oral sex and Jane allegedly told John she wanted intercourse. At some point during sexual intercourse, Jane allegedly joked that her “vagina was broken,” something she would later claim was her way of telling John she was uncomfortable.
Throughout all of this, John alleges Jane never received affirmative consent from John because he was too intoxicated to have given it, according to ERAU’s Sexual Misconduct Policy.
Jane spent the night at John’s house. In the morning, she overheard John and another student talking about a woman who engaged in sexual activity at the party. John says in his lawsuit that he believes Jane thought she was the one being discussed and didn’t want to be talked about this way.
A witness, JD, who said he was a “really close friend” of Jane and a friend of John’s, provided a sworn statement that was given to ERAU. In the statement, JD says both John and Jane were drunk at the party and that he saw Jane the next day. Jane at that time told JD, “I think I got raped,” though she admitted she never did anything to indicate she didn’t want to have sex that night. JD also said Jane kept saying she did give consent for the kissing and oral sex.
“And, then, I was, like, ‘Did you tell him to stop kissing you, or, you know, tell him, like, that&#8217;s not what you wanted?’ She was, like, ‘No, I didn&#8217;t. I was okay with that,’” JD said in his statement. He gave a similar explanation of his conversation with Jane about the oral sex.
“So, then, she was, like, ‘Well, after, you know, we were kissing he gave me head or whatever. You know, oral sex.’ And I was, like, ‘Okay. Well, did you tell him to stop then?’ And she was, like, ‘No, I didn&#8217;t tell him to stop then.’”
JD said Jane told him she consented to kissing and oral sex.
“So I was, like, ‘So you&#8217;re okay with, you know, making out and him giving you head? That – you was okay with that?’ She was, like, ‘Yes, I was fine with that,’” JD said in his statement.
Jane also indicated to JD that she never told John to stop or gave any indication she didn’t want to have sex with him.
“And, then, I was, like, ‘So at what point did you tell him to stop, because it sounds like to me you knew what were you doing and that, you know, that&#8217;s what you wanted?’ She was like, ‘Well, when he, you know, finally started, actually, having sex with me I told him my vagina was broken, but I laughed about it.’ And I was, like, ‘So why do you think he would stop behind you making a joke about that? You know, like &#8212; it wasn&#8217;t, like, you said, Stop. Seriously stop. You made a joke, you know, so how is he supposed to, you know, take you seriously and be, like, okay I need to stop doing this because she&#8217;s uncomfortable when you&#8217;re cracking jokes.’ And, then, she just was, like, ‘I don&#8217;t know,’” JD said.
JD is also the one who said Jane “was mad” after overhearing John talk about a woman having sex at the Halloween party and believed she was the woman being discussed. JD said in his statement he believed Jane exaggerated a story about sexual assault due to this anger.
“I feel, like, she&#8217;s doing all this because of what she heard that morning thinking that it had to do with her. I think that&#8217;s what it is. I think, ultimately, she was okay with them having sex and that the only reason she even went as far as she did, as far as calling it rape, was because she didn&#8217;t want to be a rumor that somebody had sex with [John Doe]. I think that&#8217;s what it really boils down to and it just spiraled into this snowball effect and now she has to run with it,” JD said.
After the encounter, John alleges, he and Jane exchanged text messages about their activity. John apologized “for the way [he] acted on the phone.” Jane sent him a message that said: “I want to meet and talk this out. Just you and I. I really just want to move past this. I hope u feel the same.”
Another witness, AC, said in a sworn statement (that was also provided to ERAU) that indicated Jane was “fine” during the party.
“… [S]he seemed completely coherent. She wasn&#8217;t slurring. She wasn&#8217;t leaning on anybody. She was &#8212; she seemed completely fine. And it didn&#8217;t even occur to me that she could have drank, because that&#8217;s just how well she handled it,” AC said in his statement. “[Jane Roe] just – she didn&#8217;t represent or seem as though she had any issues with any of the issues you were just describing. She was able to talk clearly and very coherently. She was able to answer my questions immediately. There was no delay. There was no second thoughts. There was no stuttering, slurring. There was no needing to lean on someone. Hanging on a wall, falling over. There was none of that.”
Another witness, RT, describe Jane as consenting to everything that happened.
A couple weeks later, on November 11, 2019, John was told a sexual assault complaint had been lodged against him. He was told on November 13 that Jane claimed she was too drunk to consent. When John said that, in fact, he was too drunk to consent, the Title IX Coordinator dismissed his claim, actually suggesting that John wouldn’t have been able to maintain an erection if he were truly intoxicated.
John was immediately suspended from his athletic team. Jane was not, despite John’s own credible allegation that he was too intoxicated to consent per school policy. John says in his lawsuit that he was told by the Title IX investigator not to file a complaint that he was the victim because ERAU would see it as retaliation against Jane.
In December, John and Jane met with the ERAU chaplain to reach an informal resolution, according to the lawsuit. The process was supposed to be confidential, but John alleges Jane falsely claimed to the Title IX Coordinator that John admitted to raping her. John says he did no such thing.
John was informed on January 8, 2020, that Jane wanted to launch a formal investigation against John. When John tried to point out inconsistencies in Jane’s claims while looking over the investigative report in February 2020, he was told he didn’t have to point them out because they were already marked down.
Yet another witness, MD, provided a statement to ERAU saying Jane’s actions in the weeks after the sexual encounter undermined her credibility, yet the school investigator didn’t include this information in the final report.
On March 24, John was found responsible for sexual misconduct. They deemed Jane “credible,” according to John’s lawsuit, “based on a subjective assessment of Jane Roe’s conduct after engaging in sexual activity with John Doe, including the observation that Jane Roe ‘was angry with [John Doe]…’” They found John had a “lack of credibility,” according to his lawsuit, “based on subjective factors including observations that John Doe ‘appeared more concerned about his own well-being that what [Jane Roe] was going through.’”
John was never allowed to question Jane.
John was informed he would be dismissed at the end of the semester. He appealed and was granted a request for reconsideration, but his lawsuit alleges the new investigator didn’t conduct an independent investigation and simply relied on previous information, including Jane’s medical records. John alleges in his lawsuit that the investigators didn’t actually see Jane’s medical records and relied only on her own summary.
John was again found responsible in a letter that read almost exactly as the original finding of responsibility. It again dismissed his claim of being too intoxicated based on information that would not have discounted such a claim if Jane had made it and relied on the same outdated, gendered assumption that a drunk man cannot maintain an erection.
John is now suing for breach of contract and Title IX violations, requesting economic and emotional damages in excess of $75,000.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Couple in bed

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Even Though HE Was Too Incapacitated To Consent. He Was Expelled Anyway.

A male Oberlin College student was expelled even though the school lacked evidence the female accuser was incapacitated for their sexual encounter and even though she told investigators and a hearing panel drastically different stories.
The male student, referred to as John Doe <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0195p-06.pdf">in court documents</a>, just received a win from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled Oberlin violated John’s rights by discriminating against him based on his sex. Writing for the majority, Judge Raymond Kethledge began the ruling with a fiery acknowledgement.
“Any number of federal constitutional and statutory provisions reflect the proposition that, in this country, we determine guilt or innocence individually—rather than collectively, based on one’s identification with some demographic group. That principle has not always been perfectly realized in our Nation’s history, but as judges it is one that we take an oath to enforce. Here, the relevant statute is Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which bars universities that receive federal funds from discriminating against students based on their sex,” he wrote.
Kethledge then laid out several ways in which Oberlin has demonstrated its bias against students accused of sexual misconduct – who are almost all male. For example, “Oberlin instructed its faculty, ‘via an online resource guide,’ that they should ‘[b]elieve’ students who report sexual assault, because ‘a very small minority of reported sexual assaults prove to be false reports,’” Kethledge wrote. Further, members of Oberlin’s Title IX office, which investigates and adjudicates claims of sexual misconduct, reportedly receive “annual training in strategies to protect parties who experience sexual misconduct[,]” but no training on “how to conduct impartial fact-finding proceedings,” John’s attorneys alleged.
The woman who was named Oberlin’s Title IX Coordinator, who oversees the department and has a say in sanctions against accused students, was hired in 2013 and said in 2014 that she was “committed to survivor-centered processes.” The Coordinator’s name is Meredith Raimondo, who was named as a defendant when Gibson’s Bakery <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/worse-you-think-theres-more-oberlin-story-ashe-schow">sued Oberlin for defamation</a> and won millions. Further, a report from Oberlin showed that 100% of allegations that resulted in a hearing panel ended with a responsible finding against the accused.
This all painted the backdrop for Jane Roe, as the accuser is referred to in court documents, to make her allegations against John. The two undergraduates met at a party in December 2015 and spent the night in John’s room after having consensual intercourse without a condom, court documents say. They had little interaction for the next two months, until John texted Jane at 1 in the morning on February 28, asking, “What are you up to tonight?” The two exchanged nine text messages in 30 minutes, court documents say. Jane said she was “about to smoke [marijuana]” in John’s residence hall and asked him if she could come by after. John said “yea.”
Jane arrived at John’s around 1:45 a.m. The two spoke briefly and began making out before taking off their clothes. Jane requested John use a condom when they had sex. During the encounter, Jane said she was thirsty, so John stopped to get her some water. They again had sex, this time without the condom, until Jane said she was “dry” because, “I’m not sober.”
John stopped having sex with her and asked if she would perform oral sex on him, to which she agreed. Afterward, the two talked a little and Jane left.
Nine days later, Jane told Raimondo that John had sexually assaulted her. Raimondo didn’t tell John about the charges until a week later, and even then only gave a vague description, writing in an email that Oberlin was investigating a claim that he had sexually assaulted Jane “on 2/27/16 while she was incapacitated due to alcohol and unable to consent to sexual activity.”
Raimondo appointed Joshua Nolan to investigate the allegations. Oberlin policy stated that investigations should take no more than 20 days and that the entire matter should be resolved in no more than 60 days. Nolan took 120 days to issue an investigative report, court documents say. After 61 days, John emailed Raimondo to ask about the delay, saying he couldn’t get in contact with Nolan. Raimondo said nothing except that Oberlin would notify him “of the reason(s) for the delay and the expected adjustment in time frames.”
It wasn’t until July 7, 2016 – more than four months after the sexual encounter – that John would even learn of the details of Jane’s allegations. Jane’s account of the encounter differed from John’s only slightly. She said John asked her oral sex before they had intercourse and she asked if he had a condom. She said nothing about being thirsty or John getting her water. She again said John “asked” her for oral sex and that she responded “okay, but I’m not very sober right now.” Jane wrote in a personal journal shortly after the incident that John “asked” her “to go down on him.”
Nolan interviewed 10 people, mostly Jane’s friends. Nearly all of them said Jane didn’t appear incapacitated, instead describing her as “intoxicated” but not “overly” so, her speech as “slower” than usual but “not slurred.” Another said she asked Jane if she was “good” when she saw her immediately before her encounter with John, to which Jane replied “yes.” The further from the incident, the more Jane claimed she was sexually assaulted. A friend she saw shortly after said Jane was “disappointed and upset that she had done something.” Another friend said Jane claimed she was “too intoxicated to consent.” A third friend, who spoke with Jane a few days after the encounter, said Jane said John had “sexually assaulted her” by “forc[ing] oral sex on her.”
When Nolan interviewed Jane, she was accompanied by her friend J.B., a male, whom she identified as her &#8220;designated support person.&#8221; J.B. would later say he was surprised by how different Jane&#8217;s account to Nolan was than what she had told him. J.B. said Nolan told him he would be brought back of his own interview, but Nolan never contacted him again. After J.B. heard that John had been found responsible, he emailed Raimondo saying that Jane told him John never forced her to perform oral sex on him and that her hearing testimony was misleading in other ways as well. Raimondo never responded and there is no evidence Oberlin considered anything J.B. said about the incident.
Despite what she wrote in her journal and what she told investigator Nolan about John asking her for oral sex, Jane claimed at the hearing that John forced her and never asked her. Nolan testified at the hearing, saying that the only contradiction he heard in testimony from what he was told during the investigation was from Jane about whether John asked for oral sex.
John was appointed an advisor who was supposed to support him, but this advisor “left the hearing early” and two weeks later retweeted: “To survivors everywhere, we believe you.”
John was unsurprisingly found responsible based on what the hearing panel claimed was a “preponderance of the evidence established that effective consent was not maintained for the entire sexual encounter that occurred on February 28, 2016.”
Judge Kethledge wrote:
<blockquote>Consent was absent, the panel found, because Roe was incapacitated, as the Policy defined it, from the moment she told Doe that she was “not sober.” The panel cited no other behavior supporting a finding either that Roe was incapacitated as defined by the Policy or that Doe would have had any reason to think she was. Nor did the panel mention the contradiction cited by Nolan, between what Roe told him (and several friends) and what she told the hearing panel, as to whether Doe had “asked” for oral sex. As a sanction, the panel recommended the most severe one: expulsion. The College accepted that recommendation and ordered Doe expelled.</blockquote>
Oberlin’s policy defined “incapacitated” as a person who “lack[s] conscious knowledge of the nature of the act” or “is physically helpless.” Jane’s casual remark about not being sober was enough for the hearing panel to determine she was “incapacitated,” despite what her friends said and the fact that not only did the school have to demonstrate that Jane was incapacitated as defined by Oberlin’s policy, but that John or a reasonable person would have been able to see that she was incapacitated.
John sued Oberlin, but a district court granted the school’s motion to dismiss. John appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which overturned the lower court’s decision.
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 with 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>.

Man sitting on bed

Her Story Changed And Even Her Friend Said She Lied About Being Sexually Assaulted. He Was Expelled Anyway.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos sounded off on Democrats in an interview published this week, calling presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a “total hypocrite” for wanting the presumption of innocence for himself but not male college students accused of sexual assault on campus.
DeVos <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-education-of-an-education-secretary">spoke</a> to my former Washington Examiner colleague Eddie Scarry and explained how the anti-gender discrimination law known as Title IX and due process was not something she thought would become the legacy-defining issue of her tenure.
“By the time I was confirmed, that was certainly high on the list,” DeVos told Scarry. “But very honestly, when I was first approached for the job, I certainly was not aware of all of the issues facing higher education” on that particular subject.
DeVos was referring to the Obama administration’s infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter that introduced substantive, drastic changes to the way schools adjudicate sexual assault and sexual harassment claims on college campuses. The 2011 DCL told schools to use a lower burden of proof (50% plus a feather) to determine guilt. Statements and a 2014 Q&amp;A from the Obama administration made it clear that schools needed to find more students responsible. The previous administration also discouraged cross-examination, claiming it could re-traumatize victims.
The result was predictable, as schools rushed to find accused students responsible no matter the evidence, leading to hundreds of lawsuits from wrongly accused students who were denied a chance to defend themselves.
“It wasn’t so much the letter itself,” DeVos said of the DCL. “It was the implications of what the letter actually resulted in, and, you know, at the beginning of this process, sitting with a number of groups of individuals, of survivors who told their stories, of those who were falsely accused who told their stories, and then with college administrations and chief legal counsel and those who were charged with actually running these processes, it was heart-wrenching to hear some of the stories that I heard.”
DeVos said that she had listening sessions with affected parties, including victims and wrongfully accused students. After one of these sessions, DeVos told Scarry, “I just had to have some quiet and space just to sort of think through and reflect on what I heard.”
“It was hard. It was very difficult,” she added.
When Biden was accused this year of sexually assaulting a woman back in the early 1990s, he abandoned the “believe women” mantra, saying that claims should be heard but investigated. His new statement was a far cry different than his previous claim: “You’ve got to start out with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real.”
DeVos called Biden a “total hypocrite” over the change. It amounted to him wanting a separate standard for himself than he wanted for others.
“Reading the statement, I thought he could not possibly have written that himself because he can’t possibly believe what he actually released given where he was in that moment in time,” DeVos said. “A total hypocrite. Right? I mean, he was asking for what the rule has actually guaranteed for everyone, the presumption of innocence, at a time when he wanted something totally different for a 19- or 20-year-old college student. So, it’s a total hypocritical position for him to take, and I was, frankly, disgusted.”
DeVos also took a shot at the Obama administration and the way it handled education issues, such as Title IX.
“Surprising to me was when coming in just how evident it was that the previous administration had been, not only on this issue, but a host of issues, just on an epic power trip,” she said, “and were trying to inculcate every piece of their view of how culture should be into every policy of that department.”
She added that the Obama administration “clearly laid the groundwork for the #BelieveAllWomen movement,” she said, adding, “and I think you can draw a direct line from that to the whole Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process, and I don’t think that was a mistake. I think that was intentional.”
As to criticism that the new Title IX rules eviscerate undefined “survivor’s rights,” DeVos was clear.
“We do need to ensure that individuals are heard and that guilt is not presumed, but [Democrats] are trying to have it both ways,” she told Scarry. “And Joe Biden is chief among them.”
“I mean, you hear a number of people say that, well, I might believe Tara Reade, but, you know, I hate President Trump — essentially, I hate President Trump so much that I’ll look the other way. Well, what kind of an example does that set for the rising generation?” she added.
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>.

Education Secretary: Biden A ‘Total Hypocrite’ For Presumption Of Innocence Standards, Obama Administration Was On ‘Epic Power Trip’

Joe Biden

For years I have written about the impossible situation schools are in when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. Schools have skewed their processes so far toward believing all accusers that wrongly accused students have had to sue in order to get their lives back, leading to the Trump administration issuing new guidelines requiring schools to require basic due process in their adjudications.
The problem for schools has always been that if they find an accused student guilty, and that student sues, few media outlets will cover the lawsuit. If an accuser, however, claims a school let her “rapist” walk free, she will likely receive national attention. The most famous example of this was Emma Sulkowicz, known as “Mattress Girl,” who claimed Columbia University didn’t punish the man she said rapist and was plastered all over the media and put on the cover of media, hailed as a hero. In reality, the school found the man she accused “not responsible” because the evidence was against her.
Accusers have used this threat to get schools to abandon truth, fairness, and the due process in order to find accused students responsible – to avoid bad publicity. Yet now, at Coastal Carolina University, a woman publicly accusing the university of mishandling her rape allegations has prompted the school to hold a question and answer session with interested parties to explain its adjudication process.
The woman claimed the school found her “rapist” didn’t violate Title IX even though he admitted to “not having verbal consent.” This could obviously be leaving out information, as “verbal consent” is not required if there is nonverbal consent. Perhaps the school determined nonverbal consent was given.
&#8220;Recently, conversations have taken place on social media channels regarding individual cases of alleged sexual misconduct and the outcomes of those cases in the university’s student conduct process. The university administration takes these comments very seriously, and we understand how circumstances of this nature can cause real concern,&#8221; the school said in <a href="https://www.coastal.edu/conduct/universitystatement/">a statement</a>.
CCU is no stranger to controversy surrounding its definition of consent. In 2015, I <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ever-had-drunk-sex-thats-rape-according-to-this-university">reported</a> on a poster that was seen hanging at the university that said: “Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk. Jake and Josie hooked up. Josie could NOT consent.”
At the bottom, the poster said: A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime.”
The sex-discrimination should be obvious: If both students were drunk, why is only the man responsible?
At this time, CCU has made no indication that it will re-evaluate the specific case mentioned on social media, but the Q&amp;A itself still shows the school’s bias. It is hard to imagine that a male accused student who was found responsible would be able to prompt the school into holding such a session if he believed he was wrongly accused.
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>.

Sad woman

Her School Didn’t Find The Man She Accused Responsible For Sexual Assault, So She Took To Social Media To Shame The School

Rape

A police chief in central Texas was arrested after he failed to report allegations of sexual misconduct while he worked as a campus officer at Texas A&amp;M University-Central Texas.
The Daily Wire will not name the arrested police chief, who was charged after Killeen police learned he had received an allegation from a student and failed to report the allegations, in violation of the Texas Education Code, KXXV <a href="https://www.kxxv.com/hometown/bell-county/kempner-police-chief-arrested-for-failing-to-report-title-ix-violations">reported</a>.
It is unclear exactly what the student reported to the police chief, but the allegations were alleged against a former employee of the university. Title IX violations can include sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. It is also unclear whether those allegations are going to be investigated now or if they even warranted an investigation in the first place.
The Bell County Attorney’s office reviewed the case, KXXV reported, and charged the police chief with Failure to Report Certain Incidents. A warrant was issued for chief’s arrest on June 2, 2020. The chief turned himself in and his bond was set at $2,000 by Justice of the peace Cliff Coleman.
“Now more than ever, the integrity of the police profession requires thorough impartial investigations, regardless of the status of the accused. The Killeen Police Department stands with survivors of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking,&#8221; Killeen Chief Charles Kimble told KXXV.
Texas A&amp;M University-Central Texas also released a statement:
<blockquote>We stand in alliance with survivors of Title IX issues and remind them and our public that we are committed to providing a safe learning environment for all of our students. The University&#8217;s Title IX office offers support and services for those affected.</blockquote>
The university made no mention of investigating the student’s claims.
The arrest shows how seriously police and universities are taking allegations of sexual misconduct. Those desires to show their seriousness, however, have led to necessary changes from the U.S. Department of Education, which has issued new guidelines requiring schools to provide accused students and faculty with due process. 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 guidelines require schools to provide basic elements of due process – like informing accused students of the specific allegations against them – something that had been disappointingly missing from school policies across the country. More from The Daily Wire:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
Schools must also provide students with the evidence that will be used in the hearing 10 days prior to the hearing. Transcripts of hearings must also be kept.
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>.

Man with handcuffs

A Police Chief Didn’t Report A Student’s Title IX Allegations, So He Was Arrested

Crime

Texas

A wrongly accused male student just received a reprieve from the Court of Appeal of the State of California, which ruled the University of Southern California must vacate the student’s suspension after he was put through a biased and “unfair” adjudication process.
It was January 21, 2017, when USC kicker Matt Boermeester and his girlfriend Zoe Katz, also a USC student, <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/24/couple-says-horse-play-university-suspends-male-assault-wont-release-surveillance-video/">returned to Kat’s apartment</a> complex after a trip to McDonalds. The two, according to their own statements, began horsing around in the parking lot and alley outside Katz’s apartment, including throwing fries at each other and laughing loudly. Their rough housing woke up another USC student who lived in the complex and later claimed he heard screaming and saw Bowermeester pinning Katz against a wall by her neck. Another neighbor claimed the couple was arguing.
When the couple entered Katz’s apartment, the first witness called Katz into his room and, along with his roommate, said they were worried about her safety. Katz told them she was fine and showed no signs of distress. The next day, however, the roommate’s father, the USC Men’s tennis coach, reported the incident to USC’s Title IX office, which handles claims of sexual misconduct. As I originally reported at The Federalist, “this allegation of violence came not from the alleged victim (who denies this ever happened), but the roommate of a third-party non-witness, and was reported to the administration by yet another person.”
Katz was called into the Title IX office and told the coordinators that she had not been attacked and that what was reported was wrong. She later claimed the Title IX coordinators told her: “I’m sorry that you feel that way.” Katz said she was treated as though she were a victim with battered wife syndrome and wouldn’t accept her claims that nothing nefarious had happened. She would later tweet that the stories being printed about her and Boermeester were “false.” Her attorney, Kerry Steigerwalt later said Katz was threatened by the school and told: “You’re jeopardizing and interfering with an ongoing investigation. You do that again, there could be consequences for you. Don’t ever tweet anything like that again.”
Months later, Katz released a formal statement saying she was “afraid of USC’s Title IX office” and hoped it wouldn’t “further retaliate against me in any way.” She also made clear in the statement that Boermeester never abused her, yet he was suspended anyway.
After Boermeester retained attorney Mark Hathaway, he and Katz began demanding USC release security footage from the night in question, which the couple says corroborates that no attack occurred.
An appeals court judge has now sided with Boermeester, ruling that USC did not provide the student a fair hearing by denying him cross-examination and slanting the process against him from the beginning. Author and professor K.C. Johnson <a href="https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/boermeester-v-usc-appellate-decision.pdf">published</a> the ruling along with a tweet thread about its highlights.
“We conclude USC’s disciplinary procedures at the time were unfair because they denied Boermeester a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine critical witnesses at an in-person hearing,” the judge ruled, though it denied Boermeester’s claim that he deserved a hearing before an interim punishment had been given.
“A university must balance its desire to protect victims of sexual misconduct with an accused’s need to adequately defend himself or herself,” the ruling said.
“In a case such as this one, where a student faces a severe sanction in a disciplinary proceeding and the university’s decision depends on witness credibility, the accused student must be afforded an in-person hearing in which he may cross-examine critical witnesses to ensure the adjudicator has the ability to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and properly decide credibility,” the ruling added.
The court demanded USC vacate the ruling against Boermeester and that if it brings disciplinary charges against him again, it must afford him the ability to cross-examine witnesses at an “in-person” hearing, which doesn’t necessarily mean being in their physical presence.
“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal has again recognized that accused students under Title IX must have a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine critical witnesses at an in-person hearing,”  said Mark Hathaway, Matt Boermeester’s attorney, in a statement to The Daily Wire.  “The security video shows Matt and Zoe clowning around in the ally and celebrating, but the USC Title IX office misrepresented the video and relied on a statement from a witness who changed his testimony by voice mail.”
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>.

Couple feet

She Said She Wasn’t A Victim But The School Suspended Her Boyfriend For Assault. A Court Ruled The Adjudication Was ‘Unfair.’

Sexual Abuse

University of Southern California

University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) professor of dentistry Kang Eric Ting testified against a dean in a sexual harassment case back in 2018. After that, Ting alleges, the dean tried to get his accuser to file a false harassment claim against the professor. When the woman refused, the dean filed the false claim on her behalf.
The College Fix <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/ucla-official-filed-false-title-ix-complaint-on-behalf-of-student-who-refused-to-accuse-professor-lawsuit/">reported</a> that Ting “put a target on his back” when he testified against Senior Associate Dean Sotirios Tetradis. The Daily Bruin, UCLA’s student newspaper, reviewed documents related to the case and <a href="https://dailybruin.com/2020/05/27/dentistry-professor-sues-uc-for-alleged-retaliation-following-title-ix-testimony/">reported</a> on the lawsuit that Ting has since filed against the university.
Ting filed his lawsuit this week, alleging he was the victim of retaliatory abuse after testifying against Tetradis. The first retaliation came when Ting was removed as the chair of the Section of Orthodontics, the Bruin reported. Ting said in his lawsuit that he was already in the crosshairs of department leaders after he requested a leave of absence in 2017 to travel back to Taiwan to care for his sick father.
Ting isn’t the only one who has filed a lawsuit against the school over this incident. Justine Tanjaya, the woman who filed the complaint against dean Tetradis, also filed a lawsuit against the dean and the university. In her lawsuit, Tanjaya claimed dean Tetradis tried to get her to file a false Title IX complaint against Ting. She refused. She said Tetradis made the false claim anyway – on her behalf. Ting was Tanjaya’s mentor, since she was a doctoral student in the UCLA School of Dentistry.
It is unclear what Tanjaya alleged Tetradis had done to sexually harass her.
Ting alleged this false allegation from Tetradis delayed his leave of absence by six weeks.
Ting, in his lawsuit, also named UCLA School of Dentistry Dean Paul Krebsbach and four other professors who served as interim replacements for the professor. Ting alleged that he suffered mentally and physically from the retaliation by Tetradis and Krebsbach, developing “insomnia, anxiety, depression, a stomach ulcer and gastrointestinal issues, the last of which required a gastrointestinal tract procedure,” the Bruin reported. Ting claimed UCLA questioned his medical leave requests. Ting would eventually file a Title IX discrimination complaint alleging the university was ignoring his health issues. He filed other grievances as well, which were all denied by UCLA’s Academic Senate.
Ting then filed complaints with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which granted him a right to sue in December 2019. Ting filed his first DFEH complaint in August 2018 and a second in late 2019. Tanjaya filed her sexual harassment complaint against Tetradis in June 2018 and her lawsuit against him and the university in April 2019. Ting began filing grievances with UCLA in 2018.
UCLA did not respond to a comment request by the Bruin.
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>.

UCLA

UCLA Professor Testified Against Dean In Sexual Harassment Case. The Dean Filed A False Title IX Complaint On Behalf Of HIS Accuser To Frame Professor.

Los Angeles (UCLA)

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

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

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

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.

Menu

Title IX

Philosophy Professor Accused Of Vague Sexual Harassment Violations. His University Investigated Him Repeatedly Until He Resigned.

Judge Denies Blue State AG’s Attempts To Deny College Students Due Process

Democrat Efforts To Delay Education Rules Requiring Due Process For Accused Students Are Failing

Two White Women Allegedly Propositioned Three Black Football Players For Sex, Then Accused Them Of Sexual Assault. The School Just Settled With One Player.

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back.

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Even Though HE Was Too Incapacitated To Consent. He Was Expelled Anyway.

Her Story Changed And Even Her Friend Said She Lied About Being Sexually Assaulted. He Was Expelled Anyway.

Education Secretary: Biden A ‘Total Hypocrite’ For Presumption Of Innocence Standards, Obama Administration Was On ‘Epic Power Trip’

Her School Didn’t Find The Man She Accused Responsible For Sexual Assault, So She Took To Social Media To Shame The School

A Police Chief Didn’t Report A Student’s Title IX Allegations, So He Was Arrested

She Said She Wasn’t A Victim But The School Suspended Her Boyfriend For Assault. A Court Ruled The Adjudication Was ‘Unfair.’

UCLA Professor Testified Against Dean In Sexual Harassment Case. The Dean Filed A False Title IX Complaint On Behalf Of HIS Accuser To Frame Professor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Menu

Title IX

Philosophy Professor Accused Of Vague Sexual Harassment Violations. His University Investigated Him Repeatedly Until He Resigned.

Judge Denies Blue State AG’s Attempts To Deny College Students Due Process

Democrat Efforts To Delay Education Rules Requiring Due Process For Accused Students Are Failing

Two White Women Allegedly Propositioned Three Black Football Players For Sex, Then Accused Them Of Sexual Assault. The School Just Settled With One Player.

Blue State AGs Want To Limit College Students’ Due Process Rights. Red State AGs Are Fighting Back.

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Even Though HE Was Too Incapacitated To Consent. He Was Expelled Anyway.

Her Story Changed And Even Her Friend Said She Lied About Being Sexually Assaulted. He Was Expelled Anyway.

Education Secretary: Biden A ‘Total Hypocrite’ For Presumption Of Innocence Standards, Obama Administration Was On ‘Epic Power Trip’

Her School Didn’t Find The Man She Accused Responsible For Sexual Assault, So She Took To Social Media To Shame The School

A Police Chief Didn’t Report A Student’s Title IX Allegations, So He Was Arrested

She Said She Wasn’t A Victim But The School Suspended Her Boyfriend For Assault. A Court Ruled The Adjudication Was ‘Unfair.’

UCLA Professor Testified Against Dean In Sexual Harassment Case. The Dean Filed A False Title IX Complaint On Behalf Of HIS Accuser To Frame Professor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.