A little ridiculous, student banned from parts of campus for looking like a rapist

[momrath]

John Doe, the student who brought suit against CU Boulder, was represented by Nesenoff and Miltenberg, the law firm that has represented several students who claim to be wrongfully found responsible for sexual assault by their colleges and unfairly punished. According the Andrew Miltenberg, the objective of these cases is not so much monetary gain but rather to clear the student’s name of sexual assault so that he can get on with his life.

The outcome of this case is, however, a little more complicated.

“CU charged the man with four policy violations: non-consensual sexual intercourse, non-consensual sexual contact, violating the discrimination and harassment policy and procedures, and possessing or using alcohol.” He was found responsible for two charges – I’m not sure which two – and was given a three semester suspension. (Interestingly, Jane Doe was not charged with possessing or using alcohol.)

This is John Doe’s complaint. The college’s blunders will make your hair stand on end. In fairness, I couldn’t find any articles giving Jane Doe’s side of the story. She must be laying low.
http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Complaint-John-Doe-University-of-Colorado-Boulder-2014-11-7.pdf

During CU Boulder’s investigation, Jane Doe made several express admissions to having committed perjury and/or otherwise knowingly provided false and/or otherwise fabricated statements to the Boulder Police Department and CU Boulder officials due to the fact that she was “pissed off” when she realized that John Doe had rebuffed her, and because she thought John Doe was “just another douchy frat dude.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, CU Boulder found John Doe responsible for sexual misconduct, and sanctioned him to a three-term suspension.

Although the investigation report acknowledges that there was a witness to corroborate John Doe’s account of the evening and Jane Doe made false statements throughout the process, CU Boulder still concluded, “Respondent’s account is not as credible as Complainant’s’

The settlement seems to leave both sides dissatisfied.

The good news is that CU cannot automatically reveal the details of John Doe’s sexual assault investigation, findings and suspension, unless they have a waiver from him. His suspension was suspended and he is theoretically “welcome” to return to the university, although he agreed to withdraw as part of the settlement. The suspension will not show up on his transcript.

The bad news is that the records will not be expunged, and if John Doe grants a waiver, CU will release the information. Why would John Doe grant such a waiver?

If any party, such as another college or university, asks CU about John Doe’s disciplinary record, CU has agreed to say only: “In fall 2013, John Doe (his actual name will be stated) was subject to a student conduct investigation and was found to have violated two code provisions.”

This information would undoubtedly lead to to more questions from prospective colleges or employers. John Clune, a lawyer who specializes in Title IX cases, said:

the settlement was “extremely favorable” to the university because it resulted in a small payout and led to John Doe withdrawing from CU. He said the agreement may or may not help John Doe, who could still have trouble transferring to another school.

There are a lot of schools on the application that ask, ‘Have you been disciplined for anything at your previous school?’ And if the answer is yes, they require students to sign a waiver authorizing the release of all information held by the previous school on the matter. He’s not going to be able to go wherever he wants to go without having to disclose what happened.

Clune also questions the ethics of allowing CU to conceal evidence of sexual misconduct from other colleges.

There’s language (in the settlement) that looks like it’s designed to conceal that information from some other school he might be transferring to. That’s troubling to me to see any university who has found somebody responsible for sexual misconduct reach an agreement to conceal that information from other schools. Schools seem comfortable engaging in this kind of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ process. If you’re a rape victim or a victim’s family at the subsequent school, it’s pretty infuriating to learn that another school had that information but didn’t provide it.

So another twist and turn in the tangle of colleges’ Title IX responsibilities and nobody’s happy. In this case it seems that John Doe’s lawyers only achieved a Pyrrhic victory for their client since CU didn’t expunge their findings. He is still in violation and the information still exists in his file. His life is still going to be very complicated.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_27566071/cu-boulder-paying-john-doe-15k-settle-title

[DonnaL]

I think the title of the thread is somewhat misleading: according to the story (as people here have described it), a restraining order was initially imposed on this guy because of the charges against him. Which seems perfectly reasonable. The problem appears to be that the restraint wasn’t lifted after he was found not guilty of the charges. There appears to have been nothing wrong with the imposition of the restraint in the first place; it was apparently imposed not because he looked like the actual rapist, but because he was accused of being the actual rapist.

[dstark]

Yes DonnaL, but then the story is diminished.

The Colorado story is not looking too good for the guy either. The guy settled for $15,000.

Now this is a story…

http://www.middletownpress.com/general-news/20140312/students-suit-details-alleged-rape-at-wesleyan-fraternity-party

A woman is suing for $10 million. What happened with this case?

MIDDLETOWN >> A Wesleyan University student is suing the Psi Upsilon fraternity’s chapter at the college and the fraternity’s international organization for $10 million, alleging she was raped in full view of several witnesses at a party last May.

The complaint, filed Tuesday, names the alleged rapist, two former fraternity officers, the Xi Chapter and the entire Psi Upsilon men’s society, accusing the fraternity of providing inadequate security for its social guests and complicity that led to the victim’s alleged rape.

Edit…I read the case was still ongoing as of Dec 1, 2014.

[DmitriR]

“Misleading” is kind of a polite way of calling that; the article’s title apparently flat-out contradicts its text. I’m not surprised any more; we’re at the stage in journalistic integrity where it’s too much to ask for even internal consistency, much less compelling sources and well-researched facts.

[ucbalumnus]

@DmitriR

“Misleading” is kind of a polite way of calling that; the article’s title apparently flat-out contradicts its text. I’m not surprised any more; we’re at the stage in journalistic integrity where it’s too much to ask for even internal consistency, much less compelling sources and well-researched facts.

Given the rise of overtly politically partisan media, where editorials and opinions are not limited to those specifically labeled sections but are embedded in the news coverage, one always has to be watchful of such attempts to mislead. Even without a political agenda permeating the writing, there is incentive to mislead in the headlines in order to generate interest in the story (which may otherwise be nothing special).

[DmitriR]

That’s a good point. I’m not sure it’s a partisan issue though; if they wanted to say that colleges were overreacting to sexual assault, they probably could have run the same story with an accurate headline and it would still make their point for them.

The headline makes it sound as if someone that everyone believes is wholly innocent is being punished solely for his physical appearance. I think that you’re right that it’s a sneaky attempt to get clicks and attention, but to me this kind of thing is beneath contempt and it pretty much destroys the credibility of a news source in my eyes.

[JustOneDad]

@ucbalumnus

then one should back up and review the claim that they cannot coexist, which is probably a spurious claim.

Nevertheless, at least one of them believes it strongly enough.

[ucbalumnus]

@JustOneDad

Nevertheless, at least one of them believes it strongly enough.

If neither commits a criminal act against the other, then simply being offended by the mere presence of the other should not be a sufficient reason to penalize the other. If it were, what would the school do if some student complained that the mere presence of a black/Jewish/Muslim/etc. student were intolerable, so that the school should require that all such students must stay away from him/her?

[JustOneDad]

I’m sure they would invite that student to leave. I hope you can understand how they might feel compelled to not victimize a rape victim twice.

[ucbalumnus]

@JustOneDad

I’m sure they would invite that student to leave.

Why would you think that a school would invite the black/Jewish/Muslim/etc. student to leave because some student complained that the mere presence of such a student were intolerable?

@JustOneDad

I hope you can understand how they might feel compelled to not victimize a rape victim twice.

If the other student is not the rapist, then why would it be victimizing the rape victim again for the other student to be present? Basically, this looks like an extension of a “right not to be offended” that leads to various undesirable consequences (attempts to limit freedom of speech are probably the best known, but restrictions applied against innocent persons’ ability to be in places that they are normally allowed to be in are another).

[LasMa]

@JustOneDad‌ - what did this young man do to victimize anyone, except possess genes which make his face look a certain way? I’m sure there are people who don’t like the way I look. Should I be banned from the places where those people are?

[JustOneDad]

@ucbalumnus

Why would you think that a school would invite the black/Jewish/Muslim/etc. student to leave

The complaining student.

[JustOneDad]

@LasMa

what did this young man do to victimize anyone,

You’d have to show us where I said he had victimized anyone.

@LasMa

I’m sure there are people who don’t like the way I look. Should I be banned from the places where those people are?

If me or my friends, or even an acquaintance of mine doesn’t like your looks, I am well within my rights to ban you from my property.

[LasMa]

@JustOneDad‌ In post 48, you said this:

I hope you can understand how they might feel compelled to not victimize a rape victim twice.

I assumed you meant that the young man’s presence on campus was victimizing the young lady twice, the second being whenever she saw the young man.

[JustOneDad]

No. Telling her that the only option they could come up would be for her to leave the college would be the second blow against her. Banning him from her parts of the campus makes it possible for both of them to finish their degrees.

[LasMa]

I agree that she should not have been told to leave, if she was. Nor should he have been banned from certain parts of the campus. What if they had been in the same program and had their classes in the same building? Should he have to switch majors because she didn’t like the way his face was put together? Or what if she enjoyed going to the football games? Should he be banned from the stadium?

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I don’t think his movements on campus should be restricted at all. He looks like someone who did something bad to her. That’s hardly a reason to punish him.

[twoinanddone]

@justonedad, you said “If me or my friends, or even an acquaintance of mine doesn’t like your looks, I am well within my rights to ban you from my property.”

But college campuses are not private homes. Colleges cannot only invite people they like to be on campus, or restrict someone who looks seedy from living in the dorm or vegetarians from eating in the dining hall. Even private colleges take public money, thus the need to follow Title IX. They can’t just ban a student from some buildings while allowing others access to others. What if the woman didn’t want this man near her because he happened to be black or looked Jewish or she knew he was a communist? Would that be different than if this guy was just white and not a member of a protected class?

If he’s done nothing wrong, but the accuser still doesn’t feel comfortable, she can go somewhere else or wait until he finishes his educations. She has no right to just demand others stay away from her ‘just because.’

[TatinG]

It shouldn’t matter if the guy was the rapist’s identical twin. An innocent person should not be punished in any way. Period.

[JustOneDad]

^^Huh? Who’s being punished?

[marie1234]

The look-a-like is being punished for nothing.