The gender discrimination is the heart of the Title IX issue. They treated her complaint differently than their policy says, and more importantly, they did not follow their policy when they were notified about his being too drunk to give consent but she initiated oral activity - holding no investigation.
Amherst’s actions, relying on their school policy that was adopted in October 2012, after the alleged incident in Feb 2012, well before her formal complaint made in October 2013. They expelled him in December 2013, and he sued in 2015, following his request and the school’s denial to reopen his hearing based on his new evidence disputing her account, and proving the investigation was flawed and a sham. There were requests for extension, his suit was amended, the school asked for it to be tossed out, and it is only now that a ruling comes down denying their request to throw it out.
I was glad that the racial allegations of this case were tossed - I think Doe was grasping for straws there.
If Amherst decides to settle, they could do so with request that the settlement details be sealed, where they effectively admit no wrongdoing.
Many colleges have long had their own police departments (actual police departments, not non-police “campus safety” departments), although those arrested then have to be charged or not charged of crimes by the county district attorney. When I went to college decades ago, people generally knew that there were campus police (that were real state police since it was a state university) whose primary jurisdiction was the campus, and city police whose primary jurisdiction was the city.
It seems like what you really mean to say is that the idea that crime victims will go to non-police administrative structures in the school instead of the police to report a crime has become more common.
Perhaps the root of the problem specifically with rape and sexual assault accusations is that the police and courts often handle them poorly. However, it does not seem like colleges do any better (within the realm of the college’s jurisdiction, meaning the possibility of suspension, expulsion, or other restrictions on one’s enrollment at the college).
I think there is always a saving face component to institutions. Admitting you totally screwed up without a fight is never fun. Admitting that you harmed a person is never pleasant. My money is on Amherst pressing as far as they can then folding and paying the kid off as so many colleges have this year for their bumbling incompetency at their pretend “system.” Judges now have enough precedence and defense attorneys now have the playbook and most of the fake news has been debunked.
I think that police and courts these days are far ahead of colleges on the “learning curve” of how to properly investigate and adjudicate rape and sexual assault cases. Do colleges work together to create best practices for their investigations? Or is each college basically doing its own thing?
No the root of the problem is it’s impossible to know what really went on in someone’s bedroom, most of the time, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that fact. That, and if a victim doesn’t go to the police right away, the only hard evidence in most of these cases: rape kits and toxicology tests, in the case of someone being drugged, can’t be performed.
I looked at Amherst’s Student Handbook, and for the first two, minor in possession offenses, they send you to an alcohol education class. In other words, the university treats alcohol possession as only slightly more serious than a parking violation.
Classic red herring. I doubt a public college could ban premarital sex without a lawsuit. Very few private colleges still ban pre-marital sex, and those which do, ex. Liberty University, are a subject of constant derision from the Left. Or perhaps you’re referring to affirmative consent, where colleges try to redefine what both parties believe is fully consensual behavior as rape?
Well, consent seems to be what this case is going to turn on. The judge is hinting very broadly at an incapacity defense even though none was intended at the time the Handbook regulations were re-written. He’s basically saying the College could have (and maybe, should have) taken “judicial notice” that neither party was capable of giving consent. If so, that would permit every prospective defendant to now cross-claim that he or she was just as much a “victim” as the complainant. Any wonder no police department wants to deal with these cases?
In most of my cases, these wouldn’t help answer any questions about what happened. The fact that an accuser promptly went to the hospital is itself an important piece of evidence, of course. But many of my cases involve encounters that stop short of intercourse, and in the cases where intercourse occurred, both parties usually agree it occurred. There’s no forensic test for oral or digital contact. Very few cases involve accusations of involuntary drugging. I have one such case, and the accuser later dropped that allegation.
“this really isn’t a damages case. It is a publicity case. That is the issue for Amherst.”
I think that’s right. If Amherst goes to trial and wins, they may still lose. It can’t be good for them to have their name connected to these allegations in the NY Times every day. There will be a lot more coverage of the trial than of the result.
I do not know who this John Doe is, but it’s likely that his family is rich and both the cost of litigation and the potential damage award are peanuts for them. They want vindication and they can afford to pursue it.
The prosecutors don’t deal with them because so many times there simply is no case. Two people remove clothing in private and stuff happens. As Roethlisburger says you can’t police people’s bedrooms (living rooms, dorms rooms, etc.). But in THIS case is, in fact, the college has a consent policy and states that inebriation is an “excuse” for not being able to give consent the guy should have been the alleged victim and colleges are practicing discrimination if they treat the genders differently. It’s been one of my points all along, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and if they are both drunk it’s a stalemate and colleges are dumb to even try and sort it out. because they seem to put themselves in adverse legal positions time and time again.
I’m not sure what you mean by digital contact, but on the rest of it you’re making my point: most of these college accusations have zero supporting evidence. We could replace title ix proceedings with random coin flips and get results nearly as accurate.
Yes and let’s not forget the obligation that colleges have to keep their communities safe. It’s not like they can get notice of these complaints and sit back and do nothing. Just like they have to investigate drug dealing, weapons in the dorms or regular assault and batteries.