You say that Furman went too far in the Columbia John Doe case, @Ohiodad51. But the bolded part above, from Sanders-Peay, seems very much on point.
Go read Sanders Pea, the relevant section is Section B. Footnote 4 in section B recites the allegation of Title VII discrimination brought by the pro se plaintiff in that case “That (the supervisor) had a personal vendetta against her”. That should, if anything, make the distinction cleared to you.
OK, so I read [Sanders-Peay[/url], and footnote 4, which referred me to [url=<a href=“http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2013cv01433/408534/35/%5DLawtone-Bowles”>http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2013cv01433/408534/35/]Lawtone-Bowles v City of NY Dept of Sanitation.](SANDERS-PEAY v. NYC DEPAR | No. 14-CV-4534 (CBA... | 20141119e99| Leagle.com) Lawtone-Bowles, who seems like a nutcase, argued a Title VII claim that she had been discriminated against for a variety of unlawful reasons including age and disability. The Court ruled, “In this case, Lawtone-Bowles alleges that she is a member of multiple protected classes, but she has not alleged any facts that yield an inference that she was discharged based on her membership in these protected classes,” and therefore the court dismissed her case.
This seems to me to be precisely analogous to the Columbia John Doe. He says that he is a member of a protected class, viz. men, but he fails to allege any facts that yield an inference that he was discriminated against based on his membership in the protected class. John Doe was discriminated against based on being a guy is not a fact that yields the inference that he was discriminated against because he was a man; it’s the inference itself. It’s the conclusion, not the premise.
If you don’t appreciate the distinction between “my supervisor had a personal vendetta against me” and “Columbia failed to protect me from harassment because I am a guy” I don’t know what else to say.
We just disagree here about what would constitute a fact that yields an inference that John Doe was discriminated against because he is a guy. “Columbia failed to protect me from harassment because I’m a guy” doesn’t do anything to convince me that Columbia failed to protect him from harassment because he’s a guy. Nothing is more “conclusory” than an allegation that simply concludes what the guy wants the court to conclude, without giving a smidgen of evidence to support that conclusion.
C. Fang, you seem like you’d be the perfect clerk for the judge in the John Doe case because you agree with how he ruled on the motion to dismiss. That’s fine, and if the dismissal was without prejudice, John can just refile or he can appeal. The president doesn’t have a lot of effect except in the district, and maybe only with that judge. Some judges working in the same district have different opinions, especial on the level of proof needed in a motion to dismiss. How the cases get to the Supreme Court is by judges in different circuits having different rulings on the same law. How can Paul get to the next step (trial)? Simply by having another judge, by making other claims in the Complaint, by wording his Title IX claim differently. It may be enough that the Columbia hearing found him not responsible for a violation to prove to the judge, even the same judge, that Title IX is already in play in Paul’s case. It may be enough that Emma took actions against him that John Doe’s accuser may not have. It may not be, but just because one judge decided to dismiss one case doesn’t mean than no one is ever going to be successful in proving that a man is also entitled to title IX protection by school.
It’s not that I agree with Furman- I don’t think I’m in a position to agree or disagree. There may be other cases out there that have different reasoning, that he could have appealed to instead. But it seems to me that if you use the cases he cited, you have to reach the conclusion he reached, because “I was discriminated against because I’m a guy” is the very art and essence of a conclusory statement if what you’re trying to prove in the case is that the person was discriminated against because he’s a guy.
John Doe’s lawyer’s reaction to the Motion to Dismiss: "Miltenberg accused Furman of having a “pre-determined decision” and said that John still has “viable state law claims that he may still pursue in [New York] state court.”
Would you understand that to mean that he would pursue the case in NY state court as well as appeal in Federal court?
In the Motion to Dismiss, Furman specifically mentions that he disagrees with Judge Spiegel’s opinion in Wells v. Xavier. (That case would have proceeded to trial, but was settled out of court.)
Judge Spiegel’s comments are particularly interesting because hel seems to have gone out of his way to criticize Xavier’s competence to adjudicate an accusation of rape. Sidenote: Unfortunately Judge Spiegel died last December. 
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/03/a_first-accused_of_rape_xavie/
Evidently Nungesser’s case has been assigned to Judge Gregory Woods.
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/04/male-in-mattress-case-sues-columbia/
Not exactly the same situation, but related. In John Doe v. Reed, John Doe and a woman (referred to as AM) engaged in a threesome with Jane Roe. Jane accused John of sexual assault; he was found responsible and expelled, primarily because the panel determined that Jane couldn’t consent because she was high on ecstasy.
AM who admits to engaging in sexual acts with Jane and John wasn’t accused. John claims that he was discriminated against because Reed only went after him, not AM. It’s true that Jane only accused John, not AM, but since Reed was aware that AM was a participant in the same activity that John was expelled for, I would think that Reed would have been obligated under Title IX to investigate AM as well.
A legal tangle as well as a sexual tangle (or tango). 
@momrath, your question on whether Doe pursues his state law claims depends on a question of Federal Jurisdiction. Simply, the case was originally allowed to proceed in Federal Court because Title IX claims raise a question under Federal Law. Once that claim was dismissed, there was no basis for federal jurisdiction apparently and the remaining claims were either dismissed with out prejudice (meaning they could be refiled) or remanded to the state court. He could choose to proceed there if his lawyer feels that gives him the best shot at recovery. I think it has to be one at a time though. Appeal the Motion to Dismiss to the Circuit Court of Appeals or pursue the state claims in state court now.
I don’t know if it is true that most cases brought by men under Title IX are getting dismissed at the pleading stage. I see most commentators refer to the Doe case and the Vassar case to make that point, although the Vassar case actually presumably survived a Motion to Dismiss, so I am not sure who that relates. Another article I read referred to the Duke case where the guy is suing to get his degree. That case was set for trial, so also clearly survived the motion to dismiss stage. More broadly though, the vast majority of cases that are going to be published in the law books will be cases granting Motions to Dismiss. This is because if a Motion to Dismiss is denied, the case proceeds to the next stage, and usually a Judge is not going to write an opus on the denial of a pre trial motion. One other point that people keep missing is that the current case does not allege a flaw in the disciplinary process. It seems that all the other cases people are discussing do. That is a significant difference.
This sort of illustrates my legal realism point. If the plaintiff comes off as a nutcase, then the judge is (in my opinion) much more likely to find a way to dismiss the case–while if similar claims are made by somebody who does not appear to be a nutcase, then somehow the claims seem more legally sound as well. And, as I said above, it’s my view that many judges, upon reading the complaint in the Columbia case, are going to want to give it a closer look.
With justice so dependent on who the judge is and on enough money to pursue the cases, I wonder how much justice we have in this country.
A friend of mine has been involved in a legal matter for two years. He is thinking of "renting a judge " to speed things up and keep legal costs down.
Is there really justice when cases take multiple years to resolve?
@hunt I remember being a shiny new law clerk and having a prisoner suit hit my desk. The process was that the law clerks would look at the case materials, read the motion at issue and then type (yes, actually type it was awhile ago) a two page memo to the Judge summarizing the case and what we believed the result of the motion should be. In this instance, I researched the heck out of it and wrote a great memo about why the prisoner was right and was entitled to more toilet paper or to have his cell moved, whatever. I gave the memo to the Judge, he read the first paragraph, looked at me and said “Do you know how many of these we get in a year?” Do you realize what happens if I grant this guy’s motion? Everyone in federal prison is going to flood us with the same thing. Figure out how to dismiss it." And that was my first real lesson in the practice of law.
I clerked for a district judge, too. I think that’s a good place to learn this. My judge would listen to an argument, and then tell one of us clerks, “Write me an order that says…”
I learned this too when I took a class on business law. I don’t want you lawyers to think this is some deep dark secret. 
My friend was in court yesterday. The judge had read written arguments. The judge asked are there any additional oral arguments. “I have made up my mind so I don’t want to hear any oral arguments that repeat the written arguments”.
@Ohiodad, how do you feel about the judge’s decision now, many many years later? Would you stick with your position or see it as the judge did now that you have more years under your belt?
Two new articles about Emma and the mattress:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rape-issue-colors-columbia-graduation-1431478817
Above is about the campus being divided over whether she should carry the mattress at graduation. The school has no comment due to pending litigation.
This article is about Ambassador Samantha Power comparing Emma and her mattress to the struggles of Afghan women, particularly the Afghan Women’s Cycling team:
"William A. Jacobson, a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School, said he doesn’t know if Sulkowicz was “lying or telling the truth.” But, he added, “the sharp dispute hardly makes the case comparable to what Afghan women have to go through. Beatings. Burkas. Lack of education. Executions.”
“Is she really suggesting that Sulkowicz’s performance art (her term) on the Columbia campus is in any remote way the equivalent of the Afghan women’s cycling team overcoming threats in order to train?” he asked. “Do women face obstacles on Ivy League campuses similar to women in Afghanistan?”
The Wall Street Journal article is gated.
Sorry about that. When I accessed it from google it was not subscriber only. If you google the title it should be accessible.
Really, though, it was just quotes from some students saying of course she should carry the mattress on stage, and others saying her art project should not overshadow everyone’s graduation day.
Re Post 195:
The Afghan women comparison is typical false equivalence to attract the low information crowd, who know nothing about Afghan women’s history.
Another way of putting it is comparing a female who sends emails to a guy to “blank” her in the butt to women who had no rights at all few years ago and who were not even allowed to attend any school is the purview of the truly ignorant. However, if you know your supporters are dumb, it works.
Talk about overplay.
Perhaps there will be a compromise and she will be allowed to carry a pillow.