A male student at Brown University was accused of sexual misconduct and some students led a pressure campaign on the judge to find him guilty. Luckily, the judge resisted and drew his conclusions based on the facts.

The Washington Post reported:

Judge reinstates Brown Univ. student accused of sexual misconduct, blasts ‘organized’ pressure to get him not to

A federal judge has reinstated a Brown University student after finding that the Ivy League school in Providence, R.I., improperly judged him responsible for sexual misconduct.

The case was yet another example of the stresses confronted by colleges and universities, whose methods of adjudicating such cases have increasingly come under heavy fire for being too aggressive toward the accused, even as they are being pressured for not being aggressive enough.

Indeed, the Brown case underscored how that tension has spread: It included an organized campaign by students supportive of the woman who brought the charge to pressure the judge into ruling against the man she had accused.

The campaign took the form of a widely circulated post urging people to email Chief Judge William E. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, telling him that reinstating the student would be “morally unjust to the survivor” and create a “public safety hazard” for Brown women.

The judge ultimately responded to the pressure campaign by saying:

[The court]…Is an independent body and must make a decision based solely on the evidence before it. It cannot be swayed by emotion or public opinion. After the preliminary injunction, this Court was deluged with emails resulting from an organized campaign to influence the outcome. These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this. Moreover, having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court.

A Brown University student named Alex Volpicello wrote the post mentioned above at The Tab:

Why we need to stop the student convicted of sexual assault coming back to Brown

As you’ve probably heard by now, a Brown student suspended for sexual assault could resume classes this year.

The university found John Doe – as he is known in court documents – responsible for assaulting a female student in a storage room, and suspended him for two years. But Rhode Island District Court Judge William Smith has lifted the suspension, saying the student “will suffer irreparable harm if his suspension remains in place and he is unable to start the fall semester.” He has issued a temporary restraining order for John Doe against Brown, allowing him back with full privileges at least until the final decision is issued, if not indefinitely. The student he assaulted is still on campus.

That’s why I’m asking for your help today, with five minutes of your time…

I implore you to take five minutes to send an email to the judge and the Clerk’s Office. Share this post, and write the email. There is power and solidarity in numbers.

In this case, “solidarity in numbers” is a euphemism for an intimidating mob.

Does this remind you of the pressure that was put on Lester Holt to not let Trump off the hook, as the left accused Matt Lauer of doing during NBC’s commander in chief forum?

How about the pressure that was put on Supreme Court Justice John Roberts during the hearing on Obamacare a few years ago?

It should. It’s the same thing.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.