Kafkaesque campus sexual assault tribunal at Johnson & Wales alleged in lawsuit
Female waited a year to complain, male not given copy of complaint, entire process only 5 weeks, no record of hearing
The more cases of campus sexual assault adjudications we cover, the more we see patterns.
There frequently is an ongoing consensual sexual relationship in which only some of the interactions were claimed to be non-consensual; a delay in reporting the alleged assault; a process in which the accused is left uncertain as to the charges against him; an inability to be represented by counsel or anyone who could give substantive assistance; a university investigation under pressure to “believe” the accuser; the inability to call a key witnesses, the issue of whether there was sufficient affirmative consent (there being no claim that the female said “No”), and of course, the use of alcohol in varying degrees.
In a recent case at Oberlin, we examined the allegations in a context of a 100% conviction rate for students (presumably all or almost all males) who went to formal adjudication. The issue there was whether one sex act as part of a series of sex acts had sufficient affirmative consent, where the female student stated she was “not sober” just prior to performing the sex act.
The case discussed below involves many of these elements.
A male student expelled from Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI, has commenced suit in federal court in Massachusetts, where he lives, claiming he was unlawfully held responsible and expelled after an unfair, prejudged internal judicial process that violated not only ordinary norms of fairness, but also the university’s own guidelines.
The facts alleged and issued involved are all too familiar for these type of cases, according to the detailed factual allegations:
- The male and female students had at least six sexual encounters, only two of which were at issue.
- The female did not complain for one year.
- The complaint was instigated by the female’s boyfriend, but the boyfriend could not be cross-examined because he served as the female student’s hearing advisor.
- The accused male student was not given a copy of the complaint, he only had it read to him not long before the hearing.
- The investigator who gathered the facts expressed support for the female student from the start.
- The entire process from complaint to adjudication took only five weeks.
- There was a short time to appeal, during which time the male student retained counsel, but the university would not provide the attorney with a copy of the complaint.
- There was not record of the adjudication. making internal appeal and court challenge difficult
The Complaint is embedded at the bottom of this post. I have excerpted the allegations. (All emphasis in the excerpts has been added by me.)
Of course, we don’t know at this stage which of the facts alleged will be disputed. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to a request for comment; defense counsel declined to comment beyond what the university has said in its court papers seeking to move the case from federal court in Massachusetts to federal court Rhode Island.
Overview: Ongoing Sexual Relationship
1. This lawsuit arises from the miscarriage of justice caused by the actions taken by Johnson & Wales University (“JWU” or “the University”) against the Plaintiff (“John”) in October and November of 2017. In the Fall of his junior year he was accused having committed sexual assault, when as a sophomore, he had engaged numerous times in consensual sex with a female student who suddenly now claimed to have withdrawn her consent during the course of the sexual conduct. This disciplinary action was taken against a male student with an unblemished academic and disciplinary record in a time of near viral hysteria regarding campus
sexual assaults.2. In just five weeks from the date the complaint was formally filed against him, the plaintiff was found guilty of sexual assault, expelled from the University, removed from the campus and branded a sex offender, with his entire future in ruins. The defendant university’s actions are the direct result of a foundationally flawed process of investigation and discipline during which the plaintiff was denied the most basic elements of fairness promised to him by JWU in its Student Handbook.
3. In filing this lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to right these grave wrongs, finish his education, restore his reputation and find some semblance of emotional and psychological wellbeing.
The accused never given a copy of the Complaint against him.
11. The proceeding by JWU against John Doe which gives rise to this lawsuit formally began in September of 2017 when Mary Smith3 filed a formal Complaint (“Complaint Report”) with JWU accompanied by her boyfriend BK.
12. JWU never did and would not give a copy of the formal 18+ page Complaint Report to John Doe and only read it to him in a single pre-disciplinary Hearing meeting with Betsy Gray (the JWU “Director of Student Conduct & Program”). Indeed, JWU refused to give a copy of the Complaint Report to the undersigned counsel when his office requested it when he began representing John Doe in his internal appeal of his expulsion. Undersigned counsel was forced to have it read to him telephonically and told to take notes to the best of his ability. The undersigned facts and quotes come from that report. It is this report that guided the Hearing. Upon information and belief, the testimony of Mary Smith matched her statements in the Complaint Report. Shockingly, JWU failed to make any record whatsoever of the Hearing which occurred against John Doe.4
4 JWU, in essence, expelled John Doe leaving him no reasonable ability to appeal internally. How can an accused
appeal an expulsion arising from a Hearing when no record of what occurred at the Hearing exists? He can’t. JWU’s failure to provide a written copy of the Complaint and make a record of the Hearing is at best bad faith and at worst
an intentional cover-up.
Multiple Sexual Encounters – Female Student initially uncertain if it was assault
Asserted sexual assault incident 1 as stated by the complainant Mary Smith (sex session 5)
14. Mary Smith on or about September 13, 2017 reported to the JWU security office that she had been sexually assaulted. She stated that this assault occurred “one night in October” of 2016 by John Doe. She stated that she had slept with John Doe earlier that night in his dorm room, was sleeping with him in bed, and woke up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. While in the bathroom she said that John Doe followed her into the bathroom pulled down her underwear and had sex with her up against the sink, leaving her with bruising on her hip. She said that this sexual encounter was rougher than she was used to having with him because John Doe was “normally gentle with her” when they had sex.
15. After they finished having sex in the bathroom, Mary Smith and John Doe went back into John Doe’s bed and fell asleep together again. She woke up later that morning and left the room. As stated in the Complaint Report, one of John Doe’s roommates was in the room when this alleged sexual assault occurred and heard nothing. Additionally, according to the Complaint Report, another roommate was walking in when Mary Smith was leaving the building and she seemed to be in good spirits. 5
5 Very disturbingly, JWU never had these two roommates as witnesses at the Hearing and John Doe was never able to question them, yet their exculpatory statements are in the Complaint Report.
16. Mary Smith never took pictures of any bruising, never contacted any official regarding the incident and never went to any medical facility.
Asserted sexual assault incident 2 as stated by the complainant Mary Smith (sex session 6)
17. Approximately a week after this alleged first sexual assault by John Doe, Mary Smith voluntarily came over to John Doe’s dorm room again to have sex with him. She stated in the Complaint Report that she began having “consensual sex” with John Doe but stated that “it was normal at first and not rough and at some point during the consensual sex she became less lubricated and it started to hurt.” She “voiced this to John Doe and gave him the chance to stop and change positions to see if it continued to hurt. She stated that he moved her onto her hands and knees and continued having sex.” It did not hurt anymore in that position but “began to hurt again” and he only stopped when he ejaculated.
18. It is undisputed that the events relayed in Paragraphs 15 and 16 are what the entire assertion of “sexual assault” against John Doe comprises as stated by Mary Smith. Nothing more.
19. When she made the formal complaint approximately a year later, as stated in the Complaint Report, Mary Smith said that she was not sure it was sexual assault that occurred. She said that “she was confused because he had never gotten rough with her like that before and that she was not sure if what occurred was considered sexual assault. She stated that ‘this type of sex was new to her.”6
6 John Doe has denied from the beginning that any “sexual assault” occurred and that sex session 6 was not distinct from session 1 through 4. He further has always claimed that the bathroom sex (session 5) never even happened. Indeed, Mary Smith’s complaint and testimony does not even describe sexual assault.
20. Soon after this asserted second incident of sexual assault occurred, Mary Smith was on social media platform Instagram liking John Doe’s postings.
Hearing on Short Notice with No Explanation of Process, No Assistance
31. On October, 3, 2017, John Doe appeared at a “Pre-Hearing Conference”. This Conference meeting is the only time that John Doe was actually told what the specific charges in the Complaint Report were against him. But John Doe was not allowed to read the Complaint Report, see a copy of it, or have any copy of it whatsoever.
32. At the Pre-Hearing Conference he was told that he must attend a Hearing on the charges on October 20, 2017. He was never told how the Hearing was conducted. He was never told how and if he could question any witnesses, bring any witnesses, bring and/or submit any evidence, whether there would be opening statements or closing statements. In essence, he was left in the dark about the entire procedure. The one thing he was told was that he could have an “Advisor” who could not participate in any way during the Hearing but could sit next to him. He also was never told the names of the three adjudicating Panelists. He was specifically told that he could not have any legal counsel.
45. JWU’s own CRP did not and does not lay out how John Doe was to present his defense at the Hearing. He was a young shy student confronted with serious claims he denied and was (by JWU policy) alone, scared and in the dark. As a matter of fact, he was actually placed in a nearly bare room with a telephone speaker on the table and an “advisor” next to him who, according to the CRP, could “not participate in any manner.”
46. John Doe was never provided any written or oral guidance as to how he could bring evidence to the Hearing (i.e. Instagram postings, texts, ect.) or if he could even bring any at all. He was never provided any written or oral guidance as to how he could bring a witness in his defense and have such witness questioned by him. Indeed, he was never told orally or in writing whether he could question the complainant’s witnesses or the complainant herself.
47. He was never told whether he could/should prepare an opening statement or closing remarks and, even if he could, how long he could speak for. Shockingly, he was never even given a copy of the 18+ page incident report/ complaint brought against him (not even a redacted copy). He was never even reasonably allowed to take notes while the 18+ page statement was read to him. Quite frankly, this failure alone is inherently discriminatory to an accused who understands and learns better from reading.
48. The above failures of internal procedural due process reasonably shock the conscience because even the most rudimentary contractual relationship between parties requires a fair playing field. JWU in the case of John Doe did not follow this basic premise and the promise of good faith of the CRP.
Only Three (3) Days Allowed for Internal Appeal
35. On October 23, 2017, John Doe received a letter stating that the three adjudicating Panelists has ruled that he had committed sexual assault and he was expelled. A copy of the Dismissal Letter is attached as Exhibit D.
36. John Doe was given only three days to appeal and, according to the CRP, only if “Relevant, new information has come to light since the decision was made” and/or “The Conduct Review Process, as outlined, was not followed.”
37. John Doe, with a limited extension, filed his appeal with counsel. It was denied within a few hours by JWU’s Senior Vice President of Administration with no apparent review.
38. Within a period of approximately four weeks, John Doe went from a happy, healthy, thriving student to a sexual offender who was expelled from college, all without any semblance of equitable due process or procedure.
Biased, Pre-Judged Investigative Process
50. From the beginning of the investigation JWU assumed that the Mary Smith was telling the truth and was presumed to be a victim. John Doe was assumed to be at fault. Sgt. Robinson of JWU campus security, the initial primary investigating officer, does not even deny this fact. He wrote in the 18+ page Complaint Report that he e-mailed Mary Smtih on June 2, 2017, the following as his initial communication: “I tried reaching out to you earlier but I was unable to leave a voice message. I emailed you instead. I did not want to delay this matter any longer so I am supplying you with some resources as it has been brought to my attention that you were a victim of sexual assault this past academic year (2016-2017). I want you to know that we are here to support you…”
Biased Decision Making
54. Importantly, the Dismissal Letter itself reveals the bias in the decision making. The Dismissal Letter states that, “The panelists noted that throughout the hearing, the respondent was not able to articulate specific ways in which he gained consent. Rather, he only noted that the complainant never stated that she was uncomfortable after the alleged incidents occurred. The complainant provided very specific information regarding the words and behaviors she used to convey that she did not give consent or withdrew consent.” This reasoning for ruling against John Doe shows that he never had a chance. JWU ruled against him because he could not articulate a negative while the complainant simply reiterated her story. She says it happened and John Doe could not state how he gained consent. How does an accused show evidence of consent when he says it never happened? It cannot be done. She never had to provide evidence that the events actually occurred. The burden was all on him and that burden shift is in violation of the CRP.
Bizarre – Accuser’s Boyfriend Threatens Male Student, and Is Removed from Campus
63. Additionally, BK threatened the life of John Doe on October 21, 2017 (the day after John Doe’s JWU hearing). Since that time, a restraining Order has been issued against BK and, upon information and belief, BK was removed from all JWU campuses.
64. BK’s actions are extremely relevant because it is BK who has been with Mary Smith since she came to campus security in September to file a complaint against John Doe and BK was her “Advisor” at the Hearing.
65. As the Complaint Report says, Mary Smith stated without equivocation in June of 2017 that she was fine and had no complaint against John Doe. But, starting in September when she moved in with BK, the complainant suddenly determined that she had been assaulted and came to campus security. When asked how the alleged assaults had affected her, the complainant stated that it “had affected her relationship with her boyfriend” (BK). A new Hearing, allowing the questioning of BK, will reveal if BK has actually unduly influenced the testimony of the Mary Smith. BK has revealed a high level of violent uncontrolled behavior and his effect upon the proceedings against John Doe is of core relevance.
Legal Claims
COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT
COUNT II – BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
COUNT III – ESTOPPEL AND RELIANCE
COUNT IV – 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Title IX)
COUNT V – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
COUNT VI – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
COUNT VII – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Documents
Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)
Response to Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)
Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)
Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)
Opposition to Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)
Update 3-12-2018 — On March 2, 2018, the Court granted the motion to transfer venue, and the case will not proceed in the District of Rhode Island.
—————————
John Doe v. Johnson & Wales – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is it possible that these leftists do not have a clue as to how to investigate a claim or conduct due process? Is their sole capability to simply see if a claim aligns with a leftist narrative so one can simply presume guilt? Outcome based “justice” appears to be assigned by a narrative. Evidence is irrelevant. Fairness is assigned by the narrative. What could possibly be appealed asks the SJW? Their process is fair by definition.
This is what happens when there is no oversight of any prosecution, be it civil, criminal or administrative. The people running the process simply do whatever they wish, often making little or no attempt to support the justice of their actions. This has happened throughout history among civil and religious governmental institutions as well as the private sector.
In the arena of higher education, this process is controlled by radical liberal ideologues, mostly female. Their male peers are largely subservient to the uber-feminists and are little more than figureheads. It has been wildly successful in causing a huge power shift to women in higher education. Now, the same template is being applied to the business and political worlds. Women are always heroic victims of the baser appetites of brutish males, even when the woman actually benefits from “succumbing” to the man’s desires. For decades women decried having to prove that they were, in fact, the victims of sexual assault, rather than “inviting” such action. And rightly so. Many, if not most, men supported that struggle and the result was both statutory and case law protecting the complaining victim. All that a woman was required to show was that the act was either forced, against he desires, or she complied under a reason threat of harm. Now, though the rules have changed. No longer does it have to be shown that the sexual act was not consensual or was forced. And, just to make sure that the accused has no chance to mount any kind of defense, a Star Chamber style prosecution is undertaken. It is all designed to further shift societal power from men to women and to maintain that shift.
“The people running the process simply do whatever they wish, often making little or no attempt to support the justice of their actions.”
You’re exactly right! That’s almost a perfect description of what the BLM did to Clive Bundy.
*sigh* Not this again. Here is the truth.
Bundy ran his cattle on government land while refusing to pay his federal grazing fees as well as running cattle in areas where such activities were restricted. And, he did this for 20 years. Every other rancher managed to pay his fees and keep his cattle off of the same areas. Then Bundy refused to accept, not one decision of the federal courts, but two, plus an appeal. Finally when the BLM went to remove his cattle from government land pursuant to a court order, a large number of heavily armed people obstructed the federal agents in enforcing the court order by threats of force. Bundy had publicly called for armed opposition to the enforcement of the court order. The BLM conducted the investigation, which technically should have been done by the FBI. But, the prosecution was handled by the US Attorney’s Office. And, it was a slam dunk for the charges of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct federal agents.
When it looked as though Bundy was going to lose the case, in Nevada, miraculously, the presiding judge decided that there were significant Brady violations and declared a mistrial, with prejudice, even though she did not present a single piece of exculpatory evidence which may have been withheld. The BLM may not have liked Bundy, apparently with good reason. They might not have turned over every single administrative log, but there is nothing to indicate that these documents would have proven exculpatory or provided any material for any reasonable defense. The judge apparently based her entire decision on a lengthy letter written by an obviously disgruntled employee which, itself, did not present any exculpatory evidence. This was nothing more than a smoke screen to get Bundy off the hook. Why this was done is unknown. But, we better find out the reason or we do not have a reliable justice system.
Both the armed trespass case in Utah as well as the case in Nevada would have been a slam dunk anywhere else in the country. When you occupy a government facility, while armed, and hold it under force of armed you have committed, at least, armed trespass as well as several other crimes. That the jury decided to ignore its promise to objectively decide the case and the judge refused to overturn that decision is merely evidence that our justice system is broken. And when it looked as though the government would prevail in Nevada, suddenly the judge stops the trial, releases the defendants and forces the prosecution to appeal the case in order to secure a second trial, without providing a single instance of the withholding or suppression of exculpatory evidence.
The system is broken, as evidenced by the anti-Trump cases receiving favorable judicial rulings and judicial and jury actions in cases such as the Bundy’s.
Heh heh – the only reason Mac was completely and totally wrong about the Bundy case was that the decision was “A Legal Miracle!”
Choice A) It was a Miracle!!!
Choice B) No miracle at all, you were just wrong.
hmmm, which is more likely?
p.s. – it’s an old totalitarian trick to demand to see “exculpatory evidence” when the prosecution has systematically and deliberately destroyed any exculpatory evidence – that’s been SOP since Star Chamber days.
And in the Bundy case, the Judge dismissed With Prejudice because there was credible evidence from INSIDE the Prosecution that several boxes of potentially exculpatory evidence had been deliberately and systematically destroyed. That is the Bad Act on the part of the Prosecution that more than any other single act, guaranteed that no fair trial could ever be conducted.
I would like to see everyone on that prosecution team disbarred and given at least a year in federal prison, but I’ll settle for the deserved life long professional humiliation of them and all of their supporters.
Did the case ever go to the jury? No. Why not? By alleging that the fact that the BLM did not turn over daily activity logs on an investigation [something which is never done unless specifically asked for by the defense anywhere in the country, and then only if it impacts the case materially] is a Brady Rule violation, the judicial decision to declare a mistrial with prejudice IS a miracle for the defense, who actually had NO defense for the actions of Bundy et al. The Brady Rule usually involves the hiding or destruction of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution. No such evidence was ever presented by the judge. No exculpatory evidence was ever identified. It is an old trick of defense attorneys to declare that the unknown contents of a box contained potential exculpatory evidence, without having to prove that was the case at all. It is an easy way to get the exact results which were achieved. If the judge felt that the release of the bewildering letter on activities in the Nevada BLM office by an obviously disgruntled employee had somehow tainted the jury, then a mistrial is perfectly acceptable. But, as nothing in the letter clearly stipulated that any material evidence was withheld from the defense, it is rather extreme to declare a mistrial with prejudice.
You may not like the federal government. You may not like the BLM. You might not like the fact that ranchers are being closed out of federal land where they traditionally grazed their cattle. But, Cliven Bundy knowingly violated the law with regards to utilizing federal land for 20 years and thumbed his nose five times at the same judiciary which has given him a pass. Cliven Bundy made numerous threats of probable violence against anyone who attempted to remove his cattle. This resulted in federal agents being directly threatened with physical violence by heavily armed supporters of Bundy. Then, at the very last second, the defense makes a claim that potential exculpatory evidence MAY have been destroyed, yet no evidence is presented to support that, other than some rambling letter by a disgruntled employee who never specifically says that any exculpatory evidence was ever denied the defense or destroyed. Yep, this is pretty much the definition of Deus Ex machina, a man-made judicial miracle.
As Blackstone’s Formulation claimed: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. Of course the idea is far older than Blackstone’s legal scribbling, being found in the Bible’s story about Sodom (Genesis 18:23-32).
It appears you know, or should know, that disciplining the prosecution (or defense) is not the job of the Jury (though it does happen, not usually for technical reasons), thus it is really odd that you ask why the case didn’t go to the Jury. If, as in this case, the Judge finds a Brady violation on the part of the prosecutors, it is incumbent on the Judge to fix the problem as the Judge believes best serves justice and not allow the case to go to the Jury without evidence the Jury should have had the opportunity to hear/see presented and have available for their deliberations.
I once came very close to having to peel an AUSA off a much larger defense lawyer for just the allegation in conversation that the AUSA was failing his duty in full and complete disclosure. This is a big deal, most particularly in this case as the whistle blower claimed deliberate destruction of discovery material which was potentially exculpatory in nature. Obviously the Judge, whom you are second guessing, believed the whistle blower. And, as a side note, pretty much every single whistle blower has been designated a “disgruntled employee” by the organization having the whistle blown on it. It does go with the act, for a happy, satisfied employee is far less likely to call attention to something the employee believes is wrong. Being designated a disgruntled employee doesn’t mean the whistle is being blown over nothing at all.
And finally, Federal Judges get to do most anything they wish with a case on their docket as long as they don’t stray too far. Once had a case before Sarah T. Hughes when she was in Senior status. She slept through most of the trial and it was apparent to all that the Jury was going to convict on multiple felony counts. Sarah was bored with the case and called the defense lawyers in for a “conference” without the AUSA. She gave the defense a plea bargain of a single misdemeanor guilty plea for each of the two defendants. When she gave the AUSA her fait accompli, he declined to accept. She then called the US Attorney and told him to get his Assistant in line. He accepted the plea deal, had no choice really. I didn’t like that happening to my case after all that work, you don’t like Bundy being freed (for whatever personal reasons). Stuff happens, particularly with Federal Judges.
@Mac45 You posted, “The people running the process simply do whatever they wish, often making little or no attempt to support the justice of their actions. This has happened throughout history among civil and religious governmental institutions as well as the private sector.”
Well said. I lost my career years ago in similarly kafka-esque proceedings because I supported fellow scientists and engineers who were reporting corruption and criminality in government labs under a Republican (repeat: Republican) administration. We shouldn’t let ourselves think that kangaroo courts are exclusively or even primarily a left-wing problem.
Right up to where you added ‘or even primarily’ I was more or less with you.
Yep, power corrupts. A belief in which sometimes seems to be the main division between conservatives (classic liberals) and everyone else.
Is it possible that these leftists do not have a clue as to how to investigate a claim or conduct due process?
—————–
No.
You’re dealing with communists, or authoritarian power mongers who will try to grasp power at any cost to anyone other than themselves. If you die in the struggle, well too bad, so sad. Don’t mistake what and who you are dealing with.
They don’t care one obaaama about investigation, they only care about the outcome they desire.
It’s long been said that the left is full of totalitarians. They carved out for themselves fiefdoms on university campuses where they had absolute power and they immediately set about abusing it.
This outcome is no more surprising than giving matches and gasoline to a pyromaniac.
It looks like to me that these university tribunals as related to sex assault cases are using an evidentiary standard that’s lower than preponderance.
The #MeToo movement is a step too late. The college campuses already have the end result of what the movement hopes to accomplish in every day life. I wouldn’t be surprised if they will push for codification of these processes into our legal system.
New hashtag #UsToo
Why are campus kangaroo courts allowed? I do not understand why the police are not involved and each alleged sexual assault case is not brought to the district attorney. IMO campus administrators are interfering with due process and the prosecution of crime. This has to stop.
They are mandated by the Dept. of Education’s Title IX, as revised by Obama’s appointee, his Chicago buddy, Arne Duncan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
Yea, my brother was defending this crap one day, (Yes he is a liberal and a lawyer), but I managed to shut him up with this one point.
Ok, what if a female college student brings a male on campus and has sex with him, or not even that, she just invites him over to talk and he “forces” her to have sex? Would that Male be subject to the Universities disciplinary committee OR would that be a matter for the prosecutor?
He had a hard time explaining that one and eventually just got mad and started yelling.
Going to the police is up to the accuser. She’s free to do so. But whether or not she does so, the school has to have its own procedure to decide whether and how to discipline the student. That’s got nothing to do with whatever legal proceedings may or may not be going on. If the school believes it has a rapist on campus it has a duty to remove him, no matter what the police do or don’t do. The police aren’t responsible for the remaining students’ safety; the school is.
To a simple person like myself it would seem somewhat obvious that if you are unsure as to whether or not you were the victim of sexual assault, then you were not. If you took months or years to decide if you were a victim of sexual assault, then you were not. If you had to be counsel by another person to convince you that you were a victim of sexual assault, then you were not.
>
When you accuse and convict another person of sexual assault, the result of this process is that you destroy the accused person’s life. They are thrown out of school, they are branded a sexual deviant, and so forth, which leaves them essentially unemployable and destroys all of their dreams and potential. It should seem obvious that forcing such all encompassing and devastating consequences upon another person should occur due to more than an uncertain act in the midst of a longer term romantic relationship, a casual one night stand, or whatever.
>
With universities and colleges alleging to be bastions of knowledge and wisdom, it seems, at a minimum, incongruous that they are incapable of seeing how a kilted lover, an out of control SJW, or whatever, could turn an innocent and perhaps clumsy encounter into a crusade by one of the participants to make up for what is perceived to be a personal insult. This is not justice, it is personal vigilantism pushed by one angry person and abetted by the university to exact revenge for what ever reason that is far from being criminal.
Academia is not equipped to deal with sexual assault. It is a matter for the police. Stop treating victims and perpetrators like snowflakes.
So the “victim” didn’t even file the original complaint and in fact, initially, denied the assertions made in the complaint.
Now for some rampant speculation.
Reading between the lines here what I see is that a controlling boyfriend found out that his girlfriend had been bumping uglies while they were, at least in his mind, together. Basically, I believe that BK and Mary Smith started “dating” before the final 2 sexual encounters.
BK found out about the encounters and Mary Smith told him they were non-consensual to keep her boyfriend from leaving her.
So, the boyfriend, in defense of his fair maid, decided to get back at John Doe and went to security, knowing that with the horribly bias process would likely end up in the ruination of John Doe.
Mary Smith knowing she lied to BK tried to sabotage the investigation by not participating. Then BK told her to do it or get out. (This is why he was her “advisor” so he could make sure she didn’t do something during the hearing to sabotage the outcome.)
I would bet something close to that happened. Now none of that excuses the University, who had they actually investigated may have come to a similar conclusion.
End speculation.
Now whether this kid gets a fair trial or not will depend entirely on the political beliefs of the Judge who gets the case.
Thanks for bringing this forward, Prof. Please keep us updated.
This is one VERY strong possibility. The other is that BK is so controlling that anyone who touched his girlfriend needs to be completely destroyed–like Seth Rich.
This is how I got falsely accused of sexual assault. The woman I supposedly assaulted didn’t accuse me of assault. It was in the Navy shortly after Tailhook. I hate how that has become a bad word, as the Tailhook Association is an old and honorable institution.
Basically she had too much to drink at a semi-official command function in her honor and five of my friends and myself escorted her home.
There was a snake who lived down the hall from her. So he wormed his way into her place after making sure he was safe and we were out of his way. And he got caught. Her department head wanted to make sure she was OK, so he knocked on her door. Busted! So the guy came up with a story about breaking up an orgy.
While our department heads, who smelled promotion if they could get sexual assault convictions, were trying to grind us down they where telling her they were going to charge her with conduct unbecoming if she didn’t accuse us.
Nobody backed down. Not us guys, not her. They finally had to drop it. But here’s the dealio, daddio. She was almost the victim of a sexual assault. Had not her department head walked in on her rapist. I mean come on. Why did he worm his way into her room? Nothing happened to him because she was terrified having her getting drunk brought up again.
And she wasn’t a drunk. She was probably the lowest on the totem pole of drunks we were dealing with. Think of the outfit we had joined? But I didn’t press her on it as I trusted her to know what was best for her.
This is why you don’t fall into bed with just anybody.
But, hey. I was 18 once. It happens.
Which is why you always make a sex video.
I am so lucky that I partied beachside Del Playa Isla Vista (Santa Barbara; UCSB) before Title IX got enforced with a vengeance. Otherwise I’d be a registered sex offender. I can guarantee that at least a few girls who slept with me regretted it a year or two later.
Mostly because I didn’t call them again.
And I regret not calling the Korean prostitute back.